SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPERWORKERS UNION, LOCAL 914
SARNIA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCILLONDON-MIDDLESEX TAXPAYERS' COALITION
LONDON PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF HELP, LONDON
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA, LONDON CONFERENCE
OXFORD REGIONAL LABOUR COUNCIL
MEGAN WALKER
JOE SWAN
SHEILA DAVENPORTLONDON AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 9 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
London Chamber of Commerce
David Town, chair
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 914; Sarnia and District Labour Council
Ken Glassco, president, CEP Local 914; president, Sarnia and District Labourt Council
Steve Nield, president, OPSEU Local 123; chair, OPSEU London and District Area Council
London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition
Jim Montag, president
Craig Stevens, vice-president
London Professional Fire Fighters Association
Terry Kilburn, president
LIFE*SPIN
Jacqueline Thompson, interim executive director
Persons United for Self Help, London
Bonnie Quesnel, president
Steve Balcom, member, executive board
City of London
Grant Hopcroft, deputy mayor
Dawn Erskine, controller
London and Middlesex Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association
Tony Huys, chair, political action committee
David Winninger
United Church of Canada, London Conference
Rev David Williamson, chair, Church in Society Committee
Rev Susan Eagle, member, Church in Society Committee
Oxford Regional Labour Council
Broderick Carey, president
Terry Coleman, first vice-president
London Police Services
Bruce Brown, director of professional standards branch and legal counsel to Chief Fantino
Jim Caskey, legal counsel, London Police Services Board
Dan Vickery, superintendent
Lex Bullock, legal counsel, London Police Services
Megan Walker; Joe Swan; Sheila Davenport
London and District Labour Council; Canadian Labour Congress
Rick Witherspoon, president, London and District Labour Council
Sandi Ellis, southwestern Ontario regional representative, Canadian Labour Congress
London and District Citizens for Responsible Budget
Geoffrey Hale, representative
Anne Khan
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:
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L) for Mrs Pupatello
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Grandmaître
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND) for Mr Wood
Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Boyd, Marion (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Crozier, Bruce (Essex South / -Sud L)
Cunningham, Hon Dianne (London North / -Nord PC)
Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
Wood, Bob (London South / -Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0901 in the Radisson Hotel, London.
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, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, committee members, and welcome to London. Before we begin proceedings this morning, we have a motion put forward by Mr Silipo.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Thank you, Mr Chair, and good morning. I've passed out copies of this motion. It's similar to the one my colleague Mr Cooke put before the committee yesterday, and I'm happy to move it again. I'll read it for the benefit of those people here who don't have it:
"Whereas there has been overwhelming public interest in Bill 26 and 60 groups and individuals have requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in London, 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, the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended and the bill be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further public hearings can be arranged for the community of London;
"Further, that this committee recommends that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss this issue."
The Chair: Mr Silipo, would you like to speak to your motion?
Mr Silipo: Yes. I think the points can be made fairly briefly.
We're seeing here today, as we did yesterday and indeed as I understand we're likely to see in the balance of these hearings, a situation in which we have far, far more groups and individuals that have requested to speak to the committee than the time in each individual location allows.
Given the importance of this bill which we all know, and as we are hearing from more and more people we are discovering more and more aspects of this bill, we think it is incumbent upon all of us and certainly upon the government to agree to further public hearings.
We have couched this motion in a way that does not infringe upon the order the Legislature has adopted, which is to return the bill to the Legislature on January 29. But if the government is serious about consultation, as we are hearing more and more that it is, we believe it is incumbent upon it to show its goodwill by indicating as soon as possible -- and certainly passage of this motion would be one very good way to do so -- its willingness to extend the hearings to allow far more people who want to speak to come forward and express their opinions on a piece of legislation that is going to change the face of this province.
We're putting this motion with that intent before you.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): This is not the first time we've seen this particular motion, but our view is the same as it's been in all the previous presentations of this motion, that we believe there is sufficient time for the public to make representations.
We've asked that those who do not have the opportunity to make presentations to the committee in person do so via written submissions. I think we saw this motion during the first day of our Toronto hearings. At the end of that week, in spite of the fact that a number of individuals did not get to speak to the committee in person, I think we received one written presentation.
I believe our position has not changed, and that's the statement made by Mrs McLeod in Thunder Bay on December 8, saying, "We now have a substantial amount of time to look at this bill." That's the current position of this government. We're prepared to see written submissions, and I encourage those who did not get a chance to be on this particular day of hearings to send their written submissions to the clerk. We'll review them, as we are reviewing the written submissions that get read to us by deputants who come before us. I believe there's sufficient time here and we should proceed with the hearings so we can meet and talk to those who have taken the time to come out today to talk to us.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Everybody should recognize that we are going to hear from less than a third of the groups and individuals who want to speak on the bill. People will find out today just how serious the bill is. What could be clearer on the need to support this motion than the fact that the city of London, represented by the mayor, until noon yesterday, when we were able to get a motion passed by this committee to extend the hearings by half an hour to hear from the city of London, was not going to be heard? The city of London was not going to be heard from until we got a special motion passed by this committee to extend it by half an hour. I think the reason we did was because the government members would have been too embarrassed to come here today and not hear from the city of London.
We're supporting this motion. As I say, it is timely. Here we are in the city of London, and until less than 24 hours ago London council was not going to be heard by this committee. This is happening in city after city across the province. The bill, as I think people now understand, is 210 pages along, it amends 43 acts, it has huge implications for the people of Ontario, and we're only going to listen to one third of the people who want to be heard from and we're not hearing from some very important groups. As I say, it was only yesterday that we got special consideration to hear from the city of London. It's a disgrace that we're not allowing ourselves sufficient time.
What we're talking about here is a very modest extension of time to hear from groups across the province, so we of course will be supporting the motion.
The Chair: I'd like to put the motion now.
Mr Silipo: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.
The Chair: A recorded vote. The official members voting today are Mr Silipo, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Phillips, Mr Tascona, Mr Sampson, Mr Hardeman and Mr Young.
All those in favour of the motion?
Ayes
Gerretsen, Phillips, Silipo.
The Chair: All those against?
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Tascona, Young.
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Chair, I'm not overly sensitive about this, but just so members know, Mr Wood, Mr Crozier and I are not members of the committee today. I certainly would like you to know that if I could vote, I would be voting for the motion.
The Chair: All members of the Legislature are able to come to the hearings. Only certain members are able to vote.
I declare the motion lost, by the way.
0910
LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Will representatives from the London Chamber of Commerce please come forward. Good morning, sir, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to decide to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if for the benefit of committee members and Hansard you'd read your name and organization into the record before you begin.
Mr David Town: Good morning. My name is David Town, and I'm chair of the board of the London Chamber of Commerce. The chamber of commerce is London's largest and most representative business organization, with over 1,000 corporate members employing nearly 50,000 people in London and region. We are pleased to have this opportunity to offer the committee our comments regarding Bill 26.
As part of a commission to be the voice of business committed to economic prosperity and quality of life in London, the chamber is actively involved in public debate on the issues facing municipal government here in London. In line with that interest, we have reserved most of our comments today for provisions of the bill dealing with municipal government under schedule M. I will also make some brief observations regarding the bill's interest arbitration provisions under schedule Q.
There has been some public debate over the nature and extent of regulatory powers provided to the province under Bill 26. With regard to schedule M, we see those powers as appropriate, as Ontario and its municipalities seek to adjust to the new fiscal reality. However, some provisions maintained with the Ontario government do run counter to what we see as the government's stated intent of empowering municipalities to better manage their own affairs. Thus they might be more appropriately regarded as transitional measures. A possible resolution to the situation might be to make the powers like those regarding municipal restructuring temporary.
Under schedule M, the chamber of commerce supports the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act. We have in the past spoken in favour of efforts to disentangle the financial and legislative responsibilities of provincial and municipal governments. While work remains to be done in this area, we believe that the measures in schedule M go some distance towards more appropriately aligning decision-making with revenue-raising responsibilities. Further, the move to a block grant to municipalities will allow for spending priorities to be determined locally.
Under user fees, the chamber is on record as supporting the greater use of user fees in the funding of municipal services. We believe that such revenues must be used to replace existing general revenues dedicated to the service concerned, not to supplement them. This is consistent with our view that municipalities must revisit their existing roster of services and prioritize among them. Otherwise, the user fee and licensing provisions of Bill 26 will simply amount to a tax increase.
Some suggest that user fees for municipal services unnecessarily penalize lower-income users of these services. We do not believe that a modest entry fee for the use of a municipal facility like a swimming pool or an ice rink is a prohibitive expense. Maintaining such services free for all is an expensive way of helping those truly in need.
Finally, the issue of income redistribution is more appropriately the concern of provincial and federal governments.
As far as direct taxation is concerned, we do have some reservations regarding the imposition of direct taxes such as local sales or gasoline taxes. It is unclear to us whether the bill in its present form will allow such revenue-raising measures, but we believe the existing mix of property taxes, business occupancy taxes, user and licensing fees, as well as development charges, is sufficient. In our view, more sources of revenue only increase the likelihood of future tax increases. Imposing direct taxes would also move municipalities into taxation territory currently occupied by senior governments. The difficulties Canada has experienced in attempting to develop a common administrative framework for provincial and federal sales taxes warn us of the problems such duplicate taxation can create.
Under privatization and contracting, we are strong advocates of greater private sector involvement in the provision of municipal services. This might include privatization, but it might also simply mean the establishment of a competitive environment in which both municipal departments and private providers can bid on public service provision, with service standards determined by municipal council. We support the provisions of Bill 26 that facilitate such arrangements.
Under schedule Q, the provisions governing the criteria to be used by arbitrators defining ability to pay do not provide sufficient direction to arbitrators. Historically, arbitrators in the public sector have found that ability-to-pay arguments are not applicable because any increase in wages awarded can be offset by tax increases. Consequently, we suggest that criterion 1 under schedule Q be amended to incorporate "the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation and without any increase in taxes."
Further, we believe the criterion calling arbitrators to compare wage rates with the broader public sector should be amended to include comparison with the private sector. As noted above, past public sector wage settlements have not always taken the employer's ability to pay, without raising taxes, into consideration. Consequently, we believe that private sector wage rates would make a more useful comparison.
To summarize our recommendations:
(1) We suggest considering the possibility of attaching time limitations to some measures, particularly new regulatory powers; for example, regulatory powers granted the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing under schedule M.
(2) We suggest amending the interest arbitration criterion 1 to include "ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation and without increasing taxation."
(3) Amend interest arbitration criterion 2 to include "the extent to which services may have to be reduced if current funding levels and taxation levels are not increased."
(4) Amend interest arbitration criterion 4 to include "comparable employees in the broader public sector and in the private sector."
The changes in (2), (3) and (4) have been underlined in the submission we've proposed.
That concludes the formal remarks. I'm prepared to field any questions at this time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Town. Just before we begin to go to questions from the caucuses, I'd like to let folks who may be taking these proceedings in for the first time know that the way we handle this is 30 minutes per presenter; the remaining time after the presentation is divided up equally among the caucuses for questions.
I often have the unhappy duty of cutting both presenters and members of each party off because they've come to the time limit. This is necessary so that everyone can get their fair shake of 30 minutes and that we might stay on schedule.
After having made that clear, I will now start this morning with the opposition. We all have six minutes.
Mr Phillips: I thank the chamber for its presentation. The area I'd like to get the chamber's input in is the direct tax area. It's very clear to us that many municipalities are interpreting Bill 26 to allow them to impose a municipal gas tax, a municipal sales tax and perhaps a municipal income tax, but certainly a municipal gas tax and a municipal sales tax.
We've now had the mayor of Mississauga say they've had a legal opinion that says they can do that. The chair of Metro Toronto is saying that. Now I see in the London Free Press this morning that London city council is looking forward to the passage of this bill because it permits the imposition of direct taxes. Even the legal opinion we've had from the government is ambivalent on it.
How does the chamber feel about the possibility that across Ontario, as you head from community to community, there might be a municipal sales tax and in another community a municipal gas tax? Does the chamber have any strong opinions on this particular matter?
Mr Town: As our remarks point out, there are some inherent difficulties involved with the mixing of taxes that are already imposed at various different levels of government, for example, the difficulties we have now with the direct sales tax; that's the federal GST plus the provincial sales tax. The collection of these taxes and the differentiation between these taxes could possibly present some problems. We have some concerns in terms of the implementation of this.
Having said that, we need to realize that the fiscal framework has changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years and we need to come up with some creative solutions and we have to do some changes. If the municipalities act in a responsible manner and can work out and negotiate appropriate measures by which they can move towards these taxes -- we're in favour of the idea of user fees. If you look at a gasoline tax, while it potentially has some problems with respect to the collection issues and so on, it also means that the people who are using roads are paying for roads. It would be our hope and desire to see that those collected as a gasoline tax, for example, would go directly to roads and not into the general coffers.
I think this bill presents some concerns which require that there needs to be an ongoing accountability by the government and that people such as the chamber of commerce and other groups need to be watching to make sure this bill is implemented with the intent that's presented.
0920
Mr Phillips: My view would be that you do not have a fundamental problem with the bill providing the potential for a municipal gas tax for income.
The other question I have is that the bill -- this is under licensing powers -- says that this gives the local municipality "the power to impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence, including conditions...requiring the payment of licence fees, which may be in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred by the licence" -- this is on page 151 of the bill -- which many interpret as meaning that now a municipality, in granting a business licence, could make part of that licence fee a tax based on sales of things or revenues. By the way, later on it says that if there's any conflict between the provisions in this act and any other provision anywhere else, the provisions in this act override the other provisions. Has the chamber got an opinion on that new licensing provision?
Mr Town: Again, I think on the face of it, if used properly, this could be a provision that could be of assistance in re-establishing how municipal governments go about acquiring their financing.
Having said that, we wouldn't want to see it discourage business growth, we wouldn't want to see licensing fees that would make it more difficult to establish a new business, and we wouldn't want to see licensing fees that would become onerous or non-representative of the service they're paying to provide. For example, if you require inspectors for a particular form of business and those inspectors cost the government money, an appropriate fee that somehow represents some of those costs probably makes sense.
I think we're into a situation where, as decisions start coming forward with respect to what kinds of fees municipalities will begin to levy, it would be our hope there would be an accountability for why these fees are as high as they are, if they're high. As this bill becomes implemented, we need to look at how it is put forward, so we don't have an unqualified yes, this is a good thing. We have some reservations, but in essence, we believe that the licensing and user-fee concept is one that we support.
Mr Silipo: Does the chamber support the 30% provincial tax cut that the Tory government has promised?
Mr Town: At the moment, any specific tax cut provisions haven't been put forward by the government, so we haven't surveyed our membership and are not prepared to comment on it until there's something on the table to debate. Our first and foremost priority is for reduction of the deficit, and until I see specific proposals on the table in terms of what the government intends actually to do, we'll debate that at another time.
Mr Silipo: I'm a bit perplexed by the position the chamber takes on the issue of direct taxation. Maybe I can just put it this way: It would be my contention that what the government is doing is simply shifting its responsibility to the municipal sector. It's saying that it wants to cut provincial taxes on the one hand; it is at the same time cutting transfers to municipalities and then saying to municipalities, "You now have the power, through this bill, to raise a whole variety of taxes." There are no caveats on that, so municipalities could in fact use those taxes, both direct taxes and user fees, to replace, perhaps even add to, but let's say for the sake of argument to replace, the shortfall in provincial funding or the cuts in provincial funding. Do you not see an inconsistency in that?
Mr Town: No, I don't. I guess what we're talking about here is that we're advocating a different way of raising revenues. We were quite specific in our remarks to say that these were not to be add-on and new fees in addition to the existing ones, that they were to change the way municipalities raise their funding. A specific example would be that currently in the city of London there was a removal from their budgetary process. The charge for water was taken out of the general city budget and has now been put into that it's self-supporting by the fees that are paid by water users. What happened was that there was a 4% increase in the cost of water use and $18 million came out of the municipal budget. You can be quite sure that we're watching the municipal budget to make sure that the $18 million that was taken out comes back in the form of a tax credit to the local taxpayer. They can't just sort of absorb the $18 million and say, "Gee, we got $18 million more."
Mr Silipo: But the basic point I think you're making is that the chamber believes that people should pay for the services they use, and that's why you think that the shift in taxes makes sense.
Mr Town: Yes. Again, it's not meant to be an add-on, and that's why there's going to have to be a --
Mr Silipo: How do we deal with the issue of ability to pay? That becomes even more of a problem when you're simply attaching the cost of services directly and billing those directly, if you will, to the individual user. How do you distinguish between, then, the ability of someone to pay for all of those taxes -- someone who has a family income of $20,000 versus someone who has a family income of $100,000?
Mr Town: It depends on how many user fees, how high the user fees are and where you're putting them in. In terms of income redistribution, it would seem to me that's where you get into the idea of different tax rates and different income tax rates at different levels of income, both at the federal and provincial levels, and that's how you follow the income redistribution. The reality is that in the half-hour I take to make the presentation we're going to spend half a million dollars on interest on a debt that's strangling this province.
Mr Silipo: I would just make the observation for you that even in the proposed provincial tax cut, in the way in which we're seeing it come forward through the Common Sense Revolution document, those who would benefit the most from that cut would not be the average Ontarians, but would be upper-income Ontarians. The provincial tax cut, which, if I follow your argument, would be the way in which this kind of imbalance would be offset, not only does not offset it but in fact makes it worse. It makes it even harder for average and lower-income Ontarians to be able to afford the kind of user fees and the kind of direct taxation that the chamber is supporting. How does that --
Mr Town: We're not dealing with the tax cut today and we're not advocating supporting the --
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It's tied into it. You can't separate it.
Mr Town: We're not dealing with the provincial tax cuts at the moment in terms of dealing with a specific recommendation.
Mr Silipo: I guess, then, we'll just disagree on that point because we believe they're fundamentally linked and you can't sort one out from the other.
Mr Cooke: Let me get very specific so that I understand the chamber's position. You think it's appropriate for the provincial government to cut tens and tens of millions of dollars out of road grants to municipalities, and that to replace those dollars, it would be okay to impose a gas tax at the local level which has no sensitivity to income at all. Quite frankly, given this region, which I know relatively well because of a few things I was involved in down in this community, you would have a huge difference in the ability to replace those road grants from Middlesex county versus the city of London. But you think it would be okay to replace those road grants that the province is cutting out of progressive taxation with a gasoline tax at the local level.
Mr Town: We're saying that this bill is granting municipalities the powers to make certain choices according to the priorities which they see, and as the municipalities begin to make those --
Mr Cooke: No, specifically looking at user fees.
The Chair: Mr Cooke, I'm sorry, I have to make my first interruption of the morning. We've gone beyond your time and we're now into the government's time.
0930
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Thank you for your presentation. I want to deal with a couple of aspects of your presentation, particularly schedule Q. The municipal chambers and municipalities throughout these hearings have been advocating the strengthening of the mandatory criteria for interest arbitration, and in particular your criteria 1 and 2, dealing with the ability to pay and giving arbitrators the powers to impose tax increases, which would indirectly result in perhaps discussions about reducing services etc.
In terms of the fiscal reality which you're supporting to come into the public sector arbitration process, you did make a comment consequently in talking about bringing private sector wage settlements as one of the criteria; I think it's criterion number 4. You state that you believe that private sector wage rates would make a more useful comparison when dealing with the comparisons of agreements. Has it been your experience that the public sector has received higher wage increases than the private sector and that's why you want to bring some reality into the situation?
Mr Town: I don't have any specific information in terms of whether they have or haven't been, so I guess I'm reluctant to answer the question without knowing that there has been a higher level within the public sector. I guess what we're advocating here is to not just consider one sector alone. The private sector has been swiftly moving towards dealing with economic realities as they occur in the private sector, and in the public sector the mentality has tended to be that the taxpayer will just make up the difference if an arbitrator awards a settlement that requires an increase in taxes. That's got to stop. The taxpayers are not in a position any more where they want to be paying additional taxes simply because of an arbitration settlement.
Mr Tascona: Do you think the government is moving too quickly on trying to restructure and move through this bill?
Mr Town: I think that we are dealing with a difficult fiscal reality and we need to move swiftly to get things back into place. This is a complicated bill and I'm glad that we're taking the time now to move with it. Is it too quickly? I would hope that the committee will take a serious look at listening to all of the submissions, both here at the hearings and to continue to encourage written submissions for those people who couldn't attend the hearings, and to take the necessary time to review all of those submissions and give them proper and due course of review.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Good morning, Mr Town. I'd like to go to the part of the schedule you spoke to, sunsetting the minister's powers on the restructuring process. There has been concern expressed on that part of the restructuring where the minister can implement the restructuring upon the completion of a local initiative. You suggested a sunsetting clause. That would indicate to me -- and I'd just like to clarify that -- that you do see a need for some very quick action and some type of process that will see results as opposed to the past practice of a lot of studying and a lot of soul-searching but no end change. So you see a need to get some immediate action in this, and that's why you're suggesting that the minister's power should stay there but be sunsetted, and -- I guess if I could just go on with it -- if it's going to be sunsetted, if your suggestion was taken into account and it was sunsetted, why would you deem that necessary? If the change that is required is accomplished, why would you need to remove that process that worked?
Mr Town: I guess the long-term intent, as we understand it, is that the municipalities should be gaining more powers, and again I think we're talking about powers over the ability to earn the revenues for those things that they're responsible for implementing. In the shorter run, there's a perfect example in terms of the annexation situation that happened in London, where London was given a year to negotiate its own settlement with the local municipalities and was unable to do that, so the province came in and fixed the annexation deal. That was a necessary process in order that there would be some sort of end to the negotiations and some sort of idea that when this was all finished that somebody was going to make a decision on this.
So in the short term we see that the province should maintain some of those powers but, having said that, why would the province need the powers in the longer term? I think that's a question that needs to be addressed. Does it need a specific sunset clause, or does it need to be readdressed in three years -- five years -- what's the timetable? I don't have the answers to those questions other than, if the intent is to give those powers to the municipalities, I think we should be taking a look at a long-term strategy to do just that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Sorry, we've come to the end of the time for government questions. I'd like to thank you, Mr Town, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
Mr Town: Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPERWORKERS UNION, LOCAL 914
SARNIA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Would members from CEP Local 914 and Sarnia and District Labour Council please come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. 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 see fit. You may want to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I would appreciate, for the benefit of Hansard and committee members, if you would read your names and organizations into the record before you begin.
Mr Ken Glassco: We probably won't take that long. My name is Ken Glassco and I'm president of Local 914 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union in Sarnia, representing about 1,300 members at plants including Bayer Rubber, BASF, Cabot Carbon, the Sarnia Union Gas workers, Novacor Chemicals and some others. In addition to that, I'm also president of the Sarnia and District Labour Council, representing approximately 5,500 various unions within the Sarnia-Lambton community. I will leave my friend here to introduce himself. It's going to be a two-part presentation; mine will be very short.
I really had a lot of difficulty trying to prepare for this, I guess, especially on the very short notice. It's really very difficult when you look at how large this bill is to try to get your hands around it. At the labour council we had a very difficult time doing that, and I've had a very difficult time doing it as president of my local.
I have been involved for 16 or 18 years and I've done this on various occasions before, but I've always been able to get to some of the particular issues that you have, that we might have, differences of opinion, whether it's dealing with workers' compensation changes or health and safety act changes. Over the years we've been able to look at that in a very definitive -- and we can say, "Fine, I agree with that," or "I disagree with that." In this particular case, the bill is so large to us and encompasses so much, and there seems to be so much ambiguity over it. Every day I read, hear or listen on the radio to some other viewpoint about what this might mean to somebody else and I think, listening to the chamber just before us, you get another interpretation of that. So it's been very difficult. I attempted to sit down yesterday and try to do something like that and I just couldn't really do it. Then my day dissolved into union business, whatever, and I really didn't get a chance. I feel neglect in that, but I also knew I had a responsibility to come down here and convey our concerns.
The membership of my local and the labour council are very concerned over the impact of this bill because of its enormity, because it seems to cover everything that happens within the province; then, of course, its impact within our local community, which seems to be that it's just passing the buck down to somebody else. We really get very concerned that the provincial government is going to make all these changes, make all these alterations, do all these things. We've all heard the promises that were made by everybody, regardless of what party you were in the last election. We've all heard those, and now we're very worried that everything's just going to be transferred down to some other level of government, for somebody to get at us from another angle or from another viewpoint. Changing and altering a lot of these duties and responsibilities down to municipal government and local governments, whatever, seems to us to be a very poor way of attacking some of the problems we have within the province of Ontario.
With that, I would like to turn it over to my colleague, who will introduce himself and make a more formalized presentation to you.
0940
Mr Steve Nield: Thanks, Ken. Maybe not so formalized because I was asked to this presentation after Ken got word he was going to be doing it, so I was faced with some of the similar problems Ken had, as far as putting an exact finger on all the problems that are raised with what's contained in this particular bill.
There are some specific points that I do intend to address, though, that are going to impact directly on us. My name is Steve Nield. I'm the president of Local 123 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in Sarnia, also affiliated to the Sarnia and District Labour Council. I also have the role of chair of the London and District Area Council, a body that also is part of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which covers the majority of locals in the southwestern region of Ontario, identified by us as region 1. That takes in roughly about 12,000 workers, those employed directly by the provincial government.
As the representative of approximately 12,000 members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union located in southwestern Ontario, I welcome the opportunity to bring our concerns about Bill 26.
Although our union has presented a full brief before this committee, I would like to re-emphasize some of the points in the brief that cause great concern to our members. What is most appalling about this bill is the fact that this government attempted to ram through this legislation with its sweeping powers without any public debate or consultation.
It smacked the democratic rights of the public in the face and reeks of an attempt to gain dictatorship powers. This bill not only affects our members; it will also impact on every worker, disabled person, the poor, seniors and children while catering to the rich and powerful. This bill is an attempt to address the deficit and fund a tax cut by shifting responsibility to the municipalities by way of reduced transfer payments that will no doubt result in increased property taxes and user fees.
I will address two of the many concerns our union has with this proposed legislation. Firstly, the proposed changes in schedule Q that apply arbitration restrictions under the Fire Departments Act, the Police Services Act, the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, the Public Service Act and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
These proposed changes will create an unfair environment that will restrict arbitrators from making decisions that are fair and just because they would be required to consider economic issues and the employer's ability to pay, which will result in an unfair advantage to the employer in a process that is supposed to be fair and neutral. This will greatly reduce our chances of gaining resolution to grieved issues, which will result in a dramatic increase in labour unrest.
The second and most important issue to our members is the proposed changes to the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act, 1994. What these changes propose to do is quite obvious; that is, to steal our members' money. This money is deferred wages that our members will rely on for income, and it has become increasingly more important in the face of government promises to cut thousands of public service jobs.
I can't begin to describe the level of anxiety, concern and fear that has been created by this aspect of Bill 26. Every day I hear from members, like health and safety officers, employment standards officers, environmental officers, clerical support workers, park wardens, and the list goes on. These people are concerned about their futures. They thought that they had a plan, but now they are not sure.
The government says its agenda is to reduce the deficit with a commonsense approach. It doesn't make sense to achieve that goal by laying off and reducing pensions that will result in lost revenue.
In conclusion, this bill should be withdrawn and introduced individually with full public consultation and debate.
The Chair: We have seven minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with the members of the third party.
Mr Cooke: I just have a couple of questions. One I want to just touch on. I think it flows from the previous presentation that we had from the chamber here in London, but I know you're from Sarnia-Lambton. The proposal in this legislation that would give municipalities the ability to raise revenue through direct taxes: Specifically, I want to focus on gas tax because, if memory serves me correctly, gas tax is a fairly important issue down in the Sarnia area.
One of the concerns I would have is the differing ability of municipalities to take advantage of some of these new taxes, either because of their wealth or lack of wealth or because of where they're geographically located in the province. Do you think there would be any possibility that Sarnia would be able to institute a municipal gas tax, raise the gas price in Sarnia? And based on what happened a couple of years ago with cross-border shopping and how people went across the border to access cheap American gas, what do you think the impact would be of a significant increase in the gas tax because municipalities started instituting a gas tax at the local level to replace lost revenue from the province?
Mr Glassco: I'll try that. It really would be devastating, I think, because one of the largest impacts they had in the Sarnia area was cross-border shopping. With Port Huron, which is 60 miles north of Detroit, right across the bridge like that, they geared up their whole economy over there and their whole shopping district based on cross-border shopping, whether it was the people coming down from London, which is one hour away, or everybody in the Sarnia area. Of course what happens is that people heading over there for whatever reason always fill up their gas tanks when they're over there. Even now, with the difference in the exchange or whatever, you still talk to lots of people who are going over there and filling up their tanks and everything else they can.
It would really be devastating for our community because we have three, I think it is, different refineries in town, being Suncor, Shell and Imperial Oil, and our gas prices are not that low now even though we're one of the major producers or centres for producing gasoline. Their marketing structures, whatever, usually I think start off in Toronto and then the prices go up when you leave there. So even our prices in Sarnia are usually higher than they are in some of the outlying areas. It would really be devastating for our community and our local corner gas stations or whatever to have anything like that.
And I don't know how they would ever handle it, in addition to that. Sarnia is a relatively small city compared to a lot of other ones within the province. We have a village within the confines of the city of Sarnia, and it is still a village, the village of Point Edward. It is totally enclosed by the city of Sarnia. Reading through the information that I had, just getting away from the gas tax a bit, from what I understand, it could be the right of the province to tell communities like that, "You will now become one." That was the way I was understanding it.
Mr Cooke: Yes.
Mr Glassco: That would be one of the largest mini-wars I think we would ever have within the province, if the village of Point Edward was ever told, "You are now going to become" --
Mr Cooke: Given the fact that it took about 23 years of negotiations to solve the Sarnia-Clearwater situation, I can only imagine what the reaction would be in your area.
Mr Glassco: Oh, yes.
Mr Cooke: Let me just ask very briefly a question on the public sector pension question. How do you think your members felt when this very question dealing with the public sector pensions was before the courts -- and we know that a few weeks ago the courts ruled in favour of the workers -- but at exactly the same time a piece of legislation was in the Legislature saying, "We don't give a damn what the courts say; we're going to overrule whatever decision the courts come up with unless it supports the government's position"? What kind of respect does that engender in your members for the democratic and legal process in Ontario?
Mr Nield: Slim to none. I think the reaction of our members is best described as anger and frustration. There are a number of people who are approaching a period where they will be eligible for their pension, and now they're facing the prospect of having it reduced, depending on their age, by possibly 50% if they're 55 years old, or 25% if they're 60 years old, and having to wait till they're 65 to collect an unreduced pension.
A lot of people have planned for the future based on that level of income that they anticipate getting when they achieve the current 80 factor, or at least an unreduced pension. So the impact of this proposal is devastating. People are beside themselves not knowing what to do, and that has resulted in a lot of people approaching me over the last week or so. I'm being bombarded by our members who are in a position to be eligible for their pension. In light of the fact that the government is proposing massive cutbacks in the public service, a lot of them were considering early retirement, accessing their pension now rather than facing the prospect of layoff. All that changes now. If this happens to be passed, it's going to have a very direct and devastating impact on people's livelihood.
0950
Mr Cooke: I think it's important for people to realize this matter was before the courts, and the legislation said, "We don't care what the courts say; we're going to overrule the court decision by legislation," at the very same time the matter was before the courts.
The Chair: Thirty seconds.
Mr Silipo: Very quickly then, Mr Chair, following up on this question of the arbitration -- sorry, that wasn't raised, but I just wanted to raise that. What do you think? Is there any difference at the end of the day, if the government is going to impose these conditions on arbitrators, between that and simply doing wage controls by the back door?
Mr Nield: Do I think there's any difference? Absolutely none. No, this is their way of shifting the responsibility to another party to achieve their goals, and I think that's what's going to end up happening. I think it shifted an advantage to the employers to be able to manipulate their bottom lines to show that they may not be in a position to be able to pay in light of a fair and just decision and, as a result, that will have impact on what would be considered fair and just settlements.
The Chair: We'll move to the government side. Welcome, Mrs Boyd, to the committee this morning. Mr Tascona.
Mr Tascona: Looking at schedule Q, the two themes that you run through here, you don't want arbitrators to consider economic issues and ability to pay, and you feel the mandatory criterion will not make them independent.
We're in a situation where fiscal reality is this: We have a debt of over $100 billion and we have deficit budgeting. We've got less money coming in from the federal Liberals, we've got less money coming in for municipalities and hospitals, because we're just in that situation, and the public's been taxed to the hilt. We're looking at a situation where we're trying to bring some fiscal reality into the situation for arbitrators.
You also make the comment about the independence of the arbitrators. Well, judges have to look at legislation and they have to interpret. No one's ever said that judges are not being independent and fair and neutral in interpreting legislation, because that's what they're going to have to do under schedule Q.
But the question I want to put to you, and we've been talking to unions throughout this process, is, why are they not focusing on such things as productivity bargaining where they could look at saving costs, at more efficient operations, and try to save the jobs for their membership rather than focusing on wage increases, to try to be more fair to the public and the fiscal situation? Why are you focusing on wage increases?
Mr Nield: It's a bit unfair to say that's all we're focusing in on. This legislation will provide restrictions in the event that we get into a position where we can negotiate for wage increases, but I think if you look in the recent past, there haven't been any wage increases, certainly not in the public sector. We've been under a freeze now for the last three years, coupled with the fact that we've been giving money back at a rate of 2% or 3% as a result of the social contract. So wage increases are not a major concern for us.
Mr Tascona: But your whole presentation here says: "Get rid of ability to pay. We don't want arbitrators to look at economic factors. We don't want them to look at the fiscal realities." And I'm just putting to you that this seems to be your focus. I'm looking at your brief.
Mr Nield: Well, the reality is that we want arbitrators to be able to arrive at awards and decisions based on what goes on in the normal private environment of arbitration, and you're going to limit those in the public sector in an unfair way, to provide restrictions for them where it's not happening elsewhere. So most decisions are based on case precedents.
Mr Tascona: In the private sector, isn't the ability to pay a very important factor of any business? And the private sector is hurting out there.
Mr Nield: The arbitrator is not faced with that restriction currently, right now.
Mr Tascona: They don't have interest arbitration in the private sector. It's basically freely negotiated agreements, and they're looking at a situation where employers cannot pay. But we're in the public sector, where it's said, "Well, as for the ability to pay, you can just tax people." That's what we're trying to move away from. We're trying to say: Look at the fiscal realities. Look at the private sector. Look at what the debt situation is out there.
Mr Nield: I'm not aware of any arbitrators' decisions in the private sector that are based on the ability of the employer to pay.
Mr Tascona: I am.
Mr Cooke: Table that one as well.
Mr Nield: If I could just say one other thing, if you're so concerned about the deficit and paying it down and the interest --
Mr Tascona: That's just common sense, which you guys should know.
Mr Nield: If you're so concerned about the deficit and paying down the interest payments, then tell me why this government has got money borrowed at 10% interest when anybody else in the general public can borrow it at around 7%. Is that being fiscally responsible? I don't think so.
Mr Tascona: I am not aware of that situation. Maybe you could table that with us. We'd like to see that if those are the facts you've got. We're certainly interested if that's the situation.
Mr Glassco: Could I make a comment on that? There is a difference between the public and private sectors. In my dealings with arbitrators, it has never, ever been based on the fact of whether the company had the money to not lay off this person or to terminate this person. It wasn't based on that; it would have been based on the collective agreement. They wouldn't enforce that.
I don't know, out of all the arbitrators that I've dealt with -- and there are some very good ones -- usually they are just legal minds. Most are professors of law or lawyers, I guess, whatever. That's who they really are. As a union person dealing with the companies, they get so nervous and apprehensive dealing with these arbitrators because you never know where they are going to come from, okay? When you go to an arbitrator, it's somebody outside the realm of the workplace and the unions there. Nobody really wants to go that route. It's kind of a last resort.
Mr Tascona: But your point's well taken. That's why you have to have some criteria for them: so everybody knows where they're going to go from. That's why we're putting in the criterion.
Mr Glassco: But they're not financial wizards, they're not economists. Let's use a hospital as an example. They don't know hospitals. I disagree with what you were saying there before, that these public service people here only want raises and all that kind of stuff. In the past two years, in our labour council, the public sector has been the most active, and one of the reasons it has been the most active is because of all these changes. The one I have to refer to is the hospitals and their operating plans, their HOPs, I think they call them. Those people have worked very diligently over the years, especially in the Sarnia area, with their groups on putting together their hospital operating plan.
They weren't working on raises; they weren't trying to get more money or whatever. They ended up working out and defining their hospital operating plans together that were submitted to the government. So I don't agree that that's all they are after. They were looking to their security, their livelihood. It's their job, and is that place going to be there one, two, five, 10 years down the road?
The Chair: I'm sorry, but we have come to the end of your time. The members of the opposition.
Mr Gerretsen: Let's deal with this arbitration issue for just a moment. I come from the municipal field. Let's just call a spade a spade and see where it's driven from. There are an awful lot of people within the municipal sector and within government itself who basically feel that a lot of public employees, such as firefighters, policemen etc, are getting paid too much. That's where it's driven from. Let's just call it the way it is.
The whole notion here is that by imposing restrictions on arbitrators, somehow they will be brought into line -- that's where it all comes from -- rather than allowing these people to do the job they've been hired to do in particular cases and limiting the scope of the things they can look at.
Any good arbitrator will look at all the issues that are out there: always have and always will. As you're saying, if one side is able to present a better case than the other side -- because usually it's been my experience, and this is speaking as a former mayor, that the fire associations and police associations are much better prepared in a lot of situations in arbitration than the municipal side was. So let them deal with the problems the way they ought to, by making equally good presentations etc, but not by limiting the scope of arbitration.
Just very quickly, and this deals with the restructuring, you're aware of the fact, and this comes back to your point, of basically what this bill does as far as restructuring is concerned. In the past, for any two municipalities that could work things out and somehow come up with an annexation and amalgamation scheme, there was no problem. The problem always arises when people can't agree. What this bill basically does is allow for a restructuring to take place without any referendum. Once the government sets up a commission, the commission's decision is final: no appeal to anybody, including the minister. How would you feel about that, particularly in light of your Sarnia and Point Edward situation?
1000
Mr Glassco: One of the longest-standing open debates we had within the Sarnia area was that Sarnia was completely encompassed -- or mostly, three quarters of it -- by Sarnia township, it was called then, and then it became the town of Clearwater, I guess it was. Within our community -- we're very small and everybody knows each other -- it became one of the hottest political issues among everybody. They still refer to it as Clearwater.
There are still some signs around, whatever, and people still do not really believe they live in the city of Sarnia. Even within our city council meetings and all that, the topic still comes up, because there was a taxation problem of the differences in taxes between the town of Clearwater and the city of Sarnia and how, sooner or later, they were going to be the same. It's still a very hot issue within our community.
Talking about the village, it would really be catastrophic. There's a certain pride of people who live in Point Edward. "I'm from the Point" is the way it's referred to. Again, it would be like declaring open war within Lambton county if and when that ever happens. They've stayed away from it all the time.
Mr Phillips: I had a question, if I could, on your pension thing. You should get a copy of this document prepared by the legislative counsel here. It spells out the process we've gone through, or the government's going through, on the pensions. Let's be clear. What the government is intending to do is to take $250 million out of your pension.
Mr Nield: Our estimate was between $200 million and $400 million.
Mr Phillips: Yes, and they tried to do it through regulation, quietly through regulation, to take the money out. The courts said, "You can't do that." You won in the courts. This is what this document goes over. It says that in December the court declared that regulation of no force and effect. So the court said the government was trying to take money they had no entitlement to.
This document goes on to say what you said, that in this huge bill is the legislative power for them to override the Pension Benefits Act, which protects all pensioners in this province from employers trying to take money from their pension fund. This document says that's the intent of the bill. This appears, on the face of things, to accomplish what the regulation was held by the Divisional Court to be incapable of doing. In other words, the bill overrides your legal entitlement.
What does your membership feel about an act of a government that is exempting itself, itself alone, from the Pension Benefits Act to take at least $250 million of entitlements that your members are entitled to?
Mr Nield: Their feelings are of absolute and total betrayal. This government is attempting to laden itself with dictatorship powers that enable it to do what the courts have said it can't do, which in the case of Conrad Black he was told he legally could not do, he was breaking the law by doing so. This government is attempting to pass a bill that allows it to break the law and do so legally and does not hold it accountable or liable for its actions. Our members are outraged and furious over this, and rightfully so.
Mr Phillips: Your recommendation at the bottom of the page, I think is a sound one. If the Pension Benefits Act is wrong, it should be wrong for everybody, not just for the public servants. Our view is if the government thinks the Pension Benefits Act is wrong, it should be bringing forward a Pension Benefits Act for debate, not exempting itself from the Pension Benefits Act. I wonder if you would support that approach; that is, bringing forward the Pension Benefits Act for debate rather than singling out your membership for punishment.
Mr Nield: I think that's a much fairer process. I still don't agree that they should have the right to have access to our pension money as it stands right now. That is our members' money. It's deferred wages. It's theirs; it's not the government's.
Mr Phillips: I agree with that, yes.
Mr Nield: They're trying to gain access to money that's not theirs. I don't agree with the process, period, but if they're going to do it, singling us out is completely and entirely unfair. If they were fully honest about what they're attempting to do here, then yes, it should apply equally to everybody.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Phillips. We've come to the end of the time. I'd like to thank you gentlemen for coming forward and making your presentation today.
LONDON-MIDDLESEX TAXPAYERS' COALITION
The Chair: Next we have the London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You'll have 30 minutes to make your presentation and 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 take the time at the beginning of your presentation to read your names and organization into the record for the benefit of committee members and for Hansard.
Mr Jim Montag: Good morning. I'm Jim Montag and with me is Craig Stevens. We both represent the London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition. The coalition is a politically non-partisan organization committed to the prudent spending of our tax dollars entrusted to politicians at all levels of government. We are here today to offer an objective assessment of Bill 26 based on reason and logic. Our presentation will consist of a general commentary by myself and a more specific overview by Craig.
The total debt of Ontario combined is almost $150 billion. During the past 30 years we have not only squandered our money and resources but also created this horrible debt load with deficit financing. We are all responsible for this sordid state of financial affairs and therefore we must all share in the solution.
Our present government was elected with promises to cut the deficit, among other things. To this time, this government has kept its election promises, and I think this is really wonderful. This is a radical departure from previous administrations. It is our hope that this refreshing display of integrity will continue without falter, despite massive protests and confrontations from some of the groups affected. The ones most responsible for the deficit are now the biggest whiners. I repeat, we in varying degrees are all responsible and surely we should all share in the solution.
Although we do not agree entirely with Bill 26, we do believe that the proposed $2.8-billion deficit reduction is a worthwhile goal as it represents fundamental long-term savings. You will hear from many individuals and groups promoting and defending their respective self-interests, and I will now provide some brief comments about some of them in view of their anticipated criticism.
A number of union presentations will be made here today. We simply ask you to examine their real agenda. We believe that they are only protesting Bill 7, which cancelled Bill 40. They would have us believe that Bill 40 didn't drive industry out of Ontario and didn't deter new industry from starting up in Ontario. This is total nonsense. Bill 40 was the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen and its cancellation was mandatory to get Ontario back on the road to recovery.
Educators would have us believe that the quality of education will suffer if funding is cut. Clearly the evidence refutes this claim. We believe that their real objections are directed at the funding cuts and the implications of amending the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, which suggests a reckless disregard of the employers who happen to be taxpayers and of their ability to pay in light of their fiscal situation.
Although today's committee is not dealing with health care issues, we would like to briefly comment. The medical profession is concerned about more direct government regulations and invasion of privacy. There is an old adage: If you pay the piper, you call the tune. The government is expected to pay the total cost of our health system and therefore should certainly have the right to regulate and to investigate.
1010
Municipal public service providers are protesting. Obviously their protests centre on the arbitration aspect of Bill 26. With past arbitration awards, they were always given up to 2% more than the workers in comparable employment not subjected to arbitration. Why can they not accept what is fair? Why should they have a 2% edge? Why can they not accept the employer's ability to pay?
The reduction of conditional grants from the province has precipitated an outcry from social service recipients, with complaints of hunger, inadequate housing and hurting the poorest of the poor. Ontario's social service payments are 10% higher than the rest of Canada, in all likelihood higher than any state in the United States and indeed maybe the highest in the world. However, all that we hear from these groups is a constant badgering for more and more; never once an expression of appreciation or gratitude. I wonder what these people would do if they had a dog that constantly bit the hand that fed it.
The ongoing issue of providing for the needy and less fortunate in our society has induced questionable conduct by churches and has led them into becoming very active political lobbyists. I seem to recall an ancient decree stipulating that governments stay out of church business and churches stay out of government. Our governments are honouring their part, but the churches are not. If they spent more time on biblical studies, they might become aware of St Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, 3:10, "If any would not work, neither should he eat."
All of these organizations that I mentioned have their own self-interest in mind. To many, this translates into nothing other than group greed. Governments must be careful not to hurt the needy but must make every effort to stop the greedy. These groups are truly exhibiting the NIMBY syndrome: "Not in my backyard. Don't cut me: cut them. Tax the rich. Tax the corporations." I would like to know what rich. We don't have many left in Canada and they're already highly taxed.
Corporations are already overtaxed, and if any taxes are increased, they will likely leave Canada and will continue operations elsewhere. This has happened many times. Let us offer an example: Northern Telecom's closure of its manufacturing operations here in London did not stop Northern from making telephone equipment. They are carrying on in Malaysia, Mexico and elsewhere, but not here in London.
In Port Huron recently, George Munn, the assistant manager of the First Michigan National Bank, which is the closest American bank to the International Bridge, told me that two out of every three new accounts opened up there were by Canadians. Mr Munn told me that they are experiencing a surplus of depositors and money and have a shortage of first-class borrowers -- all this with Canadian money.
Increase taxes? Absolutely not. That would only drive more money, rich people and manufacturing firms out of Canada. Soon we wouldn't have a tax base capable of providing even the most basic revenue for even the most basic needs. The only practical way to reduce our deficit is to reduce expenditures.
I urge you not to listen to these protesting self-interest groups. Please keep in mind that the silent majority of over 50% of the population agrees with the government. Bill 26, even with its faults, is a worthwhile step towards deficit reduction.
I would now like to introduce Craig Stevens, our next speaker. Craig is a union member and an employee of the city of London.
Mr Craig Stevens: To say the least, Bill 26 is unwieldy in terms of any one individual's or group's ability to offer a full and well-rounded assessment of its many component parts. The London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition does not pretend to have the required expertise necessary to validate or predict the efficacy of the numerous new tools intended for use by the municipalities. We have analysed the individual schedules, excluding the actual acts referenced, and are pleased to announce our general overall support for Bill 26.
We fully understand why this unprecedented legislation has been introduced and at the same time understand why it is upsetting numerous individuals and groups. This fiscal equivalent of the War Measures Act does require fast-tracking in order to jump-start the locomotive of the Canadian economy and once again focus on the long-term social and economic benefits to be realized by the private production of wealth.
Before we enter into any discussion on the two schedules, it would be appropriate to state that Bill 26 will forever and indelibly alter the landscape of municipal politics. Our democracy is much better served whenever we can get decision-making powers closer to the local level. In other words, instead of reaching out to touch our politicians at Queen's Park, we can now reach out to touch our local council chambers to ensure greater visibility of taxes generated and spent.
With more responsibility entrusted to politicians at the local level, prudent spending of our tax dollars and enhanced accountability should result. Although many features of the omnibus bill may not be subject to appeal in the courts of the land, which should rightfully serve as a check mechanism, our true check mechanism will be realized at the ballot box every three years.
Schedules M and Q: The greatest sources of revenue generation and cost savings afforded to municipalities through Bill 26 are to be realized in both schedules M and Q. In dealing with schedule M, our organization is troubled by the following areas: the concentration of authority in the minister's hands; the lack of clearly defined direct taxes; exemption of police boards from municipal control; and undefined audit and review procedures relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of a municipality's operations.
Authority: Interestingly, municipalities have been given greater powers but little, if any, authority. This relationship could very well give rise to numerous problems down the road. This does not recognize or treat municipal government as a mature form of government. It does not provide for a stable decision-making process. For example, on page 153 of Bill 26, subsection 257.5(1) says: "The minister may make regulations exempting any business or class of business from all or any part of a business licensing bylaw of a local municipality." It is quite conceivable that any municipality could base the provision of services to the taxpayers on revenues derived by certain classes of businesses, only to have the province, at its discretion, as determined by regulation, annul that particular form of revenue.
Definitions: The aforementioned scenario therefore makes the compelling case for the province to clearly define in advance the expanded inventory of licences and user fees available, as well as appropriate forms of direct taxation. Many persons in our community have expressed a high degree of apprehension that any tax savings to be realized through decreases in the provincial tax rate will simply be hijacked by an endless assortment of new tools being given to municipal governments. In order to establish a level playing field, taxpaying citizens and businesses must know what the rules of the game are before they're expected to play. It is our belief that many of theses concerns could be assuaged by creating a defined inventory of revenue-generating user fees, licences and taxation tools.
Special status: The ability of a municipality to dissolve local boards inexplicably omits police boards. This would suggest that a special status has been conferred upon police boards. Any board funded in whole or in part by a municipality should logically come under a measure of local control. Although we are not in favour of dissolving any particular police boards, we are only suggesting that they be treated no differently than any other board whose source of funding is provided by local taxpayers.
The London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition applauds the provision contained within Bill 26 which obligates the municipality to provide the minister with full information relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of municipalities' operations. Discretion is provided to the minister as to what time and in what manner and form such information must be provided.
We would like to recommend that the minister utilize an audit procedure commonly used in the private sector known as the comprehensive audit. On page 3 of your handout you will, in detail, be able to analyse on your own time the contents of that working document. Time doesn't afford us to get into it in any great detail here. However, it would be most worthwhile to mention the principles on which this process is based.
Public business should be conducted in a way that makes the best possible use of public funds. The decisions made by management should result in economically efficient and effective use of public funds. The resources, people, goods and money should be used as productively as possible, with programs achieving their intended results, and people who conduct public business should be accountable for the prudent and effective management of the resources entrusted to them.
1020
Schedule Q: The various acts referenced glaringly omit any reference in the specified criteria to be considered by arbitrators of comparisons between comparable employees in both public and private sector job places. It is only reasonable that salary and benefit settlements reflect standards inherent in the much broader private sector workplaces. It makes little sense to ignore any prevailing competitive forces in the marketplace for purposes of comparison. We respectfully request the inclusion of this item in schedule Q.
Effective medicine: The London-Middlesex Taxpayers' Coalition acknowledges the dislocation and disruption to many workers affected by this legislation. We can only hope that greater partnerships of understanding can be forged, whereby those affected can truly understand the urgency and need for these measures. The precarious state of provincial finances, combined with the previously mentioned NIMBY syndrome, restricts the number of options available to this government.
Quite simply, the controversy surrounding Bill 26 resembles the prescribing of a distasteful medicine to a recalcitrant patient unable to accept the short-term discomfort of the medicine for his long-term health. Surely, if we fail to aggressively deal with the horrible state of provincial indebtedness now, many more workers could be affected in the future and oppressive levels of taxation would result. Distasteful as it might be, the effectiveness of the medicine can only be realized by the firm resolve of the government administering the medicine.
We respectfully suggest that the government administer its medicine over a greater period of time, through delay of its unconditional grant funding cutbacks. We suggest this time delay so as to provide municipalities a time frame in which to become familiar with the new tools made available to them, much like a cabinetmaker who's been provided with a table saw, a bandsaw, a jigsaw, a chainsaw, a handsaw and a coping saw, and who is intent on constructing a given project. He has to know the quality and characteristics of the individual tools provided to him. He has to know which tools cut the fastest, which tools cut the smoothest and which tools afford him the greatest creativity. Once these qualities and characteristics are known, he can then fashion an end product that will be long-lasting and durable and is best suited to its individual needs.
Similarly, municipalities have the same assortment of tools. If they don't take the time to learn the effectiveness of their new tools, they could very well undertake actions that may not serve the long-term interests of their communities. They might very well cut essential services too fast, cut too deep and thus damage any long-term benefits that could be realized through a thoughtful, unrushed decision-making process.
Should the government find merit in this suggestion, we believe that under no circumstances would there be a loss of credibility. Immediately following the provision of all their new tools, a minimum six- to 12-month delay in funding cutbacks would serve as an enabling period to become familiar with them. This delay would certainly be viewed as being most reasonable and fair. Proper notice will have been served that this government is serious and committed to establishing a new order of business -- a new order of business that our organization firmly and clearly believes will result in more secure and long-term prosperity for the very people who do not want to take the medicine.
The Chair: Thank you. We have about three and a half minutes per caucus for questioning. I'd like to welcome Mr Smith and Mrs Cunningham. I believe, Mrs Cunningham, you can start the questions.
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Welcome, not so much to the presenters but to others, to London, and especially my colleagues from other parts of Ontario. It's good to have you here.
Mr Montag and Mr Stevens, I'd like also to thank you for the complete presentation that you provided to us and to assure you that we'll be looking at every piece of information and suggestions.
I would ask you to speak, perhaps from your own experience, a little further on what you feel we can do, because I agree with you that by virtue of their omission, police services boards and school boards are not part of this bill. We've been criticized for putting too much in it, so there are reasons, probably, that the ministers didn't want those two pieces involved.
Could you speak a little more, perhaps, to the police services board? We're going to be hearing, I understand, from the city of London in that regard and certainly with regard to the piece about municipalities having more control over the boards and commissions. Do you want to give us some advice in that regard?
Mr Stevens: We're not really in a position to provide advice in that regard. I guess the comment on that particular item in schedule M begs more of us asking the question as to why, strangely, the police services board would be omitted from that legislation.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Possibly because we didn't want to deal with it that quickly but we knew there was a problem. It's not unusual. A former minister is sitting across from me who dealt with the cost of amalgamations and boards and those kinds of things within his own ministry, and he knows the expense and the time-consuming -- we in London certainly understand that. So there was a request that municipalities have more control, and we weren't sure where we would want to go. I think police services boards, given our mandate for safe communities, are extremely important and would require a different kind of legislation that wasn't directly related, I think, to the money pieces, as omnibus bills usually are.
Your other piece, that we didn't put a list of these fees or taxes, wouldn't you normally expect that if there's going to be a list like that, it would come in the regulations, which of course aren't present right now? Do you think that you could put a list together or should we be asking municipalities or do you think others will come forward with those kinds of lists for us?
Mr Stevens: I think it would nice, as mentioned, to have a list or an inventory of what types of things are available. Simply, we could get into widespread or vast discrepancies throughout the province.
Certainly, the public and businesses at large would like to know what could be out there in terms of things that could be awaiting dollars being extracted from them. This isn't to suggest that if you create an inventory of 60 tools, all 60 would be utilized by any one given municipality. Some might use 20, some might use 40; it depends upon their fiscal prudence at the local level. If local politicians are able to manage their resources in an effective and efficient manner, the likelihood of their dipping into the inventory of tools would become less, as opposed to an irresponsible municipality that, for whatever reasons, chose to provide this service and that service. So they would have to answer to that.
Mr Gerretsen: Just a quick comment: As a former chairman of a police commission and a municipal politician, I know why police commissions weren't involved in this process. You didn't want to alienate the police association and the chiefs of police in the province. It's as simple as that. Traditionally, those budgets have always been ultimately under the control of the Attorney General.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think that's who you should be talking to.
Mr Gerretsen: I'll tell you why. It's always been under the control of the Attorney General rather than under local councils, which local municipalities don't particularly care for at all, and that's the real bugaboo. They didn't want to upset the police commissions or the chiefs of police. That's a long-standing thing that goes back 40 or 50 years.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Neither did previous governments.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Montag: One thing I'd like to comment on: We have a problem in London here with the enforcement of bylaws. The police don't do this any more. First they stopped enforcing this one and then this one and then that one. My thoughts are that if they won't enforce city of London bylaws, why should the city of London pay their salaries?
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. You quote the same biblical passages that the government members quote: St Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians. I understand where you're coming from, I understand where the government's coming from and it's not one I feel very comfortable with. But your brief is interesting in that you are supportive of the bill, I gather, and then by my count you've got seven or eight major reservations about the bill. You people, I gather, are business people.
Mr Montag: No, on the contrary. Craig is a city of London employee and I'm retired.
1030
Mr Phillips: My apologies. I think, though, that your organization may believe government should run things orderly, the things it does should be well thought out, if you pass legislation, it should be legislation that reflects concerns. Why would you be urging us to be rushing this bill through, when you yourself have, by my count, eight major reservations about the bill? Wouldn't we be wiser to be taking perhaps another four or five weeks to make sure we get this right?
You said we're like a "cabinetmaker." You don't mention sledgehammer in the tools, by the way. I think what we're really doing is trying to build a cabinet with a sledgehammer here, not with a table saw or a bandsaw. But why would you be urging us to pass this sledgehammer legislation when you've got eight major reservations yourselves?
Mr Montag: First off, we definitely are in favour of this bill, but I think Craig clearly had a passage in his presentation where he was urging the government to take a little bit more time and do this a little slower, particularly when you look at giving the municipality more tools. Let them learn how to use them and what ones to use best. No, we're not urging this bill be rushed. We basically approve of most of the bill -- not all of it, but most of it.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Silipo?
Mr Silipo: Yes, I will start, Mr Chair. That was the point I wanted to pick up on as well, because quite frankly I think it's very interesting, and I would suggest even useful for this process, for a group like yours, which supports what the government is doing in a general way, to be also saying to us that a little bit more time would be helpful. That's the point exactly we've been making. In fact, if it wasn't for the actions we took as an opposition, we wouldn't be hearing from you today. We wouldn't be getting your perspective and the government wouldn't be getting your advice. My only hope is that if the government isn't going to listen to that advice from any other group, it might listen to groups like yours which are saying, "Give people more time to adjust to this and to be able to deal more effectively with some of the problems in here."
One of the things specifically that I wanted to pursue was your point about the need for us to be clear and the government to be clear about what would be allowed under the various direct taxes and user fees etc. Would you have any concern if it became clear -- as we believe is the case now, but whatever way this would be clarified -- that in fact what is allowed under this legislation is the ability by municipalities to impose gas taxes, income taxes, various other direct taxes, in addition to their ability to impose a whole array of user fees? Would you have any concerns about that?
Mr Stevens: What exactly is your question?
Mr Silipo: Well, that's my question. Would you approve or disapprove of that, of municipalities having the right --
Interjection: Gasoline taxes.
Mr Montag: Gasoline taxes: I don't think we'd agree with that. User fees: Very definitely we would agree with more user fees. Taxation --
Mr Silipo: Sales taxes.
Mr Montag: -- taxes everybody. Whether you use the service or not, you have to pay the tax. I think a user fee is a much more fair way. It's just, a user fee is tax.
Mr Silipo: I guess my point further to that would be this: You no doubt support the government's move towards the 30% tax cut.
Mr Montag: Not necessarily, no.
Mr Silipo: You don't? Okay. Well, that's interesting.
Mr Montag: No, I would gladly forgo any tax cuts coming my way if the money was used for deficit reduction.
Mr Gerretsen: Hey, great.
Mr Montag: There are a couple of things. I disagreed with the government promises when they were elected. One was when they reduced photo radar. I wish they'd bring that back. That made our highways safer. It saved lives, it saved money.
Mr Silipo: We agree.
Mr Montag: Another thing, I wish they would really take their time on these tax reductions. I don't mind paying my taxes, providing the money is used in a proper manner. If it's used to reduce the deficit, they can break their promises about tax cuts.
Mr Silipo: Do you agree --
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. I apologize, Mr Silipo. We've come to the end of your half-hour. I'd like to thank you both for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
LONDON PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Could I please have representatives from the London Professional Fire Fighters Association come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes this morning 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 to field questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of Hansard and the members.
Mr Terry Kilburn: Good morning. My name is Terry Kilburn. I'm the president of the London Professional Fire Fighters Association and a professional firefighter in the city of London. My colleague is Ken Gaskin, the vice-president of the London Professional Fire Fighters Association and a professional firefighter in the city of London. We ask your indulgence this morning. We're a little out of our element. We'd be a lot more comfortable with an air pack on our back and bunker gear and if this place was on fire.
I believe you all have copies of the brief. The London Professional Fire Fighters Association represents the full-time employees of the London fire department, with the exception of the chief, deputy chief and the secretary to the fire chief. It is that role that brings us here before you today.
Emergency service providers for this community are gravely concerned with the component of Bill 26 that has the potential to invoke a negative impact upon the fire services across the province. The objective of this presentation is to provide specific references and recommendations, but the interim goal is to provide our perspectives on those areas of Bill 26 that have an adverse effect on our community. Comments within this presentation are limited to schedules Q and M of the bill. To qualify this presentation, it is necessary to provide some background information and a history directly pertaining to the systems currently in place.
Under schedule Q: Long before the existence of the present Fire Departments Act, citizens of this province who enjoyed the services of professional firefighters could go to bed at night knowing they had the security of an emergency service only a few minutes away. They were guaranteed those services were available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year, Christmas, Easter, New Year's etc.
To measure response performance, many municipalities, including ours, melded entire operational effectiveness of their fire departments into one all-encompassing number, the average response time. For many years Londoners could rest easy knowing the protective resources of their fire service were only 3.5 minutes away, on average. The 1993 annexation took the average response to well over four minutes. Cutbacks proposed by the municipality could see these times escalate to the 10-minute figure.
Flashover, for everybody's benefit, takes place at approximately seven minutes. That is the approximate time the experts say that a fire gets reasonably out of control. At the seven-minute mark is when the potential rescue turns into a fatality, when the $5,000 fire turns into a $50,000 fire.
Professional firefighters in this province stand proud in their claim that service has never been interrupted due to labour relations issues between themselves and their employers, the municipalities. Because firefighters chose to sacrifice these rights, the provincial government gave the specific rights contained in the Fire Departments Act. One of the foundations on which the act was formulated was an independent system of arbitration allowing these essential workers to settle the terms and conditions of their collective agreements. This option could be exercised by either party only after the normal collective bargaining reached a stalemate.
The adoption of schedule Q of Bill 26 could significantly alter the fundamental independence and integrity of the arbitration system. Such a move would deal a devastating blow to our fundamental rights to negotiate freely in this democratic society.
As I stated earlier, we are professional firefighters, trained and skilled in the delivery of emergency services. However, every year or two, depending on the duration of our agreements, we enter a room with municipal representatives who are professional negotiators and human resource personnel in an attempt to negotiate future wages and benefits for our fellow firefighters. One would think that pitting amateurs against the professional corporate negotiators already slants the advantage heavily in the direction of the municipalities.
No one wants to admit failure in any endeavour. Nevertheless, the outcome in a failure of the negotiation process is an interest arbitration.
1040
Statistics compiled by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association support the claim that professional firefighter locals have not rushed off to arbitration, as the municipalities would have you believe. These statistics demonstrate that over the past 14 years, only 141 boards of arbitration occurred out of some potential 1,218 negotiation situations. Professional firefighter associations were able to negotiate mutually acceptable agreements freely with their employers over 85% of the time. Even out of these 141 failed situations, a reasonable person would assume the municipalities must share equally in the reason for that failure.
When negotiations fail, both firefighters and municipalities must trust the independence and integrity of the arbitration process. Contrary to AMO's position, both groups take an equal risk by involving a neutral board to decide the outcome of their respective futures. Arbitrators can just as easily decide in favour of a municipal request as an association one.
The proposed criteria, as set forth in Bill 26, would constitute a significant interference to the integrity of the arbitration process. Some criteria will prompt further legal debate for explanation, resulting in much more complicated and lengthier arbitration boards. If anything, Bill 26 will proliferate the arbitration system.
Members of AMO and municipalities would have you believe favouritism in favour of the firefighter associations distorts the present system and therefore demands modification under Bill 26. From our experience, it would be safe to say that firefighters have presented exhaustively researched proposals with lengthy and morally defensible justifications for their requests. On the other hand, the corporation representatives come to these same arbitrations with weak and ill-prepared proposals and rebuttals. If firefighters fare well, it is because they take the process seriously and work diligently to prepare both their arguments and justifications. Let the truth be known: Politicians and municipal representatives have chosen arbitrators to act as scapegoats in an attempt to deflect any potential political controversy associated with awards of justifiable increases for firefighters.
Firefighter negotiation teams do not haphazardly present requests to municipalities. Dr Eric Taylor, a renowned labour relations expert, maintained firefighters should adhere to three basic tenets prior to accepting any idea from the membership for submission. These groups scrutinize it by determining whether it is morally sound, legally defensible and reasonably practicable. These three simple criteria are the firefighters' secret of success, not a flawed system.
To sum up our requests on schedule Q, we submit the following:
(1) Remove the criteria for arbitrators contained in Bill 26.
(2) Clarify the meaning of the legislation to reflect the Solicitor General's comments made in the fourth paragraph of his letter dated December 18, 1995, to the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. That's attached to the brief as appendix A. I've highlighted the paragraph for your convenience. The paragraph states:
"With respect to the criteria for arbitrators, I can assure your association that the five criteria set out in schedule Q of Bill 26 are not an exhaustive list of factors which an arbitrator can consider. The wording of the criteria section does not preclude an arbitrator from taking other relevant factors into consideration."
We hope that's a true statement, because it did come from the Solicitor General.
We will now move on to comment on schedule M and the effect of the proposed powers of restructuring. As with schedule Q, we will make specific requests later in the presentation.
It is the position of our association that our municipal council has maintained far too much power and authority in respect to the provision of emergency services within our community. The proposals in Bill 26 would greatly enhance their existing powers, to the detriment of our citizens and taxpayers.
In order to anticipate the effect of Bill 26 on our community, looking to the past is necessary. Contrary to the opinions of municipal councils, they have maintained unquestioned authority concerning the levels of emergency services within the community. Admittedly, this is an onerous task. In today's litigious society, this is a balancing act that runs parallel to the old but memorable Fram oil filter commercial, "You can pay me now or pay me later." As the commercial implies, the cost of paying up front far outweighs the potential loss if we ignore the appropriate actions.
Fire departments are a form of proactive insurance. Their activities are aimed to prevent fires or, in the case where one starts, to attempt to prevent loss of life or minimize property damage. While house insurance can replace or repair the structure and its contents -- assuming it stays affordable -- one cannot buy loved ones or items which represent treasured memories.
Until recently, municipalities have been impervious to their decisions with regard to fire protection. However, legal suits are now just coming to the forefront in the emergency services field. Municipalities are becoming increasingly involved in legal action because they have not provided what some authority deems to be an appropriate or adequate level of service.
Within the profession of firefighting, the province of Ontario entrusts the office of the fire marshal with providing the expertise to recommend the levels of adequate services to the community. They have developed extensive models that evaluate many different factors connected with the requirements of firefighting.
In 1972, the mayor and council of the corporation of the city of London commissioned the office of the fire marshal to conduct a study pertaining to the firefighting needs within this community. The resulting document was quite substantial. To provide a brief glimpse of the conclusions of the Ontario fire marshal, we've provided several pages attached to the brief as appendix B. One of these pages is a recommended level of service and an organizational chart for the city of London fire department. Keep in mind that this was a recommendation made by experts more than 23 years ago.
Quickly scanning the chart reveals that the recommended level of resources far exceeds the resources available now in 1996. Since then, London has more than tripled in geographic size and its population has grown by 50%. This must bring us to the realization that municipal council in London has not given the provision of emergency services in the city of London its deserved priority. The London fire department has not grown in proportion to the rest of the community. They have ignored the expert opinion of Ontario's foremost authority on firefighting: the fire marshal for the province.
The unprecedented and sweeping powers of the proposals in Bill 26 will only serve to amplify the current problems. Municipal councils will have the sole authority to make uninformed decisions, further jeopardizing public safety. While elected officials may come from diverse backgrounds, they do not have the expertise necessary to make such dangerous decisions.
When the provincial government announced the funding cutbacks in early December 1995, the city of London gave some clear indications of where fire and other emergency services fit into its priorities. In an attempt to offset those cutbacks, they aimed their primary focus of the budget cuts directly at the fire department. If initiated, levels of service would drop to those in place more than 30 years ago. This subject has been a popular topic at both council, in council minutes, and in newspaper articles. Several of those articles are attached to the brief as appendix C.
Firefighters in this community have spent hundreds of off-duty hours in the past year to lobby politicians and citizen groups to allow us to provide a higher level of emergency service to the community in the form of defibrillator services. Existing resources of the fire department are underutilized and could be given additional responsibilities related to emergency services. The association eventually convinced council to support a limited defibrillator program but, as usual, financial considerations are predominant. However, while many heart attack victims may not survive, we are relieved to hear that leaves will be picked up by the corporation regardless of the cost. Does the provincial government expect rational, reasonable arguments on the ability to pay from municipal representatives with these priorities?
One of our main concerns with the proposed municipal powers under Bill 26 lies with the definition of "local board" as cited in schedule M. The spectre of a private-enterprise, publicly funded emergency service should send chills up the spine of all people involved in these proceedings. We urge the government to alter schedule M of Bill 26 to exclude fire departments from any possibility of being deemed to be a local board and assure the public that municipalities will not put their health and safety at risk as a result of privatization of essential fire services.
1050
To sum up our requests on schedule M, we submit the following:
(1) That the government exempt firefighters and the fire service from the impact of Bill 26 and allow the provincial representatives to continue discussions on our own piece of legislation, the Fire Departments Act, as was promised by the Conservative government prior to the election.
(2) We wish to seek an amendment to the bill which would remove the words "despite any act" wherever they appear in the legislation. This government is poised to make a law to break many laws.
(3) If there are specific pieces of legislation which the government might wish to override by regulation, they should be specifically included in Bill 26 rather than granting the government this type of blanket authority to override other existing legislation.
(4) We would also like to see an amendment which ensures that rights and privileges granted under the Fire Departments Act cannot be removed by virtue of a restructuring proposal or assumption of power by a different tier of government, and that any municipality or other body which assumes responsibility for fire services is obligated to comply with the requirements of the Fire Departments Act.
In summary, the ability-to-pay arguments are going to cause quite a problem. Just to give an example, before we came here today -- I'd like to put this out on just how subjective the ability to pay is going to be and how difficult it's going to be for an arbitrator to consider. I want to read one paragraph. Like many people today we did a little surfing of the Net. We got material that was put there by the city of London. It's relevant. It was taken off today, so it must be relevant, it must be timely and it must be true. I'd like to quote from that material:
"London is the country's best-run city, according to the Financial Times service. London's average household income is $51,721, the second-highest in the country, but its taxes are the least, or 24% below the average. A streamlined government manages to deliver police, fire, sanitation and other services at remarkably low cost."
Given that kind of information, you can imagine the predicament an arbitrator would have if people come forward and say they don't have the ability to pay.
Society has changed considerably in the last 40 years, and one cannot deny that fact. Admittedly, 40 years ago the negotiating process was much different from what it is today. However, members of the public still consider the safety of themselves and their families as a paramount concern. All students of management are aware of Maslowe's theory of the hierarchy of needs. In this popular theory, Maslowe suggests that safety, food and shelter are the foundation of every person's needs. This instinct goes back to the days of primitive man. A person cannot move to a higher plateau until these requirements are satisfied. Schedules M and Q of Bill 26 are an erosion of our fundamental rights to freedom but, more important, compromises the very thing we so desperately seek: safety for our families.
On behalf of ourselves and the members of the London Professional Fire Fighters Association, we thank you for the opportunity to forward our concerns for consideration.
The Chair: Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we only have three minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with the opposition caucus.
Mr Phillips: This is one of the most professional briefs we've seen, and I congratulate the London firefighters association.
I want to focus a little on the arbitration thing. You're probably aware that when the government has been talking to the credit rating agencies, they've been saying: "Don't worry too much. We've got this new power to direct arbitrators on settlements. We're coming off the social contract, but this new power we're going to give arbitrators will help to keep costs down."
It is seen as a big cost-cutting move by the government and it's being used to comfort the credit rating agencies. When we ask the government where else this exists, we keep hearing that in other jurisdictions in Canada the language "ability to pay" exists. Frankly, all my studies say it does not exist anywhere else. The government keeps saying it does. We ask for the evidence. They can never provide the evidence that it does.
What you are facing is a direction to arbitrators that exists nowhere else. Has your organization, the London group or the Ontario group, been able to look at other jurisdictions and restrictions placed on arbitrators in other jurisdictions in Canada? If you have had that opportunity, have you found any jurisdiction that gives these fetters to arbitrators?
Mr Kilburn: No, we have not. We've been facing the ability-to-pay arguments for many years at the bargaining table, almost 20 years, and we're not aware of such restrictions anywhere else, in our country anyway. The ability to pay is such a subjective argument, as in the example I gave with the city. Where a city spends its money and the priorities of spending are a really onerous task. If we knew the answer to how to spend municipal money, we'd more than likely be running for municipal politics.
It's the priorities. Legislation is lacking, and municipalities aren't required by any kind of law to have a fire department or to fund a fire department to any degree. Across this province, you've got one community that takes fire services as a fairly high priority and will fund it to a certain level, whereas the community just down the street might not take something very seriously. They might be more interested in supporting their legal division and things like this, and they might have many more lawyers, so they might not put the emphasis on providing fire service.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we must get to the third party.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you very much for the presentation. I too congratulate you on its very professional appearance.
Every time a group like yours comes in front of this committee, or indeed is talked about by government members or by those who support this legislation, your comments are painted as self-interest. I think it's very important for us to understand that you are saying to think here. You're talking about our interests as communities, as citizens of communities, not just your own personal interest as members of a bargaining unit.
Your concern is the conjunction, I gather, between the standards for firefighting and the need for there to be clarity around efficiency and effectiveness and the relationship that might have to safety if there are no standards. Am I right in saying that is the gist of what you're trying to say, that you're quite agreeing that there may be other ways to provide these emergency services, that there needs to be flexibility in that, but that you would like to see standards? What isn't clear to many people in the public is that at the same time this bill is coming forward, there's the report from the fire marshal's office itself, the impact of which on standards is not yet absolutely clear to everyone.
Mr Kilburn: I think we could talk for quite a while on that one. The office of the fire marshal in some respects is being listened to by the government. One of the things I brought up here was that a fairly extensive and very expensive study on fire services was done by the fire marshal some time ago in London, and basically it was put on the shelf and never acted on. These things seem to have no teeth. We welcome to some degree the recommendations made by the current fire marshal having to do with standards. There have been ongoing deliberations between our organization and the fire marshal's office on them. Standards within the fire service are needed, also standards that municipalities should have to provide a certain degree, and have somebody of authority determine what that degree is.
1100
Mrs Boyd: That's why you're concerned about the override in the section, that Bill 26 would override any other legislation.
Mr Kilburn: Yes. There has been ongoing dialogue between our provincial body and the government on the Fire Departments Act, and this has gone on for quite some time. As with any negotiations, there has been movement on both sides in the realization that things are changing. We expected that negotiation process to go on. We were told that negotiation or consultation process would go on. It has not, up to this point. Once this sledgehammer came out, it looks like this is going through and our consultation, whatever it was, is over.
The Chair: From the government side, Mr Tascona.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to talk to you about schedule Q. The mandatory criterion, as you know, and you're familiar with the interest arbitration process, certainly is a process for this to be considered by arbitrators. Unlike what my friend Mr Phillips says, it's certainly in other jurisdictions. The federal Liberal government has it in place --
Mr Phillips: I don't think so.
Mr Tascona: -- and other provinces. If he had read what I gave him yesterday, he would know that.
Mr Phillips: I've read it and it's not there.
Mr Tascona: There is a mandatory criterion, and ability to pay is a relevant factor that can be considered among the factors. So there is a mandatory criterion. But in terms of independence, certainly judges have the ability to consider criteria and they have the requirements to consider legislation, such as the Municipal Act, and no one's ever said that's affected their objectivity. You've got the assurance from the Solicitor General with respect to other factors being considered in terms of mandated criteria.
I'd just like to put to you that we know taxpayers are taxed out. We also know we've got a debt problem. We also know that if we have an arbitration award that increases wages, we're going to have a resulting tax increase. We know what the reality is, that wage increases for the public sector are certainly something that haven't been before us under the previous government and that's a fiscal reality today.
Why aren't we focusing on such things as productivity bargaining to streamline the services, looking at cost savings and perhaps reorganizing the compensation package so we can have a fair deal for the taxpayers, for yourself and the safety of the public?
Mr Kilburn: I'd like to speak to the first part of your question. We deliberately put that material in our brief regarding the fact that we've spent the last year arguing against our municipal authorities to expand the level of service that we provide to the community. The initial onset, and I fully agree that productivity is an answer, is that we have spent a considerable amount of time trying to increase the level of emergency service we provide within the community. We have been lucky so far that we've started a defibrillator program on a smaller scale. It's going to expand. We want to see a higher degree of emergency services provided in the community.
A lot of people have the tendency with fire departments to look at us as if we've got all kinds of downtime, and if we maybe have a little bit of downtime, "Here's a gallon of paint and a paintbrush, paint the firehall." I'll be the first one to admit, given our wage scale, that we are very high-paid painters, if municipal councils use us for those activities.
We have taken a very realistic look at our community. We are very reasonably talented people and we're very capable of providing much higher levels of emergency services within our community. It's unfortunate, like I said, when we've been going through the past year arguing to try and be able to do that.
I agree with you 100%. We are very much in favour of reorganizing and providing better services with the existing resources.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. I'm sorry, but we've come to the end of your half-hour presentation. I appreciate your coming forward to be in front of the committee today.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, if I might, the government continues to say it has given us examples of ability to pay in other jurisdictions. I've reviewed all the material they've given us, I've asked staff to give me examples and we still don't have them. I don't think it exists anywhere else.
Mr Tascona: Mr Phillips, I have given you legislation that deals with mandatory criteria in other jurisdictions, but you keep harping on ability to pay.
Mr Phillips: Here's what I'm asking, Mr Chair: Perhaps we can have our research officer look at the material and give us an opinion on whether it does or does not, because we are dealing with firefighters' lives here. The government is saying one thing, and the information they're providing, in my opinion, provides another.
The Chair: Mr Phillips, if I might, I'll ask the researcher to provide the information, but I must say I think there are two different things being said here on your part. You want to find out if the ability to pay is in any legislation; Mr Tascona's point is continually that there are mandatory criteria in other. Shall we do a search for both?
Mr Phillips: So ability to pay does not exist anywhere; is that what you're saying?
Mr Tascona: It does exist. It says, "any other relevant factor." If you'd read the legislation, it's very clear.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, he's saying it does exist, and that's my point: It doesn't exist.
Mr Tascona: It can exist, definitely.
Mr Sampson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think the request to the research officer has been to do the research; I don't know that it's in the research officer's position to come up with an opinion. Through you, Mr Chair, to the research officer, it would be appropriate for him, if so directed and Mr Phillips still wants to have the research done, to the extent that the research officer is capable of doing that, to provide it to the committee at some time.
The Chair: What I'd like to ask research to do is maybe find out if there are two things in other jurisdictions: (1) the ability to pay and (2) mandatory criteria in arbitration cases.
Mr Phillips: There is clearly mandatory -- it's the ability to pay we're arguing over.
Mr Silipo: Just to be helpful, I hope, from this side, I don't think we're quibbling with the fact that there is information before us that clearly says that in other jurisdictions there are mandatory criteria. We're not disputing that. I think the issue is that Mr Tascona particularly has continued to argue that this includes the issue of ability to pay, that this exists. As Mr Phillips has said, we haven't seen in any of the stuff that we've been given that that actually exists. It would be useful to know if that in fact exists in any other jurisdiction. I think that's the essential point we need clarified.
Mr Tascona: The point I was making is that ability to pay is a factor that can be considered and it's provided under the legislation.
Mr Silipo: That can be considered now without the legislation.
Mr Tascona: But it's a factor that's mandated in the legislation that can be considered. Any other factor can be considered. My point is that ability to pay is a factor that could be considered. That's all our point is. Mr Silipo, it's fairly obvious.
The Chair: I think we have a point of interpretation. Mr Tascona is claiming that ability to pay would be, in his interpretation, included in the phrase "other relevant factors." I don't think he's contending that "ability to pay," those exact words, are necessarily in other legislation.
Mr Silipo: That's helpful, Mr Chair, because that's all that Mr Tascona has been saying up until now, so it's useful to have gotten that clarification. Perhaps, then, one of the things our research folks could also sort out is whether it is possible under the existing legislation for arbitrators to consider such issues as ability to pay in Ontario, because I think there's a distinction here between what they may consider and what they shall consider.
The Chair: Gentlemen, I'd like to actually continue this. We have presenters here ready to go. We're 12 minutes behind. I don't want to keep presenters later.
Mr Phillips: Those were your instructions.
The Chair: Yes, my instructions have been given.
1110
LIFE*SPIN
The Chair: I'd ask that Jacqueline Thompson please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes to make your presentation today. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to field questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself and your organization for the benefit of both committee members and Hansard.
Ms Jacqueline Thompson: My name is Jacqueline Thompson and I'm the interim executive director of LIFE*SPIN, which is an acronym for Low Income Family Empowerment*Sole-support Parents Information Network, the local community-based organization that deals specifically with issues of low-income people and the difficulties they have in getting employment.
On November 29, the government of Ontario introduced the omnibus bill, 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, without invitation or opportunity for public input.
On December 5, we joined with over 900 member organizations of the Ontario Social Safety Network to call for province-wide public hearings and public debates on this bill. Like most of the individuals and organizations you will hear from today, LIFE*SPIN was notified only late last week that we had been granted an audience.
The accessibility of the omnibus bill in its entirety has proven an insurmountable obstacle and a deterrent for many who desire input into this legislation. In fact, the introduction of the specific bill reflects a major aspect of what it introduces: precisely that only those who can afford to pay the printing costs are able to complete analysis and input.
Each time we've raised the issue of the detrimental impacts of various government changes to date with our MPPs, we've been provided an urban myth of an undeserving citizen. Thus, I would like to introduce you to another story you can share, this one a real person telling her own story. Perhaps this account can encourage you to stand for all our citizens, not just for those who can afford to pay.
"I am 34 years old, separated and have three children, a girl seven years old, a boy 11 years old and a boy 15 years old. My eldest son has a learning disability and my daughter needs assistance at school because she has difficulty learning how to read.
"I have asthma and lower back problems. I'm currently in receipt of family benefits allowance and I receive $891 per month. I do not receive maximum shelter allowance as we're living in geared-to-income housing.
"I have a high school diploma, a college degree, a health care aide certificate, a bachelor of arts degree and a university honours degree in English and women's studies. I'm currently taking classes at college in computers, modern workplace expectations and freelance journalism.
"I started to receive social assistance on or around September 1984. I came to be on social assistance after leaving an abusive marriage. My husband was emotionally, verbally and sexually abusive to me. There were times when I feared for my life and for the lives of my children. I was too emotionally damaged to seek employment and lacked training, education and child care to enable me to return to the workforce. Also, my children had suffered from the duration and breakup of my marriage and I needed to be with them as much as possible.
"My husband paid a small amount for child support and, despite repeated efforts, I was unable to obtain more child support, even though my husband made a substantial income.
"I returned to university in the hope that a better education would assist me in obtaining a decent job. I went to school for five years and started to look for work before I graduated. After one and a half years of exhaustive searching, sending out numerous résumés, I have not even had one job interview.
"I have been depressed and discouraged due to the difficulties I have been experiencing searching for employment. There were times when I felt so bad about the desperation that I have considered and attempted suicide. It is so frustrating to be unable to meet my children's basic needs, and with the cutbacks, I have not been able to feed them properly. I had to declare personal bankruptcy last year because my student loan payments were too hard to pay and buy groceries for my children. I felt like a complete failure and was very distraught after declaring bankruptcy.
"I've always disliked being on social assistance, although it is a necessary evil. I feel like I'm not providing enough for my children, even though I'm doing everything I can to secure employment. I'm limited. I cannot work evening hours, weekends, and have to get my children to school and be home for them. I cannot work for minimum wages and pay for child care.
"My husband pays $250 per month for child support which is being collected by the Attorney General's office. The full amount is deducted from my FBA cheque.
"My current housing is a three-bedroom townhouse. It is unsafe as there are no adequate locks on the doors and no locks on the windows, despite my request to the owners to fix these things.
"There is a lot of drug traffic in our neighbourhood and I fear for the safety of myself and my children. I'm paying a high cost for hydro, which is not covered by my shelter allowance with the cutbacks. I'm afraid I will not be able to pay for hydro and heat and it will be cut off.
"I just moved into this place after living in co-op housing for over seven years. We wanted to stay in our home, but we were forced to move because a neighbour victimized myself and my family. He assaulted my son and threatened the lives of myself and my children. So we moved, and the cost of the move has caused further financial distress to my family. I still owe $277 for the final hydro bill at our last residence. Now, with the cutbacks, it will be impossible to play catch-up with my bills.
"I've not been doing well making ends meet and I've had to rely on family and friends to help us. We receive food from the church, and I felt devastated that my life has come to depending on charity to feed my children.
"My children are often hungry. My boys eat as much as adults and there is never enough to feed them. I have been eating very little and have gone whole days without food so I can feed my children. My children are starting to notice that I'm not eating and have tried to give me their food.
"I cannot tell you how many nights I have cried myself to sleep or laid awake with worry about how to feed my family. My budget is so tight that I cannot buy clothes for my children. They wear ragged jeans and shoes and they have inadequate winter clothing. I know they will be very cold this winter and I am helpless to keep them warm.
"My monthly budget is tight. After paying the rent, utilities and debts, I have approximately $140 a month for groceries, clothes and everything else for myself and three growing children. The cuts are affecting my life in extreme ways. I will not be able to feed my children and keep them clothed.
"My 11-year-old son may have to go and live with his father because I cannot provide for him with these cuts. This tears my heart out because I love my children and I do not want to break up my family; nor do my children want to leave home. They want the family to stay together. My son, if he lives with his father, might be living in an abusive situation.
"I have seriously considered suicide. Because I do not think I will have the strength to survive and watch my children starve, I believe that is my biggest concern, that I will be come so desperate and depressed that I will kill myself, a very real possibility, especially if I lose one or more of my children.
"My children, especially the older ones, are becoming angry and frustrated. I'm afraid that they will resort to criminal acts as they realize their needs are not being met. These acts of desperation will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
"My children are become emotionally scarred and are having great difficulty living in poverty. I worry that their health will deteriorate due to lack of proper nutrition. I cannot afford to provide them with nutritious food or vitamins. My little girl will probably never reach her full growth potential. She is already small for her age and I can see that she has been losing weight.
"As my emotional health worsens -- lack of sleep due to worry -- my physical health worsens as well. My asthma attacks occur more frequently and I have severe migraine headaches that last for days. My pain is so intense, I have difficulty walking and fall down frequently. These symptoms continue to worsen as my financial situation gets more and more desperate.
"I feel like I'm living in a dark tunnel and I do not see the light at the end. I do not know how much longer we will be able to survive as a family under these extreme conditions.
"Our family dog, which we've had for six years, is sick and we do not have the money to take her to the vet. It appears that we have no alternative but to put her to sleep. This will break my daughter's heart."
Many people, like this woman, have been silent -- many people who voted for this government -- because somehow the promises made during the election campaign have been forgotten. The promise that you would create jobs for the able-bodied who were willing to work is perhaps by far the greatest reason why you are here today.
Every month, LIFE*SPIN provides services to hundreds of low-income families in London. We've heard the same stories hundreds of times. We see and we know that the unemployed workers in our community are well educated, highly skilled, trained and retrained to suit numerous jobs. What's missing are the numerous jobs.
Since over 80% of the tax revenues in this country are collected through personal income taxes, the wisest economic policy would be one of job creation and of job sharing. Instead, we're given job losses, additional mandatory overtime and a detrimental domino effect leaping from the public market into the private market. Instead, we hear fellow chamber of commerce members crying out about government interference in the free market through proposed workfare legislation. Instead, we hear small businesses crying out as they are impacted through cuts to services such as child care, not only to their workers but also on the lost business such community services generated. Instead, we hear people crying out with hunger pains, with inadequate winter clothes, shelter or heat, without the promised jobs to provide for their families.
1120
These are the cries that you need to listen to and listen for. They are the cries for which you must stop and consider the impact before imprudent and reckless decisions are imposed on our lives and our province.
The overall implications of the amendments: The Savings and Restructuring Act introduces numerous amendments and proposes to enact three new acts. Throughout the condensed schedules, one set of parallel themes arises as the thread which binds Bill 26 together as an act. These parallel themes are, first, the glaring absence of the right to appeal or seek judicial recourse for poor judgement on behalf of those making the decisions and, second, the insistence that unilateral decision-making will not be hindered by knowledgeable and valuable expertise.
The detrimental impact of this bill also has an overriding theme: the blatant disregard for our economic and social responsibilities to each other in our province. Legislation of such far-reaching consequence should not proceed until there is a full accounting of the impact to the health and wellbeing of all sectors of our people, specifically the poor of Ontario struggling to survive on low incomes with children, as well as to consider the job losses which would result and the spinoff economic effects sure to be created by these massive cuts.
When we look at some of the different socioeconomic implications of the amendments, we can start with the amendments to the Pay Equity Act. In order for the government of Ontario to put its financial house in order, it is necessary to pay women less than fair wages. While this may provide short-term savings in various government ledgers, it would appear that no consideration has been given to the economic spinoff of lost dollars on the local economy or the psychological health of the community in which fair wages allow workers the dignity of providing for their families without government assistance. Hundreds of thousands of women who work for low wages in female-dominated job classes, many of whom are heads of households, no longer will have a right to fair wages. The government is proposing to move numerous families one step closer to social assistance and further reduce the income tax revenue base and purchasing power of these families at the same time. This change does not promote economic prosperity.
The amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: The proposed amendments under this section severely threaten the remaining vestiges of democracy in Ontario. Not only are the members of the public refused the right to access government information unless, again, they have the ability to pay, they are also denied the right to appeal. In addition, the combination of clause 10(1)(b) and subsection 50(2.1) restricts media access to government information. This attempt to conceal the functioning of government from public scrutiny, to remove our freedom of access to information, is the loss of a democratic right that the freedom of information acts were designed to ensure. These changes do not achieve fiscal savings, nor do they promote economic prosperity; they simply enforce a dictatorship.
The amendments to the Municipal Act: The reductions to funding to municipalities allow the provincial government to place an onus of increased taxes and decreased services on the municipalities. Many municipalities, including London, have already been devastated by the previous cuts as they struggle to maintain the social and community services the province has already withdrawn support from.
The requirement to provide information to the Minister of Housing indicates the introduction of a carte blanche right to identify where social assistance recipients are dwelling, under the auspices of effective and efficient operations, and the requirement to publish all or part of this information is a direct threat to the privacy of the individuals receiving assistance from municipal delivery agents. This change does not achieve fiscal savings, but enacts the right to harass and expose those who are less unfortunate in our community.
The standards for activities of municipalities: These open-ended standards are extremely frightening when one considers the punishment for non-compliance. Considered also is the lack of public input into designing or setting these standards. The apprehension is increased 10-fold. What and who exactly, then, will these unknown standards be established by?
The right to impose direct taxes or user fees: In addition to the 21.6% cuts that low-income people in need in our communities have just experienced, the government is now deciding to offer a 44% funding cut to municipalities in exchange for the right to impose direct taxes and user fees for services currently offered to all our citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. It is nothing less than absurd for the province to offer tax breaks to the wealthy and then request that municipalities redistribute the collection of lost tax revenues among those least able to purchase the services lost due to the tax savings for the wealthy. These changes do not achieve fiscal savings; they simply widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor and blame the municipalities for doing so.
The Public Service Pension Act: This amendment legalizes theft by the employer of over $200 million in payments to retired government of Ontario employees. This decision requires an absolute attempt to consult with those whose lives will be impacted by this change.
The amendment with regard to the interest arbitration: These proposed amendments in the various acts indicated render the arbitration process useless. The vital and essential services provided under these acts will surely be negatively affected as the government seeks to interfere in what was once an independent arbitration process. The arbitration process considered the impact on services if funding was not increased. The proposed amendment allows the government to unilaterally determine the scope and effect of services according to the budgets they are willing to establish for the services. This amendment has the potential to achieve fiscal savings at a substantial cost to our education, our health and our safety. The government is proposing a social deficit in exchange for a fiscal benefit, with complete disregard for the human devastation it will be creating.
The amendments to the Health Insurance Act speak perhaps the clearest of all in terms of the value of human life in this province. Some of the most appalling attitudes in our society today are voiced in these pages. Government officials, as opposed to medically trained physicians, will now determine what services are medically necessary for health and, often, the lives of our people.
This set of amendments would never pass the ethics boards of a single hospital in Ontario, which is no longer a hindrance either. The government proposes to give itself unilateral decision-making power over the expertise and experience of hospital boards, and again with judicial impunity.
Here we find the value of human life is measured in dollars and the ability to pay, both in terms of the types of medical services available and in terms of the medication necessary to remain healthy or perhaps even alive. One's ability to utilize the insured services at a hospital will exclude those who cannot, however, afford their accommodation fees.
The combination of user fees, dispensing fees, copayments, accommodation fees, prescribed age groups, conditions and limitations dictate that only patients who can afford to purchase medication they are not allergic to are allowed to have it. Only those wealthy enough or insured enough will be able to utilize the medical services. Only those who have an ability to purchase RRSPs in their employment years will have access to life-saving operations in their retirement years. Only those who can afford to pay accommodation fees while a physician keeps them under medical observation will be permitted to remain in the hospital for this often critical surveillance.
Those who have the ability to pay, whether through their ability to purchase insurance from multinationals or through independent wealth will receive hospital care in Ontario. The poor, the disabled and the elderly mean absolutely nothing in this government. They are seen and treated without value.
These amendments place a monetary value on human worth, which is, after all, the crux of the other amendments: to remove all the rights of those unable to purchase them, while reducing the ability of as many as possible. This omnibus package promises to create Ontario as a distinct society, one that most of us will gradually and essentially be excluded from and one which those of us who have had the opportunity to consider through these hearings reject wholeheartedly.
1130
The amendments put forward in Bill 26 reflect a socially blinded obsession with the desire for unilateral power. We call upon the government to produce an accurate, well-documented, long-term impact analysis of the implications put forward by LIFE*SPIN and other presentations to this committee.
We see far-reaching, long-term, destructive implications on our families, our community and our province. Most sections of this omnibus bill will not address or achieve fiscal savings, nor will they promote economic prosperity.
We recommend that the timetable for this bill be placed in suspension. We recommend that the bill be split into its component parts and the proposed changes be made accessible in whole to all the people of Ontario who may wish to provide meaningful input and reflection.
We further recommend that the consultation process be expanded and a forum for public debate on these changes be provided. We are unable to support this bill in its present form or content.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Joseph Tascona): We now have time for the parties to comment or ask some questions. Each party will have about two minutes to do that. We'll start off with the NDP.
Mr Silipo: Very quickly, thank you for the presentation and I think particularly for bringing us real examples of what it's like to live in poverty on social assistance, and for the description of the case that you put before us.
One of the stark realities for that individual and her family that you described and many others like her, even those who may be fortunate enough to have a job and be working at a low income level, is that what seems to us to be driving the government's agenda, the need for the provincial tax cut, is going to be of no benefit to her in the sense that there will be, for her particularly, no benefit whatsoever in terms of any reduction in taxes; for people in her income range, likewise. Those who will get the greatest benefit are in fact the 15% or so of Ontarians who earn over $85,000 a year and who will get over 40% of the value of that tax cut as we look at the figures.
That, along with the rest of the actions in this bill in terms of the emphasis on user fees, which would take into consideration nowhere the ability to pay, as you pointed out, it seems to us, ends up creating a society in which the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, but that gap between the two is going to widen and it's going to end up in a less healthy society. What do you foresee down the road, three, four, five years, with the actions of this government?
Ms Thompson: We're already seeing the results. Families are giving up their children for foster care, which incidentally costs twice as much as it does for the biological parents to care for their children. The heartache that it's causing these families I don't think is repairable.
The Vice-Chair: We're out of time. The government side?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think two minutes is not particularly useful to go through this brief. There are a number of areas where I think we should have some discussions. Since you're in my riding and LIFE*SPIN is one of the agencies, I'd be interested in chatting with you in detail about this. I'm wondering if you're working with any of the other agencies that are providing the government with suggestions and perhaps programs that we could consider for implementation with regard to people and jobs.
Ms Thompson: We have offered to meet with the Minister of Community and Social Services and are awaiting an appointment to do that.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Obviously I'm proud of this city and there are a number of agencies that are looking for the learn and work programs. LIFE*SPIN has been very involved in many aspects of our community. We'll just meet. I can perhaps hook your agency up with another, because I think what I got out of it, other than the technicalities of your brief, certainly was your individual example of someone having the kind of struggles that I think are only going to get worse as time goes on if we don't deal with the challenges that we have in Ontario as both previous governments thought were important to try to deal with in their own way as well.
Secondly, I think you challenged us in this brief to say that we said we would do our best to create jobs, as former governments have done. So I would invite you to meet with me some time, perhaps this Friday, and we'll talk about your ideas and hook you into other agencies so that your agency can be working in a positive way with us. Obviously, Mr Tsubouchi can't meet with everybody, but he has been in London twice and he will be coming back. I'll make sure that you're on that list.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. The opposition party.
Mr Gerretsen: Of course the easiest thing for any party to promise in an election, and all parties have been guilty of this, is to get more jobs. It's a much tougher thing to do than to actually say. Let me just ask you this from a very practical view, but you've certainly put a very human face on many of the presentations that we've heard. We've heard the Premier say, "If people don't like to be on social assistance, just let them go out and get a job," which to me sounds absolutely absurd in the kind of economic climate that they're already in with so many people unemployed. Within LIFE*SPIN, what percentage of the people involved with your organization are looking for a job, or have the skills to look for a job and simply can't find one? Would you like to put any kind of number on that? Can you?
Ms Thompson: We could look at the statistics. We do keep statistical database information. The reason why we moved to doing things like community economic development was because we heard over and over again from our clients that they are well-skilled, they're well-educated, they are willing to work, they're working really hard at finding work. The jobs aren't there. As a community, we're trying to come up with some creative solutions together, but it doesn't make it any easier for people to try to find employment when all the supports to finding employment are being taken away from them.
Mr Gerretsen: Right. So the vast majority of people you deal with aren't lazy or don't want to work; they just simply can't find a job.
Ms Thompson: We hardly ever have somebody who's in that sort of stereotypical category of what a social assistance recipient is or who they are or what their life is like. By and large, people are well-trained, well-educated. They've been retrained to death. They don't want another workfare program. They don't want another learnfare program. They want a paying job so they can contribute their taxes into the tax base, the same as you and me.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation. We're out of time and the next presentation will be coming forward.
PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF HELP, LONDON
The Vice-Chair: I believe we're ready to commence. The presentation at this time is from the Persons United for Self Help, London, southwestern Ontario, response to the omnibus legislation, Bill 26. I believe we have Bonnie Quesnel here.
Ms Bonnie Quesnel: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Could you introduce the other individual with you?
Ms Quesnel: Sure. I'm Bonnie Quesnel from PUSH, Persons United for Self Help. The gentleman on my right is Mr Steve Balcom; he's also on the board of PUSH.
1140
Mr Chair and members of the standing committee, Persons United for Self Help is an organization committed to working for the advancement, integration and achievements of people with disabilities. This segment of Ontario's population has historically been assigned to the last rung of the ladder of needs consideration. This assignment is openly reflected in the marginal availability of accessible housing, transportation, education and employment. There is little in the omnibus legislation to suggest that a positive change is forthcoming.
I am here representing a group of people who have lived, worked and been part of London and Ontario all their lives; people who have and want to continue to have the opportunity to contribute and be part of this great province, bringing our skills, perspective, talents and strengths to our communities and places of work. We are also a group of citizens who have physical disabilities. Our interests are not special. We share the same goals, dreams and visions of all Ontarians. Our group has experienced being marginalized, institutionalized and warehoused away by a powerful few. Now we have the information and knowledge to warn all of Ontario that this Bill 26 is a threat to all.
The introduction and overwhelming content of this bill denies thoughtful participation and analysis. It is an affront to due process. It debunks the belief that the public will be informed. We see red flags rising and warning bells blaring. It will be those of us who will be the most vulnerable and without the powers of the élite who will eventually suffer at the hands of this bill.
It may be true that this government does not want to use these powers to cause harm or deny citizens their rights. They may not intend to further victimize the poor and the people with disabilities, but this particular bill in many instances means that they could. This is not acceptable.
History teaches that in times of economic difficulty, public opinion may demand a scapegoat, but the leadership of a government does not have to provide it. Government can choose to govern for all the citizens or focus upon a few. This bill threatens all people of Ontario by creating divisions and eliminating due process, full participation and government accountability.
The goal to eliminate the deficit is admirable. The tool that is presented to us, Bill 26, to achieve the goal goes far beyond this economic mandate. It is like using a jackhammer to do fine brain surgery. It will do more harm than good. We'll lose our perception of Ontario as one of reason and compassion. As people who have been pushed to the edge of Ontario's safety net, we can tell you that this bill threatens to push us over the edge.
Bill 26 threatens our access to information. Who is to define what is unreasonable? It places the definition of what is medically necessary into the hands of a single minister. It imposes user fees that disproportionately affect people with disabilities because of its regressive nature. It causes greater pain to those of us who have been denied the opportunity to climb the economic ladder.
It has put many decisions into the hands of municipalities and school boards at the same time that it has cut their budgets. Transportation, information access, recreation, access to education will vary from city to city. This has happened before. Transportation services for the disabled will compete against leaf collection. We will either lose the service or be blamed for the loss of other services. This bill will inevitably increase vulnerability and hostility towards people with disabilities.
The actions proposed in this bill fail to make government accountable for their decisions. This will encourage schools, municipalities and the health care system to identify people with disabilities as an expensive burden, a stereotype that has historically been used in the past. It is possible that politicians and bureaucrats could forget about our humanness and our contributions. They may then see our rights as inefficient irritations. This might lead to something intrinsically right being eliminated.
Will attempts to create savings be in the interest of all Ontarians? We are a group of people who have been institutionalized against our will in the past, denied access to basic services, and experienced even worse in this past century. We warn you that this bill portends trouble. It is by ensuring due process, by ensuring that individuals and governments are held accountable for their actions, that we can be confident that we are all safe.
PUSH believes that this grouping of amendments et al can be addressed under three specific headings: government rights, citizen rights and government accountability. Under these three categories, we can assign all actions, consequences, outcomes and change embedded in the omnibus legislation.
Government rights: This bill is clearly a broad, sweeping instrument of change. It displaces multitudes of legislation formulated by many previous governments. The power being self-assigned by you, our current legislators, seems overwhelming. As we read it, Bill 26 will allow you to adjudicate upon: direction to cease operations; amend or revoke direction; disclosure of information to the director; rescinding of orders; access to personal information; decisions about listing and delisting drugs; agreements concerning payment information; immediate dismissals; categories of fees; billing restricted, billing permitted and co-payments; rights of access; frivolous requests; fees; and billing patients.
Citizen rights: The options clearly defined for citizens are no compensation and no appeal.
Government accountability: The accountability tools incorporated into Bill 26 are that this and all subsequent governments will have immunity from liability, protection from liability, and no proceeding against the crown.
A further deciphering of the text indicates that this government is desirous of absolute control. A minute portion of this control will be dispensed to municipalities. The only group to lack any control whatsoever is the citizens of the province. They are expected to accept and support these new concepts of government without question. However, questions must arise when we find ourselves advancing to the rear. That is duplicating non-constructive system change as seen in Third World nations.
The omnibus bill reveals that there are going to be extensive fees for services, which will contradict promises made to the populace prior to election day. These fees cannot be afforded by the fringe population. People with disabilities are part of that fringe. Fee structures have been indicated in health, access to information, municipal decisions and more. How are we to continue participating or benefiting from services where costs are applied? The point is that we cannot. Is that the intent of this government?
Citizen rights include no access to appeal or compensation. That's a truly limiting view of who and what we are. This is not a perspective we anticipate seeing advanced in 1996. Citizens are the component that makes Ontario a wonderful province. We know we have problems. We know that action must occur. We, as voters, supported your commitment to some of these actions. Now we see something tantamount to an autocracy evolving. You seem to be developing a system without thought to its long-term outcomes. We perceive that we have been abandoned as participants in that process.
In conclusion, we remind you that you committed that we, people with disabilities, would not suffer because of your decisive actions. We do not see how this is going to be possible. PUSH seeks reassurance that your initial commitment is still in place and that there still will not be a negative impact upon our population. Social progress for people with disabilities has taken a very long time. You can appreciate that we do not want to see this progress dissipated in one conglomerate effort. We seek a rational review of this legislation for the long-term wellbeing of all Ontarians.
We thank you for your time.
1150
The Chair: Thank you, and I apologize for not being here to welcome you to the committee earlier. Thank you, Mr Tascona, for taking that duty from me for a few minutes. We have a little over five minutes per caucus for questioning, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Sampson: Just a brief question, and then I'll pass to other members at the table. I'm just wondering if you can comment on your comment in here that on the transportation side you're perceiving that there are reductions in the subsidies. Is that what you're getting from the message being delivered, that there are some reductions?
Ms Quesnel: Yes, sir.
Mr Sampson: I'm led to believe that's not the case in this particular area, that in fact subsidies for transportation for the disabled are remaining stable. They're certainly not going up, which I think is frustrating for some people, but it's a reality we all have to deal with. But it has not been part of the transportation cuts that were allocated to the municipalities across the board. That's something you should be aware of and it would indicate our commitment to your concerns and your issues in that regard.
Mr Steve Balcom: If I may, my name's Steve Balcom. A fair number of you know of me. Having been involved locally, and provincially for that matter, on issues pertaining to persons with disabilities for almost 18 to 20 years, we are aware with the specific issue of transportation operations that there will be no forthcoming further cuts. Having been a member of a minority all my life, past experience has shown not only me but the rest of us who have been involved as advocates, when you look at the proportionality of the cuts which are inevitably going to come in the global aspect, the impact on us is going to be that much greater.
One of the things I was reminded of from an earlier presentation was the Internet fax that was read earlier about how efficient our city fathers are with services. I can honestly say that when it comes to transportation, London unfortunately is the lowest-funded municipality in the province, and that's an issue that our city fathers are quite proud of, actually. When you put it in the context of leaf collection and blue box collection, when you look at the overall numbers, the amount spent on transportation is pretty small.
To put it back in the context of the omnibus legislation, as a member of a minority that's been marginalized, when you look at the potential in this legislation, it's incredible when it comes to access to information, when it comes to unilaterally making decisions. Having been there before, knowing from where we came, let me just say we're not getting warm fuzzies.
Mr Sampson: Wouldn't it be more appropriate then for you to be able to take the local politicians to task for that inequity, which is the concept under the omnibus bill? Wouldn't that be the issue that you particularly want to do, as opposed to dealing with it through some bureaucrat in downtown Toronto?
Mr Balcom: I'm smiling partially, because there are those of you around the table who are aware of not only me but a number of us who do that. Believe me, we make both our local politicians and our provincial politicians very much aware, and indeed have enjoyed in the past working in partnership with them. The apprehension we have is that there's currently no accountability, and with the introduction of this legislation there's going to be even less accountability.
Mr Sampson: Isn't the issue that the accountability is kind of going back and forth? Really, the issue is that you want to have accountability. You want to be able to go to somebody and say: "Listen, this is not particularly fair. Let's deal with it." Wouldn't that be more appropriate for helping you to resolve the issue?
Mr Balcom: Your point is well taken, but I wish to point you back to the legislation itself. When you look at the way the legislation is set out in terms of unilateral decision-making and arbitration, that very avenue is taken away from not only us as members of a minority but all Ontarians. But the impact on us, as members of a minority, is potentially even greater. That's the concern we have.
Mr Gerretsen: I'd like to follow up on that. There are many new powers given to municipalities, the power to tax etc etc. Of course the government says, "No, we're not really doing that," because they've got legal opinions that in some of the direct taxation areas, they're not really giving it to them. Nobody's being up front about what's really happening here, which is interesting.
If there's one small error in your presentation -- or maybe it's just my reading of it -- it's that a lot of the powers are not coming to the Legislature. Many powers come to the various ministers, who can then unilaterally decide these different issues. One of the things we've been fighting for is that a lot of these powers of review etc rest with the Legislature so that at least if there are changes, there will be some public debate, if not by the public, by the legislators. A lot of that's being taken away in both the health area and the municipal area. I think that ought to be kept in mind.
Mr Balcom: Believe me, that's something we are very much aware of.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Your presentation was very well-thought-out and very detailed. I want to pick up the point that one of the government members was talking about, that this legislation, as it allows decision-making at the municipal level -- unless the minister doesn't like it, and then the minister can change that unilaterally -- it's easier for you to complain locally. There are two parts to this and I wish you'd comment.
You said you've been involved, I assume both of you and others in your organization, at the provincial level, and I want your comment as to whether it's better to lobby in a larger group with a larger voice, because as you've said you're on the fringe. Second, it was also pointed out that transportation subsidies are still going to be maintained by the province. Therefore, I suggest, and I'd like your comment, that if you complain locally, won't you still be given the same story as before, that that's the province's responsibility?
Those two areas: your ability to lobby locally as opposed to a larger group in the province, and what kind of reaction you will get.
Mr Balcom: I'm just trying to frame your question, because it's almost like a two-pronged answer. We have been involved both provincially and locally over a long period of time -- let me just make that fact clear -- and speaking from experience, when it comes to maintaining services, impacting on legislation, it is keeping things uniform. One theme that has run across, I would say, 85% to 90% of the presentations to you this morning is uniformity.
The provincial regulations, and I don't really care what service you're talking about, were put in place for a reason, to get uniform access to services and information. What the municipalities, and this particular municipality, have demonstrated and shown us, lo these 15 to 18 years, is their unwillingness to communicate and to negotiate. We have historically always been pigeonholed as a special interest group and a bother. I can't help but be reminded of one issue for which we primarily go forward to the municipality, and it's a good illustration of the very issue you're speaking of in terms of the Paratransit issue. I don't want my answer to be seen only in terms of transportation, but merely as an illustration of historically what has taken place. In this community, when you look at Paratransit as an issue, we are always seen as always going for one more van, one more van. More than one politician has come back to us and said: "Well, the well's dry. I wish you people would quit coming to us for one more van."
One of the reasons we lobbied the provincial government in this issue specific to transportation was uniform standards provincially to be enforced. If you take that issue in the context of all of the other issues in the presentations that have been and will be made to you, that is one of the major concerns. Further, as a member of a marginalized minority, the impact on those of us with disabilities is going to be even greater than for the average able-bodied Ontarian.
1200
The Chair: Let's move to the members of the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I think that's the real point you're wanting to make, that you are concerned because this act and the other actions that this government has taken are impacting all of us in Ontario. You're saying you're part of all of it but you have a double impact because of the particular situation in which you find yourself.
The government has tried to say that your greatest protection is negotiating on the local level. I think your point is very well taken that the numbers you may have provincially are even less at the local level, and your concern about scapegoating, your concern about costs, we've seen before in this area. If we look at special education in schools, we see the scapegoating of children all the time because they are creating a great cost and a great demand in classrooms and therefore people are against integrating special children into classrooms. I think you have good justification for your concern that at the local level you have experience that tells you that you can get isolated and scapegoated for the cost of services to which you should be entitled, so I would just like to reinforce that point you're trying to make.
When we talk about this particular bill, the arbitrariness of decision-making is obviously of real concern to you in both the health sector and the other sectors. I think it's important for you to talk a little bit about what you've heard from the members of PUSH, people who have for the most part felt themselves to have been exploited and indeed oppressed by the majority, by the dominant community, in the past, and how you see this as being a return to that.
Mr Balcom: Keeping in mind, as we've been saying throughout our presentation, that we are already marginalized -- that's a historical fact -- and looking back over history, and again, this is in a generalized sense, access to information is critical for everybody, whether able-bodied, disabled, it doesn't matter. When you look at the way the omnibus legislation is set up to make decisions unilaterally that deny access or potentially deny access to information and decision-making, the impact on us specifically as a minority is enormous, and I don't think I'm ringing too many alarm bells personally here. I'm thinking in terms of scapegoating, in essence blaming the victim, if you will.
Mrs Boyd: Because in each of these instances the ability to pay is less -- enormously less, statistically -- for people who are in the category of being disabled than it is for the regular population. So each time there's a regressive tax, each time there's a pay-for-service --
Mr Balcom: The impact is even greater.
Mrs Boyd: The impact is duplicated and magnified for your group.
Mr Balcom: Exactly, and user fees specifically. Again, I'm thinking back to an earlier presentation by the taxpayers' coalition. I can see it, because we've been there before. This is not new; we have indeed been here before. When you look at the possibility of plebiscites for user fees and the response that's going to have, the impact on us I would argue is 10-fold when you look at the potential number of user fees we would have to be dealing with. That's another major concern.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
CITY OF LONDON
The Chair: Could I please have representatives from the city of London come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. 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 and response from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate, before you begin your presentation, if you'd read your names and organization into the record for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Grant Hopcroft: My name is Grant Hopcroft. I'm deputy mayor and, today, acting mayor for the city of London. I'm joined by Controller Dawn Erskine, who will be assisting me in making the presentation today.
I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for making time during your lunch-hour for the city of London to bring forward our views on this issue, and I'm pleased to see so many colleagues around the table who I know have a great deal of experience and empathy for the views of municipal government in this province.
Mr Cooke: It depends on what you have to say.
Mr Hopcroft: I'm sure there will be something for everyone in our presentation.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that for some time the city of London, along with other municipalities, has been asking the province for more control and say in how we run our communities and how we spend the dollars that come to us. We're grateful that the government has elected to finally address those requests for such things as increased flexibility, increased taxation powers and the broadening of licensing and user fee authority, although our enthusiasm is somewhat limited by the knowledge that the government will be transferring far fewer dollars to the city of London in the coming years, approximately $16.2 million less this year and perhaps another $6.5 million less next year.
Our enthusiasm is also limited by the knowledge that while granting as much of the authority that has been requested, the prerogative is being taken by the minister to rescind the authority intended to be transferred to us. As well, we do not support the authority being given to the minister to unilaterally restrict the licensing authority of particular municipalities, nor are we supportive of the ambiguous wording of the increased taxation powers ostensibly granted to municipalities in reference to direct taxation.
In the context of extreme cuts in funding. more power and more say over matters such as those addressed in Bill 26 will be absolutely essential if we are to be able to serve our taxpayers responsibly in 1996 and beyond. While Bill 26 opens the door to more control, we have concerns that we believe must be addressed before the legislation is passed.
In general, many of our concerns pertain to the clarity and definitions in the bill. We believe it's important that our autonomy as a level of government be made very clear, with fewer grey areas or opportunities for arbitrary provincial intervention. This is important so that we may make decisions with some degree of surety that they will be binding and sustained.
Having addressed these general concerns, we would like to bring some specific issues to your attention.
The dissolution powers over boards is one of the areas the city of London, and indeed AMO, believe are essential to our ability to manage effectively and efficiently in the future. This means having control over local bodies such as library boards, hydro boards, and particularly police services boards. There is no valid reason to treat police services boards any differently than other boards. Furthermore, the power to appoint to these boards should rest in the hands of municipalities, along with the power to dissolve.
1210
We understand that the government will be reviewing the role of the police services boards in the province in the context of an overall review of the Police Services Act. As that review is taking place during our 1996 fiscal year, we ask that the province keep in mind our immediate need for flexibility in spending powers. We believe it is essential that there be no delay in turning over control of police budgets to municipal governments. The police budget in London represents 20% of our locally derived taxation revenue, and in these times of fiscal restraint it is inconceivable that we would not have control over such a large block of our revenues.
I'd like to now ask Controller Erskine to deal with our submission on user fees.
Ms Dawn Erskine: With regard to business licensing, subsection 257.5(1) states, "The minister may make regulations exempting any business or class of business from all or any part of a business licensing bylaw of a local municipality under any act, and imposing conditions and limitations on the powers of a local municipality under this part."
In essence, we see this provision as allowing the minister full and arbitrary discretion to remove the authority that has been given to municipalities, with no definition as to the criteria or principles that would be used to exercise such discretion. We believe such unfettered discretion is unnecessary and inappropriate. This discretion should remain with the local, elected and accountable municipal government. At the very least, the criteria should be clearly and properly defined, and municipalities such as the city of London must be part of the consultation process to determine these criteria.
We are also alarmed to see, in subsection (2), that "A regulation under this section may be retroactive" for a period of up to one year, and that municipalities, again at the sole discretion of the minister, may be required to return licence fees collected during that period. We do not wish to find ourselves in a situation where after issuing a licence, collecting that fee and perhaps even closing our books for a certain year, we must now not only reopen our books but be forced to return revenue that has been allocated and spent.
While we were led to believe that this province was about to give municipalities broad new powers to impose user fees, we now see that the minister will have the power to prohibit certain of such fees. Subsection 220.1(10) reads:
"The minister may make regulations,
"(a) providing that a municipality or local board does not have the power to impose fees or charges under this section for services or activities, for costs payable for services or activities, for use of municipal property or on the persons prescribed in the regulation;
"(b) imposing conditions and limitations on the powers of a municipality or local board under this section...."
This has the appearance of the province giving with one hand but holding the threat of taking it back on the other hand. We believe that Bill 26 should spell out the circumstances under which the minister would make such regulations so that we clearly understand what user fees are acceptable and those which are not. Again, we request that municipalities be consulted as these circumstances are being defined.
Mr Hopcroft: Schedule Q of the bill makes reference to boards of arbitration giving consideration to an employer's or a municipality's ability to pay when making a decision or award. We request that it be clearly and further defined to specify that the consideration of ability of pay be based on an assumption of no tax increase and no cuts to service. Without that quantification of an employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal position, municipalities may find themselves victims of unilateral and perhaps unrealistic decisions by boards of arbitration.
We would also request that the criteria for decisions include a comparison of employees not only in the broader public sector but in the private sector as well. The public have made it clear that in the future they expect public service workers to be compensated in a manner that reflects the reality in the private sector as well.
In so far as the provisions for direct taxation are concerned, subsection 220.1(3) provides for "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue."
The committee is aware that there has been a great deal of speculation as to what's to be included in direct taxes and what isn't. As a municipality, we need to be given the broadest possible taxing powers. In any event, it is imperative that the powers given be clearly defined. The legislation should provide clear direction as to what will and will not be allowed. This clear direction will save us a great deal of money and time in seeking legal opinions and advice on the interpretation of the wording. If we will be permitted to charge a gasoline tax, please say so. If a sales tax is a possibility, we need to know.
In conclusion, the city, like all municipalities, faces a very great challenge in the coming months and years as a direct result of provincial government funding reductions. We appreciate the deficit-cutting motives behind those cuts, but we are distressed to find such a large burden being passed from the province on to the backs of municipal taxpayers through increased user fees, taxes and/or service reductions.
The powers we are requesting today, and those which have been requested in the past, will not be the entire solution to the problems being created by such drastic cuts. These powers none the less are essential to us as we explore and put in place new methods of cost savings and revenue generation. We fully expect to be treated as equal partners in the decision-making process that will so radically change the way we operate, and respectfully remind the government that municipalities have been assured by Minister Leach that he will treat us as partners. More consultation is necessary, and representatives of the city have a great deal to offer in discussions on some of these issues.
We would support a four-week extension to the public participation process for Bill 26, except for those portions dealing with enhanced licensing powers, expanded taxation and user fee authority, dissolution powers over local boards --
Interjection: You don't want much.
Mr Hopcroft: -- and realistic interest arbitration awards. That is the majority view of our council. In the same way the government has committed to working with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in the move to formulate a new Municipal Act by year's end, we fully expect that the government will continue to consult municipal governments on issues in the omnibus bill that are important to us. We are ready, willing and able to be part of the solution, and we fully expect to be involved.
I'm quite prepared to answer any questions that members of the committee may have, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. We have six minutes per caucus, starting with the opposition caucus.
Mr Gerretsen: This looks like one of these documents that was written by council where there's a little bit for everybody. But be that as it may, you and I have been involved, or at least I in my former life, with AMO for a lot of years, and the argument always was, "Give us more power." Would you not agree with that as far as the province is concerned?
Mr Hopcroft: Exactly.
Mr Gerretsen: Exactly. And so the tradeoff this time was: "You're getting a lot less money over the next two years. Your grants are being cut in half. You're getting more powers." Now, you would like to have as many powers as possible when it comes to direct taxation. Would you not like gas taxes, income tax, sales tax? Is that not your understanding, that those are the powers the municipalities would like to have in order for them to do the job they're elected to do?
Mr Hopcroft: Exactly, either through direct transfer or delegation of those powers or through revenue-sharing.
Mr Gerretsen: Right. And although the minister has said in the House over the last three months, "I'm all in favour of more autonomy for municipalities" -- he's said that on at least a dozen occasions -- he now says, "Well, maybe it doesn't mean a head tax or a poll tax or a gas tax or an income tax." He's sort of hedging it, isn't he? He's sort of trying to have it both ways.
1220
Mr Hopcroft: It would appear that there's not any clear direction as to what's going to be permitted and what isn't. We would very much like to see clear directions as to what is permitted, and we would like the broadest possible flexibility.
Mr Phillips: Just to follow up on that, because we're being asked to approve a bill here, many of the mayors who have come before us have said: "We can hardly wait for this bill to be passed. We have so many fees that we think we can impose that we need this bill passed very quickly." In fact, your comments last night, if the Free Press is correct, indicated that you even think waiting four weeks is beyond what you'd like to see happen. I think also you've indicated that at least you are supportive of this bill ensuring that it provides direct taxes: gas tax, I gather, and perhaps sales tax.
My question really is this, if I've interpreted you right. Can you confirm, at least from your perspective, what your direction to us would be, to spell out that this will permit a gas tax or a sales tax?
Secondly, I gather that the city of London has had its grants cut by roughly $15 million. Can you indicate the sorts of fees that the city of London anticipates implementing to begin to make up that shortfall?
Mr Hopcroft: There has been speculation on a number of different fees. Fees for garbage collection are an obvious one and one that we probably already have the authority to do, as many other municipalities have done around the province, many much smaller than London.
I think what we're looking at is just the broadest possible flexibility so that for those services where user fees can be helpful in either raising revenue or controlling demand for services that are maybe not allocated in the most efficient way, we would have the ability to do that.
Our council has looked at a variety of different user fees, but as to taking a position in support of one or another, I think it's fair to say we certainly would enjoy sharing the gasoline tax with the provincial government because municipal roads are a very large proportion of the roadways in this province and without those roads the gas tax wouldn't be there.
Mr Phillips: You would like a gas tax?
Mr Hopcroft: Gas tax is an obvious one.
Mr Phillips: And sales tax?
Mr Hopcroft: Sales tax is one where we haven't really looked at anything beyond some earlier submissions on revenue sharing. I think we have to be very careful, because those taxes are regressive, that they're not overdone. I think we have to be careful that a user fee is seen in a very transparent way as being directly related to a service so that those who use it are paying and those who aren't using it see some tax relief in the longer run.
Mr Phillips: I gather that the city council or you personally were so anxious that it be passed that you didn't want to delay it for four weeks. I guess the council has debated some fees that you're planning to implement and that you'd be ready to go, instead of February 1, March 1. Is that why you personally are so anxious for the bill to get through?
Mr Hopcroft: We're in the process of our budgets coming forward. We probably won't see our budget at the political level for another six weeks to eight weeks, but at the administrative level we need to know what tools we're going to be able to use so that we can work on those.
Time is so short and the amount of money we have to deal with as far as changes to our budget is so great that the more lead time we have the better. We can't afford to be wasting time on opportunities that may be foreclosed to us. That's one of the reasons why we have some serious concerns about the arbitrary powers to take away by regulation what's being given to us in the bill.
Mr Phillips: Gas tax being helpful.
Mrs Boyd: I think you certainly have pinpointed in a very clear way some of the very strange "giving with one hand, taking with the other" aspects of this bill. If your document purports to have a little bit for everybody, Bill 26 does too, until you start to get into the detail of it.
I'm interested in your comment on page 7 around ability to pay under schedule Q where you're saying you would like the government to clearly and further define again this ability to pay aspect: "to specify the consideration of the ability to pay be based on an assumption of no tax increase and no cuts to services."
Someone read out your Internet boast about London being already 24% less taxed than most other cities its size in the province of Ontario, and we've certainly heard from presenters here and in other fora that the level of services offered to people in London in the area of child care, for example, or Paratransit or some of the other essential services to people, is considerably less than for cities in a comparable kind of situation.
So I'm curious. You want these two assumptions to be there and that would then perpetuate the status quo in a way that certainly many of the groups who are served by services provided by the city would feel would just multiply the kind of lack of service in the community. I'd like your comment on that.
Mr Hopcroft: First of all, I would dispute the lower level of service in many areas. I think far too often people equate level of service with per capita spending or the amount of money in gross dollars being spent, and the issue of efficiency really isn't covered in those things.
Marion, you would be well aware of how much money this community saved by tendering our Paratransit contract in a different way than we had previously. We saved over $1 million a year without changing the level of service. I think that's important to bear in mind. So on level of service, I don't accept that we have necessarily a lower level of service. In some areas we do, and I'm quite prepared to admit that, and that's been a local decision.
As to the level of taxation, while we certainly prided ourselves on being a very efficient operation municipally, when one considers taxes, user fees, sewer and water charges and a number of other factors, in fact some of the advantages that we have aren't quite as apparent when you look at the total picture.
Mrs Boyd: Grant, you ought to put that on the Internet.
Mr Hopcroft: That's for others to point out if they feel they can justify it. We're on the Internet to sell our city and to attract investment and jobs for our citizens. I'm not going to get into that kind of argument, other than to say that while we certainly run things efficiently, our taxpayers expect us to continue to do better and to make the best decisions we can for the local circumstances.
Mrs Boyd: One of the issues around user fees is their regressive nature and the regressive nature of things like sales tax and gasoline tax, for example. Part of that Internet information talks about the average income in London being extraordinarily high, $51,000. We know that masks the fact that there's a huge gap between those who are low-income and those who are very well off in our community. That gap is particularly marked in a city like London because of the demographics we have.
Would you not agree that shifting the burden of paying for services to user fees and a regressive tax system, as is suggested by Bill 26, will simply widen that gap and provide fewer and fewer services for those who are at the lower income level?
Mr Hopcroft: Along the lines of something for everyone, I suppose in some cases that would be true; in other cases I think it would be exactly the opposite. I think that for someone who's living frugally, who puts out a bag of garbage every two weeks, a user fee for garbage would in fact give them tax relief and cost them less money than paying for the wasteful habits of some of their neighbours.
So in fact it depends on the service. You can't say user fees are good for everything, because they aren't. There are some things that should, at least locally here in our community, remain free of user fees and should be supported by the general tax base. There are others that doesn't apply to.
The Chair: If we could move to the other caucus now.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I'd like to ask the deputy mayor or the controller a question. Before I do, I'd like to say I'm pleased to see that you support the general thrust of this legislation and I'm even more pleased to see that you've got the strong message the voters have given us, which is that they want better value for their tax dollars; they want more service at less cost.
Now, I don't usually offer money-back guarantees in politics, but I'm going to give you a money-back guarantee. I guarantee you will not be allowed to impose an income tax, you will not be allowed to impose a sales tax and you will not be allowed to impose a gas tax.
Mr Cooke: Or you will resign.
Mr Bob Wood: So you can take that off --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Or Cooke will resign?
Mr Bob Wood: The money Mr Cooke has paid me he'll get back.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Bob Wood: I will give you a money-back guarantee that you are not going to be allowed to impose those. Now, you do make a good point that further definition is required. I would ask if you would be prepared to work with the ministry to assist in any refinements you think are needed as to legislation, if you think that's needed, or guidelines to give clarity.
The reality is -- I'm going to let you answer this -- the minister is indeed not going to give a blank cheque to any municipality. You are going to be subject to the guidance of the ministry. That's the way it's always worked and that's the way it's going to work. It's important that this not be missed.
Having said that, I understand what you are saying in terms of having as much clarity as possible up front. Is the city prepared to work with the minister and the ministry to assist in clarification of legislation where you think it's needed and in respect to guidelines where you think they are needed?
Mr Hopcroft: The answer is yes. And municipalities have never asked for a blank cheque. We've simply asked to be recognized as a legitimate level of government, elected the same way you people are.
Mr Bob Wood: I think that's exactly what you've got in this legislation and we're glad to give it to you.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: On the point that Marion just mentioned with regard to "the minister will control." Which pieces of this legislation and what examples can you give us of what you're really concerned about, other than the user fee part, because I think we've all agreed we're going to discuss what that list should look like.
Mr Hopcroft: That list should be determined locally. That's what we're asking.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Yes, okay, but you've already said you'll consult with us on that.
Mr Hopcroft: I said we're prepared to consult with the government to make sure there's clarity in the legislation so we're not wasting time going down deadend paths between now and when we cast our budgets.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: All right. Do you agree with my colleague then that income, sales and gas taxes are not the purview of municipal government?
Mr Hopcroft: At the moment they're not.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: The legal opinion that was filed basically talks about fees or charges to taxpayers where municipalities are not directly involved: a sales tax, for instance, or gas taxes. That is a legal document that was filed with this committee at the request of the opposition. Surely you wouldn't argue that you want to charge an income, sales and gas tax. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Hopcroft: I'm suggesting that as a level of government we should have access to those taxing powers because I think we provide services that are very important to the public.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: So we'll have to write that in the legislation if we disagree for any reason. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Hopcroft: Yes.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Okay. Just to make that clear.
Mr Hopcroft: But we would like to see the broadest powers possible.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Now at the same time --
Mr Hopcroft: And I guess, to clarify, what we want is clarity in the legislation so that we're not going down a road looking into the feasibility of imposing a tax locally and then finding after we've invested time and effort and not looked into other options, having that precluded by a legal opinion that comes along later or a regulation that precludes it.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. You've had your opportunity. Mrs Cunningham.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think all of us agree, certainly from the city of London's point of view, for those of us who have been involved with the city, they have demanded over a period of time through AMO, as John mentioned before, as has the city of Kingston, that there be more authority for the municipalities, that they want more powers to govern their own city.
That's what we're attempting to do here, but I think in fairness I'm assuming that you're not really sitting here and saying you want it all. There has to be some common sense around what can happen with regard to taxation in the province. I'm just making the assumption you would agree with that.
The Chair: Unfortunately, your time has expired.
Mr Hopcroft: The answer, Dianne, is that we want the broadest possible taxing powers as a legitimate level of government responsible to taxpayers in the same way that other --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think the government has discussed the possibility and it is clear to the public of Ontario.
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
Committee members, some quick housekeeping announcements. Mrs Cunningham, Mrs Boyd, Mr Silipo, can we have some order, please. We will now break until 1:10 for lunch. I hope everyone got that: 1:10 sharp.
Housekeeping: Please speak to the bell captain about luggage and identify whether you're driving or on the bus, because the driver will be loading luggage the same as yesterday. So if your luggage is in there and he doesn't know that you're driving he may be loading it on the bus. Thank you. We'll see you at 1:10.
The subcommittee recessed from 1235 to 1308.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Good afternoon. We have representatives from London and Middlesex OECTA unit. I'd like to welcome you to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd start off by introducing yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Tony Huys: Thank you, Mr Chair. My name is Tony Huys and I'm accompanied by Sheila Brescia, our unit president, and John Mombourquette, a member of our political action committee.
I thank you for this opportunity and welcome the chance to address some of the concerns we have regarding Bill 26, and we have a number of them. The too-short time period of public hearings for so comprehensive a bill forces us to select and limit our comments to four principal areas.
The first of these is the process by which Bill 26 has been handled by this government and, more significantly, the power it will concentrate in the hands of cabinet or place otherwise beyond the scrutiny of Parliament, a process that threatens to undermine the democratic tradition as we have come to understand it.
A second concern is with the environmental legacy that Bill 26 promises for the students and children of Ontario.
A third concern is the ambiguity around school board governance implicit in Bill 26, schedule M. We feel it needs to be cleared up.
Finally, the implications for public sector bargaining are at the very least ominous and, in the view of our most experienced bargaining agents, a very serious erosion of free collective bargaining.
Limiting our express concerns to these four areas must not be construed as support for other provisions of Bill 26. By way of example, we are distressed by the effect of removing the proxy provision from the Pay Equity Act.
We are deeply concerned about proposed changes to the health package of the omnibus bill, a package that will ease the way for American-style health care systems in Ontario; that will deregulate drug prices, a move widely seen as leading inevitably to higher prices; that will ease the way for user fees and facility fees; that will ease the way into Ontario of for-profit American clinics, a decision once taken made irreversible under NAFTA; the concentration of unprecedented powers in the hands of the Minister of Health to close or amalgamate hospitals or specify services they may provide; granting the Minister of Health access to patient records.
We believe that the case for greater efficiency and overall cost savings has not been made for some of these measures, but in the interests of time, we must trust other presentations to elaborate these concerns.
Let me address the first of the four concerns that we identified: undermining democratic tradition. Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, is quite simply too big and too fast. In fact, it's so big and so complex and so far-reaching that Robert Sheppard of the Globe and Mail has dubbed it "the bill that ate Ontario." It's 211 pages long, has 400 clauses and contains 17 schedules for amending or enacting 47 separate statutes. By comparison, it dwarfs the free trade agreement of 1988, a mere 123 pages, 153 clauses and 27 statutes, and yet considered by most accounts a vast and complex omnibus bill in its own right.
Someone has calculated that merely to read the bill, the 2,200-page-plus compendium and the affected statutes at a rate of two minutes per page would require nine eight-hour days. We are therefore inclined to agree with William Walker of the Toronto Star that "the vast majority of Ontarians haven't a clue about the extraordinary powers the Tories are fashioning for themselves."
Thomas Walkom in the Toronto Star speaks of this centralization of power as unsurpassed in this province, a view echoed by the Toronto law firm Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell, which flatly claims that Bill 26 proposes to give, and I quote, "unconstrained powers to make decisions affecting the delivery of public services, and that in many cases these decisions could be made by regulation, ministerial direction or administrative order without parliamentary debate or meaningful opportunity for public scrutiny."
The teachers of our unit, like most Ontarians, need an adequate opportunity to consider and digest this omnibus bill.
Related to our concern over the size and speed of this juggernaut bill is a suspicion about the true intent behind some of its provisions. The Office of the Premier, in a press release of November 29, touts the Savings and Restructuring Act as, and I quote, "legislation to provide the tools to help municipalities, hospitals, colleges, universities, schools and the provincial government to meet the new financial targets announced earlier by Finance Minister Ernie Eves." Why, then, does this omnibus bill contain provisions that in some cases increase costs and in others bear no discernible relation to that stated objective?
As teachers, we are interested in the illustrative model, the analogy. We believe that a comparative look at New Zealand is highly instructive here. Roger Douglas, the architect of New Zealand's transformation into the kind of economy this government appears to be emulating, advised the Reform Party convention in western Canada two or three years ago as follows: "Above all else, do not reveal your true agenda. Once elected, move fast on all fronts -- a sort of legislative blitzkrieg I think he was advocating. Keep the opposition scrambling to respond. Then in the latter part of your term of office, build what he called a retroactive consensus, blame TINA, there is no alternative.
The Conservative Party campaigned on a promise of getting government out of people's lives. Did that really mean getting government out of people's sight? By way of illustration, on the day the omnibus bill was introduced, the sponsoring Ministry of Finance was specifically exempted from an Environmental Bill of Rights provision that any bill or regulation having "a significant effect on the environment" be posted on the environmental registry for at least 30 days of public comment.
Is it merely an astonishing coincidence, or are there buried in the omnibus bill changes that would not fair well in the full glare of public debate? If this bill really is the tool this government claims to need, then that will stand up to such debate. We urge the government to break up this omnibus bill into more manageable sections and to extend the period for debate and public input. Teachers trust that the people of Ontario have enough common sense to sift the wheat from the chaff. That is our experience of democracy.
We are concerned secondly about some of the environmental implications, and I've spoken indirectly to those in some of the remarks above. Specifically, amendments to the Mining Act under schedule O allow companies to avoid public scrutiny of their mine closure plans. According to one analysis, companies accounting for 90% of production capacity in Ontario will now become self-policing. The great fear, of course, is that history will repeat itself, that some operators will simply walk away from serious environmental problems and leave Ontario taxpayers to shoulder the eventual costs of cleaning up. The claim that this plan is a necessary tool for attacking the deficit rings false.
The same must be said for those changes proposed under schedule N. At a time when teachers are incorporating environmental awareness and the notion of stewardship into the curriculum, are loggers, miners and others to be given freer rein to exploit and despoil Ontario's natural heritage? We ask this government to delete schedules N and O from the omnibus bill.
Our third concern, and perhaps a relatively technical one -- we're not sure -- involves school board governance. Changes to the Municipal Act under schedule M, section 8, enable municipal councils to dissolve or prescribe changes to local boards with the regulatory support of the minister. A subsequent bylaw in schedule M dealing with fees and charges specifically excludes school boards and hospital boards from the definition. In other words, they are not allowed to levy charges or fees.
The bylaw referred to earlier, dealing with dissolution, makes no such distinction; and this ambiguity is quite extensively discussed in provincials briefs, so we will not repeat all of those points here, but we do reiterate the recommendation made there that school boards be exempted from the definition of a local board throughout section 8.
Finally, and perhaps our gravest concern, is with public sector interest arbitration. For three reasons, sections 35 and 47 of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, commonly referred to by teachers as Bill 100, as outlined in schedule Q, are of greatest direct concern to teachers.
First, arbitrators are instructed to consider "the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation" as well as "the economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality or municipalities served by the board."
1320
Historically, arbitrators in the Canadian public sector have rejected the ability-to-pay argument as unreliable. At the very heart of that reasoning lies the notion that employees in the public sector cannot be expected to subsidize, through lower compensation, a level of service for which society is not prepared to pay. Arbitrators have relied instead on the notion of comparability. Under it, community standards of compensation, as determined through the free collective bargaining process -- the marketplace, if you will -- are used as the standard against which public sector wages are measured. This appears remarkably close to the economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality provision now proposed in Bill 26 and begs the question of why that needs to be there at all.
That teachers and boards have recognized and understood the community standard economic situation criterion is clear on the evidence. In the two decades since Bill 100 has governed collective bargaining, 97% of local agreements have been reached without sanctions being invoked. Conversely put, the 3% that did not is the statistical equivalent of random chance. Bill 100 has served Ontario well. Bill 26 threatens to change that.
Imposing ability to pay handcuffs the arbitration process and disregards well-established precedents for determining fairness in arbitration awards. Bill 26 effectively lifts society's obligation to weigh demands for public services against preparedness to pay. To say that this will destabilize the bargaining climate understates the case. Teachers fear that they will be coerced into subsidizing public education by an arbitration process tilted against them.
A second reservation about changes to this section concerns the insertion of a new clause directing arbitrators to determine the extent to which services may have to be reduced if funding levels are not increased. We're very unclear about what that means. Does it mean that arbitrators, not educators or parents or students, could decide the fate of educational programs or services? If so, what criteria does an arbitrator use? Will they actually visit the school or community affected? How will they determine need?
Our third and final concern with this section is that arbitrators are now instructed to consider the employer's need for "qualified personnel." In other words, an arbitrator is obliged to consider replacing professional teachers with uncertified staff. We remind members of this committee that this government has shown great determination to press ahead with the establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers. Against that background, this instruction to arbitrators is astounding.
A major part of the college's mandate, according to The Privilege of Professionalism, the report of the College of Teachers' implementation committee, is "to support teachers in developing a comprehensive personal education plan that continues throughout their careers." Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, puts very real teeth into that objective. The registrar is empowered to suspend the certificates of members who fail to meet the ongoing education requirements.
Now on the other hand, should an arbitrator's ruling result in a teacher being replaced by someone not certified, not qualified and not a member of the College of Teachers, then there is no concern that such individuals be accountable for developing and registering a professional development plan. Astounding.
For this reason and those elaborated above, the amendments to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act are ill advised and we urge that they be deleted in their entirety from schedule Q.
In conclusion, the teachers of London and Middlesex OECTA are not indifferent to the public's concern over debts and deficits. We are, after all, very much a part of that public, and we are certainly no strangers to restraint. Dating back as far as Premier Bill Davis, the Premier who brought in Bill 100, we have frequently bargained under some form of official fiscal restraint. Some of us remember 5-and-5 and 1-and-2 and 1-and-1 and 2-and-1 and whatever, and we certainly all remember minus 4.75. Under 20 years of so-called free collective bargaining, half of those have been spent under some form of official restraint. We're not unfamiliar with the notion.
What we ask is that this government engage in true and open democratic debate and place all of the tools available before the people of Ontario. As teachers, we remain convinced of the wisdom of such an educational enterprise. We thank you for the opportunity to present our views and welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We have a little more than three minutes per caucus for questions, starting with Mr Cooke.
Mr Cooke: I just have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask the delegation. First, it's very clear that school boards are part of the section of the legislation that allows municipal councils to dissolve boards, and we gather from the minister it is the intention that a regulation will be set up that will exclude certain boards in a community from being part of that power that a municipality has. Number one, do you agree with me that school boards should be specifically excluded in the legislation, unless we're going to have a debate in the province on whether municipal councils should run the school system, which would be a major province-wide debate on its own?
Second, specifically with yourselves in the Catholic community, do you believe, as I believe your provincial organization said when they appeared before us, that this section of the law is clearly unconstitutional, that the Catholic community is guaranteed Catholic governance of the system and this legislation cannot offer the opportunity to remove that governance?
Mr Huys: You've summed up our view very, very precisely. We concur.
Mr Cooke: Are you considering, if in fact this legislation goes ahead as is, whether there will be a constitutional challenge to this legislation?
Mr Huys: Yes, there will be, through our provincial office, not London-Middlesex.
Mr Cooke: Yes, of course, with your provincial organization.
The other thing that I would like to raise with you is this whole question of arbitration and ability to pay, because I think it's very difficult for the public to understand why this is such an unreasonable amendment. I'd like to just put to you a scenario that I was confronted with when I was Minister of Education and ask you whether this has happened to any of your affiliates that you might be aware of. We had a particular board which set its mill rate at the beginning of the year and decreased its mill rate on the assumption that it was going to achieve a certain wage level in negotiations. There ended up being a strike, and there had to be back-to-work legislation.
If we had ability to pay in the arbitration legislation of the province, that would mean that basically a board could reduce its finances for salaries and then go to an arbitrator and say, "Well, we've only budgeted the following amount, so there has to be a 5% reduction in salaries."
Mr Huys: Precisely. You may be thinking of a board, an experience I am familiar with of a few years ago. That's precisely what would happen, and that's precisely what we're afraid of. I would refer members to the Public Attitudes Towards Education in Ontario survey put out by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education every two years, starting in 1979. Since 1979, in answer to the question "What would you like to see happen to government spending for the following purposes: education...," the trend has been that the public would support an increase in taxation, not just an increase to keep level with inflation but an actual increase in taxation, provided it is targeted expressly for education. The support for that has gone from 35% in 1979 to 54% in 1994. Conversely, the decrease --
The Chair: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt, but we have to divide the time between each caucus, and we're into the next caucus's time. The government caucus, Mr Young.
1330
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): With regard to your concern that school boards be exempted from the definition of "local board," would it satisfy your concerns if that was addressed by regulation or in the legislation itself?
Mr Huys: I'm not sure I understand fully the implications of that and I would be reluctant to comment on it without a better understanding of that.
Mr Young: Your comment where you say that you don't want a situation happening where employees subsidize through lower compensation a level of service in education: Are you suggesting that's happening now in education?
Mr Huys: I would suggest to you that it has happened at various times in the past and I would suggest to you that this legislation allows that to happen.
Mr Young: I think most people, especially people like myself with children, want teachers to be well compensated. We want excellent teachers and we want them to be happy on the job. Do you think teachers are well compensated now?
Mr Huys: I trust the bargaining process to decide that, and that's what I'm asking, that there be no restriction placed on the bargaining process.
Mr Young: So right now, at this moment, are teachers well compensated?
Mr Gerretsen: It depends on who you're talking about.
Mr Huys: Which teacher, yes. Ask an increment teacher their view on that.
Mr Young: We have a $100-billion debt in Ontario, a $9-billion deficit. We're spending $9 billion a year on interest. We need everybody to help us, to make suggestions where we can make the savings. Do you have any suggestions?
Mr Huys: Yes. We think that a fair and equitable tax system is certainly one good start. We think that a policy of full employment is absolutely essential. We think that a fairer distribution of the tax burden vis-à-vis corporate tax --
Mr Young: Increase corporation taxes?
Mr Huys: Yes. I don't understand why a great number of Canadian corporations are paying no tax, while my daughter, who makes $14,000 as a waitress, does.
Mr Young: With regard to your comment from the OISE report that the public supports an increase in taxation for education, do you think the public would support an increase in taxation for the increased remuneration of teachers?
Mr Huys: I think I'm prepared to engage in that debate.
The Chair: We've come to the end of the time for the government caucus. The opposition caucus, Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate your presentation. Just on the fundamental issue of the survival of the school boards, because we know the process a little bit, let me warn you: Never let your future be determined by regulation. All that is, it goes to cabinet, it's passed, and then it's published in something called the Gazette. You have trouble actually finding it.
The public sector pension people have found a problem because the government tried to pass a regulation taking $250 million out of their pension; they had to go to court to overturn that. So my strong advice to the school boards is, don't let your future be determined by regulation. You have to have the bill amended to specifically exclude school boards from being eliminated by municipal councils through a bylaw.
Right now, the way the act is written, school boards can be eliminated by a bylaw of a municipal council. I guess it's more a statement, frankly. I would just assure you that our caucus will be proposing an amendment to make certain that the legislation excludes school boards from being eliminated as a local board, and I urge you to be very cautious on it.
Mr Huys: Thank you for that.
Mr Phillips: My question is around the arbitration as well. It's very clear what the intent is of the arbitration changes. In fact, the government has met with what are called the credit rating agencies and one of the credit rating agencies said, after the fiscal statement and then after meeting with the government: "Public sector wage control and an increased labour flexibility will likely be a key part of the solution, given the upcoming expiry of the social contract in March 1996. Proposed legislation has been introduced that will guide arbitration awards and wage settlements within the broader public sector. This is a very important mechanism that could offset part of the impact of the reduction in grants."
The government is saying to the credit rating agencies: "We've got a good restraint program in here. Even though we're cutting back on our grants, we're going to pass legislation that will direct arbitrators to make awards that will help to compensate for it." I don't think the government is hiding its motives on this; that's the motive.
We keep being told that this legislation around directing arbitrators is found elsewhere, that we shouldn't worry because the same kind of legislation exists in other jurisdictions in Canada. Frankly, we've been unable to find any examples of similar wording existing anywhere else in the country. We were told, by the way, that at one time, for one year in Ontario it existed and then was taken out because it was found to be unworkable, that at one time it did exist in Alberta and BC and was taken out because it was found to be unworkable. My question to the teachers' group is, in your research have you found similar language that exists anywhere in the country?
Mr Huys: The research that I have read and that I believe is more fully set out in our provincial brief supports exactly what you have said, that this notion existed for a very brief time and was found to be unreliable. The notion of ability to pay was found to be unreliable and replaced by the comparability concept. We have not found, we have not seen --
The Chair: I'm sorry; we've come to the end of your half-hour. Thank you all for coming forward and appearing before the committee today.
DAVID WINNINGER
The Chair: Would Mr David Winninger please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Winninger. I realize you're probably pretty familiar with the process, but you have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use the time as you see fit; you may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions from any of the caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you would read your own name into the record for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr David Winninger: My name is David Winninger. It's certainly a pleasure to be here today and to see a few of my old colleagues here today.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the standing committee on general government for the opportunity to speak to these hearings on the government's omnibus legislation. As a former MPP, I'm aware of the important role this committee has played in the past in conducting public hearings regarding rent controls, automobile insurance and other important topics.
You might well ask why, having spent hundreds of hours on the other side of the table, I would voluntarily subject myself to this. I certainly assure you that I'm not a member of a special interest group, unless you include lawyers as a special interest group. But I think this is a worthwhile occasion to take advantage of, and that's why I asked to be on the list of speakers today.
The scope of this present legislation is positively breathtaking. The provincial government will be able to close hospitals arbitrarily, Americanize our health care system, tell doctors where they can and cannot work, disclose confidential health records, merge municipalities without public input and effect many other changes to public agencies in Ontario.
Municipalities will be allowed to charge user fees for services, and a poll tax; and privatize services, such as water, electricity, transit and sewers, without a referendum, as is currently required.
Free drugs for seniors will end and pollution laws governing mine closings will be relaxed.
Police officers, firefighters, teachers and hospital workers will no longer have their wages fairly arbitrated. Instead, arbitrators will now be implementing the government's agenda of pay cuts by considering the employer's ability to pay, the possibility of reduced services and the economic environment when deciding on wages.
Nothing was said in the Common Sense Revolution about wiping out pay equity for 100,000 of the lowest-paid women working in day care, in libraries, in nursing homes; deregulating drug prices; or decimating our conservation authorities and allowing indiscriminate logging, mining and damming of rivers and streams, where permits were formerly required.
And if you want more information on these adverse changes, the government is now restricting access to it. Only people with plenty of money or access to lawyers will know what the government is doing. The provincial privacy commissioner has said this legislation will threaten the fundamental right of people to know what is happening in their government.
1340
A bill with this scope and impact demands public hearings, and I am indebted to the opposition parties for forcing some of these draconian changes into the open for all to see. Whatever the party in power, there is a democratic process to be followed which requires firstly that the opposition parties have a meaningful opportunity to study and comment on government legislation, and secondly that the public, to whom the legislators are ultimately accountable, are sufficiently apprised of the contents of the bill such that they are able to express viewpoints both individually and in the collective.
The ostensible reason for passing this bill, more than 200 pages in length and amending 44 acts, creating three new acts and repealing two others, is the implementation of a $6-billion cut in addition to the $1.9 billion in cuts already announced by the Finance minister.
Many question the sagacity of such deep cuts at a time when an unacceptable number of people are out of work. Economic growth is relatively flat and sufficient restructuring has already taken place, leaving very little fat left in the system. Without delivering on a promise of 30% tax cuts, the provincial government could have continued to control spending and, with moderate growth, have achieved a balanced operating budget by 1998. Instead, the present government has elected to slash spending, throwing thousands of provincial civil servants out of work, and removing countless others in the broader public sector. With so many out of work or having reduced purchasing power, is it any wonder then that the economy has come to a standstill? Many in fact are quickly coming to the realization that the present government's promise to create 725,000 new jobs in its mandate is illusory.
Spending cuts by the Harris government could lead to a loss of over 100,000 public and private sector jobs in Ontario this year. There were 495,000 more people unemployed in Ontario last December than there were under the previous government. Transfer cuts alone to hospitals, schools, municipalities, universities and colleges are expected to threaten up to 60,000 jobs. A minimum of 13,000 employees will be fired from the Ontario public service and the Premier has said up to 22,000 jobs are at risk. Young people under 25, who have a rate of unemployment twice that of adults, have seen a program designed to help them jump start summarily cancelled by this government.
Again, is it any surprise, with the unemployment rate stalled at 9.7%, that Ontario has drifted into another recession? This past October, these cuts were blamed for the economy's second-worst month in three and a half years. Just a year ago, growth was racing along at 5%. What's happened here? Well, meaningful opportunities to learn a new trade or upgrade job skills have been withdrawn with the cancelling of the NDP's Jobs Ontario Training program, for example. Ironically, this was a program that removed tens of thousands of people from the welfare rolls and reduced public dependency, placing them in jobs earning an average of $21,000 per year. This program, worthwhile as it was, has been abandoned in favour of workfare or learnfare, forcing those lucky enough to still be on social assistance into menial work that will keep them mired in poverty forever.
At present, there is no effective way of earning back the difference in welfare rates and many in the STEP program have been cut off. Meanwhile, the promised 30% reduction in provincial income tax will go mostly to the top 10% of tax filers. You can see there in a chart where it's set out just how much the rich benefit from these kinds of tax cuts and how little people of average or lower incomes stand to benefit. This 30% cut means the Harris government will slash $10 billion from essential public services, $4 billion more in cuts than promised during the last election. How irresponsible to cut taxes before the budget is even balanced.
There are many corporations still making large pre-tax profits and deferring their tax on profits and paying an income tax rate no greater than 6%; some nothing. Many large corporations have deferred billions of dollars in taxes.
The Angus Reid poll which was released last Thursday showed that two solitudes are emerging in Ontario -- the haves and the have-nots. Sixty-four per cent of affluent voters, the poll showed, and 50% of middle-income voters support the government. Only 37% of lower income voters support it. While 64% of men approve of what the government is doing, only 37% of women indicated their approval. When this government states that it has a mandate for change, it should qualify this by saying that a majority of wealthy males support Tory policy.
Our tax system has been favourable to business and Ontario has continued to attract new investment, given our well-trained, educated and motivated workers, our transportation corridors for delivering goods and services just in time, our markets, our social services, including quality education, health care and our social safety net.
In 1993, after the proclamation of Bill 40, Ontario experienced the lowest number of work days lost to strikes on record. In 1993-94, new private sector investment in Ontario was up $53 billion and a total of 178,000 new jobs were created. In 1994, for example, there was $8.8 billion in new private sector investment in the highly unionized manufacturing sector, the most for any year in the history of the province.
However, once this present government has gutted health and safety protection, environmental regulations, child care, long-term care for seniors, the drug benefit plan, social housing, rent controls, access to job training, labour legislation, protection for laid-off and older workers, employment and pay equity, advocacy for the vulnerable and disabled and what we thought were core services in the education and health sectors, what will be left in Ontario worth preserving?
The increase in poverty, loss of jobs and downward pressure on wages, combined with cuts to social service agencies which serve troubled communities and troubled families, will increase pressures on children's aid societies, the justice system and health care clinics as we see more crime, more violence, more substance abuse, more family violence, more school dropouts, suicides and other fallout from these heartless and unnecessary cuts, these measures, which in themselves result in a loss of productivity, lower educational attainment and an increasing need for government assistance. This will increase dependency rather than breaking the cycle of dependency as promised in the Common Sense Revolution.
New Zealand is a textbook example. As Murray Dobbin observed on the Ideas program on CBC Radio recently, New Zealand's actions to deal with its alleged debt crisis and become internationally competitive is not a model for Canada and not, as Ralph Klein of Alberta has said, the wave of the future. "`Some wave, some future,' says Dobbin. `More like a tidal wave of cutbacks, elimination of rights for workers, increased privileges for the rich and a handover of crown corporations to private corporations.'"
There is of course another side to the story: the highest suicide rate in the world, 26% child poverty, one of the highest violent crime rates in the developed world, a huge increase in the gap between rich and poor, as we're seeing in Ontario and south of the border, and a lot more.
What does New Zealand have to show today following these massive cuts to social programs, the introduction of user fees, deregulation, reduction in taxes for the country's wealthy élite and privatization? New Zealand's poverty levels have now increased to 40% as social programs were cut, causing violence, ill health, depression and a youth suicide rate which has doubled since 1985 when these reforms were introduced.
To compound these problems, New Zealand's debt levels haven't decreased. In fact, the public debt has grown from $22 billion in 1984 to $46 billion in 1991.
Now unemployment in New Zealand is officially 9.5%. Some people say that the present rate is as high as 16% there. Before New Zealand's Common Sense Revolution, its unemployment rate was 4% in 1984.
1350
Trickle-down economics have not worked in New Zealand, in Thatcher's England and in Ronald Reagan's America. The impossible combination of tax cuts and the promise of balanced budgets that Newt Gingrich promised to win a Republican majority in Congress will devastate urban life, striking the hardest at the old, the very young, the poor and the sick. How can such economics possibly succeed in Ontario when, if there ever were mega-deficits, Ronald Reagan created them?
The middle class should not be lulled into thinking that they will be immune from the effects of these cuts. The termination of special relief to municipalities with extra high welfare caseloads, the elimination of fully paid child care spaces, road allowances and other transportation subsidies and capital expenditure will shift the full load on to the property tax and, in London's case, the water rates. There may be user fees for a variety of services, including snow removal, garbage collection -- blue box funding, I understand, is gone -- library and recreational activities. Even police and fire services could attract extra charges. Public transit will suffer, and community and arts groups could be eliminated entirely in some communities. AMO estimates that once education and municipal cuts are taken into account, the budget would cost every homeowner in the province $250 if they were all passed on in property tax hikes.
In conclusion, I would urge this committee to act as a watchdog to ensure that these unprecedented powers not be given unilaterally to ministers or to cabinet to effect irreversible change by regulation or administrative order without parliamentary debate or public discussion. Further, the Harris government needs to take a sober second look at the long-term damage these spending cuts will have. Postpone the 30% tax reduction and take constructive steps towards creating new trading and job opportunities to get this economy moving again.
If there's a minute or so to read from a letter that a Londoner sent to me, this letter is dated December 11, 1995, and it's addressed to David Winninger, MPP, so he must think that I'm still his MPP. Unfortunately, he's making me take the flak for the Tory agenda. I'll just excerpt a couple of important paragraphs. He says:
"I believe that the Conservative government must protect the workers in this province. Otherwise, the chances of generating a recession worse than the 1930s may result. Let's face facts: Low-paid workers do not buy expensive products like cars and houses. Without buyers, the manufacturing shuts down. Without buyers, the stores close. When jobs disappear, then the tax revenue goes down in a never-ending spiral. The only way to help prevent it is to allow the workers some rights and protection to give them the confidence that the work will still be there next year. I know that cuts are needed. However, the way that the cuts are done should be changed. If this government wants to save money, then why are cuts not made in areas that will not affect jobs?"
This Londoner wrote to me saying, "I should write to you concerning how your government has changed the way that the worker's thought of in this province," thinking that I was somehow affiliated with the Conservative government. He says:
"Why are you as a government, who has no money, constantly eliminating money-making areas of your government, like the photo-radar's $11 million a year to the plus side of the budget? The selling of profitable businesses like the LCBO does not make any sense. Why get rid of revenue-generating areas of government? I know that business people want to buy them, but why should profits go to them when the government needs so much more just to stay even?
"As for the tax cuts, the only people who should receive them are people earning under $50,000. People who earn more than this usually have tax loopholes and investment deductions, while the people below this amount are usually just meeting bills and paying the mortgage. The government may only see the wealthy at their functions, but they need to remember that the majority of people are just barely making a living."
That's the message, I think, that needs to be driven home to this government, and that's why I'm here today, both to speak for myself and also for Londoners like the author of this letter.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winninger. We have three minutes per caucus, starting with the government.
Mr Sampson: I just want to speak to your comment about the New Zealand example you gave. I think your comment was -- well, I'm reading, "Before New Zealand's Common Sense Revolution, its unemployment rate was 4% in 1984." Well, that's because the government was spending money it didn't have on projects to employ people. It had underestimated the true unemployment rate in that country and it was well in excess of 4% and was well in excess of the mid-teen per cent. There were estimates that it was pretty close to being 20%. So the fact of the matter was that they were spending public money that nobody had to fool the public that those jobs were there, and that to me is a misleading situation. But let me talk --
Mr Winninger: Why then, given 11 years of restructuring, do they now have an unemployment rate that is over twice that rate?
Mr Sampson: It's not, but the situation is not to fool people that there are jobs there, spending money they don't have. That's the point, and that's what got the country into trouble.
Mr Winninger: New Zealand did exactly what you're doing, and you should learn from their historical example.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: No, they did not.
Mr Winninger: They did. They privatized, they laid off people, they eliminated social programs, they reduced welfare rates. All of these things are being done by your government that New Zealand did, without success.
Mr Sampson: But they are spending money that they have now. And I might point out to you that --
Mr Winninger: Well, you don't know that.
Mr Sampson: I do know that.
Mr Winninger: Why is it then that their deficit, their public debt, has grown astronomically since 1984?
Mr Sampson: I might point out to you that since the time we have taken government, the cost of borrowing money in this province has gone down -- dramatically. The difference between what we have to pay as a premium over what the government of Canada has to pay to raise money has narrowed significantly. The number --
Mr Winninger: The cost has not gone down.
Mr Sampson: Are you going to let me finish?
Mr Winninger: If there's been any benefit to you, it's because interest rates have been --
Mr Sampson: Can I finish? Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Mr Winninger, please let the caucus have the floor.
Mr Gerretsen: It's his time.
The Chair: Actually they pick up on caucus's time.
Mr Winninger: If he wants to take up all my time, I hope you'll extend it so that other people can have an opportunity to question me.
The Chair: They will.
Mr Sampson: I'm just pointing out to you that that cost has narrowed significantly. The number is about 30 basis points. On $100 million, it's a sizeable amount of money that has been saved by the province of Ontario, because people, and the people we are borrowing money from, now believe we're properly setting the economy of this province in the right direction, where we are spending the money we have, not the money we don't have.
Mr Winninger: Well, the credit rating: Has it changed since the last government? Has Ontario's credit rating, AA-, changed since the last government?
Mr Sampson: You're right. You bet it's changed. It's not changed going down.
Mr Winninger: No, it hasn't.
Mr Sampson: There's no indication from any of the credit rating agencies that they're prepared to take us down a notch --
Mr Winninger: No, but it hasn't gone up either.
Mr Sampson: -- which they did under the previous government three times.
Mr Winninger: It hasn't gone up since you were elected to office. It's that simple.
Mr Cooke: They were warning you about the tax break.
Mr Winninger: And you're going to have a $9-billion deficit, regardless of your --
Hon Mrs Cunningham: We are spending $1 million an hour on interest right now, David.
The Chair: The government caucus's time is exhausted.
Mr Winninger: So why the tax cuts? Why take it out on the poor and vulnerable?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's a new world, David. The poor and the vulnerable --
The Chair: Order, please. We're now moving into the time for the opposition party.
Mr Winninger: Thankfully.
Mr Gerretsen: I would just remind Mr Sampson that the real reason why interest rates have come down has got nothing to do with the province, it's got to do with the international situation and with the monetary policies of the Bank of Canada. If you're trying to take credit for that, that's a little insanity. My friend Bruce here had something to say.
Mr Crozier: Mr Winninger, I'd like to point out that it would seem to me that this government is doing exactly what New Zealand did in that New Zealand spent money it didn't have. The Premier has said the province is bankrupt. So what the Premier is going to do is go out and borrow -- borrow -- $20 billion to give a tax cut. I wish you would comment on that, although you suggest they don't give that tax cut, and if they don't, we have to keep in mind that the only jobs program, if you can even call it that, they've put forward is, "Our tax cut's going to create 725,000 jobs." Would you like to comment on that?
1400
Mr Winninger: Hypothetically, if we could afford a tax cut, which I don't think we can, then that tax cut should favour the middle- and lower-income earners. I don't see any value in a tax cut that enables companies and rich individuals to improve their bottom line and send out higher dividend cheques to the shareholders. As I said earlier, that trickle-down theory just doesn't work historically, and I think even Ralph Klein, who's been one of the heaviest hitters on the extreme right wing, is starting to have second thoughts and he'd say: "Well, maybe we went too far too fast. Let's draw back a little. Maybe some of these health care and social services we've cut back on were worth preserving."
This government doesn't stop to think about what it's doing. That's why it wants to rush through omnibus legislation like this.
The Chair: I'm going to have to interrupt and move to the third party.
Mr Silipo: David, nice to see you again.
Mr Winninger: Nice to see you.
Mr Silipo: On this question of the tax cut, the government likes to continue to parade before us this notion that everybody's going to benefit from the tax cut, and that part of it is true. Everyone up to the low-income sector is going to get some level of tax cut. What they of course don't like to mention or don't like us to mention is the fact that over 40% of the value of that tax cut is going to go to the 15% of Ontarians who are among the highest income, over $85,000 family income. That's who's going to benefit by far and large from the tax cut.
I found it striking, in looking through your brief and listening to you as you described the demographics of the kind of support that there is out there for the Conservative Party, and I think you're right in categorizing the majority of wealthy males support the Tory policy, but it was interesting that one of the presentations I will never forget that we heard in Toronto was from such a person, who described himself in that way, as somebody fitting that category, and he said something which I will never forget. He said, "You're putting poor people's money in my pockets, and I don't want it."
We heard the same kind of thing, not in that way but we heard a comment as well this morning from a number of people, including from the taxpayers' coalition, saying: "If we have a real problem, don't give me a tax cut, deal with the deficit. If you think that there's a real problem with the deficit," as that gentleman believes, "then put the money towards reducing the deficit." Because we know that what is driving the Tory's agenda very much is the large amount of money that they have to cut in order to provide for that tax cut, and those cuts are coming in cuts in services that are affecting us right across.
The only question I really have of you is, are you seeing, in your different dealings now, obviously, than when you were an MPP, any sense among the population that people are beginning to understand that this kind of giving with one hand and taking from the other is not where this province needs to be going?
Mr Winninger: I certainly see a lot of victims of a reduced legal aid plan directly every day. The type of clients I usually deal with are those who are at the poor end of the spectrum, and they are suffering, yes. And I think they're realizing there's a direct connection between this government, its agenda and the suffering that they're being subjected to.
Mrs Boyd: Good to see you, David. We see each other frequently, but on this issue that the government members raise that in fact it is slanted towards the right groups because of the employer health tax, I'm quite interested in your response to that, given the talk that we've had this morning around the regressive taxation and service charges that people are facing, without any consultation or any kind of sense of ability to pay.
Mr Winninger: I didn't hear the discussion this morning, but it's of course of great concern, because what we're moving towards here in Ontario is a flat tax where people, regardless of their income and ability to pay, are all being subjected to the same fees, whether it's to take their kids skating, to take their kids swimming, to get their garbage collected, in some cases to get their roads snowplowed. It's a system that's totally insensitive to the means of people to pay. I'm talking about seniors on fixed income. I'm talking about people who are only marginally employed or not employed. Where are these people going to come up with the money to pay for these services that up to now were provincially subsidized?
There has to be a reason why these programs evolved in the first place, and I think the reason was to encourage access -- for everyone. We won't have a system like that very soon, because this government is moving to ensure that only those who can afford to pay will be able to access these services, so I think your comment is very trenchant.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winninger. Your half-hour has come to a close. I appreciate you coming forward today to make a presentation to the committee.
UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA, LONDON CONFERENCE
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the London Conference, Church in Society Committee, come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to save time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate if you'd take the time at the beginning to introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Rev David Williamson: My name is David Williamson and I'm the chair of the Church in Society Committee of London Conference.
Rev Susan Eagle: I'm Susan Eagle. I'm also a member of the Church in Society Committee for London Conference of the United Church.
Mr Williamson: We'd first like to thank the committee for the chance to present a few thoughts around Bill 26. We understand that not everyone has had the opportunity to speak at these hearings, and that precipitates a mix of feelings within us. On the one hand, we're grateful that we're among the 25% who can voice our reaction, but at the same time we feel regret in the realization that there are many across this province whose voices will not be heard in this significant discussion.
Our committee is the Church in Society Committee of London Conference, United Church of Canada. London Conference is comprised of all the United churches in southwestern Ontario as well as Algoma in the north. It extends from Woodstock to Windsor, from St Thomas to Sault Ste Marie.
Our committee has had a historical presence within the collective life and work of the wider United Church in its broad constituency, and has representation from congregations in every area of the conference. As I said, I'm currently the chair of the committee and I'm pleased that other members of the committee are present here today for today's discussion as well as several other members of the United Church and London Conference.
As you may be aware, the Christian church just celebrated the feast of Epiphany on January 6. Epiphany is a Christian festival that dates back to about the third or the fourth century of the common era. Epiphany literally means light or a manifestation, kind of aha moments when truth is perceived and integrated. The central biblical story of Epiphany is found in the second chapter of Matthew, the familiar story of the three kings or the wise men who journey from the east following a star which finally leads them to a cave wherein they encounter the Creator, God, in a vulnerable infant with his poor, exposed parents. It's an intriguing tale around which I would invite some very brief reflection this afternoon.
Three kings in search of light and life; three kings who understand that the journey towards truth is arduous and long; three kings who spend perhaps years on the journey in pursuit of a star; three kings who readily consult with a foreign monarch in order that they can know the route and understand perspectives not previously available to them; three kings who in the face of truth fall on their knees and offer the totality of their lives to that awareness; three kings who have the humility to be transformed by truth, the wisdom and the courage to find alternate paths for the journey.
These are three wise men says our tradition, three kings or monarchs who model power and position in a manner which seems to be currently missing in our present leaders and in legislation like Bill 26. An overwhelming omnibus bill like this needs the journey. It requires time. It demands consultation with people closest to the reality itself.
At the heart of this Epiphany story is the search and understanding that the trek towards truth is tedious and difficult. It requires the support of others. There are three kings, not one. It demands patience, humility, consultation and courage. The final outcome of the journey towards light and life is ultimately unpredictable.
As a committee within the Christian church, we believe that wisdom is found in such stories about the Creator. We believe that the responsibility of everyone in positions of leadership is to fundamentally discern and enact God's truth. This is never an easy undertaking. It requires the insights of many, a grace and openness that enable even kings to pursue alternate, unexpected paths.
As Christians, we believe that the garden of earth has been entrusted to humanity for the wellbeing of all God's beautiful and valuable children. Increasingly, there seems to be a sense within our province that some are more worthy or more equal than others. Implicitly and explicitly, there's a developing feeling in many communities that certain more fortunate individuals and families deserve a larger portion of the pie.
1410
This has never been the position of our denomination. As far back as 1984, our church said: "The needs of the poor have a priority over the wants of the rich. The freedom of the dominated must have priority over the liberty of the powerful. The participation of the marginalized must take priority over the preservation of an order that excludes them."
In 1986 our church reinforced this view with these words: "In the struggle for economic justice we are being taught to give more weight and voice to those who are most seriously affected by the economic crisis. We are grateful for the leadership given by poor and unemployed people, by those who are organizing for economic justice. A point of reference for our theological reflection has been altered by their experience."
More recently our church at both the regional and national level affirmed the following values as principles for economic development:
(1) Human dignity: The right of all people to be treated with justice, love and respect.
(2) Economic equality: The right of all people to have adequate access to the resources necessary for a full life, including adequate security provisions.
(3) Mutual responsibility: The obligation to care for all people, ensuring their basic needs are met.
(4) The right of all people, regardless of race, religion, class, gender, ability or sexual orientation, to full participation in the life and decision-making of the community.
(5) Ecological sustainability: The obligation of the community to practise responsible stewardship of the earth and its environment so that creation might preserve for generations to come.
Finally, fiscal fairness: The responsibility of all to contribute fairly for the wellbeing of all.
This past Christmas, the moderator of the United Church of Canada, in a pastoral letter signed by herself and the 13 conference presidents, wrote these words to congregations all across this nation:
"Brothers and sisters, the social safety net has begun to unravel increasingly because governments are unravelling it themselves. The people we hire through our taxes to tend the safety net are being laid off as federal and provincial governments cut their budgets. In many provinces, the cuts are happening with little thought of how people will cope. Some political leaders use dangerous rhetoric, dividing our communities into those of us who have enough income to be taxed, and them, people who are sick, disabled, unemployed, in need of education, medical care or enough income to survive."
She writes, "We need leadership in each community of this country for the short-, medium- and long-term things that must be done as we reweave a social system in Canada that is driven by justice and stewardship."
The Church in Society committee of London Conference echoes those words. We yearn for leadership within this province that builds community and seeks the wellbeing of every citizen. While we support the notion of reduced deficit and debt, we reject the idea of a tax cut. It is a naive and silly concept. It will only add to the polarization within this province and will do nothing for the vital work of job creation.
We believe that any omnibus bill, certainly Bill 26, should not be rushed in order to pursue a particular political, economic or ideological agenda. Ambiguity within the bill and the potential consequences resulting from its enactment demand time and consultation. The voices of those most affected need to be heard and their stories need to shape its reformulation.
We would embrace such wise, just, compassionate and healing leadership. The arrogant alternative is neither helpful nor welcome.
So much for the generic. Our committee has specific concerns about Bill 26 that we will now address.
Ms Eagle: Specifically, there are certain aspects of Bill 26 that are very troublesome. We believe that there are three very dangerous directions in which the bill moves our province.
First, the direction of more and more arbitrary decision-making by an increasingly select few and with little or no consultation: The creation of this bill itself and the attempt to pass it quickly with no public debate is proof enough that this is a direction of this government. We are all too well aware that the only reason this bill is receiving any public review is the result of the actions of opposition members in the House and we thank them for that. However, within the bill itself we see this direction of arbitrary decision-making.
There are many examples within the health section, such as the power to terminate hospitals or for one individual to take on all the power of the hospital administration and board. However, in the part of the bill being considered today, there are also examples.
Schedule M amends the Municipal Franchises Act by adding, "Despite this or any other act, a municipal corporation may pass a bylaw to eliminate the requirement under this act to obtain the assent of the electors before the corporation exercises a power under this or any other act."
Another example, the Public Utilities Act is amended by adding, "A municipal corporation may pass a bylaw to eliminate the requirement to obtain the assent of the electors before the corporation exercises a power under this act."
Another example of this loss of power by the general public can be seen in the amendments to both the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Both pieces of legislation are amended to give more power of refusal to the heads of institutions. Requests for information can be dismissed on the grounds that they are frivolous or vexatious and the commissioner is given new powers for dismissing appeals of the decision to refuse access to information. The further addition of a fee structure for any information that is provided makes the ability to access information more difficult, possibly even prohibitive for many people.
The second direction that we have concern about, the right of appeal: As many of the examples of this loss of the right of appeal are found in the health section of the act, we'll just briefly mention this direction. Not only is right of appeal further limited within Bill 26, the speed with which decisions are made and acted on makes appeal very difficult. It is also difficult to appeal decisions that are not known until they are acted on, and for this reason we see loss of the power of appeal as a very real consequence of the concentration of decision-making power in fewer and fewer hands.
Bill 26 opens the door for dispensing with public boards and agencies that have acted in the public interest in a watchdog capacity. Again, it is difficult to appeal decisions that are not known until they are being implemented.
The third direction, victimizing the vulnerable: The third very dangerous direction in which we see Bill 26 taking us is the further victimization of the already vulnerable. This we see as having a detrimental impact not only on people but also on the environment. Bill 26 opens the door for user fees that will further distinguish haves from have-nots in our communities. We would like some assurance that the legislation will protect emergency response services from being vulnerable to user fees or limited to those who can pay for them.
We also see the application of user fees for other services, such as libraries etc, as a direct assault on the fabric of the community. The increased dependence on user fees, the step back from pay equity, even the move to highway tolls, are all signs for us that the government is moving away from equity and further eroding the ability of the poorer and weaker members of our society to be full participants in the mainstream of community life.
We believe that Bill 26 also attacks the integrity of creation by undermining already weak protection of the environment. We're concerned not only about people but also the environment.
Schedules M, N and O, with amendments to conservation authority statutes, acts administered by the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Mining Act, all move in the direction of granting more freedom to business enterprises with fewer controls and safeguards. For example, the Forest Fires Prevention Act is amended to remove the requirement for work permits before carrying on of logging, mining and other activities within 300 metres of the forest.
The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act is also amended to allow people to construct dams without a permit except in certain prescribed circumstances. The relaxing of upfront scrutiny of mining companies leaves communities vulnerable to serious environmental damage if problems arise. The cost of prevention, in our mind, is far cheaper than that of long-term damage and cleanup.
We would ask this government what commitment it is prepared to make to enhancing, not undermining environmental protection.
The directions that we believe underlie Bill 26 so seriously flaw the outcome that we believe the bill should not be implemented without radical changes in direction and much more public scrutiny and evaluation of impact.
1420
Finally, adding to the crisis, this bill is set against a background of cutbacks that are already having detrimental effects on many sectors of our community. Health care programs have been cut, community college and university budgets have been chopped, junior kindergarten has been made optional at the same time that child care subsidies have been cut. Social assistance rates have been cut by 22%, leaving many families with the awkward and impossible choice of paying the rent or feeding their children. Shelters for battered women are at risk and legal aid is not guaranteed. Halfway houses have been shut down and many agencies are facing significant cutbacks in service and staffing. Housing projects have been cancelled and public housing is being considered for sale. As well, many workers are facing the fear of layoffs and a very uncertain future.
We note that Bill 26 and the economic statement that brought it into being do little or nothing to deal with the real and root causes of the economic crisis that we face. The high proportion of unemployed people in this province is not reduced by simply cutting back on access to social assistance and other social security programs. Jobs are not created by creating greater destitution for those in need. Children are not better served by attaching user fees to emergency and community services that would protect them and help them grow into healthy, educated adults in our communities.
Communities are not well served by cutting out the community access and input to decisions that affect the future character and wellbeing of municipalities. The environment is not protected by simply shutting our eyes to the damage being done, and neither is democracy served by shutting out the voices and contribution of those who care deeply about the kind of society we now are and shall become.
Finally, our recommendations:
We encourage the government to delay the passage of Bill 26 until the real impact and consequences of its recommendations can be analysed and understood through public consultation and dialogue.
We encourage the government to consider the real and root causes of the economic crisis we face and work on systemic solutions rather than dealing with symptomatic relief.
We encourage the government to seriously consider its promise of job creation made during the election.
We encourage the government to consider alternative revenues, such as those that come from fair and equitable taxes and the growth of stable and secure jobs.
We encourage the government to remember the all-party federal commitment to the elimination of child poverty across the country by the year 2000.
We call on the government to reaffirm its commitment to democratic decision-making and the right of all citizens to participate in the life and design of local communities and the setting of provincial priorities.
That is our presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about three minutes and 20 seconds per caucus, starting with the opposition caucus.
Mr Gerretsen: I'd like to thank you for just an excellent presentation. Sometimes sitting on this committee you get the feeling that we're only dealing with economic issues, but you've certainly put a very human touch to it in your first five or six pages, that life in Ontario is more than just a case of economic entities coming together etc. I think what always made us a little bit different in Ontario from American society, for example, is the fact that we do have a sense of compassion towards one another and we build on consensus rather than on dividing the haves and the have-nots.
I was very struck by the way you put it relating to the tax cut, because that's certainly something that we've said throughout. You've probably said it better than any of us have ever done in the Legislature when you said it's just a very silly notion and it will polarize us even more and it's got nothing to do with job creation.
The last five pages of your presentation: I think whereas most of the other delegations have usually dealt only with one or two of the schedules, you've more or less looked at them all and made some very broad, general statements about them which I think are very correct and appropriate.
Can you just tell me what the church is involved with currently with respect to assisting, over the last six months or so, those people who simply have not been able to cope? What's happened to your mission in that regard and how many more people are you helping than you were, let's say, six months ago?
Mr Williamson: Maybe I'll just tell you how I spent the morning. I live in Chatham, Ontario. I spent the entire morning today with as many churches in the city of Chatham as cared to be present, along with most of the significant social agencies, as we tried together -- so it's developed some partnerships, I guess. I'm still personally reeling from a decision made in our community last night by the board of directors of our youth hostel to discontinue operation on January 26. We're profoundly saddened by that. I've got a meeting of our own denomination this evening and that'll be something we struggle with, how to respond to that. The executive director will be in the pulpit of our congregation on Sunday sharing her story with anybody who cares to listen.
It's a continual thing that just keeps coming at us, and developing some partnerships is taking just incredible amounts of time. Certainly we assume it'll take very significant dollars to begin to respond to some of the very urgent and immediate crises.
Ms Eagle: Here in London a number of our churches are planning to look at the Out of the Cold program that's operating in Toronto right now. We're doing this and we're expanding services. Most churches have got food banks and foot drives etc going on, but we're doing it with a great sense of sadness that this is the only solution right now for many people in crisis.
I know of families, Because I'm a community outreach worker, where we've got two families living together in one apartment. I know of other situations where families of six, seven and eight are living in a very tiny one-bedroom apartment. People are being squeezed and squeezed and squeezed, and the Band-Aid kind of stuff is not going to cut it. This Christmas, for our children's party out in the northeast part of London, where we normally have about 200 children who come for the party, we had 350 children enrolled. That, to me, at the very basic level gives me some sense of the impact on the community of what's been happening.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you both very much for coming. Many people expect the kind of service work you've described in dealing with some of the problems that are there, and certainly the government members have frequently talked about churches picking up the pieces and creating community and so on. But there are those who criticize the London conference, the council of bishops, the council of religious orders, all of whom have spoken out against this bill and against the actions of the government for getting involved politically. Why don't we just put it on the table? Can you tell us why you think it's appropriate for a faith community to understand the connection between social justice and politics?
Mr Williamson: I think it's foundational and just absolutely fundamental. I can see no other reason for churches existing than to build up the realm of the Creator. If we're not about that, shut us down, I don't care.
Ms Eagle: I guess anyone who has done any biblical scholarship at all, if they are a Christian, knows that the entire gospel is filled with a call to being active in the community and working for justice. In fact, our lectionary readings this past Sunday were filled with the requirement that people of faith go out and work for justice in the community. If you have any connection to the Christian church or to any of the other faith groups, you know that's a basic tenet of being a faithful person.
Mr Young: I totally support your recommendations that we consider "the real and root causes of the economic crisis that we face" and then, another paragraph down, "the growth of stable and secure jobs."
You talked earlier about a journey, and that has been our journey and it is our journey. The journey didn't start this month or it didn't start in November, in my view. Our PC caucus went out, starting in 1992, and it had town hall meetings and public meetings all across the province, with the focus on economic renewal and jobs.
They compiled the words in different books -- the Blueprint for Learning, a blueprint for small business, a blueprint on a number of things -- approaching the election. Their conclusions were put into an election platform focused on economic renewal and jobs. One million copies were distributed. Never before in the history of Ontario has that happened.
All the candidates ran using the platform. We won 82 out of 130 seats, which in a three-party system is a massive majority, and we are implementing it. That's a pretty long journey and it's a very democratic process; it would be irresponsible of us not to.
One of the presenters yesterday brought us a letter from one of the churches, the 4,000 Roman Catholic sisters, brothers and priests, an open letter to all people of goodwill. It calls for political action: Write letters, visit your elected representatives, look for non-violent ways to express solidarity with the poor etc. What I notice is missing in this letter is a call to help people directly. It's a call to political action, and I understand that's your view.
But another presenter this morning quoted an old saying that the government should stay out of church business and the church should stay out of government business. Don't you have any concern that if churches are getting increasingly into government business, some future government at some time might start to get into church business?
1430
Mr Williamson: I'll give you my quick reaction. I personally think that would be wonderful, frankly. That would be just wonderful. If we're all in the business of creating a kind of community where --
Mr Young: Let me tell you what I'm thinking of. There have been governments in the past -- there's one in Ottawa -- where there's a lot of discussion around taxing the churches, which I don't support. I would never want to see that, because of the great work that you do. But that doesn't prevent some government in the future from saying, "These churches are operating like a business, they're operating like a political party; maybe they should be taxed." I have a fear of that. Don't you share that concern?
Interruption.
Mr Young: That's uncalled for.
Ms Eagle: Perhaps I can give you the answer I gave the other day to that. That's been dangled in front of the church for some time now. I'm rather tired of that being dangled in front of churches, because it seems to me that it's offered sometimes in the form of a veiled threat, that if churches don't back off speaking up and saying what they have to say, perhaps somebody will take some action against them. I see that as a threatening kind of thing, but if it happens, it happens. We are mandated through the gospel to speak, and even if the churches become a voice in the wilderness, they still have to speak the truth as they see it. The Quakers have a phrase about speaking truth to power. I think that's an important thing for us to continue to remember: that as power grows, it's more and more important for us to speak truth in the face of it.
There was one other comment that you made about job creation. Certainly the distribution of a million booklets must have created a few jobs for a few people.
Mr Young: But that was to get the message out. It was a very democratic process.
Ms Eagle: Our concern is that there were jobs promised. In fact, many low-income people voted for the Tory party because they believed that somehow at the end of that time there were going to be jobs for them. What we're seeing now is that there aren't jobs for people.
Mr Young: Well, there were 1,000 jobs announced for Alliston, the Honda plant, and 200 jobs at the Disney studio coming to Toronto, and there will be more.
Ms Eagle: We know that there are jobs being created; I'm not suggesting that there are no jobs being created. But we have to balance that with what kind of jobs are being created. Are they part-time, minimum wage, with no benefits, which many of them are, and how many jobs are being lost at the same time?
The people in the street know that there aren't more jobs out there. There was an article in the paper just this past week that showed there had been a decreasing number of help-wanted ads being run in newspapers for the last two or three years. There are fewer jobs for people to go and look for. You can go out in the street and talk to people and they'll tell you that the statistics on paper are one thing but the reality of the streets is another. We speak out of that reality of the streets because we're with those people and we know that they're struggling to find jobs.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm sorry, Mr Young, you've come to the end of your time.
Thank you both for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
OXFORD REGIONAL LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Oxford Regional Labour Council come forward.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'm sorry, ma'am, I can't speak for Mrs Cunningham's whereabouts. She's not a regular member of the committee. I know she's here today because we're in her riding.
Interruption.
The Chair: Excuse me, ma'am, I apologize for interrupting you, but we have a certain amount of time for each presenter and I wouldn't want to cut into their time from another person in the audience.
Gentlemen, welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit; you may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Broderick Carey: My name is Broderick Carey, president of the Oxford Regional Labour Council, and with me today is Terry Coleman, the first vice-president of the Oxford Regional Labour Council.
The Oxford Regional Labour Council represents 8,000 members from such diverse industries as retail, auto, textile and agricultural through open-pit mining and federal, provincial and municipal civil servants. We are here today at the request of these members, who have deep concerns about the method, thrust and impact of Bill 26 on themselves, their families and their community.
We wish to begin by thanking the caucuses of the opposition parties, without whose valiant efforts this process would not have been possible. We believe that the attempt by this government to shut out debate on a piece of legislation of this magnitude, not only in the Legislature but in the communities affected, is wrong and a gross abuse of the democratic process. In a jurisdiction with a healthy and living democratic process, we do not believe that marking a ballot every four or five years constitutes the end to an individual's duty to the government. The general populace has not only a right but an obligation to register their thoughts on any issue, and the government has an obligation to respectfully listen and make changes to create a whole and inclusive society. Bill 26, if passed largely untouched by this process, will be an extension of an undemocratic government committed to bringing about its own vision at any cost, even if the cost is democracy itself.
The Common Sense Revolution and democracy: As with any revolution, this one is designed to shift power, and like any other revolution, there will be claims that for the common good there will be casualties of fairness and justice, and the end justifies the means. Democracy abhors the philosophical notion that in a democracy fairness and justice are at the end and the thrust of shift of power is only possible through the democratic process. To ignore this is to say that a revolution, commonsense or not, is more important than democracy. We hope this is not true in the case of Ontario.
Casualties in fairness and justice: Women: Bill 26 abolishes the right to fair pay for 100,000 women in day care, children's aid, nursing homes etc in the province of Ontario, by eliminating the proxy value comparison from the Pay Equity Act. If there is no male-dominated job class of equal value at the same employer, the female-dominated job class will lose its right to fair pay. Making matters worse is the retroactive measure that is not binding the employer to achieve pay equity even where the proximity value has been posted. Not only do the women lose; so do the communities they live in. This casualty directly impacts our members and their communities and is not acceptable.
Public service interest arbitration: In the essential service area of the public service, such as fire, hospital, police, public service and school boards, the right to strike is traded for interest arbitration in settling collective disputes. Bill 26 will introduce new considerations into the mix of arbitrators' guidelines. These new considerations are nothing but an employer's wish list, while at the same time forcing arbitrators to make political decisions, therefore allowing the government to wash its hands of the democratic process.
Requiring arbitrators to consider the ability to pay is just a smokescreen for willingness to pay. The stipulation that arbitrators must consider service cuts if current funding levels are not increased is purely a political decision which the government can then say it is not responsible for. We must ask ourselves if this is the type of leadership we are asking of our government. An arbitrator may cut a municipal service and announce layoffs, and the provincial government can throw up its hands and say, "It's not our fault." Let us go on the record right now and say, it is your fault if Bill 26 is passed without amendment. This issue affects our members in communities directly and it is not an acceptable casualty in a democracy.
The Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act: This government seems to find particular joy in hurting the most vulnerable in our society. The amendments to the above pension acts are a case in point. To facilitate the dream of a Utopian capitalist society, the government has, through Bill 26, developed a strategy whereby it contracts out, privatizes or just cuts public service and ignores pension rights of those who lose their jobs, the same rights that every employee in this province has.
1440
Bill 26 exempts employers from the guarantee that employers' contributions will fund at least 50% of the cost of the pension. The right to immediate vesting of the entire pension and the right to grow into early retirement and bridging benefits again is retroactive to January 1993. This once again directly impacts on our members and the community and is an unacceptable casualty in a democracy, and I'll have Terry take it from here.
Mr Terry Coleman: The three issues covered in section A can and should be seen for what they are: a direct tax on women and the unemployed to fund the ideological goals of an undemocratic government.
Section B, the tax cut fallacy and democracy: Municipalities: The restructuring amendment to the Municipal Act is the lever of a machine designed to allow the provincial government to: (a) reduce provincial income taxes, (b) allow the municipalities to tax that reduction back and more, and (c) make the Municipal Act more undemocratic.
The changes in Bill 26 allow the minister to amalgamate, dissolve or create municipalities. Although the minister must act on a recommendation from a restructuring commission that fits the restructuring guidelines, those guidelines appear to be open to the interpretation of the minister, and in fact any order of a minister or commission prevails over any other legislation with which it may conflict.
Bill 26 takes away the requirement to hold a municipal referendum to privatize public utilities, such as electricity, water, sewer or transportation services. Is this the government's view of democracy?
Bill 26 goes on to allow greater access to money by the imposition of direct taxes other than property tax. The bill allows the setting of fees that discriminate among different classes of people. Municipalities and local boards, with the exception of hospital and school boards, are given broad new powers to charge user fees and other charges and they appear to be virtually unlimited. Is this the government's view of less taxation?
This measure surely affects all of our members in the communities they live in and shows that cutting taxes is just a shell game in which the government can take the expedient way out instead of the responsibility.
Freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation: Freedom of information is under direct assault in Bill 26. The proposed amendments give the heads of institutions the right to judge whether a request is frivolous or vexatious, even where the requester would otherwise be entitled to obtain access under the legislation. Although an appeal is allowed, this new amendment will result in access being denied to those unable to afford the appeal.
Bill 26 also allows for a fee payable in advance for any information retrieval and the appeal. The bill does not impose any limits on amounts to be charged, but does allow for different amounts to be charged for different records or persons. On top of that, there is also the requirement for a fee to access a person's own personal information.
It is our opinion that these changes violate the intent of the legislation while raising taxes and shielding the government from direct public scrutiny. Therefore, this measure, like the last, is just government expediency with a tax increase. Is this the government's view of democracy?
Section C, environment and democracy: The Mining Act: If enacted, Bill 26 will amend the Mining Act to abolish the current procedure of which approval of a mine closure plan must be in place before a new mine is allowed to open. There is still the requirement of a closure plan, but it must only be approved by the company itself. That seems a bit too convenient to our sensibilities, especially when no one knows what the long-term cost will be.
Another change will eliminate the need for many mining companies to provide a combination of cash and letters of credit to deal with any future problems. These companies only need to prove that they are financially strong enough to pay for any future environmental costs. Several questions come to mind in thinking this through: Who is the judge of "financially strong enough"? How often is this proof needed? What are the criteria?
In our opinion, the environment is too important to leave to polluters for a government that says it's committed to our future.
Conclusion: If there is an agenda at work in Bill 26 it is short-term pain for many, followed by more long-term pain. People in this province are crying out for jobs and security, and this government answers with layoffs and more insecurity. To hide that agenda, Bill 26 allows the province to forgo its responsibility by forcing that agenda on municipalities, the poor, the sick and the unemployed. There is an abrogation of the democratic process at work which alarms our members.
We must ask ourselves some fundamental questions about our future at this juncture: Are we collectively willing to sacrifice democracy for an uncertain future? We hope not. Are we willing to give tax relief to the few at a cost to the many? We hope not. Are we willing to sacrifice our environment so that some companies can make short-term gains and leave us with an environmental mess? We hope not.
We believe in the right of any government to bring forth any piece of legislation. In exchange, the government must listen to its constituency. This bill being brought forth in this manner is a serious mistake, and it should be withdrawn.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll start the questioning, at five minutes per caucus, with the third party.
Mr Silipo: I'll start by pursuing that last point you made, because one of the things that we found quite striking as we've listened to government members continue to justify, indeed the ministers continue to justify, the need for this legislation is the myth that they have been proclaiming that there is such a fiscal crisis, an economic crisis, that it warrants them having these extraordinary powers and taking these extraordinary steps.
One of the things that we have been pointing out and we see certainly in your brief and those of many others is that in fact while there is indeed a fiscal problem that needs to be addressed, even the government's own actions seem to be contradictory, because if there was such a strong need to reduce the deficit as they are proclaiming is the case, there doesn't seem to be much logic in cutting so much, in terms of what they are cutting, in order to pay for the tax cut. The single largest area of cuts -- they say $4 billion; we think closer to about $6 billion -- is needed in order to pay for the tax cut, a tax cut which is not going to largely benefit average- and low-income Ontarians but is going to benefit far more greatly upper-income Ontarians. Do you have a comment on that kind of approach that's being taken by the government?
Mr Carey: We really believe it's the wrong approach. Like you said, the tax cut is going to benefit the rich the most. The people on the bottom end of the scale are going to end up paying more, because they're going to have to pay user fees for their garbage, they're going to have to pay so their children can go to the library, they're going to have to pay for so many other things that are now basic services that they should have.
We have a great concern that this government is cutting so much out of the system that it's going to cause more unemployment by the billions of dollars in cuts because that's money they're taking out of the economy which the school boards, which the other services across this province use to purchase goods and provide services throughout the community. If that isn't there, then we have more people thrown out of work and then we don't have a safety net there to protect the people, to help the people so they can have the basic things at least: food on the table and shelter over their heads. We have grave concerns with the direction of this government.
1450
Mr Silipo: One of the things that I was glad to see you covered in your brief was the issue of pay equity. I think, as you state, there is a clear shift here by what the government is doing in asking in this case women to pay for the economic problems that it believes we have. In this case we're talking about 100,000 women who are among the lowest-paid women. I remember, as someone who was very involved in the last government in bringing about the proxy pay equity package, what a sense of relief there was when we finally got to it, even with all of its problems still in terms of how long it would take under that plan for women to reach pay equity, a sense of relief that came with knowing that finally we had managed to figure out a way to cover those 100,000 or so women who had been left out of the earlier pay equity provisions.
What I find troubling is to continue to hear the government members justify the elimination of proxy pay equity on the basis of saying that it's a return to what pay equity was originally meant to be. I always understood that pay equity was supposed to be a measure that allows women to be paid equally for the work they do in a comparable way to the pay that men are receiving, and that in fact there was a big gap that existed under the previous legislation that we were able to rectify. I was happy to see that you picked up on that, but I also just wanted to underscore that we're talking here about not just the elimination of something else but about the elimination of a basic right for some of the lowest-paid women in the province.
Mr Carey: Exactly.
The Chair: Members from the government side, Mr Tascona and Mr Sampson. Mr Tascona first.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for your presentation. I just want to focus on freedom of information. As you know, the power to reject frivolous or vexatious requests is going to be put into the hands of the municipalities, school boards and police forces. I want to give you an example of a situation where the police forces in particular have asked for this power. It was a situation where it cost the police forces involved in excess of $75,000 to deal with an individual who had made in excess of 770 requests and 272 appeals, and the type of information that he was looking for was -- this is reportedly what he was asking for -- such things as how often the police washrooms are cleaned, how many fax machines the police have and all reports of alleged UFO sightings -- that type of information.
I'd like to ask you, based on this type of information that the police forces are saying is totally unreasonable, do you think it's reasonable that taxpayers' money should be used to fund requests for such information? We're talking about significant money here that the taxpayers have just paid out, and it finally took an order by the privacy commissioner to say this is a totally outrageous frivolous and vexatious request. But at the end of the exercise it cost us $75,000 to say, "You're not entitled to information on UFO sightings." Do you think it's unreasonable to be putting that type of power in the place of police forces and school boards and municipalities to protect the taxpayers' purse?
Mr Carey: I don't see how we should penalize the masses because of a rarity across this province. We may have a few of those cases, but there are plenty of cases across this province where people deserve and are entitled to and have the right to that information, and we should get it. We just don't feel that any government --
Mr Tascona: There's nobody denying the level of decision-making at a lower level in the community, by the local elected officials.
Interruption.
Mr Carey: I think the gentleman at the back said you're just passing the buck and dumping all the responsibilities on the municipality.
Mr Tascona: You don't trust your local officials. Do you trust an unelected bureaucrat to deal with your information?
Mr Carey: But you're dumping all your responsibilities on them.
Mr Tascona: We heard a different view yesterday from the labour council, saying, "We don't like unelected bureaucrats determining our rights and determining information we get."
Mr Sampson: I'm interested in your comment about the environmental aspect -- I think you were talking about the Mining Act amendments and how you were concerned about how that would negatively impact the environment. Do you think what we should be considering perhaps is legislation whereby inspectors can almost land at a mine site unannounced and perform an investigation and seize documents etc? Is that the type of approach that would be helpful in protecting the environment, in your view?
Mr Carey: I don't know if that's totally helpful. I know that the system we have now works. It gives an opportunity for the community to feel secure that, should something happen with the mine and it closes, their environment is going to be protected and there are funds there to protect them, and the public doesn't have to pay.
Mr Sampson: Right. There are examples of some situations where mine recoveries have been delayed because the government was not able to get access to the information and to the site until it had jumped a number of hurdles, freedom of information being one of them, local bylaws being the other. Don't you think it would be important for us to be able to, or do you think it would make sense for us as a government to be able to, give more authority to inspectors to deal with environmental issues immediately as opposed to waiting for the bureaucratic process to allow them into a site to investigate etc? Would that make sense to you?
Mr Carey: I have no trouble with inspectors going on, just as I would with the Ministry of Labour inspector going on and enforcing rules. But those rules have to be there and the support has to be there for them to do that.
Mr Sampson: The extra authority given for mining inspectors is indeed part of the bill: schedule O. It's overwhelming power. Basically, they can go and seize property without even warrants. The equivalent would be somebody coming into your house and busting through the door and saying: "I'm here. I think there's an environmental hazard here." That's the equivalent of what we're allowing the mining inspectors to do under schedule O. Our view is that it will improve our ability to respond and deal with environmental issues, site problems, site cleanup problems, because the problem with those situations, as you probably know, is that the damage that's caused today will only get worse unless action is taken immediately.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Mr Sampson. You've come to the end of your time.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. I'd like to get some of your comments on the climate that this bill is creating for collective bargaining. The Ontario government is bargaining right now with its public sector union. I'll start with the pension issue. To refresh all of our memories, some time ago, I think within the last two years, the public sector negotiated with the government a deal with the pension. Then the new government decided to try and, through a regulation, essentially take $250 million out of your pension fund. You took them to court, or the union took them to court --
Mr Carey: Yes, OPSEU.
Mr Phillips: -- and the court said: "The government's wrong. You can't do that. You're acting illegally."
Now what's happened is that the government, because they lost in court, have decided to write a new law that exempts them from the Pension Benefits Act, which is very unique in itself, because that act was designed to protect all pension members, public sector, private sector. But because the government tried to do it with regulation -- the court said they were wrong to do it -- now this bill exempts the government from the Pension Benefits Act with the specific intent of taking $250 million, that would have been the members' entitlement in the pension, out of there.
What's your feeling on the climate that might create as we head into collective bargaining?
Mr Carey: It creates a major climate of insecurity, I guess. With the concern with the cuts, it has a major concern that their pensions that they've worked for for so many years and invested so many years in are going to be lost, and no way of recouping it. Yet, everybody else in the community who has a private pension would be entitled to a wind-down allowance in their pension that this government is trying to take away from them now.
Mr Phillips: There's another section in the bill, and I'm interested in this because I don't think there's much doubt there's going to be some tension, to put it mildly, between the public sector union and the government. I'm just interested in the climate.
The second one that's very interesting to me is the arbitration issue, schedule Q, as they say in this document. First, these direct arbitrators give in a way that doesn't exist, as far as we can determine, anywhere else certainly in Canada. When the government talked to the credit rating agencies about how they're going to control costs, one of the big things was, "We can control costs because we're going to impose these new restrictions on arbitrators." There can be no doubt -- zero doubt -- that this dramatically enhances the bargaining power of the government and dramatically decreases the bargaining power of the employees. That's just a given.
Again I ask the question to the labour council: Just what's your feeling of the climate that section of the bill might create as we head into bargaining?
1500
Mr Carey: Over the years, one of the pillars of our society has been free collective bargaining, and what this government is going to do is take all that away and really make a mess of the whole thing. It really takes out everything the collective bargaining process does, which is to allow both sides to sit down and collectively bargain, come to a fair and equitable settlement, resolve their concerns and then get on with business, which is running their workplaces across the province.
Mr Phillips: The third part is again on the climate. You mentioned taxes and fees in here and you say it appears to give the municipalities virtually unlimited flexibility in fees.
You're absolutely right, and that's what the government says; that's their intent. This is their description of the bill to people trying to understand it. It says, "What is the intent of the user fee provisions of the bill? This legislative amendment will generally provide unlimited flexibility, thereby overriding all existing limitations on user fees. The proposed amendments confer significant discretionary power to council regarding activities to which a fee may apply."
Even as the bill is written right now there's a clear indication that it would permit local taxes. Again, I suspect one of the intentions is that when you put a fee on things, people tend to get angry, and so the risk we're running here is creating a climate of anger, which is that the provincial government wants to say, "We're giving this nice tax break." Then you find that at every municipality. Those three things are just around the climate I think we'll face on collective bargaining in the next few months.
The Chair: Thank you for coming forward today to make your presentation to the committee.
LONDON POLICE SERVICES
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the London city police come forward. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit and you may wish to save some time at the end of your presentation for questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Bruce Brown: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. My name is Bruce Brown, and I am the director of the professional standards branch of the London police and legal counsel to Chief Fantino.
It is on behalf of the chief that I appear before you today. Speaking for the chief, who is as well the vice-president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, our concern is that the current structure of police services boards be preserved and not politicized by delegating control of policing services to local municipalities. To date, police services boards have been preserved by the provincial government, a decision for which police services throughout the province are grateful. However, under the proposed section 210.4 of Bill 26, a police services board, or indeed all police services boards for that matter, could become local boards by dint of regulation. The municipality would then have the authority to dissolve the board.
We believe that the structure of the police services boards as presently constituted is logical and sound. To turn control of police services over to municipalities would be to revert, essentially, to life as it was under the old Police Act, which permitted formation of police committees of council. This was one of the problems which resulted, historically, in the drafting and passing of the current Police Services Act, since there were documented cases of political interference with policing as a result of local council involvement. In some smaller centres, the committee of council was comprised of the entire council; in other words, the entire local council became the overseer of police. The relationship of the police to local council then becomes one of master and servant, a relationship which makes independence of the police from partisan municipal politics very difficult indeed.
There are greater issues here than merely dollars and cents. The nature of policing services is very different from any other service provided by municipalities. The police deal with public safety and fundamental questions of the liberty of citizens. To put matters in perspective, if library hours are shortened no one is placed at physical risk.
The police community is the heart and soul of public safety. Before making any changes which would alter the accountability and chain of command of the current police structure, I would urge you to consider that bigger picture. The police are and should be ultimately accountable to the public with whom they interact, not to the local municipal political structure.
It is critical, in our view, that the integrity and autonomy of police services be maintained by preserving the separation of the police from the influence of local politics. For the sake of efficiency and honesty, we want to avoid the influence, or even the appearance of the influence, of partisan politics. Under the current regime, we are able to do so. If the city were to absorb the responsibility for ultimate control over the police, a good system would be replaced by one, in our view, far less efficient.
For the safety of both officers and the general public, the current structure should not be dismantled. Public safety, through efficient management of police resources, ought to be in the hands of professionals who have a thorough knowledge and appreciation of police work.
Mr Jim Caskey: My name is Jim Caskey, and I'm counsel to the London Police Services Board. My position here today is to support the initiatives in Bill 26 in so far as they relate to freedom of information changes that are contemplated; that is, we support the initiatives in Bill 26 in so far as they relate to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the municipal act.
Historically, you may know that it was the London Police Services Board and Chief Fantino that were concerned about abuses of freedom of information by reason of requests coming in from certain individuals to the London force and indeed, we ascertained, to all municipal police services. As a result of that, Chief Fantino and the board initiated a civil suit, in conjunction with Sarnia and Windsor, that resulted in a court decision referring the matter to the information commissioner and a hearing before the information commissioner that was heard last year in late August.
As a result of that, Commissioner Wright found that the act did provide, in his view, certain matters that allowed him to restrict access to information on the part of persons who were abusers and those who were using the act in a frivolous and vexatious manner. However, we all recognized at that time that it would be preferable to have legislative change that would implement those things that Commissioner Wright found.
We're here to thank you for the initiative in turning that into legislation and making it clear to all persons who have access to the act and want access to information that it is a freedom we have to that information that ought not to be abused; it is a freedom that is precious and one that requires you to be responsible in the way in which requests for information are made.
I have with me Superintendent Dan Vickery, who's in charge of this aspect with the London service, and I would like him to address you in relation to some of the concerns that London continues to have.
1510
Mr Dan Vickery: Mr Chair and members, I too echo Mr Caskey's words in relation to the proposed amendments to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Simply put, and in reference to the previous speaker's comments, it is not the average member of the public we wish to prohibit from having information; it is the person who abuses the system. Quite frankly, the legislation did not have that authority and it now has, at least as proposed. We believe that frivolous and vexatious requests have been addressed. I should point out too that it is on reasonable grounds that those incidents can be identified, not just at the whim of some individual within the organization.
We feel that the fee schedule has been addressed to the point that during the first three quarters of 1995, we experienced a 20% increase in requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; we processed 60 formal requests and 75 informal requests. We are there to accommodate, to speed up the process for members of the public requesting information.
We also feel that the process of the appeals has been addressed and we are very appreciative of that. A ground for appeal was that the records did not exist, and there is nothing we can do to countermand that on appeal; either they do or they don't. When that whole process is initiated and hours of work put into it -- the fact that we have sent in a letter saying that the records don't exist launches an appeal is simply a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
We also feel that in general any recovery of other costs has also been addressed and at least will put the London police in a position to recover some costs for the services we provide. Thank you.
Mr Lex Bullock: My name is Lex Bullock, also legal counsel to the London police force. I'd simply like to reiterate the comments Mr Brown made about the fundamental difference in police services from other services provided at the municipal level. I think that's a point that ought not to be lost track of in the broader debate about Bill 26.
The Chair: Thank you. We have six minutes per caucus for questions, and we'll start with the government.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for your presentation. One area you haven't addressed is schedule Q, the interest arbitration, the mandatory criteria being proposed. We did hear from the Ontario police services representatives in Toronto, and I'd like to ask for your comments with respect to the criteria. Do you think they're strong enough or do you believe they should be strengthened, and if so, where?
Mr Bullock: Generally, the London police force concurs with the police association submission that was made to this committee with respect to that. The suggestion that the arbitration provision with respect to private services be amended somewhat is something that the police services association has addressed and that the London police force concurs with.
Mr Tascona: With respect to freedom of information, we did hear from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who expressed some concern, that the process should be that he decides; in other words, we'll have the approach not being at the local level, but him having the powers since he has made a decision on that. You have commented on that, but I'd like to hear your comments.
Mr Caskey: We understand Commissioner Wright's position. The problem that brings is that he then asks the institution to produce to him all the data and all the information we've been asked to produce in the initial instance so he can decide upon it. We would actually be going through the process and taking the time and energy to produce all that information so he can decide on it. It would almost be easier, in many instances, for us to make the answer to the individuals themselves than to give all that information to the commissioner and let him respond.
We see it as a duplication and a waste of the energy at the level, understanding that as far as police services are concerned, they see their mandate more as serving the community and protecting than they do in answering requests for information. Although that is a part of the job, they think they should have their time and attention spent on servicing community needs and protecting the public as opposed to that aspect of it.
That's what we see as being the difficulty in leaving it in the hands of the commissioner. That's fine as an ultimate arbiter, but in the initial instance, we think that if you don't have faith in the person who's the head of your institution, you've got a very serious problem. I think we all have to have faith in those people who lead our institutions to make rational, sensible decisions and, when they have reasonable requests, to understand that they will respond to them.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for your presentation in that regard, because I have to say that some of the information that went into building this piece of the legislation around freedom of information was built on the London case and the appeal. Could you describe to us who else was involved so we get it straight?
Mr Caskey: I will. The London force initiated and sent letters to the large municipal police services to suggest that a concerted effort was necessary to curb these abuses. We received responses in a positive way from the chief in Windsor and from the chief in Sarnia saying, "We will support you economically and with data we can give you." We initially received a positive response from Metropolitan Toronto, but unfortunately the initiative in Toronto was curtailed after some considerable debate in Toronto and they had to withdraw their support.
When we went ahead with our court application, it was the London Police Services Board, the Windsor Police Services Board and the Sarnia Police Services Board that ultimately took it forward before Justice Brown.
We went to get a declaration from Justice Brown to the effect that the act could be interpreted in such a way that it could curb abuses. Up to that point, the commissioner's position was that the act is clear that you must give the information and there is no reason not to. We took a different view of the interpretation of the act, and Justice Brown gave a ruling and indicated that we should now go back to the commissioner for the purpose of a public inquiry into that aspect of it, and that's what we did.
That was in late August. There was a reserved decision until October, at which time Commissioner Wright gave us a decision that said he agreed with us that he thought the act was broad enough to allow him to curb abuses. However, he felt only he could curb the abuses. He didn't think the institution should have any right to make an initial decision, and that was where we disagreed with him.
That's why we think this initiative in this legislation is the proper one, because it does say to the head of the institution: "You've got the authority. You must be reasonable, you must be fair, and unless you have a very good, cogent, reasonable reason why you will not give it, you shall give it." We think it answers those questions.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, that's the end of the time for the government caucus. The opposition caucus.
Mr Gerretsen: My question is to Mr Brown. You realize that your position with respect to the police services boards is directly contrary to the city's position as presented by deputy mayor Hopcroft earlier.
Mr Brown: Yes, sir, I'm aware of that.
Mr Gerretsen: Just so we're clear on that. I've been both chair of a police commission and the mayor of a city at one time, so I know the nuances involved there.
Aren't there basically two issues? There's the issue of who ultimately controls the budget, and there's the issue of the composition of the board. Let's deal with the composition of the board. Do you have any problem with there being more municipal representatives than provincial reps on a board?
Mr Brown: I'm happy -- and I speak for the chief -- with the way the board is composed now, which is three provincial and two municipal.
Mr Gerretsen: That's the way you'd like to see it stay.
Mr Brown: Yes.
Mr Gerretsen: The second issue is that I take it you like the ultimate control over the budget being not by council but by the Attorney General.
Mrs Boyd: The Solicitor General.
Mr Gerretsen: Well, by the province. You prefer that because they are less likely to cut you down in funding. Is that correct?
Mr Brown: No, it's a matter of accountability more than that. Funding is inextricably linked, in my respectful submission, with control, and when you have funding and ultimately control at a municipal level, the police are accountable at a municipal level. We see it as essential to have a separation between the police and the local municipality.
1520
Mr Gerretsen: You realize, of course, that what the minister has said is that he will write in by way of regulation the fact that police boards are not part of this act, and you realize that once it's by way of regulation, it could be changed at any time at all without any further debate, consultation, but with just the stroke of the pen.
Mr Brown: That's the concern that I expressed under section 210.4, sir.
Mr Gerretsen: All right, thank you.
Mr Crozier: Mr Gerretsen didn't leave me an awful lot to talk about.
Mr Gerretsen: I've got a few more here.
Mr Crozier: But at the very least, I should say hello again to Mr Caskey, because in the town of Leamington we worked together when I was mayor.
Mr Caskey: We did indeed, sir.
Mr Crozier: I'll just go a bit on what Mr Gerretsen had said, and I know you made the comment that police services are different because they protect public safety. Others would argue, in the education field perhaps, that education is equally important in its own way.
I'll put my municipal hat on because I want to be convinced, as I have been up till now, that police services boards should be separate. But police budgets are a significant part of a municipality's expenses, and in the case of small urban municipalities, if you take out county costs and education costs, police services are the next highest cost.
How can we get this accountability and make the taxpayers of a municipality feel, through their council, that they have some control over expenditures, and a major one like police services, and yet not have a police services board that has to respond to municipal council?
Mr Brown: I suppose that if you're tying in those who collect the taxes and those who distribute the taxes with being those who also ultimately control the police service, then logically, from my point of view, it would be better to go to the provincial level and fund all policing from the provincial level rather than municipally. Myself, I would prefer to see that than to see power turned over to the municipal government.
Mr Crozier: Thank you. I'm glad you said that because I can recall, again, where there were certain dictates that came from the province to municipalities and yet the municipalities felt, "We have little control over this. You dictate the service we provide. You provide us with X number of dollars, but above and beyond that the municipality has to raise the money," and therefore raises it through taxes, of course.
I would hope the government might take your suggestion and that if police services are going to be controlled by the province and are going to be equitable across the province, perhaps that's something that should be reviewed and it maybe should be one of those things that should go the other way from what we're doing at the present time.
The Chair: Mr Phillips, you've got one minute.
Mr Phillips: It's completely unexpected. I'd just highlight, because I'm not sure the public appreciates fully this issue that you've raised, and the distinction: Right now this bill goes forward and the government has shown no intention of changing it. What it does is to put the discretion in the hands of the minister to determine whether they want to have police services boards as they currently are or a committee of council. The debate is over. The debate will be over on this issue from the Legislature's point of view at the end of January, because thereafter it is in the hands of the minister.
I guess your strong advice to us -- are you speaking here on behalf of the London Police Services Board or the provincial police services board?
Mr Brown: I, sir, am speaking on behalf of the chief of police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.
The Chair: Thank you. You used your minute very effectively, Mr Phillips. The third party.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you for your presentation. I share the concern you've raised around police services boards, and given the very forceful comments of London city council representatives this morning and some of the other presenters around police services boards being no different than other boards and agencies, I think it's extremely important that we clarify why it's different.
What are the dangers of having the municipal council in control of both police policy and budget-making? Where does the danger lie? Where is the conflict of interest, which we really know we're talking about there, and how does that affect us as citizens? What is the citizen's interest in this? Because the claim of many people is that this is simply a self-interested position. I think it's important to somehow get on the record that this is of interest to everyone who lives in a community that is policed by a municipal police board as opposed to the provincial police.
Mr Brown: I certainly don't mean to impugn the character of anybody who is currently on the present municipal board, but historically, in the past, and particularly in some smaller centres, there have been difficulties with the concept of a committee of council inasmuch as the police, who are working very closely with these individuals, wish to have perhaps a change in policy, a change in direction. Not everybody on council sees things the same way. Officers will team up with individual members of council and whisper in their ears, and pretty soon you've got a dialogue going on at that level.
Mrs Boyd: A politicized dialogue.
Mr Brown: A politicized dialogue. Exactly. And that's exactly what we want to avoid.
Mrs Boyd: I would agree with you, but I also agree that there is a problem around the budget issue. Certainly when we went through all the discussions around disentanglement, one of the issues for the municipality clearly was -- and you have to admit there has been a very bad history in the last few years of police services raising public fears about public safety, using statistics to show that they need more and more police officers, and that becoming offensive to those who are budget-making around the whole situation.
Can you suggest a way, in this discussion that the Solicitor General claims he will have over the next year on the Police Services Act, that the interests of an independent police services board and the interests of the tax-raising municipalities can somehow be reconciled?
Mr Brown: First of all, I would take some issue with your suggestion that the police fearmonger in order to raise money for more police officers. In London, for instance, our per capita is $125 per citizen, something like that.
Mrs Boyd: I wasn't talking about London. I know we are leanly policed in London.
Mr Brown: We always try to do the best we can with the resources that we have. But I think conceptually what you have to look at is a police services board that is a professional board governing professional people, if you regard policing as a profession, which we certainly do, and in order to effectively lay down policy and lay down procedures, there has to be a clear and cogent understanding coming from above down to everyone below. In my submission, you don't necessarily get that when you've got a slate of elected officials, with all due respect to everybody here, who come through every couple of years at the municipal level. There is a professionalism there.
Mrs Boyd: The firefighters were saying a similar kind of thing. They're in the other situation where they are very much the servants of the municipality and saying that there ought to be a standard that has to be met before municipalities can decide they can't afford to pay. So that's one issue.
Just relating to the privacy of information, I think it is a shame that two individuals, who have harassed me as well, have brought about a change that in effect has a very real meaning for a lot of people. Of course, in the best of all possible worlds, every citizen in a jurisdiction would trust their police chief. The reality is not that. The reality is that people have in the past experienced and continue to experience difficulty in receiving information that they believe ought to be public under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In fact, with how you formulated it, Mr Caskey, we wondered why we would have an act. If all this could be done at the local level, why do we have an act at all? Well, we have an act because people weren't getting access to information. The media wasn't getting access to information; citizens weren't getting access to information.
So it seems to me that in trying to correct one problem that was a very real problem and a very expensive problem but involving two very unique individuals, we now have a change in law which may make it impossible for the ordinary citizen and for the media to access the kind of information in an appropriate way. I think that's a very serious overreaction and I think the privacy commissioner has suggested a compromise that needs to be looked at. He cannot just simply take someone's word -- I mean, perhaps on UFOs we could, but on most pieces of information. I know, having run an institution, I would like to be able to say to people who ask me to do a lot of work, "I don't have that information." It may or may not be true.
1530
Mr Caskey: In fact, I think you make some assumptions that just aren't quite right. I think that anybody who's in the position of a chief of police, and indeed in most institutions the head of that institution, is there because they're rational and reasonable people for the most part, and they are there to administer the oath of office which they've taken.
If the request is reasonable -- and indeed we have negotiated some. For instance, where someone wrote in and asked for the size of boot of everybody in the department, you say, "Now, what's that got to do with anything?" Well, the answer was he was a boot manufacturer and he wanted to know whether he should make boots on spec. Certainly. So when the reason for it was given, the rationale being there, it was something that sounded a little bit more than just a UFO sighting.
I think that as long as reasonable people dialogue together, you can come up with a proper result. I don't know of any citizen who's put a reasonable request to a police service and been denied access, providing they didn't want it yesterday. If they walk in the front door and say, "Give it to me now," they're likely to be turned down because they're not just there to answer for some of the demands on the spot. So I think some people have a misunderstanding of time frame, but I don't know of anybody who's been denied information where their request was reasonable and the time frame was reasonable and they put it in the proper perspective.
Mrs Boyd: Would you agree with his definition of --
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, and Ms Boyd. Unfortunately, we've come to the end of your half-hour.
Mr Caskey: It sort of has its own definition in law.
The Chair: We appreciate you coming forward to make your presentation to the committee. Thank you.
MEGAN WALKER
JOE SWAN
SHEILA DAVENPORT
The Chair: May I please have Megan Walker come forward. Welcome to the committee this afternoon. Thank you for coming. You have half an hour to make your presentation today. 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 all three of you would read your names, and your affiliations and organizations, or not, into the record for both Hansard and the committee members.
Ms Megan Walker: Thank you. My name is Megan Walker. My municipal address is 237 Windsor Avenue in London, Ontario, and I'm a member of London city council, but I'm here today as an individual. I would like to introduce two of my colleagues who are with me: Ms Sheila Davenport, also a member of London city council, here as an individual as well; and Mr Joe Swan, again a member of London city council. But we are here today as individuals.
We would like to speak to you today about three key concerns: equity in service, shifting of decision-making authority, and the appropriate process that will produce supportable outcomes for residents.
Let me start with equity, equity in the sense of dealing fairly and equally with all concerned. Equity in service is essential in ensuring a healthy community and high quality of life for everyone.
The two specific areas of Bill 26 which we are addressing today that threaten this principle are user fees and access to information. The user fee concept, as intended, is quite simply another form of taxation. Its purpose is to replace the amount of funds by which the provincial transfer payments have been reduced. While politicians call this downloading, the public call it a regressive form of taxation.
We remind you that we currently have an efficient and fair tax: personal income tax. We find it disconcerting that the Harris government has not only promised but has relished a 30% personal income tax reduction when, truthfully, the means to achieve this will result in significant negative, long-term financial consequences to the local taxpayer.
Furthermore, user fees will cost those who are less wealthy and have already suffered as a result of the Harris cuts more than their fair share. Income tax is a graduated fee; user fees are not. User fees for the purposes of revenue generation should not be identified as a taxation tool for municipalities. Due to drastic reductions in provincial transfer payments, they are being offered as the only alternative to severe cuts in municipal programs and services. This so-called tool is nothing more than shifting from a provincial level to a municipal level a cost which will ultimately cost the taxpayers a lot more in the long run and significantly increases the risk of further deepening the unprecedented polarization that has occurred since the election of the Harris government.
The second issue that threatens equity and fairness are the amendments proposed in legislation to access to information. The purpose of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is to: (a) provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that (1) information should be made available to the public, (2) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific and (3) decisions on the disclosure of information should be reviewed independently of the institutions controlling the information; and (b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and to provide institutions with a right of access to that information.
The amendments to schedule K contradict the act's very purpose. Allowing or imposing a fee for information beyond cost recovery will most definitely deny individuals with scarce financial resources the right to know what is happening in their own government and, further, denies these same individuals with access to their own personal information.
The amendments do not include a provision to permit the head of an organization to waive the application fee in appropriate circumstances, such as financial hardship. Further changes to the act will result in what can only be described as a money grab. Individuals will be required to pay an application fee, a fee for a search of records which could result in denial of access and then an appeal fee to challenge the denial. If unsuccessful in challenging the denial, individuals will have spent money without receiving any information.
Clearly, more thought, study and consultation with the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is required if residents are to be granted their right to know what the government is doing.
Mr Swan will now address our concerns regarding the shifting of decision-making authority.
Mr Joe Swan: Thank you for coming to London to hear from our community. An important issue we want to raise for the committee is one I'm sure you've heard on many occasions but we think it bears repeating, the sheer scope of transfer of power. It seems to withdraw power from a number of different bodies and communities and put it solely in the hands of the minister and into the hands of individuals in Queen's Park.
Specifically, we're really concerned about the overall powers to particular ministers that is spread out throughout Bill 26, powers that will provide the opportunity to eliminate public debate. It will eliminate, we feel, due process in the discussion of those very changes that are going to affect local communities. With one stroke of the pen, the minister can change the face of Ontario with little debate, little public consultation, little input, and the very people who are required to implement those changes may not be aware the change has been made, nor the process used to make that change, and consequently have grave difficulties in even implementing the changes that are put in place.
1540
A third area we're concerned about is what appears to be a growing number of opportunities for somewhat top-down decision-making structures in which provincial governments, whether it be this one or others, have unilateral opportunity to impose new fees, new rules, new regulations and basically impose a significant amount of new will, provincial will, on local communities. It's of grave concern to us.
This transfer of power -- I think we would all agree on the importance of the Legislature as a place for public debate and public policy consideration. We're concerned that the shift in these new powers may put that debate into the hands of the minister and exclude the legislative process and the very committees, such as this one, in which you can hear public debate, and we're concerned that while Mr Harris has been effective in streamlining government, reducing cabinet and so on, the increasing number of decisions and an increasing amount of authority placed in the hands of the minister -- I think those two goals are going to end up in conflict. You have a reduced number of decision-makers with a greater degree of decision-making. We're concerned that, given the pressures on all decision-makers at all levels of government, you're going to run into somewhat of a gridlock in how decisions will get made. Less people to make more decisions equals, in our view, problems on the way, and it doesn't make effective use of the committee or the legislative structure.
Secondly -- and this comes a lot from the experience in the annexation process -- the schedules that deal with annexation and alteration of community boundaries: Certainly the annexation process that we had to go through in this community could only have benefited from the ability of communities themselves to be involved in the process, and transferring that power again into the hands of ministers to make these decisions does not bode well, in our view, for good boundary alteration and good commitment to the kinds of structures you want to put in place. I certainly had several disagreements with how that annexation process worked in London, but none the less the ability to debate that with colleagues and with citizens is something we should not lose sight of. We feel that in particular those amendments and those changes are going to exclude the kind of debate you'll need in order to get the communities you want in the province of Ontario.
I think the last point that we're trying to raise is this area around new rules, regulations, fees and duties on local decision-making boards and commissions. It appears to us that the provincial government is repositioning itself to move from someone who was an enabler and a facilitator for community growth and economic development and healthy communities into somewhat of a position of a de facto ruler who will understand the rules of the game and pass them and we will somehow know how to implement.
It seems to be a shift in thinking, a return to a somewhat centralized form of government, and we are concerned that there are over 800 communities in this province that are willing to be partners with the provincial government, have tremendous strengths they can offer, and the shift in powers into a more centralized decision-making, specifically into the hands of a cabinet decision-making authority, is going to bypass the very communities that I think you're trying to help. We're very concerned about that tone in the document. I think we really need to come back to first principles about local input, local control, local decision-making and, within environments like this, hearing the public debate on issues. We're very concerned, I think, that we're moving beyond that.
As an example of how local input and local control can be effective, I'd like to turn to Ms Davenport, who's going to talk a bit about the Vision 96 process that we in this community have gone through that we found to be very helpful in the decision-making.
Ms Sheila Davenport: Over the past three years, London has undergone an extensive community consultation process, which was mandated by the previous government, known as Vision 96. This intensive community consultation allowed Londoners an opportunity to clearly define the kind of city they would like to see for the future. Over 5,000 Londoners responded to this consultation, and their valuable input assisted the city in creating seven plans, including a community service plan, an economic plan, an environmental plan and a land use plan, which we are still in process of doing.
Vision 96 recognizes that planning should occur in a holistic, interrelated manner to ensure a healthy community and a high standard of life. London is one of the very few municipalities to have engaged in a public consultation process of these dimensions, and the overriding message is that the public expect to be more closely involved in both planning and decision-making matters.
What about the process engaged in by this government -- your government, Mr Chair? Londoners have requested copies of the bill and have found them difficult to obtain. I have personally been asked for copies of them. The bill implements some draconian changes, and the public wants and needs the opportunity to understand these changes. Many groups and organizations have been denied their right to present their views.
Such bills, at best, are long and difficult to understand, and this one is of an enormity and complexity creating, I believe, three new acts, repealing two acts, amending 44 others. It's a complexity that is staggering. The grouping of these acts covers a spectrum of issues affecting all aspects of our community life. We need to know, for example, how user fees, access to information and health care changes will impact our lives.
Reference is often made to the mandate of the Harris government. It is important to remember that of all the registered voters in the last election, the Harris government received only 28% of the eligible vote: 38% did not vote, 19% voted Liberal, 13% NDP and 2% voted for others. The vote for the combined opposition was 34%, or 6% more than the Progressive Conservatives. This does not constitute a mandate for unilateral change.
This bill needs more study, input and debate from all interested stakeholders. We expect that you will extend these hearings, and above all we expect that you will honour the democratic process.
Ms Walker: In summary, we are concerned about equity in service, particularly as it relates to user fees and access to information; the shifting of decision-making authority from the community to Queen's Park; and a process which is tokenism at best. We suggest the following recommendations:
(1) Don't hide from the truth. Call user fees what they really are, additional taxes, and accept responsibility for placing municipalities in the position where they have no choice but to impose this additional tax.
(2) Consult with the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and follow its advice. There is no organization more experienced or knowledgeable on this issue.
(3) Inclusion of public debate and process must remain fundamental to restructuring of governments and their boundaries.
(4) Ministerial powers need to be restricted to those that will support local decision-making.
(5) Ministers should focus their decision-making powers in a manner that will lead to partnerships with communities, rather than imposing new fees, rules or duties without appropriate consultation with the people and communities that are affected.
(6) Extend the hearings to allow for meaningful, all-inclusive participation and debate from all individuals, groups and organizations.
(7) Understand and accept that the Harris government has under no circumstances been given a mandate for unilateral change. While the Harris government's initiatives may provide a favourable response to the bottom line of the budget this year, the long-term financial consequences threaten the economic health and wellbeing of our communities. Failure to recognize the implications of what is happening is nothing more than irresponsible political decision-making.
In closing, we would like to know when we should expect to hear back from the committee about what action will be taken as a result of our input. Additionally, we would like to know when the voters should expect to know the implications of this act. The voters, the majority of whom did not vote for this government, expect answers and accountability.
1550
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation. We have roughly three and half minutes for each party to comment or have some questions. We'll start with the opposition party.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. In answer to your question about when you'll know the implications of the act, I think you should expect that the act will pass on January 29, because nothing the opposition can do is going to stop that. I gather that many municipal councils want to take their fees up very, very quickly, so the public should begin to see the fees going on almost immediately. Certainly our understanding from the mayor of Mississauga, the mayor of North York, is that they are anxiously awaiting this.
Mrs Boyd: And the mayor of London.
Mr Phillips: I didn't want to raise this, but --
Ms Davenport: Don't be delicate.
Mr Phillips: According to the press reports, I gather city council can hardly wait -- not all city council, but city council in total. They can't even wait four more weeks for more debate on the bill, because I gather that city council's anxious to get on implementing fees.
By the way, when the government gave us a briefing note on this, it said the reason for this legislation is to provide what they call "unlimited flexibility," thereby overriding all existing limitations on user fees. This is like the Wild West of user fee time. There are no more limitations on user fees.
Ms Walker: I really appreciate your comments. What we were referring to more specifically is in relation to the Harris government. Surely to God a government would not impose an act like this on communities without considering the implications. We would like to see the implications as they have determined them so far.
Mr Swan: I wonder if I could address this notion of user fees. If I were to wear the corporate hat, the corporate interest of a municipality, when one is faced with drastic cuts one is required to find alternative sources of revenue. When one has the responsibility to deliver service, one needs to quickly respond to those demands.
But I think it is safe to say that if one were able to take off that corporate demand to balance your budget, if one could remove that imperative, one would take a step back, as I think this group has, and say, "Is it in the long-term interests of the community wellbeing to move away from a fairer taxation system for the delivery of service into the imposition of user fees?" We would say as a fundamental principle that is a wrong direction. You're moving away from a fair system into an unfair system.
I respect Controller Hopcroft's presentation and the council's vote because of demand, because of pressures to balance budgets. If one had one's druthers and said, "Do you support the implication of user fees as a fair way to deliver services?" I think you would have a far different answer.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. The answer, Ms Walker, to your comment is that they haven't done any impact studies. In fact, one of the things we're seeing as we go through these hearings is that when you look at the multiplier effect of all the changes they are doing through the budget cuts, through this act, through the changes to the municipal planning act, the multiplier effect is quite enormous. It seems very difficult to get people's minds around the overall impact, particularly on specific groups of people. We had PUSH here this morning talking about the multiplier effect for disabled people. I know seniors have brought up the same thing. Those of us who work with youth and children know that's the case.
In terms of the planning issues and the Municipal Act changes, which are central to your presentation, we would like to think that the very painful and difficult experience we've been through in London over the past 13 years around the whole issue of annexation and planning might be seen by this government as a useful blueprint for what is wrong about this process sometimes and what could be better.
I'm as discouraged as you are that this puts in the hands of the minister decision-making that makes it expedient. Sure, they can do it fast, but we know from our experience here in London that fast isn't necessarily good and that without all the balances and all the planning things through Vision 96, we might have had a disaster on our hands that could have split our community. I wonder if you'd like to comment on that.
Mr Swan: Being a member of a group of citizens who dealt with the annexation process, it's the dialogue and debate that is the important point of view. It is the ability to manage change within your own environment that's important. Drawing a line on a map is not the imperative that's the problem. It's managing the change process, building community support, understanding roles and relationships, understanding the differences between agricultural communities and urban communities. If you don't initiate debate, policy and planning, you put the minister in the role of simply drawing lines on a map, and that does not bode well for the province of Ontario, to have restructuring on a map as opposed to building healthy communities through dialogue and debate.
That's what we learned in this process, and once the annexation process is over, the dialogue continues, it keeps going. As it stands now, we have effective planning tools in place, we have a good process outline, we have the opportunity for people to know that when you've got a problem or you're in conflict, you know who to talk to. If you leave it in Queen's Park, no matter how wise the minister or how much attention they pay to detail -- you need to build it in the community. That would be my message to you, to keep that debate opportunity open, and rights of appeal and the ability to talk to people. It will stand well for your government and future governments for the province of Ontario.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon. I want to stay on the same topic, the restructuring issue and your involvement in London-Middlesex and the process gone through in that. I believe there was ongoing consultation among the parties prior to the minister of the day, Mr Cooke, appointing an arbitrator. Mr Cooke can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he agreed when the arbitrator was appointed, or at least very early on in the process, that he would implement the recommendations the arbitrator put forward. Recognizing that he was a minister in a majority government, he was of the opinion that regardless of what the process would be to implement it, the end result would be that the study would be implemented as his appointed arbitrator suggested. I'm just pointing out that the consultation process was the local consultation that you're referring to, the debate that's required within your community as opposed to debate in Queen's Park.
In the present legislation, the minister would appoint a commission. I suppose we could suggest that it's the difference between calling them commissioners or calling him an arbitrator, the end result being the difference between the minister being able to do it by regulation and implementing it as opposed to doing it by legislation. I was wondering if it would solve your concerns if we inserted in the legislation that the commissioner must conduct public consultation in the affected municipalities.
Mr Swan: It certainly would be an added element and one I think we all could support. I think it's important to remember the historical context as to how Mr Cooke and others came to the decision of an arbitrator and commission. It was at the request and with the full participation and knowledge of the local communities themselves, seeking some advice and support as to how to move through a very complicated process. It arose out of 12 or 13 years of public debate and forum, both parties recognizing, as in the collective bargaining process and others, that there was need for third-party intervention.
1600
You see, the difference in philosophy is more of a grass-roots and move it up, and, when the provincial government is needed for assistance, to come and request your help as a partner in the process as opposed to appointing a commission that says, "Thou shalt do the following things." I think there's quite a different shift. But certainly your comments would be welcome.
Ms Davenport: If I could add to that, Vision 96 had enormous response from the public in terms of input. It really has been quite unusual, the input people wanted. This is what we're very interested in seeing is possible with your legislation.
Ms Walker: And, more important, how the input made it through the output stage, which is the most important thing. What we learned from that public input was phenomenal, and how that changed our direction in a more positive way needs to be recognized. You're talking about process. I'm curious to know why there's been such loss of public participation during these hearings.
The Vice-Chair: We're out of time right now. Sorry.
Ms Walker: Saved by the bell.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks for your presentation.
Ms Walker: Just one question, Mr Chair, before we leave. When can we expect to hear about our input making it through the --
The Vice-Chair: I do not know.
Ms Walker: Is there some way I can find that out? Will somebody contact me to inform me of that?
The Vice-Chair: I do not know what the process would be in terms of responding to that type of question.
Ms Walker: When do you expect to know what the process will be?
The Vice-Chair: What the committee has been mandated to do is to conduct the hearings. We're going to have one more week of hearings in other parts of the province and then we're going to have a clause-by-clause review in Toronto the week of the 22nd. Then we're expected back in the House on the 29th.
Ms Walker: Is there any way we could contact somebody to make sure they know we would like to hear from them as to how our input was accommodated?
The Vice-Chair: All I would be able to say is that each party will be tabling amendments this week. Certainly if you want to get in touch with your local MPP you can monitor it that way. Thanks very much.
LONDON AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS
The Chair: Our next presenters are the London and District Labour Council and the Canadian Labour Congress. Welcome. You have half an hour to make your presentation, which you may use as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time for questions and responses. I would appreciate it if you would begin by reading your names into the record.
Mr Rick Witherspoon: My name's Rick Witherspoon. I'm the president of CAW Local 1520, representing about 3,000 workers at the Ford plant in Talbotville. I'm also the president of the London and District Labour Council, representing approximately 20,000 members.
My co-presenter today is Sandi Ellis, who is the southwestern Ontario regional representative for the Canadian Labour Congress.
On behalf of our over 20,000 affiliated members, the London and District Labour Council is happy to have the opportunity to participate in the hearings on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995. The bill has been more aptly described as the bully bill, despicable, dictatorial, astonishing, controversial, octopus-like, and a bill that was prepared with military-style secrecy.
At the outset, we must clearly state our deep and profound opposition to much of the contents of the omnibus bill while also condemning the undemocratic process in which the current government is forcing it upon the citizens of Ontario. Had it not been for the tactics of civil disobedience employed by both opposition parties on the floor of the Legislature to protect the normal and democratic process, we would not be before you today, as this government would have proceeded in ramming through another piece of highly regressive legislation, once again with no consultation or debate. We congratulate the opposition for the stand they took.
Regardless of how one views this current agenda, surely a bill capable of imposing such sweeping changes impacting on public service and with the power to completely change the landscape of our community both deserves and demands close scrutiny and public input. This legislation has the ability to create three completely new acts, totally repeal two acts, and amend 44 other acts. To clearly understand the impact of this bill, one would have to review over 2,000 pages of text. I will suggest to you today that on the day the legislation was introduced, very few, if any, MPPs had taken the time to do just that. I will also submit to you today that very few, if any, MPPs to date have taken the opportunity to closely examine all the changes proposed to the 47 acts that will be affected. You are moving too fast, you have gone too far, and you are making mistakes.
This bill, if it is passed, would vest in cabinet and the ministers of the crown the ability to make decisions affecting the delivery of public service without any parliamentary debate or public input simply by making regulations or administrative orders or by ministerial direction. Decisions affecting access to public facilities and resources, denial of unspecified public benefits, loss of earnings and the disclosure of confidential information would be granted to cabinet and appointed officials without traditional procedural safeguards, in many cases without the individual right to a hearing or the ability to court-appeal. The bill empowers cabinet or ministers to make regulations or to issues directions that would override existing contractual agreements, thus rendering existing binding agreements void while putting in place provisions that ensure that court action could not ensue. It appears the government intends to isolate itself from the liability arising from any future court or tribunal decision.
Although health issues will be addressed at a later date, it goes without saying that schedules in this bill provide the Minister of Health and cabinet the unilateral power to fundamentally restructure the delivery of health care in this province, contrary to commitments in the Common Sense Revolution clearly stating that there would be no cuts to health care spending or that "Under this plan there will be no new user fees." One thing is becoming abundantly clear: Trained medical practitioners will be exporting their talents and skills south of the border in alarming numbers if this government continues in this direction.
Amendments to freedom of information legislation will limit or totally restrict access for certain individuals while apparently increasing access for others.
Pay equity legislation will be gutted.
The provincial government will be provided with the unconstrained power to restructure municipal government while providing municipalities additional powers to charge user fees for various services, downloading provincial responsibilities on to municipal governments.
As individuals continue to examine the contents of this bill, it becomes very clear that the full implications of additional powers granted to cabinet and ministers will not be assessed until they can legally be challenged. Could this be what the Harris government is counting on?
We will now continue to examine the amendments to a number of the various statutes in more detail.
Schedule Q places serious restrictions on the current arbitration process affecting many public servants. The bill implies that, given the essential nature of work provided by many of these workers, the terms and conditions of collective agreements must be determined by a process of compulsory interest arbitration rather than having the right to free collective bargaining, with the right to strike. Under the proposed legislation, traditional methods of bargaining have been set aside, with new criteria placed on arbitrators prior to resolving disputes: the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation; the extent to which services have been reduced if current funding levels are not increased; the economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality or municipalities concerned, except for the Public Service Act, where the economic situation of Ontario is to be considered; a comparison on the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of work performed with other employees in the broader public sector; and the employer's need for qualified employees.
1610
Clearly, such provisions constitute a significant disruption seriously impacting on the integrity of the arbitration process and must be challenged.
Arbitrators have indicated that where ability to pay is used as part of any determination, the process is largely irrelevant, since governments and employers may simply adjust budgets accordingly, resulting in reduced employee compensation. Such provisions seriously jeopardize the collective bargaining process as there is little incentive for employers to bargain in good faith when using ability to pay leaves an arbitrator with no choice but to rule in favour of the employer.
Arbitrators have held that ability to pay is no more than a willingness to pay. One could simply conclude that faced with the government's massive funding cuts, employers will be looking for significant pay cuts, or in other words, a Tory-composed wage control system.
Provincial employees will be deprived of their right to a fair and impartial process for determining the terms and conditions of employment, and the International Labour Organization concluded over a decade ago that if arbitrators are directly appointed by a government which in turn lays down in legislation certain criteria which arbitrators are bound to follow in the determination of awards, it is inevitable that the confidence in the system will diminish.
An added burden will also be placed on arbitrators if they are to consider the extent to which services must be reduced if current funding levels are not increased. One could argue that this has the effect of relieving public sector employers of their responsibility for making decisions for which they could be held accountable, with the full knowledge that such decisions would be governed by the arbitration process.
Ms Sandi Ellis: Schedule J amends the pay equity legislation, repealing the proxy method of pay equity effective January 1, 1997. The proxy method of pay equity was introduced in January 1994 to cover women who were left out of the original Pay Equity Act. This amendment will abolish the right to fair pay for an estimated 100,000 low-paid women. This amendment is totally unjustified and is a direct attack on the living standard for working women in the province of Ontario and, again, must not go unchallenged.
Schedule K will seriously impact on individual freedom, the right of freedom to information, as two acts will be amended expanding powers to the head of an institution, the right to refuse access to a record where in the opinion of this individual, on reasonable grounds the request for access is frivolous or vexatious, regardless of the fact that the request would otherwise be provided under legislation. Although it would appear that the decision of the head could be appealed, this undoubtedly will result in major delays for access, coupled with lengthy and costly appeal proceedings.
The bill also amends the freedom of information act to require a user fee to be paid upon making a request for information, along with a prescribed user fee when appealing a decision. What is not clear is whether amounts charged will be consistent or whether amounts could differ from person to person. In essence, these amendments are designed to make it harder to gain access to documents and, conversely, easier to deny access.
This has serious ramifications for individuals, while providing a dangerously broad mandate to others. Governments at all levels are entrusted with the responsibility for ensuring individual rights, or is it this government's intention to violate the very intent of legislation on freedom of information?
Schedule L amends both the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act by removing protection for employees covered by these plans. Under current legislation, whenever an employer downsizes significantly, the Pension Benefits Act permits the administrator of a pension plan to declare and the Ontario superintendent of pensions to order a full or partial windup of a plan.
Those affected by a full or partial windup are entitled to certain benefits under the PBA. This bill provides that in order to declare a windup, the administrator must first receive the consent of cabinet. Without a doubt, these provisions are in the best interests of the government as an employer while eliminating the protection for those the government chooses to terminate.
Could it be that the Harris government plans to lay off up to as many as 20,000 government employees, that it plans to add insult to injury by cheating its employees out of between $400 million and $500 million worth of pension money owed to them? This should once again be viewed as a direct attack on the average working men and women in this province and shows the arrogance of this government.
Schedule M should be of great concern to every citizen of this province, as it has the ability to completely change the landscape of our communities. The sweeping powers in this section of the bill amend the Municipal Act to give the government authority to amalgamate, annex or dissolve all or part of a municipality should the Minister of Municipal Affairs receive a proposal from a municipality, local body or locality, or as a result of activities of restructuring established by the minister, seemingly with little or no provision for public input.
Proposed amendments would make it easier to contract out or privatize municipal utilities and clear the way for a whole host of new municipal user fees. Traditionally, prior to any form of municipal privatization or selloff of a municipal service, the municipality would be required to hold a referendum. These proposals eliminate such a requirement. Again public input is denied and democracy goes out the window.
Could it be that as this government has already taken steps to ensure that its employees will be denied successor rights, as communities are restructured and municipal jobs are contracted out, these employees will also lose successor rights? This government would once again be ignoring its responsibility with regard to provisions in existing collective agreements.
The bill provides municipalities with the new ability to collect and increase licensing fees while also providing new generalized taxing authority. The bill provides that fees or charges may be levied for any service or activity or for the use of its property, with the nature of these things charged apparently unlimited. Provincial downloading appears to be the order of the day.
Your constituents are not naïve and will surely hold you accountable. As licensing fees are increased, user fees imposed for use of public parks, cuts made to services such as snow removal, garbage collection, public transit, water and sewer services, and closures of hospitals and libraries take place, the electorate will respond.
Schedule D of the bill authorizes the government to borrow up to $5.6 billion during this fiscal year alone from capital public markets, international loan markets and the Canada pension plan for the consolidated revenue fund in order to discharge any indebtedness or obligation of Ontario. Could it be that this is how the Harris government intends to live up to its deficit reduction targets, or could it be that this is how Mike Harris intends to finance his campaign promise of a 30% tax break? The bottom line is that at the end of the day, the provincial debt will have been increased by $5.6 billion and the electorate deceived once again.
This bill is drastically flawed. The over 221 pages of the bill contain too much language that is left up to interpretation, leaving one to wonder just what rights will be left for individual Ontarians. Rights of appeal are eliminated, rights of protest are met with an autocratic, authoritarian-like response. What we are witnessing in the province of Ontario is the most undemocratic use of political power ever seen. The Premier of Ontario was quoted quite recently saying, "Give me two years and you won't recognize this province." We believe him.
Should this bill be passed in its current form, it will seriously undemocratize government as we know it and will undoubtedly destabilize our communities. Your constituents are increasingly saying they no longer share your vision. This bill represents the broadest attack on the very fabric of life we all cherish and is one of the most socially destructive bills ever proposed in the province of Ontario. A bill that proposes such sweeping changes, amending so much legislation, requires lengthy and open debate and consultation, yet it appears as though this government is intent on passing it with little or no change, with only one more day of parliamentary debate.
We will conclude as we began: The government is moving too far, too fast. It's far too easy to make mistakes; it's much more difficult to correct them. Thank you.
The Chair: We have about four minutes per caucus for questions, starting with members from the third party.
Mr Silipo: I'll start with one comment on schedule D, because as we understand it, this is the part that allows the government to borrow up to $5.6 billion. I should say that that's not one we're concerned about. Of all the pieces in this legislation, that is probably the one piece the government could have gotten agreement to get passed in a day, because it's a traditional part of the bill that allows the government to borrow money to keep the government running. That part of it, at least as we understand it, is not a problem.
But I thank you for raising a number of other significant points which we've certainly heard about. I just to focus on a couple.
You make the point again, as has been made, on the pension act and the changes there. I know my colleague Mr Phillips has been raising this with a number of other presenters. Certainly we heard very much from OPSEU, when it was before us, in words I think perhaps even starker than yours. They talked about the government basically stealing money from the employees, which I think is what it's doing. But the striking thing here that I see is the government using its power as government to run the way it acts as employer. So it's fudging; it's choosing to fudge that role for itself only, not that it should do it for others, but because we think it's unfair for it to be doing it in this case.
1620
But here's an indication where the government is saying, "Because we're the government, because we intend," as you point out, "to lay off thousands and thousands of provincial employees, we're going to make sure that people in public service, public employees, don't have access to the pension that they have built up over time. I wanted to just sort of flag that to see if you had any further thoughts on that, because that's essentially what's going on.
Mr Witherspoon: I don't think there's any question. I've listened to the discussion so far this morning and the reality is that's exactly what the government is doing. Knowing full well that it intends to lay off thousands and thousands of provincial employees, and the fact that it's already been challenged by the government in the courts and found that it didn't have the right to do that, "what we're going to do now is we're simply going to legislate it so that we now do have the power to do that."
That's causing enormous disruption in the workplaces. It's causing a lot of concern with respect to those people who could very well be on the chopping block. It's a genuine concern. I think OPSEU's position that it is money that's being stolen from them is very, very accurate, and it again shows the arrogance of this government.
Mr Silipo: One of the other points that you make is with respect to the proposed amendments that would make it easier to contract out or privatize municipal utilities. I found it really useful and interesting yesterday when we were in Windsor to hear from the Municipal Electric Association. One of the points they made to us was that in looking at the experience in the US, they could demonstrate very clearly that it is cheaper to the consumer for services like electric utilities to be municipally run, publicly run, as opposed to privately run. Do you have any information in terms of that or other utilities that you could share with us?
Mr Witherspoon: I don't have any information that would contradict that. Certainly the information we've received is that your point is well taken.
Ms Ellis: I'm an elected hydro commissioner in the city of Kitchener and have listened to the MEA, and we do have statistics that prove that publicly owned power is, in the long run, cheaper. Of course, we understand Ontario Hydro is looking at restructuring itself, and the MEA has a position on that whole restructuring process itself and where it sees itself fitting in. But, yes, publicly administered power is cheaper than private enterprise, as is publicly administered health care. We know it. We have the facts to prove it.
The Chair: The government caucus. Mr Sampson.
Mr Sampson: I want to speak briefly about the Pension Benefits Act issue. What's your understanding as to why that particular windup provision is in the Pension Benefits Act? Why is that windup provision in the act right now?
Mr Witherspoon: It is my understanding that the provision is there if there's a significant reduction in the workforce, which is what you're proposing.
Mr Sampson: Yes. It was put in place a number of years ago to provide some protection to the employees. But why? Do you know the reason why that was brought forward?
Mr Witherspoon: Probably it made good sense.
Mr Sampson: Would it have anything to do, do you think, with trying to protect the pension funds of those employees when a corporation basically completely downsized -- more specifically, ceased operation and moved on -- and the employees were stuck with just the pension fund?
Mr Witherspoon: I would like to think that it was put in place to make sure the workers were protected when they lost their jobs.
Mr Sampson: Clearly, though, some individuals in the public sector do lose their jobs and are not receiving windup provisions. That's happening right now in the private sector and in the public sector, where as a result of the fact that you've lost your job, you don't get immediate access to the windup provisions of the act. The windup provisions of the act are only triggered when basically a company is going out of business. Is it your belief the province of Ontario is going out of business?
Mr Witherspoon: You're obviously closing the doors to some business. The pension plan was put in place to protect workers when they lost their jobs. If that's not working and there are people being put out of jobs now who aren't being provided access to that, then there's something wrong with the plan and we should correct it.
Mr Sampson: That's happening, because there are people who are losing their jobs now and they don't get immediate access to the windup provisions.
Mr Witherspoon: Then correct it, don't dismantle it. Don't take it away.
Mr Sampson: But the purpose of the windup provision is to try to provide protection to the fund that is paying the pension when companies completely close. My question to you is, do you believe that the province of Ontario is completely shutting down?
Mr Witherspoon: When you talk about a significant restructuring, which is what the bill talks about, 20,000, in my estimation, is a significant restructuring.
Mr Sampson: Well, 20,000 is your number. We didn't campaign on the basis --
Ms Ellis: But 15,000 to 20,000 is in the Common Sense Revolution.
Mr Witherspoon: What is your number?
Mr Sampson: But let me ask you one more thing. Who, in your view, owns or is holding the lion's share of the province's debt obligation? Who do we owe the money to? Let me put it bluntly.
Ms Ellis: Who do we owe it to? We know that chartered banks own $80 billion worth of our federal debt. So who owns --
Mr Sampson: Would you be surprised to know that $40 billion and change is actually owed to public pension funds?
Ms Ellis: They are in actuality deferred wages.
Mr Sampson: Over a period of time the value of those debt instruments has declined because successive governments have allowed the credit rating of that paper to decline. Over the term of the last government it declined three times. That fact has had a more serious effect, I'll put it to you, on the value of public employees' pension funds --
Ms Ellis: Oh, give me a break.
Mr Sampson: -- than what we're proposing to do. That's a significant deterioration in the value of those funds.
Ms Ellis: What about the federal employees? Is their pension plan as worthless as you think OMERS' and OPSEU's plans are?
Mr Sampson: I'm just telling you that $40 billion and change is owed to public pension funds. That's the money the province owes public pension funds. That was accumulated over a number of years, and the value of that debt has gone down because subsequent credit ratings have deteriorated it.
The Chair: We've come to the end of the time for the government caucus questions. We'll move to the opposition caucus. Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: Thank you for your submission. Rather than try and confuse you with a lot of questions, I'll just suggest one that the government should answer, and that is, why should public employees be treated any differently from those in the private sector when it comes to pensions?
Mr Witherspoon: They shouldn't be.
Mr Crozier: It's as simple as that. What they're trying to do is take away $250 million of your money. That's what they're trying to do.
Mr Witherspoon: It's closer to $400 million.
Mr Crozier: You folks, one or both of you, have sat here most of the day and I just want to point out something to you that's as frustrating to us as it is to you. Almost without exception and certainly by far the majority of deputants have asked for more time on this bill, not only more time to have prepared their own submissions but for the public and others to have the opportunity to respond. We've even said to the government, "Take those parts of the bill that are economically urgent and we'll pass those, but please break the bill down and give opportunity for wider discussion." The response has been that, each time we've submitted that resolution on your behalf to the government, it's been declined. So unfortunately your appeals for more time I don't think are going to be heard.
Ms Ellis: I heard Mr Sampson on CBC the other morning with Ms Lankin, talking about the hearings, which were just starting at that time. He suggested that everyone had the ability to write a submission that would be read before the one day left in parliamentary proceedings to do the clause-by-clause. Ms Lankin mentioned at that point in time that over 1,000 people had asked for standing at these hearings and only 200 and some spots were available. Mr Sampson suggested that the rest of those 800 and some people should submit submissions. Ms Lankin then answered saying, "I'm a very conscientious worker, but in hearings from morning till evening there is no opportunity that we are going to have any possibility of reading another 800 submissions."
Therefore, yes, I agree with you. Our plea is to extend the hearings. This is a piece of legislation that is too far-reaching to ever get passed in its entirety in this short a period of time.
1630
Mr Crozier: I appreciate your comment. One more that I might add to it is that often the response has been from the government, "Well, we offered time." That's when the discussion got hot, but that was prior to Christmas. We were going to sit through till midnight and only in the city of Toronto. So I suggest there are some people who have contributed today who wouldn't have had that opportunity had they only been held in the city of Toronto.
Ms Ellis: You're correct.
Mr Phillips: I want to follow up a little bit on the pension thing because one of the government members has. Are you aware that the Pension Benefits Act provides public sector and private sector pensioners certain protections and are you aware that the government tried through regulation to take away some of the pensioners' rights and are you aware that the court stopped it? The court told them they had no legal right to do that.
Mr Witherspoon: Yes.
Mr Phillips: They couldn't get it through the courts; the courts told them they were wrong. Are you aware that now the purpose of this bill is to attempt to override the Pension Benefits Act, to strike down the court decision that ruled in your favour and to take, we've been told, $250 million? You're saying it could be as high as --
Mr Witherspoon: Our estimates are closer to $400 million, and you're absolutely right.
Ms Ellis: They couldn't come through the front door, so now they're in the bathroom.
The Chair: We've come to the end of time for the presentation. I want to thank you for coming forward today to make your presentation.
LONDON AND DISTRICT CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET
The Chair: Could we have Mr Geoffrey Hale come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Hale. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. 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 or response. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself and your organization at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Geoffrey Hale: My name is Geoffrey Hale. I'm a London resident and I've lived here since 1990. I'm here today to represent London and District Citizens for Responsible Budget. We're a group of more than 250 citizens from London and surrounding municipalities formed during the past year to provide support for the reduction of the provincial deficit and the restructuring of government services that is a necessary component of this process. It is a non-partisan organization. We are made up of ordinary citizens from all walks of life, the vast majority of whom have no partisan political affiliation.
This submission will primarily address areas relating to local government and school boards, their operations and accountability to taxpayers. It'll also address procedural questions related to the reorganization of provincial departments and agencies.
We recognize that omnibus legislation is inherently unwieldy and does not lend itself to detailed, in-depth consideration across a broad range of fields. However, in looking at this legislation we believe that a number of amendments are appropriate in order to help the government achieve its declared objectives, and we will be addressing some of those as well.
First of all, we would like to say that we support the government's overall financial and restructuring objectives in Bill 26, even though we feel that some of them may be performed more effectively. Just as no family or business can sustain deficits of 20% to 25% year after year without serious damage, no government can do so without incurring a debt load which will ultimately undermine its capacity to provide necessary and desirable services to its citizens. I think we have all seen under successive governments the fact that citizens are paying more and more in taxes and receiving less and less in services, and therefore something has to give.
Secondly, I'd like to say that we support the government's emphasis on spending reduction rather than tax increases as the major means of reducing the deficit. However, at the same time as it is necessary to restructure government spending, it is also necessary to restructure provincial revenues. We support the government's contention that Ontario not only has a deficit problem, which I think even the opposition members of the Legislature would agree with, but it also has a spending problem.
In analysing spending since the mid-1980s, whether under Liberal governments, under New Democratic governments or under Conservative governments, we can see that spending has steadily grown faster than the population of the province and faster than inflation, while the living standards of ordinary Ontarians, ordinary working people, have in fact declined for most of the period since 1990.
When speaking with our supporters we have found broad support for the general principles of the government's revenue restructuring plan, although that is not a topic that is covered in Bill 26. However, while there is general support for the concept of increased reliance on user fees to support many public services, there is also a strong desire to increase the accountability of all levels of government, particularly municipal governments and school boards for the collection and use of such fees, so that they do not provide an open-ended source of revenue to face the empire-building propensities of certain, although by no means all, elected officials or public servants. We will address these concerns in the section of this submission dealing with specific concerns and proposed amendments.
We also support the reduction in provincial mandates to municipalities and school boards as part of a larger package of measures to assist them in dealing with the reductions in provincial transfers to local government agencies. HALT, one of the organizations that contributed to the preparation of this brief, has been working with municipal governments and school boards in London since 1992-93 to try to help them with that process of restructuring. One of the things we hear from local councillors and from school board trustees is that the hands of local government have been tied, so that even if they feel they could deliver services in a way more responsive to the needs of local communities and the desires of local communities, their hands have been tied. We believe that this legislation, while it is undoubtedly not perfect, is a good step in the right direction. However, I would like to address some questions relating to the direct taxes that may be empowered by this legislation a little later, when we talk about the subject of accountability.
I'd also like to say that we support the measures contained in Bill 26 which require arbitrators to take public sector employers' ability to pay into consideration when making awards. However, we strongly recommend that Bill 26 be amended to clarify this provision based on existing levels of taxation and/or the fees charged for the provision of particular services. It is a basic principle of democracy that tax rates and the tax structure be set by the people's elected representatives and not by courts or appointed bureaucrats. While the courts have long been entitled to resolve the inconsistencies in the application of the tax laws, we believe it is entirely inappropriate that arbitrators be empowered to force municipalities, school boards and hospitals to raise taxes or raise fees they may charge to the general public in order to pay for contract awards. Just as more and more private sector employers have come to link increases in compensation with increased flexibility and improved productivity, we believe that similar patterns can and should be introduced to the broader public sector.
We recognize that many of the measures contained in Bill 26 represent an effort to reverse what some have called the interest group capture of government, in the interests of public sector producers and their client groups in society, rather than citizens and taxpayers as a whole. You gentlemen all have experience in public service, several of you gentlemen have spent time at the cabinet table, and you will recognize, even when it has been your client groups that are at the table, that very often the decisions of government ministries are made in the interests of a small group of stakeholders, very often with the interests of the rest of the general public left outside the room. What this has done is made the kind of changes that one might recommend in a textbook course on public administration increasingly difficult to achieve, given the huge size of government and the embedded character of many of these interest groups. Many of them are fine public-spirited citizens, trade unions, business groups, community groups of all kinds, but just as very few elected officials ever conceive it in the public interest for them to lose an election or for their party to lose an election, I know of very few interest groups who ever conceive it in the public interest for them to lose any significant portion of the funding to which they have become accustomed from government. This is why we have the equivalent of a fiscal emergency here in Ontario today, and why we support the sometimes draconian measures the government seeks to take to correct the situation. We recognize that mistakes may be made, we recognize sometimes the scalpel may become a chainsaw or may be seen as a chainsaw by some people, but we believe that this is unfortunately sometimes, while rough justice, necessary all the same.
1640
That being said, we would like to recommend a number of changes to the legislation to ensure that, while these emergency measures may be carried forward in some form, they are done in a way which provides for reasonable checks and balances so that the powers of the government, first of all, are recognized by and large as emergency powers and, secondly, that they are subject to the rule of law.
First of all, dealing with the areas of municipal and school board powers of taxation, we believe that there is a serious need to clarify the provisions relating to the revenue-raising powers of local governments and school boards contained in Bill 26. We oppose any measures which grant local governments indiscriminate rights of direct taxation such as local income, sales and poll taxes. Such measures may be used to evade the spending disciplines which are inherent to the government's own restructuring efforts; in fact, we may see an effort to bring fiscal discipline at the provincial level and then lose it at the municipal and the school board level unless there are appropriate checks and balances. We do not believe that property taxes are necessarily the fairest or the most efficient forms of raising revenues, particularly when earmarked taxes can be used to directly relate the costs of providing a particular service to levels of public usage, and we notice that you make room for user fees.
However, we believe that while municipalities or school boards should be given increased powers of taxation, giving them discretion in setting either income or sales tax bases or indeed giving them the opportunity to impose these taxes in the first place is likely to result in federal-provincial tax conflict, increasing costs, increasing complexity of tax collection and the development of private tax deals between local authorities and corporations that may result in the erosion of local tax bases in favour of the special interest and a privileging of certain powerful groups who are competent in the area of city hall politics at the expense of less organized or less expert groups of individual and business taxpayers. For that reason, we recommend that Bill 26 be amended to ensure that its provision for the expansion of municipal user fees including business licence fees should establish clear rules governing transparency and taxpayer accountability in the application of user fees. These rules should include requirements such as the earmarking of such revenues from user fees to specific uses. It's not terribly important to specify, and I don't think it would be productive to specify, in legislation what those uses ought to be, but if city council is going to impose certain user fees we want it spelled out in black and white what those user fees are going to be used for.
Secondly, we'd like to see an annual accounting to individual taxpayers for the use of earmarked funds together with funds from general revenues that would be used to subsidize the same or related services. It's very easy to engage in a shell game whereby one simply shifts money from one pocket to the other without getting better value for money on behalf of the taxpayer as a whole.
Thirdly, we'd like to see widespread public consultations prior to any changes in the terms of municipal bylaws governing the earmarking of funds.
In terms of the subject of licence fees, we have found that the city of London currently imposes 27 different forms of business licences, many of which duplicate licensing requirements imposed by other levels of government. We recognize that municipal licensing may be used to promote the greater good and such things as greater fairness in the distribution of business taxes, the protection of public health and safety standards and other worthwhile objectives. However, we would hate to see carte blanche in the area of licensing so that just as the government is attempting to rationalize and streamline regulations at the provincial level we end up with a whole new range of duplication and overlap between provincial and municipal licensing rules, and we believe that you will have to do something, whether in legislation or in regulation, to provide some guidance to municipalities in those areas.
Coming back to the issue of income and sales taxation, we believe that some municipalities may wish to consider these things as a substitute for property taxes in certain fields, or a substitute for property taxes altogether. Of course, the New Democratic members of the committee may recall the efforts of the Fair Tax Commission to promote that in the area of education. However, we believe that the Municipal Act should empower such actions only, first of all, if there is a clear requirement that any such restructuring of the tax system be subject to approval in a local referendum; secondly, that any such referendum be considered invalid unless ballots are cast by at least 50% of registered voters; thirdly, that there is a clear requirement that such revenues be earmarked; and, fourthly, that there is a clear requirement that any such taxes must conform to a standard provincial tax base, as provided for in legislation, to avoid the situation where we have different tax bases, whether for income or for sales taxation, in different parts of the province. This would create a tax jungle of the sort which brings to mind the fiscal chaos of the 1930s.
We suggest that a 50% turnout to validate the results of any such referendum would be a reasonable reflection of the popular will and that it would force elected officials at the municipal level to explain and justify their proposals to taxpayers far more extensively than would otherwise be the case.
The other major area that we would like to deal with, and we understand that it has been dealt with at considerable length, not just in these hearings but in the hearings at Queen's Park, involves due process of law and respect for existing contracts. We recognize that many of the powers that the government seeks to implement its objectives are of an emergency nature to deal with a perceived fiscal emergency in the province. We would share the view that we do have a fiscal emergency. However, while governments should have the right to create, reorganize or abolish their own directly funded agencies, subject to legislative authority, in whatever manner would serve the public interest, we believe that existing contractual obligations should be fulfilled or reasonable compensation paid to those whose contractual rights are adversely affected.
We also believe that there should be clear rules laid down, at the very least in regulation although I think it might be helpful in some areas to lay these out in legislation, so that where commissions or ministerial task forces are established to oversee or assist in the restructuring of public sector agencies, there should be clear rules, whether for the use of ministerial powers or for the delegation of ministerial powers to such agencies. I recognize that the Health Services Restructuring Commission is outside the purview of this section of the general government committee, but I think, both from the standpoint of transparency and to ensure that there are clear benchmarks for the use of provincial powers, it would be a good idea for the government to specify this, at the very least in regulation and, where you folks in your wisdom deem appropriate, in legislation as well.
We strongly recommend that elements of Bill 26 which preclude appeals to the courts with respect to the enforcement of contracts or the enforcement of regulatory standards of due process be amended in line with the principles of natural justice. We believe that if the law is straightforward and carried out clearly in accordance with the regulations, the government has nothing to fear from this provision. After all, the courts have shown a capacity to distinguish between questions of due process -- have the procedural rules been followed? -- and questions of substantive justice, as we've seen in appeals to overrule the changes in welfare rates, which were turned back by the courts, and also to overrule the passage of Bill 8, the legislation abolishing the Employment Equity Commission. So we feel that this is an area where the government could, in effect, build more effectively for the long term if it were to make these amendments to the legislation.
We also believe that the government should observe existing time-limited contracts. Many of our members are union members; many of our members are small business people who do not have extensive power in the marketplace. We cannot expect our members, whether they're unionized people or small business people, to observe their contracts if private sector employers and governments do not set an example by living up to their contractual obligations. No government department or agency should have the exclusive right to interpret and enforce the law.
1650
We believe that this principle should also apply to the restructuring of public pensions necessitated by future layoffs. As a general rule, public pensions should be subject to the same rules of administration and fiduciary responsibility as private sector pensions. Contributory pensions should not be subject to unilateral change without some form of compensation to those whose present or future incomes will be affected.
We also have a couple of provisions dealing with the merging of municipalities and school boards. We certainly recommend that where the government provides for the merging of municipalities and school boards -- and I see that Mr Hardeman is here today and you will be dealing with that area extensively -- we suggest or we hope that you will recognize existing communities of interest.
One of the things we've found when the city of London annexed a large part of Middlesex county around the city was that in many cases costs were increased both to the municipality and to newly absorbed taxpayers in the city of London which were not compensated for by any significant increase in the level of services.
There are also very different cultural environments, both employer and employee cultures. Small-town and rural municipalities, as you are well aware, carry on their business in a very, very different way than do large urban municipalities. The same goes for school boards. The kinds of problems that our parent groups have talked to us about with the London Board of Education are very, very different from those of the Middlesex County Board of Education or the Elgin County Board of Education.
We recommend that these communities of interest be respected and that, while there is certainly ample room for the sharing of services and for joint purchasing in these areas, you walk carefully in terms of implementing these powers. Again, in regard to the principle of how you go about implementing them, we believe it would be useful to lay these out in some kind of regulation so that you can give guidelines to municipalities and to taxpayers and other stakeholders as to what their rights and their responsibilities are within the system.
We also believe that the existing division between public and separate school boards should be maintained to maintain a level of choice on behalf of parents, not just between school systems but also between philosophies of education. Just as competition is good for governments when it comes to providing value for money and responsiveness to taxpayers, we believe the same can be said for different philosophies of education being encouraged and greater parental accountability through such variations being encouraged at the provincial level. There's also the matter of the constitutionally protected right of separate school boards, and we believe that should be recognized and protected.
I've gone on a little longer than I expected to, but given the size of the bill, I wanted to address a number of areas that I think are of concern both to government members and to opposition members and to explain some of our rationale in doing that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have just a little bit more than two minutes per caucus. We'll start with the government caucus.
Mr Bob Wood: I want to address the question of accountability for user fees that you raised. Some countries have gone so far as to institute citizens' charters, where if you deal with an entity of government, you're entitled to certain standards of performance and so on.
Would you go that far -- obviously it may not be possible to do it in this bill -- with respect to municipal services? Would you require them to deal with your application in so many days and so on?
Mr Hale: I think that is something that would have to be done at the level of the individual municipality and the level of the individual school board. I think to replace one set of mandates of that nature with another set of mandates would be the height of folly. By the same token, I think that many municipal officials would probably be able to justify higher levels of taxes and higher user fees for certain services if they made a commitment to deliver certain services in that way. I talk to many business people who say that they would be willing to pay user fees for certain services if they had a commitment that service levels would be maintained at a certain level.
Mr Bob Wood: If you were doing this, would you mandate this? Would you require the municipalities to have their own citizens' charters?
Mr Hale: I don't know that mandating it is necessary. Once it began to happen at certain municipalities, I think that there are enough ratepayer groups and taxpayer groups who would see this and try to promote it in their own communities and that it would probably take hold on a much more widespread basis.
Mr Gerretsen: I just have a question. You start in the early part of your presentation to talk about the revenue side of things and I'd just like to pursue that for a moment. To put it in its most simplistic form, they're taking in $45 of revenue for every $55 for spending, and that's where the $10 difference or the $10-billion difference comes from.
We in the Liberal Party believe that a lot of this is really driven not only by a reduction in the deficit that we support but also in the reduction of a tax cut of about $5 billion that would cause the revenue side of things to go from $45 billion to $40 billion and in effect you'd have to cut out about $15 billion. Where does your organization stand on this? Do you support this tax cut of 30% that the government has been talking about?
Mr Hale: We've looked at the overall revenue restructuring, and I've talked to a lot of people about this. I probably spoke to about 200 people, one on one, during the month of December, talking about this sort of thing, so I suppose that's analogous to the sorts of activities that all of your conscientious folks carry out in your riding offices on a regular basis.
The feedback that I've been getting is that the desire for the tax cut is strongest among middle-income taxpayers. While they see the inconvenience, they also say that it will be worth it if they receive something back. Where we see the greatest resistance, ironically, is among upper-income taxpayers, particularly people in the broader public sector.
When we've talked about the tradeoffs, including the health care surtax, which in effect claws back a very significant chunk -- as to how much, I suppose you can have your economist and the government can have its economist and they can all debate the subject until the cows come home -- but there has been a general response that the health care surtax is to maintain spending in the health care area overall -- and I understand the debate is over the fact that you have to make real savings in the health care field in order to reallocate money for new activities or new services. But we think that that is a reasonable balance.
In terms of the timetables, obviously there are certain tradeoffs and it may be necessary to implement it in a little more of a phased fashion than necessary. We believe that is something that needs to be dealt with as the government goes along, but I think most of our middle-income members are expecting the government to follow through on its promises or they're going to be pretty ticked.
Mr Silipo: Thank you for the presentation. I found it actually quite fascinating because you've covered a lot of ground and I think made some --
Mr Phillips: An omnibus presentation.
Mr Silipo: "An omnibus presentation," my colleague said, and I think quite rightly so.
You're suggesting that while you're generally in support of the direction that the government is going, there are a number of areas that you want clarified by amendments presumably that could be made in order to make sure that we're clear, for example, about what tax powers are being given to municipalities --
Mr Hale: Absolutely.
Mr Silipo: -- and then what the extent of the user fees should be. You're suggesting here very clearly, limit those user fees to --
Mr Hale: Not so much the extent as the process.
Mr Silipo: The process. Okay.
The other point that we certainly have heard a lot about has been around this whole shift of powers away from the Legislature to individual ministers. There again I find your comments quite interesting. What you're saying is, if I understood you correctly, there may be some justification for doing that, but at the very least there should be something in place, rules and processes that would still continue to make ministers' actions subject to the normal processes that somebody could question.
1700
Mr Hale: Obviously, there are different levels of accountability. Accountability to the Legislature is one form of accountability. Accountability on process issues to the courts was a second level of accountability, and obviously there are charter issues as well that any government has to take into account.
I think the bottom line is, those of you who have spent time in cabinet -- and I see Mr Phillips here as well as Mr Silipo and Mr Cooke and Ms Boyd -- as all of you know, you people delegate a huge amount. All of you have delegated enormous amounts of responsibility in your time in cabinet. You try to stay on top of things, you work exceptionally hard, but the bottom line is you cannot catch everything. You only see that which your officials, with their wisdom and hopefully with their integrity, will show you. I think we all recognize that we can get good advice and we can get bad advice, and sometimes there's a learning curve in determining what it is. You folks all had to go up the learning curve.
There will be times when people make mistakes. I used to work for the public service, and I know there were times when we would try to do things that in effect cut corners or try to expedite things in our own interest. Undoubtedly you have tried to do the same things yourselves in the past. So we think some kinds of checks and balances are necessary.
We're not saying it should be done in a way to be unnecessarily obstructive, and we don't think it has to. Quite frankly, if the government can't write regulations that don't put it in a straitjacket, they're not very clever, and the one thing that we've found in dealing with many senior civil servants over the years is that some of them are incredibly clever, maybe not always in the way we'd like.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hale, for coming forward and making your presentation today.
ANNE KHAN
The Chair: May I please have Anne Khan come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. As you may have heard me say, you have 30 minutes 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 and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd read your name into the record for the benefit of committee members and for Hansard.
Ms Anne Khan: Thank you very much. My name is Anne Khan. I'm from Sarnia. I'm a trustee with the Lambton County Board of Education, although I in no way represent the board. I think one of the difficulties school boards are having, particularly ours right now, is that we are waiting with anticipation for things to come down to us that will enable us to deal with the challenges we have, and I guess I'm quite disappointed that there isn't more in this bill for me as a trustee to respond to. Nevertheless, I wanted to take the opportunity that you've given the public for consultation. I think it is a very, very valuable process.
I would like to say I'm really honoured to be in the same room as Dave Cooke. He was a Minister of Education with whom I disagreed on some things, but I think that his dogma, tempered with common sense, is something that is sadly missed.
Mr Cooke: Common sense used to be okay.
Mr Phillips: Let's not get off topic here. Stick to the bill.
Ms Khan: It's an attempt to be inclusive. I am a new trustee. I was elected just over a year ago. My husband is a professional. I work for him. I think in identifying myself, I would go further in saying that I stood for the school board as a trustee because of a previous few years of anger over several issues.
One of them was the sudden implementation of fair market value assessment in Lambton county as a result of the amalgamation of municipalities that resulted in my particular neighbourhood. Several people in that neighbourhood face property tax increases of up to 300%. We ourselves face an increase of 140%.
Following on that shortly, Mr Silipo, was the implementation of the successful effort to implement destreaming, not that I particularly disagree with destreaming, but there were very many reasons why it shouldn't have been implemented in Lambton county at the time. One of them was that there weren't the resources to do all the things that Dave Cooke knows should have been done to make it successful. In trying to make the response I wanted to make to various agencies of government, it irritated me no end that we were paying thousands and thousands of dollars in property tax, in addition to income tax, and there seemed to be no way that school boards, or the Ministry of Education in particular, were accountable to what we as parents at that time were interested in for our children.
I would also like to support the previous speaker in his reference to the Fair Tax Commission. Many of the things that were started by the previous government, like the Royal Commission on Learning and the Fair Tax Commission, found out more about all these issues than I know. I just want to give an overview of my particular concerns.
In general, I do support the intent of the legislation, but I do have misgivings, as other people do, about the haste with which it is being processed. I have a concern also that it may not achieve the intended goal of less government. Having been a trustee for only a year, but having tried to access various levels of government from the outside, I've seen that it's a very difficult process -- almost the more levels of government you have, the less accountability there is. But I would like argue against that later in the presentation.
As I said, education is not covered much in this Bill 26. In particular, school boards, some of us, are looking for tools to deal with the cost of the contracts we have, the huge costs of salaries to school boards. We need the tools to deal with that. More than 80% of our budget goes towards salaries. We are certainly a very lean board in Lambton county, so it's not sufficient to say that the cream is down there at the board office; it certainly isn't. There may be some cream within schools in terms of positions of responsibility and vice-principals and so on which could be eliminated, but they are all contractual. So we do need the tools to deal with that.
The tools are not in this bill. School boards continue to wait for the means to make the savings required. You realize, those of you who have been on school boards, that decisions need to be made now to be put into effect for September 1996. By "now," we're talking about January, so I don't know how this is going to be possible.
As far as local control goes, much has been made in the discussions about the shift of responsibilities to the local level. But I ask you, how realistic a concept is that, when a board such as Lambton county is so much affected by provincial factors in such areas as, as I've mentioned, contracts and collective bargaining, and second, by our dependence on the Ministry of Education funding for programs? Because of our dependence on that funding, we are unable to make the choices that may be relevant and relative to Lambton county.
Those of you who know Lambton county know we have a desperately shrinking industrial and commercial assessment base and a high unemployment rate. We're currently handicapped in making meaningful decisions at the local level because of this. As I said about different levels of government and how much power they have, it seems to me that any changes foreseen as far as Lambton county goes take unto the provincial government more power, because unless you change a lot of different things in education, we are subject to, for example, the provincial government's decision on whether junior kindergarten is valued or not, whether adult education is valued or not, whether French programs are valued or not. We cannot make those kind of decisions locally. Those kind of decisions, because we're so dependent, have to be made in Toronto.
The issue of equity comes in here. Already, school boards across the province vary considerably in their ability to provide services and programs to their students. There is a danger that the funding changes proposed will further increase the inequities in the classrooms of Ontario. You'll know that around Toronto many of those school boards -- if they complain they can't produce a quality education product, I don't know why they do that. The services and the programs they can offer far outstrip what those of us in other parts of the province are able to provide in terms of breadth and the depth of what is offered.
1710
Amalgamations I heard mentioned earlier. For your information, the Lambton County Board of Education is the largest employer in Lambton county. The electors are represented by 18 trustees. That includes three French-speaking trustees who represent about 150 voters, I might say, and one native representative. Therefore, 99% of the public school supporters in Lambton county are represented by only 14 trustees. Compared to that, we have many municipalities -- it's something like 15 to 20 -- and of course many more municipal politicians than we have trustees. I feel this should be taken into account in addressing local governance issues.
In contrast to the previous speaker, I might just say that I am totally in favour of a confederated school board. I know that previous ministers of Education and the current minister have dismissed the idea, but several of the trustees, on my board particularly, believe that the rights of linguistic and religious groups can be protected within a confederated school board. It would be our contention that that's where real savings can be made. Forget amalgamation into huge geographical areas, but to preserve local autonomy I do wish people would take seriously the concept of a confederated school board.
Interjection.
Ms Khan: Apparently, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association has sought legal advice and there is an interpretation that does allow for that. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's something that should be investigated.
With less real local autonomy for counties like Lambton county, school boards see that the Ministry of Education becomes even more powerful and distant from the classrooms, the students, the parents and the taxpayers, and I'm really concerned about this. As it does become more distant, as the accountability link becomes more distant, what I see happening is what has happened recently, that our school system and our students become a political football to be used for social engineering.
To digress, our school board has totally dismissed the idea of user fees, but personally, as a taxpayer I would find them acceptable within limits, but I would not be happy to have user fees imposed upon the current property taxes we pay; there would need to be cuts at that level. And of course I would be totally in favour of preserving essential services that would be accessible to everybody.
To get to what seems to be the only issue that affects school boards in Bill 26, it's the suggestion for arbitration. In Lambton county we've had three secondary school teacher strikes in I think 14 years. The last one was when Mr Cooke was the minister, and lasted for six semestered weeks. As a parent at the time and as a parent activist, it was a really traumatic experience, and to deny that is harmful to a student's education is to call black white. My son, who was in grade 9 at the time, three years earlier had experienced six weeks of an elementary school strike, and we've had two of those over the period of 12 years.
This idea of arbitration is definitely a step in the right direction, because what I see is that it would look at an individual community, the other employees in that community. For example, in Lambton county, two years ago when we had a strike, we were experiencing a severe downsizing at the petrochemical companies; people were being laid off. Companies were moving out of town. If an arbitrator had come in at that time and looked at the local economy, not just as it stood then but what was likely to happen over the next five years, I hope the decisions would have been more empathetic to what the community was asking for.
I would like to turn it on any of you who are familiar with these clauses to ask how you think it would pan out for school boards in terms of their employee relations. We have just signed a contract with the OSSTF which I'm uncomfortable with. It was settled without a strike, which I guess we should be happy about, but I'm not happy that it takes into account the reality of Lambton county. I think what people were hoping for was that the government was going to come in and do the hard work and carry the can. Maybe I shouldn't say this.
Interjection: Oh, yes. Go on.
Ms Khan: I'm actually talking in defence of the government and against the school board. I think the decisions should be made locally, but we can't make them locally because we don't have the tools to do it. That's basically what I'm saying.
I feel I've let you down quite gently at the end of your, I'm sure, heavy day. Common sense is -- sitting over this side is a perspective that I like to think I come from. I'm not a great advocate of extreme dogma. There is much this government is doing that I can support. There is much that particularly Dave Cooke was doing that I did support.
If anybody can see through this arbitration thing and help me envisage how it would work -- the worrisome thing for some of us who've read through it is that there is no right of appeal. What if it doesn't turn out to be exactly what we anticipate, that it's not the ideal solution for the local economy? What if the arbitrator doesn't see the perspective of the local economy and the local economy's ability to pay?
I thank you for the opportunity to say those few words.
The Chair: Thank you. We have four minutes for each caucus, starting with the opposition caucus.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. Obviously, you have some flexibility if you can support the bill and Mr Cooke at one and the same time.
Ms Khan: Some of the bill.
Mr Phillips: One hardly knows where to begin. The bill does provide, as you may or may not know, for the elimination of a school board through regulation. You may not be aware of that because it's fairly technical, but the bill says that local boards, and that can include school boards, can be eliminated by the passing of a bylaw by a municipal council. What the government has said is, "Don't worry about that, we're going to pass a regulation that will prohibit that." But the legislation will permit it, and we are being assured that the minister intends to pass a regulation.
If you understand the way this system works -- which not many people do; I have begun to understand it -- regulation is something that simply goes through cabinet, doesn't go to the Legislature, and then is passed. Do you on behalf of trustees or you yourself have any concern about that sort of power in the bill?
Ms Khan: That was a concern that did arise. Our director investigated that and was assured -- he didn't put the same interpretation that you said. He was assured that it wasn't school boards that were intended.
Mr Cooke: It does cover school boards.
Ms Khan: It does? Well, I would be totally opposed. It's the subtlety of what I was trying to say in terms of Lambton county, the fact that we have 14 trustees representing that huge area -- not in terms of northern Ontario, but as far as southwestern Ontario goes it's quite a large area. We have 15 or so municipalities represented by up to eight municipal politicians, yet our budget is larger than that of any other employer in Lambton county, any of Dow Chemical or Novacor or whatever.
It would seem ridiculous to me that you would -- I do think that according to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Learning and so on we have to address the role of trustees. That is a very serious concern.
1720
Mr Phillips: Just so you understand my understanding, at least, of the arbitration process -- and I'm not sure that you're going to be happy with what's proposed here -- the way it works, as I understand it, is that the normal collective bargaining will go on, the teachers clearly still have the right to strike, and it is only when the Education Relations Commission says the student year is in jeopardy and therefore the strike must end and it goes to arbitration that these arbitration provisions kick in.
My own judgement on the arbitration provisions is that they so move in favour of the employer and take bargaining rights away from the employee that I can't imagine any group of teachers ever wanting to go to arbitration, so I'm not sure you're going to see strikes shortened as a result of that. I think that teachers will be very reluctant to go to arbitration, and there's always the risk that we end up with, rather than voluntarily going to arbitration, more strikes.
So I'm not sure what you are saying -- that you commend the legislation on the arbitration? I guess my question really is, has your school board debated the consequences of this new arbitration process?
Ms Khan: Just informally. Our interpretation was that arbitration would be sought earlier than you indicated, so maybe we have to do some more research on that. Certainly we were looking at in a positive light, because we do think that those long strikes are very detrimental to the students. That is something we value.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but I know Mr Cooke would like to have a shot here.
Mr Cooke: Just a couple of questions.
Ms Khan: Oh, I disagree with some things.
Mr Cooke: Then you won't mind if I disagree with you.
Just to follow up on what Mr Phillips was saying, what I suspect is going to happen -- I think it would be interesting if the committee could have the chair of the Education Relations Commission before the committee, because I suspect that what the ERC would say is that with these amendments there's no incentive for school boards to negotiate with teachers.
There'll be an incentive to have a strike, have the legislation come in, send the whole thing to arbitration and then, because of the approach that's now being taken, there will be an arbitration settlement that will be very unfair to the workers. So we may end up seeing more strikes as a result of this and more intervention and more legislation in the House and more situations like Lambton.
I wanted to raise just a couple of things with you. A confederated school board, I know, is appealing to some people. I just ask you to take a look. We did have a confederated school board in Ontario. It was in Ottawa and it was on the French side, where we had the French Catholic, the French public and an umbrella board, and what we ended up seeing wasn't savings; we ended up having three bureaucracies instead of one.
That's exactly what will happen if we ever move to a confederated school board in order to satisfy -- and I'm not saying this is your motivation but I certainly know it is with some -- to satisfy some people's opposition to the extension of funding to the Catholic system. We'll have a confederated school board but we'll have, as the model that OSSTF and OSPBA put out, an umbrella board with two other boards and we'll have three bureaucracies and we'll increase the cost of administration and the expenditure outside of the classroom. So I'd just ask you to take a look at that.
Do you have any idea yet, have you been given any numbers by the Ministry of Education and Training, about the decrease in your GLGs? Any guesstimate? Your administration must have given you a guesstimate of what it thinks the reduction will be.
Ms Khan: Just as a per cent, yes. I guess it would be $9 million or something like that. Our budget is $114 million.
Mr Cooke: Can you remember approximately what your rate of grant is? What percentage would the $9 million be?
Ms Khan: Seven per cent.
Mr Cooke: Well, it'll vary, because what happens even when the grants are frozen -- there are school boards that have either no growth in their enrolment or a decline in enrolment and they lose GLGs. So you're going to be talking about huge decreases.
Ms Khan: Yes, nearly 20% then maybe.
Mr Cooke: Has there been any thought given yet at your board of how you're going to cope with services you're going to cut?
Ms Khan: It's been a subject of discussion, but we know that we can't do it without the tools. We're just making it.
Mr Cooke: What are the tools you're referring to?
Ms Khan: There's the alternative staffing thing.
Mr Cooke: So the OPSBA presentation that was made to us a few weeks ago -- we had a lot of these from OPSBA.
Ms Khan: I'm not familiar with that. Contractually, as I said, we did reach an agreement with the OSSTF. I would have preferred not to have that agreement. I'm not talking about rollbacks or anything like that, but I think that working together with the federation and the board, we should have looked at cost savings within the schools; as I said, our bureaucracy is minimal.
Mr Cooke: It's going to be hard to say you want to work with the teachers, though, if you want to have non-qualified teachers in the classroom.
Ms Khan: Absolutely, but what choice do we have? We cannot provide junior kindergarten -- sorry.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cooke. Sorry to interrupt, ma'am, but we have to get into the the government's time. Mr Young.
Mr Young: Unlike the opposition members, I don't think the definition of a local board in the bill means school boards. But would it allay your fears if it were changed and it said clearly that it does not include school boards?
Ms Khan: I think it should.
Mr Young: With regard to the tools, one of the tools that we're providing in this bill is changes to the Arbitrations Act, which I totally support. There's an education finance review going on internally at the Ministry of Education which will report I think this month, and of course you know the Sweeney report too.
The issues around education are so big, there's such major change coming at the Ministry of Education, that we don't want the municipalities to take it on. So we'll be dealing with it ministerially and in consultation with the school boards.
We know we spend about $530 million a year in Ontario, all told, in preparation time, teachers' preparation time, and we know that a lot of the school boards have retirement gratuities and we know that we spend $1.3 billion on custodial care. Those are the kinds of places we think there may be savings. What was your opinion on that?
Ms Khan: Custodial care, I think we have that down to the bare bones. I guess I didn't mention retirement gratuities. I guess OPSBA's estimate is there's a saving of $320 million from that alone.
Somebody talked earlier about comparing public employees with the private sector, and that's an area where there is such a dissimilarity with what's happening in Lambton county. I think that has to be done. You have to address that issue of retirement gratuity.
I should have mentioned to Mr Cooke, the response is, the preparation time would be quite a large saving to our board if it were held outside of the school day.
Also, just to put Lambton county in context, we are a declining enrolment board as well as a declining assessment board, and what with secondary school reform and all the other things, we are not able to hire any young teachers, and have not been able to do, for several years. With those things like preparation time, we're going to need fewer and fewer teachers and they all have grey hair, pretty much, or are getting up that way. That is a real problem for us.
Mr Young: Is grey hair a problem?
Mr Cooke: You tell us.
Mr Young: Do you think there's any chance that teachers, who are among the most responsible members of our communities, if they see the Arbitrations Act has to include affordability, will cooperate and we'll have fewer strikes in Ontario?
Ms Khan: I'm a conciliatory person and I think that's how it should be, and that locally in Lambton county that's how it would be too. But I think what we're dealing with is a provincial federation, and clearly the economy in different parts of Ontario is different and that affects the attitude of the teachers, either locally or provincially, to what they think should be their just deserts, I guess.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes your half-hour. I appreciate your coming forward and making your submission today to the committee.
Members of the committee, the bus will be leaving within an hour. I think everyone has given an indication to the clerk who would be travelling on it, except Mr Young; I believe you are. We will meet there quickly, and let the Hansard people get their equipment together. Thank you, everyone, for a productive day and thank you to the city of London.
The subcommittee adjourned at 1731.