SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 6500
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, SUDBURY AND AREA
SUDBURY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, SUDBURY REGION
SUDBURY REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Tuesday 16 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
Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce
Darla Scott, president
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Mike Sauve, North Bay representative
René Fortin, regional assistant director
United Steelworkers of America, Local 6500
Wayne Fraser, president, northeastern Ontario area council
Dave Campbell, president, Local 6500
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Sudbury and area
Dennis Burke, staff representative
Northwatch
Brennain Lloyd, representative
Inco Ltd
Dr Larry Banbury, manager, safety, health, environment
Brian Randa, land administrator, exploration department
Marty Puro, superintendent, reclamation and decommissioning
Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association
Marc Leduc, district vice-president, Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association
Mike O'Reilly, president, Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Sudbury region
Bill Kuehnbaum, first vice-president, OPSEU
Peter Slee, staff representative
Mitchell Day
Sudbury Regional Police Association
Daniel Zembrzycki, director
Austin McGaughay, second vice-chair
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 31
Michel Gravelle, president
John Filo, parent
Richard Pentney
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 30
Geoff Shaw, division president
James Agnew, provincial councillor
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
Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND) for Mr Wood
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L)
Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
Martel, Shelley (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0900 in the Ramada Inn, Sudbury.
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. Committee members, welcome to Sudbury. We have a few motions, again, this morning to discuss before we hear our first witness. Before we do that I would like to welcome Ms Martel, the member for Sudbury East, and Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury. That's it this morning for new members. Mr Brown was here yesterday too. Mr Silipo, you have a motion to move.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. I was going to say I'm happy to move it, but I'm actually not happy to move it, but I will move it none the less.
Whereas there has been overwhelming public interest in Bill 26 and that 68 groups and individuals have requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Sudbury which far exceed the 13 spaces available today for hearings;
I move that this committee recommends to the government House leader that when the House returns on January 29, 1996, that the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended and that the bill be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further public hearings can be arranged for the community of Sudbury;
Further, that this committee recommends that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss the issue.
If I may speak briefly, I said that I'm not happy to have to move this motion because I would have hoped that by now the government side would have realized and the government would have realized the wisdom of providing additional time to have these hearings. I know that our Liberal colleagues have a similar motion that they put, and so they stand with us, and we've been working very much together on this particular point.
I think it's incumbent upon the government to recognize that here in Sudbury, as indeed in every other community that we've been in, the response and the interest in Bill 26 have far exceeded the time allotted for people to be heard. Although there's been a common thread, it's fair to say, in the presentations, it's also true that as more people come before us, as more groups come before us, different aspects of this bill are also revealed. So it's incumbent, we believe very strongly, that members be willing to provide additional time.
We think that can be done in a way that does not jeopardize the return of the bill to the House on January 29 in the possible separation at that time of those aspects of the bill over which there can be agreement reached, with potentially, then, some further discussion on those aspects that are important.
I know here in Sudbury last night, as a way to deal with the overwhelming requests, that there were in fact hearings held by a variety of community groups, and I'm sure that others will speak to that. It was just incredible, the number of people who had to resort to that avenue in order to have their voices heard because this committee was not able and will not be able to hear them.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): In speaking to this motion, I think it's important to establish some facts as they relate to this committee and the time we're spending dealing with this particular piece of legislation. It's important to note that the hearing time actually allocated to this particular bill is more hearing time than any other piece of legislation in the past two sessions of the past two Parliaments. I think it's important to note that in establishing this particular time there was to-ing and fro-ing between the various House leaders as to how much time is going to be spent on committee hearings, where the hearings are going etc.
Through the process of to-ing and fro-ing, there was actually an option that was put forward by the government House leader that in addition to the time we're currently spending, both on the road and in Toronto in both public hearings and also clause-by-clause review, there was an additional week offered between the hearing times and the clause-by-clause review to allow for a fuller consideration, if I can, of the possible amendments that might be put forward. That, of course, was an offer that was not accepted by either of the two parties across the floor, at least by their House leaders anyhow.
We're aware of the fact that there are people who are unable to speak to us today. Our response has been that's the case in other cities. We're prepared to receive written submissions and I think the tally is now, if my memory serves me correctly, eight written submissions. One was tabled yesterday, I believe. We've been through two public hearing weeks and we've received eight written submissions. Those will be given due and full consideration by certainly our side of the table prior to the scoping out of amendments.
I think it's also important to note that it's not this side of the table, Mr Chair, that determines, as you know and the members opposite know, who speaks in front of the committee. It's a process that was established by the consent of both sides of the table prior to the hearings starting. It's a process that we've followed religiously, as far as I can gather anyhow, since the hearings were started and it's a process that I suspect we'll continue to follow going forward.
We are listening. We are prepared to respond to the issues and concerns raised by individuals. We've been encouraged to table amendments. In fact, we were encouraged to table amendments before we started the hearings on the northwestern Ontario route and we're not prepared to do that, Mr Chair, because we believe it's important to hear from all Ontarians across this province. Whether they happen to be in southwestern Ontario, northwestern Ontario, wherever, it's important for all residents of Ontario to have their views expressed to us before we scope out the depth and breadth of any change to this bill.
So I think I'd like to move ahead and hear from the deputants who have spent the time and energy to come to the table today and speak to us, and we'll be voting against that particular motion.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I speak in support of the motion. The motion is not only timely; it's necessary. But before I speak to the motion, I'd just like to clear up a few misconceptions so that the general audience and the general public will understand that this bill would have been law by now, had it not been for the two opposition parties in defence of the rights of the people of Ontario.
Let us not be fooled that there would be additional hours of hearings. Those additional hours of hearings would have taken place between 9 am and 12 midnight, only in Toronto, and we would not have had the opportunity to inform the public. The public would not have been aware of the complexity of this bill. In fact, clearly and without a doubt the public is understanding better, I think, than the government that the complexities of this particular bill and the ramifications of its passing need more time, need more discussion, need more input, need more amendments and need the input and the rights of the people of Ontario to be heard.
Clearly and without a doubt, as I rise in support of this resolution, I want you to understand -- let us take a tale of one city, simply Sudbury. We had 50 groups wanting to present last Tuesday and only 14 were heard; 68 people want to be heard today only 13 are going to be heard. Simple, commonsense arithmetic tells you that the vast majority of people within the city and region of Sudbury are not being heard.
Let me just talk a little bit about those groups that aren't being heard. Students from Laurentian University, refused the right to be heard -- all kinds of groups that affect the future of Ontario not being heard. It's wrong. They want the opportunity to be heard. The motion by the NDP, by Mr Silipo, allows for these people to be heard.
Clearly, I have to go back because the government side always goes back to the Common Sense Revolution, and let me go back to page 19, which states, "We are ready to listen, to learn and to work with you." I find it upsetting that the people who were voted in on June 8 don't even believe their own Common Sense Revolution doctrine when they say they are "ready to listen, to learn and to work" with the people of Ontario.
Clearly if you are, then you as the government side of this committee should be more than happy to support the resolution and bring it back to our House leaders so that further discussion and dialogue can take place in the city of Sudbury.
0910
The Chair: Thank you. Before I put the motion I'd like to welcome Mr Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, to the committee today and Mr Laughren, the member for Nickel Belt. I hope that's a sign of a return to health, and all committee members are happy to see you, Mr Laughren.
Eligible to vote today are Mr Silipo, Mr Phillips, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Tascona, Mr Sampson, Mr Hardeman and Mr Young.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Let Mr Laughren vote too.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I think he deserves a vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote, I believe.
Ayes
Mr Gerretsen, Mr Phillips, Mr Silipo.
Nays
Mr Hardeman, Mr Sampson, Mr Tascona, Mr Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
Mr Silipo would like to have tabled, and will move, a second motion.
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll move this motion and I think Ms Martel is going to speak to it, actually, on our behalf.
Whereas there are only four days remaining for public scrutiny on Bill 26; and
Whereas public interest in this bill has been overwhelming; and
Whereas the vast majority of presenters to the standing committee on general government have recommended major changes be made to the bill;
I move that this committee recommend to the government House leader that the 118 individuals and groups that requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Sudbury be given the opportunity today to see the government amendments to Bill 26.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): In terms of responding to the motion that's been put forward by my colleague Mr Silipo, let me say the following. I understand that the government has told people, when this motion has been moved, that it's important to hear from all the people who are presenting and the government wishes to hear from everyone before the amendments are tabled.
I have to say to you, Mr Chair, that I sat through the committee hearings last week in Sudbury and I fully expect, when I sit through the committee hearings today, that there will be a number of groups that will themselves request from the government the amendments to the various sections that we have been told are coming. I think that the public that is here and wants to make comment on this particular piece of legislation should have the right to also know what the government has in mind so that they have an opportunity to respond to the same.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are amendments which are already drafted that have probably already had cabinet approval. I say that for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the Minister of Health, in response to some very severe criticism that he received from the privacy commissioner regarding the new powers he has brought on to himself to collect and to disclose information of patients, said in fact that he would amend the sections that responded to the concerns that were outlined by the privacy commissioner. Those of you who recall when this letter was released by the privacy commissioner will know that was done before the hearings even started, in fact before the House even recessed last December. He made it very clear that as the Minister of Health, with his solicitors from the ministry, there would be amendments to respond to those very significant concerns. I suspect they are already drafted; I suspect they have already been seen by cabinet.
Secondly, when the committee started in Toronto at the end of December, Mr Wilson, when he spoke to the various sections of the bill regarding health changes, also made it clear that there would be a sunset provision with respect to the restructuring commission. That too requires amendments to the legislation which is before us. No doubt, if the minister talked about that very particular piece of legislation and the change he wanted to make, he already has the amendments with respect to sunsetting of the restructuring commission. I think the people who are coming before this committee who are expressing some serious concerns about the minister's power around restructuring and the role and mandate of the commission should be entitled to see the amendments that he already has in place that deal with that very issue.
Finally, when the committee was here last Tuesday, in response to some very serious concerns that were raised by the ACCESS AIDS Committee of Sudbury around disclosure-of-privacy information and what that would mean to people suffering from AIDS or who were HIV-positive, Ms Johns made it absolutely clear from the government side that there would be amendments to respond to those concerns. She gave an absolute assurance to the group that was here that day. There were a number of other groups that raised concerns around the very same issue that day, and yet no one has had the benefit of seeing the amendments that Ms Johns assures are going to be placed by the government to respond to whether or not they will in fact address their concerns around privacy and patient confidentiality.
For those three reasons alone, I have no doubt there are amendments, I have no doubt they have they have been seen by cabinet, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the government will not release those amendments to the public so that the good folks who have taken time to prepare presentations can come here, can take a good look at the amendments and can also speak to those and tell the government very clearly whether or not the amendments are going to respond to those concerns at all.
So I would encourage the government at this time today or, if not, tomorrow, when they start the hearings in northwestern Ontario, to table the amendments so that the public has a right to speak to them as well.
Mr Sampson: I always find it interesting how the other side of the table can say at one point, "Listen, government members, you tabled this legislation apparently without consulting people. Why have you written draft legislation? Why have you written legislation without consultation, and full consultations?" and yet with respect to amendments they want us effectively to table legislation before consultation is complete.
Our point is, and our view is, let us complete the consultation process before we establish the depth and breadth of certain amendments. Even yesterday we heard from a council representative saying, with respect to perhaps some improvement in the democratization, so to speak, of the restructuring process, "You might want to consider this." Well, it was the first time we'd heard that suggestion. Clearly, if we tabled something before that, any amendment wouldn't have reflected her input or her concerns or her issues. We're not prepared to shut off the voice of the people we are yet to hear. I think they're prepared to have and they should have input into the scope of the amendments that we table, and we're prepared to do that. It might as well be tabled and discussed in clause-by-clause review, as is the normal process, and they will reflect the full extent of the hearings that we've had.
Mr Phillips: The motion makes all sorts of sense, and, frankly, what the government says doesn't. Just so the public is aware, five minutes into the hearings on December 18, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Al Leach, came in and said, "I intend to introduce an amendment." Then he went on to say, "I intend to make additional amendments." He said he was going to make the amendments. He said that five minutes into this. We hadn't heard from one person in the public, and he said before we heard even a peep from the public that he was going to make these amendments. So it isn't us saying this. It's the government saying, "We already have prepared amendments."
You're putting people into a very embarrassing position. The chamber of commerce will be here today. I suspect that if they knew that it was the intention of this legislation to permit a gas tax or a municipal sales tax -- I might add that in Toronto there's the release of a major report today calling for a gas tax for the greater Toronto area, and we've heard from mayor after mayor that this legislation permits a municipal gas tax. Well, does it or doesn't it? The advice that many legal counsels have given to municipalities is, "Permit the gas tax." So the chamber of commerce today -- I don't know -- may be supporting this bill, but they should be aware they're supporting a bill that permits a municipal gas tax. So when a municipality's back is right to the wall and their grants have already been cut by 50%, their backs are going to be more and more to the wall, and as a desperate move they introduce a gas tax, the chamber is going to be in the unfortunate position of supporting the bill that permitted that.
The bill right now takes away pension benefits from public sector employees. Well, that's unfair. Perhaps there should be an amendment. If that's what they want to do, every employee in this province should be treated fairly, but we don't know whether that's the government's intent or not. But the chamber has to come here today, I suspect, to support the bill not knowing what the government's intentions are. I think in fairness to organizations like the chamber, the government should say what its intentions are.
What we're going to find is that at 9 o'clock Friday night, this committee hears its final deputation. We then head back to Queen's Park to begin clause-by-clause hearings at 9 o'clock on Monday morning, and I suspect the government's going to come and dump a bunch of amendments, some surprises, on the table. I guarantee you that the bulk of them, as my colleague Ms Martel said, have already been written and approved, waiting to be tabled.
0920
I think rather than put deputations through the challenge of having to support something when they're not even clear on what they're supporting -- you're putting people in the wrong position. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government saying: "We've now agreed. We will be proposing these amendments. If there are deputations that add to it, fine, but this clarifies our intent." So the motion is clearly in order.
The government itself said as early as five minutes into the hearings that it had amendments. Why are we not seeing them? We're not seeing them, I think, because organizations like the chamber might have trouble supporting this bill if they knew what the full intentions of the government were. The intent is: Keep them in the dark, hold out hope that their amendments might be tabled, and then it's too late. The chamber will be, I suspect, on record as supporting the bill, and the amendments they want have no intention of being implemented. So why not see the amendments?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Phillips. I'll put the motion.
Mr Silipo: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Gerretsen, Phillips, Silipo.
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have half an hour 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 for questions and response from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if at the beginning of the presentation you'd take some time to introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Ms Darla Scott: My name is Darla Scott and I am the president of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. Accompanying me this morning is Debbi Nicholson, the executive director of the chamber. On behalf of our approximately 1,000 members, I wish to extend our appreciation to you for allowing me the opportunity to make this presentation this morning.
The Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce is one of the largest and most dynamic chambers in northern Ontario, and we take a keen interest in representing the views and interests of our membership. Our members are drawn from all areas of our region and are engaged in every sector of the economy, from the multinationals to the independent owner-operator. However, approximately 80% of our members are small businesses, companies with fewer than 10 employees. We represent the interests of the business community and are the recognized voice of business in our area.
The underlying purpose of Bill 26, which is to achieve fiscal savings and promote economic prosperity through public sector restructuring, streamlining and efficiency, is a worthy cause and one that is supported in principle by the Sudbury chamber. Government restructuring is long overdue, and continued attempts to Band-Aid our fiscal haemorrhage are not effective and are not the answer. With deficits averaging nearly $10 billion annually over the past four years and an accumulated debt of more than $90 billion, it is imperative that the Ontario government take aggressive measures to reduce spending and get its fiscal house in order.
Governments at all levels should not, cannot and must not continue trying to be all things to all people. It is unrealistic and financially irresponsible. Rather, it is our belief that the role of government in today's economy should be to create a climate that fosters a culture for entrepreneurship, that encourages business growth and that attracts new investment and new jobs.
Restructuring government and restoring confidence in the financial strengths of the province is essential to the future of Ontario's economy. As you are aware, the business community has had to face the restructuring of its own operations over the past decade in order to stay competitive in an increasingly difficult marketplace. Those businesses that have adjusted have successfully emerged from the recession of the early 1990s; those that did not adapt are no longer with us.
Bill 26 is a very broad bill and proposes changes to many pieces of legislation affecting our members. We are not experts, nor do we have the time and the resources to become totally familiar with the whole of the omnibus bill, its proposed changes and the implications. However, I would like to focus on a few specific proposed amendments to the various acts that we feel are particularly important to our constituents.
Amendments to the Municipal Act: The Sudbury chamber supports the thrust of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act as they allow municipalities to impose a broad range of user charges and licensing fees, as well as the opportunity to privatize certain services, which ultimately will provide greater autonomy, accountability, efficiency and decision-making at the local level. It will increase local accountability by placing a greater share of revenue-raising responsibility at the level of government which is making important expenditure decisions. It will also increase efficiency by letting user charges influence the consumption of municipal services and by opening municipal services to private competition. It must be understood, however, that the imposition of fees must be limited to a value-for-money basis; that is, the most efficient and effective use of tax dollars for the services rendered. It must not simply be to replace lost revenues from transfer payments.
Privatization, franchising and contracting out of municipal services have been used successfully in many jurisdictions to reduce costs and also to improve efficiencies. The establishment of a competitive environment in which both municipal departments and private providers can bid on public service provisions, at a standard determined by municipal government, can be beneficial and provide new economies.
Above all, it must be noted that the bill does not require municipalities to increase user fees; it does not require municipalities to privatize anything; it does not require municipalities to impose licensing fees or other taxes. It merely allows them to do these things if they are confident that the electorate will react favourably. If municipalities abuse these new privileges, retribution will come swiftly via the ballot box and shrinking commercial and industrial assessment rolls.
Amendments to the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act: The draft legislation permits the government to exempt two of the largest public service pension plans from the provisions of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act relating to partial pension plan windups triggered by staffing reductions. We are concerned with this provision in so far as private employers have not been extended the same privilege. By its own actions, the provincial government has implicitly recognized that the Pension Benefits Act rules on partial plan windups are onerous and costly for employers.
We would suggest that the Pension Commission of Ontario be directed to apply the exemption which the government of Ontario has created for itself to all Ontario workforce reductions. It would be inappropriate for the government to be exempting itself from this costly legislation while still expecting private sector employers to comply.
The Corporations Tax Act: We support the proposed changes contained in schedule B of Bill 26 to the Corporations Tax Act concerning the mining reclamation trust tax credit and the Ontario innovation tax credit for small and medium-sized, Canadian-controlled private corporations having permanent establishments in Ontario in respect of scientific research and experimental development in Ontario.
0930
We believe there is a positive role for government to play to encourage the private sector to invest in the province. The proposed amendments to the Corporations Tax Act will assist these sectors to create jobs and contribute to the overall provincial economy.
In conclusion, Bill 26 is a very comprehensive bill which contains amendments to the various pieces of legislation necessary to restructure the public sector, to achieve fiscal savings and improve operating efficiencies of government. The Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce supports several of the broad directions being charted by the government through this legislation. We believe that through these actions the government is sending the right message to the private sector, that the province is open for business, investment and job growth once again. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the standing committee today to offer the views of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce on Bill 26.
The Chair: We have about six minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much and good morning, and thank you for the presentation. I want to go quickly to the user fee issue. Your chamber is very supportive of putting the local economy in place where municipalities can charge for the services they provide. It's been expressed by a number of presenters that municipalities may overuse this. Does the chamber have concern that municipalities, I suppose in plain terms, could not be trusted with this type of autonomy, that there needs to be more control put in place that would limit the ability on certain services or certain types of product that the municipality provides that they could charge for and they shouldn't? Do you see any need for that further control?
Ms Scott: I think we have two things to take into consideration. One, our municipal politicians are elected by the taxpayers regionally and municipally with the belief that they are capable of doing a good job for us. I think secondly we have to keep in mind that user fees have been discussed in our region for some time with respect to the fact that both at the city and throughout our municipalities the line on zero mill rate increases has been held for the past four years. We must recognize that we need to invest in upgrades to our sewer and water and waste management systems. With the use of user fees, it makes the user very, very aware of the cost of those services. At the present time, it's built into the tax bill and we don't see that. So I think with user fees, we can control the escalating costs of waste management and make people more responsible for their own consumption.
Mr Hardeman: Carrying on in the same vein, the issue of licensing powers and the ability to licence: I believe you expressed some concern that there should be, again, value for money. Do you see a danger or an asset to municipalities being able to license more broadly and being able to do that on a cost-recovery basis? Some of your members are not paying for the services that the municipality is providing for others to keep them in business. I just point out that it's been brought up a number of times about the issue of a licence. A certain licence may be able to go up from $20 to $225 because that's actually the cost of administering that licence for a certain type of business. Does your chamber have any problems with total cost recovery on all licensing?
Ms Scott: I think that what we have to keep in mind is that if the cost is in fact that high and it is done as effectively and efficiently as possible, then the users should pay the cost. If we can bring the cost down to the $20 that it currently is and that's what it costs, then that's what we should pay. I think we have to keep in mind, again, that users have control over their consumption and have direct input with our local politicians in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of our system. We believe that this can help to improve the way government, locally, delivers its services.
Mr Hardeman: I guess, finally, then it's fair to say that you support that the local elected officials are closest to the people, so they are the best and most appropriate area to look at to make those decisions on behalf of the people as to the money available and the type of services they should be providing.
Ms Scott: Certainly our local politicians are much more accessible than our provincial or federal politicians. We have access to them on a day-to-day basis because they are here all the time in our community. But certainly people feel much more able to access and to inform our local politicians about their views.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the chamber's presentation, although I tend to find that chambers love the title of the bill then express some significant concerns about the details. Just so you know, your request that they must be limited to value for money and simply not to replace lost revenues from transfer payments has nothing to do with the intent of the bill. It is clear from listening to the mayors that they want, and the government says they are going to provide, unlimited flexibility for the fees. So I guarantee you there will be nothing in this bill that says the fees must be in terms of value for money. As a matter of fact, the deputy mayor of London says they can't wait four weeks for this bill to be passed. They were urging us to pass it faster so they can impose new taxes, new fees, to replace the lost revenue from the province.
What I'm saying to you, as the chamber is, you are supporting a bill that gives unlimited flexibility for fees, not necessarily value for money, allows the imposition of new taxes such as municipal gas taxes, and in the licensing area the wording for the licensing says, "requiring the payment of licence fees, which may be in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred...." I think you've used the words "must be limited." It will not be limited to that. In the licence area, we heard yesterday the mayor of Guelph say that they're looking forward to being able to take a licence from $20 to $500. I guess the reason for all of this is -- and I think municipalities, as I said earlier, are well-intentioned -- their backs are to the wall. Their grants are cut 50%.
So when you find fees introduced that have nothing to do with value for service, simply a fee, would the chamber still support the bill even if you accepted that there will be many fees introduced that have nothing to do with value for money, that some municipalities in Ontario will introduce a gas tax and that some of your licences would be in the nature of a tax? In other words, it would not be a fixed licence; it would be in the nature of some form of tax based on sales of some product. Would you still have the support of the chamber for the bill?
Ms Scott: I don't believe our members would be in support of a fee in the form of a tax on sales, on revenues or on payrolls. That is something that chamber members have expressed their disagreement with long and hard over many, many years.
I think what you have to keep in mind from a business perspective and from a taxpayer's perspective is, if we give the autonomy to our local municipal politicians, those politicians will hear from us loudly and clearly as to the limit that we are prepared to go to to pick up the difference in the transfer payments. I don't believe that the local taxpayer is going to sit back and allow our municipal politicians to increases taxes by 50% to pick up the difference. There is a firm belief in our community that taxes should be rendering services that provide value.
Mr Phillips: We've had at least three mayors say, they're going to introduce city gas tax.
Mr Scott: A city gas tax for what? To have gas pumps --
Mr Phillips: To replace gas revenue from the province.
Ms Scott: To have pumps in the downtown area? Is that what it's for?
Mr Phillips: Three of them have said -- the mayor of Mississauga, the Metro chair, and the deputy mayor of London -- that it would be in some form of a gas tax.
Ms Scott: We have municipalities in other cities in Canada which impose gas taxes within their jurisdictions and it's accepted and complied with by those taxpayers.
0940
Mr Phillips: So you support a gas tax, then.
Ms Scott: No, I wouldn't say I support a gas tax. I think what I'm trying to tell you is that what this bill offers is, our local politicians have the autonomy to make those decisions, and it is up to us to tell them the limit that we are prepared to accept. You're providing flexibility. Local politicians have cried over many, many years about the fact that provinces impose certain restrictions on them yet expect them to deliver certain services and have often said, "If they'd just let us do it our way, we could do it better."
Mr Gerretsen: You're a local politician, by the way.
Ms Scott: No, I'm not a local politician nor have I any desire to be one.
Ms Martel: I'd like to pursue the line of questioning started off by Mr Phillips, if I might. I just want to be clear, Ms Scott, on page 3, where you say, "The...chamber supports the thrust of the proposed amendments...as they allow municipalities to impose a broader range of user charges and licensing fees...." So the chamber supports that.
Ms Scott: Yes.
Ms Martel: The chamber supports the municipalities having a right to increase taxes at the local level, because user fees and licensing fees are taxes, no matter how you look at it. Is that what you support?
Ms Scott: We support it. It doesn't mean that it must be imposed.
Ms Martel: My memory is not that great, but I remember a time when my colleague who is sitting right here was Treasurer, in 1993-94 --
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Leave me out of this.
Ms Martel: -- and we had to increase taxes in those two fiscal years by about $2 billion, and the chamber of commerce here went bananas when we did that, went absolutely bananas, and made no bones about how the increased taxes were bad for business, bad for individual ratepayers, and yet you come here today and you're saying you support a bill that allows municipalities to do just that. I find that contradiction just unbelievable.
Ms Scott: I can understand that. However, I think if you look back at the thrust that the chamber started approximately five years ago, we supported and led a drive for a zero mill rate increase locally, and that has happened. So we have more influence locally on the increase in taxes than we have provincially. Taxpayers have been keen to keep the line on mill rate increases. We've increased assessment revenues through new business, through residential construction, but we've not increased mill rates. Local politicians have responded to that.
Ms Martel: But your argument has been that you don't support any increase in tax, regardless of at the provincial or municipal level. But you're coming in today with a submission that very clearly says, "Well, municipalities might not use the power." Everyone in the room thinks they will because when they're suffering a 50% decrease in transfers from the province, of course they're going to have no choice but to do that if they're going to try and maintain service.
You're here today saying very clearly: "It's okay. We'll give municipalities the power to do that. We didn't like when the province did that at the provincial level and we dumped all over the province when they did that, but it's okay now to allow the Tories to allow municipalities to do that." I just find that a very contradictory position for the chamber to be in.
Ms Scott: Let me put it this way. We would be equally averse to any increase in provincial taxes today as we have been in the past. The position locally is simply that this allows municipalities flexibility. It allows them to make some choices. It doesn't say that they must increase those. In fact, we believe that there are still some significant cost savings to be had locally, through the amalgamation of waste management collection, for instance. We believe that that can happen, but under the current system it's not likely to happen. With some of the changes that are being proposed here, it is more likely that we will be able to realize savings of half a million to a million and a half dollars in waste collection through this region.
So our point is that the options are there. It doesn't mean that they have to be used. As a business person, the option is to increase my prices to whatever level I want. Obviously, I'll only stay in business if my prices are at a level that the market is willing to pay. I believe that the same holds true for municipalities. Taxes can be increased to whatever level you want, but people will not tolerate that.
Mr Silipo: But the point we're making is that if you're going to give municipalities the power to tax, the only reason it becomes relevant is if they use it. If you're saying you don't want them to use it, what's the point of giving it to them? If they're going to have it, they're going to use it. The basic question that's been asked of you is whether you're in favour, and I think you're saying you're in favour of them having the power. What you're saying indirectly is that you're in favour of them using it. You may not want them to use it as much, but they're going to use it if they have it, otherwise what's the point of giving it to them?
I also want to pursue your point on the pension. I'm not sure you're aware, but the government tried to do what it's now doing through legislation, which is to not pay out to its employees the pension rights due to them under windup when there are massive layoffs. They tried to do that by regulation earlier this year. The union took them to court and the court agreed with the union that what the government was doing was illegal and it couldn't do it. Now the government has brought in legislation trying to override the court decision, in effect trying to get around the law; as some people have put it, to steal money that belongs to the employee. I don't know if you are aware that happened, the background to this, and why the government is now doing this. I found it puzzling that you would be asking the government to allow all employers to break the law, to steal from pension plans, because that's really what would be happening.
Ms Scott: The statement, I believe, is that we feel it is inappropriate that the government should allow itself this opportunity to wind down pension plans without extending the same privilege to all employers. Either it's the same legislation --
Mr Silipo: So either steal from everybody or --
Ms Scott: I'm not saying stealing. I'm saying the legislation, as it stands today, is to be intended for everyone, and I don't believe the government should be excluded.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we've come to the end of the time. Thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
The Chair: Could representatives from the Canadian Union of Public Employees please come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. 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 or response from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Mike Sauve: My name is Mike Sauve and I'm the representative for CUPE in the North Bay area, and this is René Fortin, regional assistant director for CUPE out of the Sudbury office.
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to address the committee today. I'm here not only on behalf of the 1,800 CUPE members in the North Bay area but also on behalf of those who rely on the care and services we provide. Our members provide this care to many of the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, the sick and children. CUPE members also work to keep our schools running, they work at local utilities, libraries, municipalities etc. We are instrumental in maintaining the very infrastructure of our communities.
Any legislation that threatens to weaken or possibly eliminate the delivery of these services is bad legislation -- bad for the community, bad for those who rely on those services, bad for the workers. Bill 26 is just that: bad legislation.
The manner in which Bill 26 was introduced and the attempt to have it passed quickly through the Legislature can only be characterized as an assault on democracy.
This is a very far-reaching bill, both in terms of content and the possible consequences of being passed by the Legislature. It creates three new acts, totally repeals two acts and amends a total of 44 other acts. Given the complexity of the bill, the number of acts affected, and the consequences to all residents of this province, this bill should be scrapped.
We urge the government to instead embark on a course of action that would include consultation with all the stakeholders prior to tabling new measures. We also urge the government to table any new measures in a more manageable form.
0950
I have referred to the services provided by public sector employees and their importance to the community. I suggest to you that they are also vital to the economic wellbeing of the North Bay area. A recent survey released by North Bay's Economic Development Advisory Board has shown that the top 10 employers in the area by number of employees are public sector employers. Of the top 100 employers in the area, 27% are public sector employers; however, 60% of the employees are public sector employees. There is no doubt that North Bay's economy is at risk with Bill 26.
I have included in my submission a copy from the local newspaper at the time of the release of the survey. I won't go through that, but I ask that you peruse that.
Also included in my submission is a list of the top 100 North Bay employers, and you will note that at the top of the list we have the Canadian Forces Base North Bay; North Bay General Hospital; Nipissing Board of Education; Nipissing district Roman Catholic school board; Ontario Northland Transportation Commission; North Bay Psychiatric Hospital; city of North Bay; Canadore College; Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services; and then Cassellholme Home for the Aged.
You can see by looking at this list how absolutely important the public sector is to North Bay and its economy. There can be no mistake: Any reduction in the level of services in the public sector will have a dramatic effect on our economy.
With the downloading on to municipalities and the introduction of many new user fees, one has to wonder how far the government's proposed tax cuts would go in providing a net increase in disposable income for the people in Ontario. Increases in user fees and the introduction of new user fees and taxes would certainly negate any provincial tax breaks.
To date, there appears to be a great deal of confusion over Bill 26 with respect to the authority municipalities would have to impose new user fees and taxes. The people of this province have a right to know what the impact of Bill 26 would be on their day-to-day lives. Will property taxes rise? Will bus fares go up? What about water rates? What about ice time in the arenas? What about user fees for parks? Will these services even exist in the future?
Although my comments have so far been of a general nature regarding Bill 26, there should be no doubt about my position. Bill 26 is unacceptable in that it violates the democratic processes we have fought so hard to achieve. It also threatens the delivery of vital services to the community. The motivation for providing services should be caring and compassion, not the bottom line or profit.
At this point I will comment on specific schedules of the bill, and I'll start with schedule J. This schedule amends the Pay Equity Act. The main thrust of schedule J is the repeal of the proxy method of achieving pay equity. This repeal would take place on January 1, 1997.
The proxy method of achieving pay equity was introduced in 1993. It provided an opportunity for thousands of women in female-dominated workplaces to achieve pay equity where no male job classes existed. The proxy method allows pay equity comparisons to be made with female comparators in designated establishments. Before its introduction, thousands of women were denied the opportunity to achieve pay equity and were stuck with the burden of low-paying jobs in female-dominated workplaces.
Schedule J also limits the amount of pay equity adjustments achieved through the proxy method and appears to cap adjustments at 3% of an employer's 1993 Ontario payroll or a lesser amount as is required to achieve pay equity. There is also some question as to the enforcement of the 3% payout.
I urge this committee to withdraw schedule J and to recommend that all decisions regarding the Pay Equity Act be postponed until a pay equity review has been conducted as contemplated in section 37 of the existing act. Public hearings should also be held on this issue to allow the women of Ontario an opportunity to respond to any proposed changes in the act.
I would like to comment on schedule M, but I'll go to schedule Q, which you will find on page 34 of my submission. My submission on schedule M is rather lengthy and if I'm going to run out of time, I would rather complete my submission in the other areas first.
Schedule Q amends various statues with regard to interest arbitration. Included are the Fire Departments Act, the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, the Police Services Act, the Public Service Act and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
The bill would require arbitrators to consider the following before issuing their awards:
"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.
"2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased.
"3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality.
"4. A comparison, as between the employees and other comparable employees in the broader public sector, of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed.
"5. The employer's need for qualified employees."
The introduction of these factors will seriously interfere with the independence and integrity of the arbitration system. Can the process be fair and impartial when one of the parties to the process can make the rules that govern how an arbitrator can rule? Simply put, it cannot.
Employers for many years have attempted to use the ability to pay as argument in the arbitration process. Not only have arbitrators rejected the argument, they have criticized the ability-to-pay criterion on the basis that it would require public sector employees to subsidize public services through substandard wages. By requiring arbitrators to consider ability to pay, the government is actually using the process to impose a form of wage control on workers.
You will find included in this submission comments from several arbitrators on the issue, and I would like to read into the record some of these comments.
Arbitrators have again and again rejected the ability-to-pay argument as a valid criterion in interest arbitration. Owen Shime, a well-respected arbitrator, stated the following in regard to the ability-to-pay criterion:
"Public sector employees should not be required to subsidize the community by accepting substandard wages and working conditions.... On balance, the total community which requires the service should shoulder the financial loss and not expect the employees of the industry to bear an unfair burden by accepting wages and working conditions which are substandard.... If the community needs and demands the public service, then the members of the community must bear the necessary cost to provide fair and equitable wages and not expect the employees to subsidize the service by accepting substandard wages....
"Arguments that decisions granting increases considering cost of living will have an impact on the economy and drive the cost-of-living indices even higher should bear little weight in the arbitration process. There is no proof that arbitration awards are capable of aggravating a rising cost of living and there is sufficient evidence that the necessity to readjust wages is a result of, rather than the cause of, increased living costs. Thus most arbitrators have given consideration to this factor as a response to the economy and have adopted the position that a particular arbitration involving a limited number of employees is not the place to regulate the national or provincial economy. The arbitration process as an institution is not equipped to be a regulator of the economy. That function is properly the role of Parliament or the Legislature adopting necessary fiscal or monetary policies."
1000
There are other comments included.
"An arbitrator should not make decisions based on budgetary limitations and priorities set by the government, otherwise he would not be completely independent as he must always be." This is what they're going to be asked to do.
Another comment:
"The government which supplies the greatest part of the income for this institution cannot expect it to continue at a loss and to hold that out as a barrier to justifiable increases for the employees of the institution. While the ability to pay is a factor to be considered in many situations, it does not have the same force or effect in public institutions and is not a proper basis to restrict an arbitration which must be made on objective facts."
Also: "The ability of the employer to pay in a public sector dispute is irrelevant. It is not that I fail to recognize the difficulties facing the employer, when inflation is running at 8.5% per annum and provincial grants are only 4.5%, in continuing the high level of service which our society has become accustomed to. However, these employees cannot be expected to subsidize a higher level of care than we as a society can afford or are prepared to pay for by receiving less than appropriate wages."
I suggest that upon reading the other comments from other arbitrators in this submission, you will note that the comments are basically all the same. It would be highly unfair for the workers to force arbitrators to consider ability to pay. It is nothing but a form of subsidizing the community.
Although the present system of comparability used in the determination of compensation issues is not perfect, it must be continued; that is, comparability with employees of the same employer, with employees performing similar work in the public sector and with employees performing similar work for employers in the private sector.
The requirement for an arbitrator to consider "the extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased" is also of concern to us. The intent of this clause is not clear. This requirement may force employees to accept substandard wages rather than have an arbitrator unilaterally rule on a reduction of service. Is that what this section means? This again would be a situation where public sector employees subsidize services.
The possibility also exists for employers to no longer be held accountable for decision-making regarding the provision of services. All stakeholders -- the public, the employers and the employees -- should be involved in that process. Arbitration boards must be free to weigh the evidence presented by both parties at an arbitration hearing. There should be no interference from the government. For all these reasons, we urge this government to withdraw schedule Q.
Now I'll go back to schedule M. Schedule M amends the Municipal Act and 12 other statutes related to municipalities, conservation authorities and transportation.
The following is the submission on schedule M submitted previously to the committee by the Ontario division of CUPE. It states very well our concerns with this schedule. There can be no doubt that schedule M follows the undemocratic processes contemplated by this government.
Municipalities and local boards: The basis of the restructuring of municipalities is to change the way in which services are provided, how services are paid for and by whom, and how decisions are made regarding provision of services.
A critical implication of schedule M will be the retreat of the provincial government from its responsibility to ensure that services are accessible, affordable and equitable. It is clear that this government wants less government involvement and less spending on services. This is obvious from the recent financial statement, in which it announced it would cut total municipal spending by 47.9%, or $657 million, over the next two years.
Put simply, the provincial government will be offloading its responsibility to provide services on to the municipalities. Municipalities will have no choice but to either increase taxes or expand and increase user fees and other levies. Most will probably do both. This will only fuel the push towards the contracting out and privatization of services.
The intent of this part of Bill 26 is to provide the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and any restructuring commission appointed by him, with wide-ranging powers. It is particularly abhorrent that the regulations pertaining to Bill 26 are not yet set and that so many of the powers of the minister and the restructuring committee will be set by regulation. Therefore, the full impact of the bill may be even worse than it currently appears.
An overriding feature of Bill 26 is the creation of significant new ministerial powers to jurisdictionally restructure local communities. Bill 26 will force the annexation, amalgamation, separation, joining, dissolution or incorporation of municipalities if it is deemed appropriate or necessary by the minister. Restructuring can be initiated either by the minister alone or upon receiving a restructuring proposal from a municipality, a local board or a commission established by the minister. Any such restructuring proposal must fit within the definition laid down by the minister.
If one municipality or local board in a locality does not want amalgamation but another does, the minister will initiate a restructuring commission inquiry based on a proposal from one municipal body, despite the wishes of others in the same locality. Once a restructuring proposal is accepted by the minister, the decision is binding on all parties involved. The regulations pertaining to the restructuring must be accepted by all levels of municipal government, from the upper tier to the lowest board.
The Ontario Unconditional Grants Act is being replaced with the Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act. Bill 26 will give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the power to decide what standards of service municipalities must meet as a condition of receiving provincial grants which are currently provided unconditionally. Clearly, municipalities and boards would be forced to comply with standards imposed by the minister if they are to continue to receive such grants. If a municipality fails to comply, the minister may also have the municipality repay the grant, and a municipality which does not meet these standards can be cut off from further provincial funding. Bill 26 will give the minister free rein to exercise his authority, with no scrutiny by the Legislature.
If a lower tier of municipal government opposes the contracting out or privatization of a particular service when it has been deemed appropriate or necessary by the minister, the municipality could be penalized or forced to conform with the minister's wishes. Such measures will obviously deter municipalities from implementing progressive changes that do not fit the regulations or criteria established by the minister.
1010
The bill, if passed, will effectively muzzle municipal politicians who may oppose the proposed restructuring in their community. Contravention of a regulation by municipal representatives could result in their being held personally liable if their municipality is deemed to be adversely affected financially by their refusal to comply with the regulations. This will serve as a further deterrent to contravening the regulations set out by the minister. This implication is especially odious, since the capacity of local public officials and councils to protect the vital public sector jobs and services according to local needs will be virtually abolished. Municipal councillors will be either forced to swim with the right-wing current or have a heavy price exacted on themselves and the constituencies they represent.
This muzzling of elected officials will mean that CUPE locals may no longer be negotiating changes with their direct employers. The province, through either the minister or the restructuring commission, will set the agenda for change and municipalities will be obligated to implement the changes. The province will be the ghost behind the bargaining table. Normal labour relations will be effectively stymied and unions will lose.
Perhaps the most alarming feature of the omnibus bill for municipalities is that they will be encouraged to, and in many cases coerced into, contracting out and privatizing services now provided by unionized municipal sector workers. In the name of efficiency and cost reduction, many municipal workers will face direct threats to their job security. If I may remind you of the survey I presented a little earlier about the importance of the public sector to North Bay's economy, one can only imagine the impact of a reduction of services to North Bay.
Furthermore, unions and collective agreements will be threatened by the bill's potential to override successor rights provisions and other protections in collective agreements. Any restructuring regulation imposed by the minister would prevail over such labour relations provisions as long as they comply with the Municipal Act. This potential to override other legislation also applies to the minister's power to exempt a municipality from other legislation during any form of restructuring, including amalgamations.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Sauve, I'd just let you know that you have about three minutes. You can continue until that time is used up or, if you want, we can allow a one-minute response from each caucus. It's up to you.
Mr Sauve: I will conclude my submission, and I will rely on my written submission to the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start with members from the opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd like to go back to schedule Q for a second, Mr Sauve, and thank you for your presentation and its completeness.
Only a few people are in favour of Bill 26, and even the few friends of Bill 26, including the local chamber of commerce, say it's unfair that the government is gutting the collective bargaining process. Can you tell me how the playing field is destroyed because of the amendments in schedule Q for the collective bargaining process?
Mr Sauve: I believe the playing field is destroyed in that the process will no longer be fair and equitable. If one party has the right to make the rules, if one party can dictate to the impartial arbitrator how to go about making a ruling and what to take into consideration, the process is destroyed. It has to be impartial. The parties need to be able to make their arguments based on what's happening in all the other sectors. The suggestion that public sector employees have to accept a substandard wage rate because the government has imposed on an arbitrator that he or she must consider ability to pay -- what is ability to pay?
I was in negotiations yesterday with a group from a home for the aged and already the employer is telling me, "We'll see you in arbitration," because now they're going to have to consider the ability to pay. We're talking about workers who are making barely over $12 per hour.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Sauve. I have to move in to Ms Martel's time. I'm sorry. Ms Martel.
Ms Martel: Let me talk about these workers making $12 an hour. CUPE would represent predominantly women who are working in nursing homes, homes for the aged, some of them providing essential care to people we really care about and not getting paid their worth, which was one of the reasons why our government, when we were government, moved forward on the provisions around the proxy method.
Tell me what's going to happen to your workers in those institutions now that the proxy method is going to be eliminated. What does that say about the value that this Tory government places on their work and the people they care for?
Mr Sauve: Actually, for those types of workers I would say that it's a double whammy. For one thing, most of these workers have to rely on the arbitration process for collective agreements because most of these workers we're talking about now do not have the right to strike. So if they're now going to take a hit in the bargaining process, where the ability to pay is going to be a factor, they're also going to take a hit as a result of the amendments to the Pay Equity Act. These are the very workers who are making the $12 per hour who care for our elderly in homes for the aged, nursing homes and so on. So it's a double hit. They're going to be asked twice, or it's going to be imposed on them twice to subsidize the community for taking care of the elderly. It's absolutely atrocious.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I just note your schedule Q, the arbitration decisions, most of them are the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Certainly that was a time of high inflation and, I would say, a different fiscal situation for governments. We're in a period of low inflation and high fiscal debt. I'd just like your comments with respect to the criteria.
Certainly arbitrators at all times would consider all relevant criteria -- that's not an issue -- and certainly, from other submissions we've heard, ability to pay has been a factor that they've considered. What we're looking at here are mandatory criteria that bring, I would say, fiscal reality, not wage control, to the scenario. But also what we're looking at is that the factors aren't exhaustive. An arbitrator simply has to consider these factors, and no one's saying that you can't consider any more when you read that legislation.
Now what I've heard from other unions -- the private sector especially is saying: "Why don't you do productivity bargaining? Why don't you quit focusing on wage increases in the public sector and focus on saving costs and delivering the service better, because the taxpayers can't pay any more?" I would just like to put that to you, what you think about that in terms of productivity bargaining in the era of fiscal restraint.
Mr René Fortin: I think, first of all, if I could respond to that, that I would have put it back because I don't have an understanding of what productivity bargaining is. We're dealing in services here to the public, and that's what we are; we're a service-oriented thing. We don't produce widgets at the end of the day.
Mr Tascona: You rework the compensation package and look for savings to save the taxpayer dollars, so you can have a better workforce.
Mr Fortin: But ultimately what we have to look at and the whole concern that we have certainly with the mandate that this government is putting forth to the arbitrators in terms of the ability to pay is that the politicians -- and I take umbrage with the issue that the chamber of commerce is taking credit in this community for the issue of zero tax-based increases over the years. I mean, we have no control. Politicians can go up and say, "Let's not increase taxes," and get elected on that scenario. Therefore, does that mean the arbitration process is then an inability to pay because the politicians are saying, "We want to get elected with no taxes"?
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. I apologize for interrupting. We've come to the end of the half-hour. I want to thank you both for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today. Thank you very much.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 6500
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the USWA, Local 6500, come forward.
Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for coming in to appear before our 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 wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to receive question and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd both take some time at the beginning of your presentation and introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members.
Mr Wayne Fraser: My name's Wayne Fraser. I'm area coordinator for northeastern Ontario and also the president of the northeastern Ontario area council for the Steelworkers.
Mr Dave Campbell: My name is Dave Campbell. I'm the president of Local 6500, representing 4,700 unit workers at Inco Ltd. here in Sudbury.
1020
Mr Fraser: We'd like to begin by thanking the members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal caucus at Queen's Park, who were solely responsible for preventing your government from ramming through Bill 26 with little debate and no public input. It would have been a tragedy for Ontario.
Dave and I have been citizens of this great province for over 45 years -- I'm a little younger than he is -- and during our lives we've never witnessed a more uncaring, a more ruthless and more undemocratic government than we've seen before us today.
Your government's constant attack against the poor, the elderly and the workers of this province is unprecedented. Your government's patronage towards your friends in big and small business in this province at the expense of the rest of the population will divide this province into many little parts. The needs of the people of this province must play a part in the deficit reduction equation. The needs of the poor, the elderly and the working class must be balanced and not ignored, and especially not viciously attacked, as your government is currently doing.
Our union, the Steelworkers, represents over 80,000 men and women in Ontario, and of these, 15,000 are located in northeastern Ontario. Our members work in a wide range of different industries in the private sector and public sector, and Bill 26 will affect them in a variety of ways. Our members in the health care sector are perhaps the most directly affected. Our members in the mining communities in northern Ontario will be affected by the legislation in Bill 26 that deals with mine site rehabilitation, changes that we consider damaging, ridiculously unnecessary and just a payback by the Tories to the mining companies for their support of your party.
Bill 26 is an extraordinary bill. It amends over 40 individual pieces of legislation under 17 different schedules, all but two or three of which, on their own, would be sufficiently controversial to merit extensive debate and public input.
Bill 26 has been described by your government as providing the tools needed by transfer payment partners to implement financial savings, yet most of the changes in the bill go far beyond the scope of savings or restructuring, even as they are defined by the government, into a kind of corporate and bureaucratic wish list, or as I stated earlier, a political payback of responsibilities to be evaded, public processes to be avoided, obligations to be shuffled aside. How else can one explain the inclusion of such changes as the gutting of the mine site rehabilitation legislation, the restriction of access to information, the elimination of requirements for local referenda in the Municipal Act? Nothing to do with money.
But the biggest political contradiction of all is between the substance of the legislation and the economic policy that it supports and the extravagant and now empty rhetoric of the so-called Common Sense Revolution. It's real name should be No Sense Revolution.
Jobs instead of welfare: Sure, we see less welfare but thousands fewer jobs since your government was elected on June 8, 1995, and a lot more to come.
No cuts to health care? That's what you said in the Common Sense Revolution. "Not one cent," you said. Yet we're going to face $1.4 billion in health care cuts.
No user fees for health care? What do you call copayments to the people who can't afford them the most?
No American-style medicare: Your government's talking about levelling the playing field between American and Canadian health care providers.
Your promise of protection of classroom education: Gone. The cuts to education will be blunt, across the board, with no protection in the classroom.
No new taxes: What a joke. What a monstrous lie to the people of Ontario. Municipal governments are talking about property tax hikes and user fees.
Democratization of public decision-making: Another farce, another bold-faced lie to the people of Ontario. The bill grants unprecedented power to cabinet and to appointed officials to make decisions that will fundamentally alter the way our society works. Important decisions will be made with the bill is passed without public input, democratic control or even effective judicial review. Sounds like fascism to me.
Perhaps the greatest irony of all, the Common Sense Revolution promised less government, but with the imposition of Bill 26, it turns out to be more government intervention for anyone who either provides or consumes a public service and about a free ride for big business interests that want to make a whole bunch of money on the backs of the public.
Dealing with specific issues in this bill is impossible. Around every corner there is another power granted that is more draconian, a denial of democracy more extreme, an attack on the values of our society more transparent than what we have ever seen before. We will only address a few and talk about them very briefly.
Expanded municipal user fee and tax powers: Bill 26 grants sweeping new powers to municipalities to levy user charges, including direct taxes. Astonishingly enough, this would appear to permit municipalities to impose poll taxes, the very tax that sank Margaret Thatcher.
The bill permits the setting of fees that discriminate among different classes of people. The minister may make regulations disallowing specific taxes in specific municipalities or disallowing certain types of taxes, but it's all subject to regulation and at the government's discretion. This conveniently lets the government off the hook in every way. It provides the politically expedient way out of its promise not to raise property taxes. It shifts the blame to municipal governments for anything that's unpopular, and if something turns out to be really unpopular, you can turn around and disallow it.
To verify your hatred for workers in this province, your bold-faced decision to cut pension benefits for public service workers who are going to be laid off: It is completely bullshit that you try to do that to workers in this province. The Pension Benefits Act provides for additional rights for plan members whose service is terminated as a result of a major layoff or a shutdown. In these circumstances, the superintendent of pensions has the power to order a partial windup of a pension plan.
These additional rights include a guarantee that the employer's contribution will fund at least 50% of the cost of the pension, the right to immediate vesting of the employee's entire pension and the right to grow into early retirement bridging benefits. Bill 26 exempts the two pension plans for which the government of Ontario is responsible from these provisions, thus denying their employees facing layoff literally thousands of dollars in pension entitlements that are the right of every other worker in this province. Not only are the Conservatives liars, but you're stealers and you're thieves. If that's not far enough, you make it retroactive.
Interjection.
Mr Fraser: Don't interrupt me.
Restrictions on the freedom of information: Bill 26 grants wide rights to agency heads to refuse access to records, introduces user fees for requesting a record, even an individual's own record, and for filing an appeal, and increases the fees for record retrieval. This has got nothing to do with saving money or restructuring; it has to do with shielding more and more what the government is doing from public scrutiny.
The elimination of proxy valuation in pay equity: By eliminating proxy value comparisons from the Pay Equity Act, Bill 26 removes pay equity rights from over 100,000 women in the broader public service sector in Ontario. They would now lose their pay equity rights because their employer does not have a male-dominated job to which their jobs can be compared. And in the kind of retroactive measure that has become typical of this government, even where a proxy value plan has been posted, the employer is not bound by the schedule of compensation adjustments required to achieve pay equity. Again, another attack on workers who are women in this province.
The municipal restructuring amendments: Bill 26 gives this government the power to amalgamate, dissolve or create municipalities, force municipal annexations and include a municipality in a county for municipal purposes. While this power can be exercised at the request of a municipality or local area, it can also be exercised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing without reference to any local request. It also gives the minister the power to dissolve or change local boards of all kinds that perform municipal functions.
It gives the government the power to establish by regulation the rules and procedures governing the transfer of powers between local municipalities and county, regional, district or metropolitan governments. This would permit the transformation of local municipal life in Ontario without any further public debate.
Restrictions on interest arbitration: You just heard our friends from CUPE. This is another attack on workers in this province by your government. Many workers in Ontario are denied the right to strike in support of their collective bargaining demands on the grounds that they provide services so important to the community that life or health would be threatened if they were to be withdrawn.
1030
As an alternative to the right to strike, these workers have access to a process of interest arbitration in which a neutral third party determines the financial contract in the event of a dispute. Bill 26 contains amendments which would nullify that alternative by introducing criteria which arbitrators have consistently found to be properly political in nature and not relevant to the interest arbitration process.
Requiring arbitrators to take into account ability to pay sounds reasonable unless you know that arbitrators have been unable to define "ability to pay" in the public sector, arguing that "ability to pay" in the public sector really means "willingness to pay" by the employer, something that is unilaterally determined by the employer -- no say from the other side -- tying the hands of an arbitrator.
Requiring arbitrators to take into account potential public service cuts again places the arbitrator in the position of making decisions about service cuts that should be made by you people, so people ought to know about them. Our union represents many workers in the nursing home and long-term-care sector who fall into this category.
At this time I'll pass it on to my friend Dave.
Mr Campbell: When we get a little deeper into the presentation there are going to be some comments made towards health care. It's not in the health care aspects; it's in its reference to business, and I know health care was debated at another date.
Mining: The bill rewrites the regulations governing mine site rehabilitation to replace the requirement for the public review of rehabilitation plans with an internal responsibility system controlled completely by mining companies. It also allows mining companies with old sites to contract out future environmental liabilities by paying a fee negotiated with the government.
The changes to requirements for mine site rehabilitation raise even broader issues of environmental responsibility and community involvement in northern Ontario. They attempt to end abruptly a debate that has gone on for decades and they do so firmly and completely on the side of the irresponsible minority, or companies in the mining industry that refuse to take their environmental obligations seriously, creating the potential for an environmental race to the bottom.
What we have trouble with, with this bill and with this government, is the far-reaching effects that your legislation will have on the fundamental democratic rights that were once enjoyed by all who live in this province. Your legislation that is before us gives a select few the right to dictate their judgements and legislates immunity for these same people.
Each time any government moves to downsize the cost of a service, they in fact may only defer a portion of that cost. In the case of your changes to the Ontario drug benefit, you have probably lessened your obligation to finance health care and will in fact drive up the cost of such benefits to employers who have already found Ontario a far too expensive place to do business.
For the past four years I have worked closely with our employer, Inco Ltd, in an effort to contain the cost of health care so as to protect the integrity of our program and to keep our business viable in times of poor market conditions. That's trade unionist talk in this company lingo here, if you're listening closely. Your current legislation will not only destroy our efforts, it will send our costs in an uncontrollable upward spiral for many years to come.
If any of you would like to see the effects of your devastating legislation on the operating costs of a large mining company, then just ask. I'm sure I can arrange for a presentation. It takes about two hours.
I've been in contact with a number of independent druggists in the Sudbury area, only to hear their concerns as to if they will be in business three years from now. The small business person thinks that your antics will lessen their costs and in fact attract business to Ontario. What if you're wrong? Remember, you can only blame the trade union movement for so long. Bad government will ultimately have to bear the blame for what's rightfully yours.
When teachers, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and all of the other highly paid people leave this province for employment in their field, or accept work at $7 per hour, then and only then will business note there is little left for spending in their stores.
Employment, and only employment, will solve the woes of this province. The trade union movement has been the largest supporter of business in the province, yet in a few short months you have divided business and labour to an all-time low. You cannot apply a social agenda that mirrors a country of 275 million people just south of us and institute that agenda in a province of nine million people.
Communities liked Sudbury are dependent on government more than those located in the south. Legislative change that creates conflict will not lend to attracting business. Restricting education and health care will not lend to attracting business. Cutting services or applying user fees will not attract business, nor will enacting a dictatorship encourage business.
Some time ago I watched a PBS documentary. I was reminded that Hitler was in fact elected, and it reminded me of the few years past when Mr Rae was Premier and some of this government's friends paid for a billboard depicting Bob next to a donkey's ass. I wonder how Mike would feel if we erected a billboard with his face side by side with Adolf, and the caption could read, "They Both were Elected."
While Inco Ltd has reduced its workforce by the thousands -- we had 18,000 people working for us at one time; we're down to 4,700 -- we did so without one layoff since 1982. We did this without layoffs because business, labour and government worked together in an atmosphere of trust.
Ladies and gentlemen, we don't trust you any more and that alone will deflect business away from this province.
Any benefits that your biased legislation will lend to your élite few will be devoured by the social unrest that is caused by your form of government. We are not going away. We will draw to the public's attention the ill effects of this government and you can blame us for the province's woes if you will.
The fact remains that there are still those of us who believe in the concept of taking less so that those without can have a little more. The mayor of our city says we should bleed a little bit. I feel better just remembering, and now we have these hearings to assist us in that regard. To you ladies and gentlemen over there, thank you for that.
Those of us who believe in the concepts that we believe in were born in difficult times. We are a militant group that became what we are by fighting the powers that be. We did not always have health care. Not many years ago our children had to leave school to go to work. There is no longer work for them to go to.
The benefits we enjoy were not handed to us by some government, nor were they handed to us by business. We fought like hell for them and we're going to fight like hell to keep them.
Conclusion: There is a theme running through the many disparate elements of this bill. Bill 26 grants government unprecedented power to make decisions that will affect the very fabric of life in this province. It gives government and officials extraordinary arbitrary powers to make decisions that affect consumers of public services, producers of public services and individual citizens who seek information from the government itself.
It does so in a way that veils those decisions from public review and debate. Ironically, or perhaps predictably, the bill itself does that even with this process that has been forced on it by the opposition parties.
Bill 26 is not about less government. It is about less scrutiny. It is about less democracy and it's not necessary. It should be withdrawn.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We have just a little bit more than two minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the third party.
Ms Martel: Let me ask the presenters some questions about pensions. Your union has fought long and hard to make sure that you have a good pension plan in place for people who leave mining after many years. You will know that the government in the legislation it puts forward in Bill 26 essentially allows itself to steal from the pension plan of its own employees.
Earlier on -- I don't know if you were here or not -- the chamber of commerce suggested to the government that an amendment should be moved that would allow all employers in the province the same right as the government, that is, allow people in the private sector to steal from pension plans too.
I wonder if you'd like to speak to that amendment that the chamber encouraged the government to consider today.
Mr Fraser: I'm not surprised that Darla Scott, president of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce, would say something like that, because we know where her interests lie. Let me just say this to the government: If you consider doing that in this province, you're never going to see a war like you've seen from the private sector. You're going to have a war with the public sector now. It shouldn't be allowed, what you've done with respect those people who were entitled and worked for those pensions, that you take their money because you're strapped for money in this province. You shouldn't steal it on the backs of the workers. They earned it, they worked for it and you shouldn't take it from them.
God behold if they try to do that in the private sector, let me tell you that right now.
1040
Mr Campbell: Our job after today will be to inform our membership, and we represent a very large constituency in northern Ontario, that the business community in Ontario condones you taking the moneys from your people and that in fact they would like you to reinstitute legislation that would take it from our pension plan. Gentle people, you can go to hell.
Ms Martel: One other question, if I might. Frankly, the contribution that you made here today is probably the strongest that I've seen, and I was in involved in the hearings last week. I just want to ask you why you've come here today and made such a strong presentation. Why do you feel the way you do about the legislation the government is putting forward?
Mr Fraser: I don't think the people of Ontario realize the depth and magnitude of Bill 26. It's really unfortunate that we've only had about 10 or 12 hearings across this province with respect to this bill, because it goes so deep and so far in terms of gut-wrenching democracy from the people of Ontario that we had to come and say our views with respect to what we feel as not only leaders in our union but as workers, as citizens of Ontario, that this bill really should be withdrawn and you should have debate in Parliament and it should go out to more public hearings. I think it's a disgrace to the province of Ontario, to the people of Ontario, that this bill is even before us here today.
Mr Campbell: I just want to add, if I could, to that question. For 10 years we've changed the way we've done business in the province of Ontario and this government, in just a few short months, has destroyed all of the gains and all of the productivity improvements that we've put in. The trade union movement -- if you check the collective bargaining agreements in the province of Ontario, less than 1% resulted in a labour dispute. In fact, the net gain of an employee with any employer in the province has decreased because of concessionary bargaining, that the trade union movement has met and understood industry and its predicaments in this province.
You have trashed all of that. If you think that business in other parts of the world is going to look to Ontario while we are in conflict with you, while we are going to fight with -- and by hell, we are going to do that -- and find this an attractive place to open business, Darla Scott and all the rest of the chambers of commerce in this province of Ontario had better open their eyes, because it isn't going to work.
Mr Sampson: I think there are quite a few people who'd agree that over the last 10 years, with the deficit of this province effectively doubling, we certainly have changed the way in which we've done business in this province. I don't know that the consensus would be that it would all be favourable.
We've had some people come to us and say: "The province may have a spending problem. It's certainly not terribly difficult to deal with. But there is a revenue problem in this province and we should try to tax the rich and tax the corporations more." Is this a view that your particular union would support?
Mr Campbell: My particular case, sir, is that you are going to sit in a corner and dictate to me how we're going to resolve it. This is a province that was designed with a number of constituents that should sit at a table as such and decide where we're going to take that direction, not by legislating in a document the powers that give you the right to move on something and then legalize it and keep you from having to sit up and be counted for that decision.
Mr Fraser: Let's just say fiscal responsibility doesn't mean stealing it from workers who are entitled to pensions; stealing it from the women of this province who are entitled to it because of pay equity. That's what it doesn't mean.
The Chair: Mr Sampson, we've come to the end of the government's time. We just had two minutes for questions. I apologize for interrupting. Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd just like to follow up on this billion-dollar deficit position. The position of the government is that it has to take out $8 billion to try to balance the system and then give $5 billion back in the form of a tax cut. Can I have your comments with regard to their philosophy with regard to the $5 billion?
Mr Campbell: Yes. They can keep my share and pay off the debt. I'm not opposed to doing my part. What I'm opposed to is you railroading my part up my -- finger.
Mr Bartolucci: One other question that I'd like to address to Wayne and to Dave -- you negotiate with the private sector. Give me a general overview of what you feel the mood is when one party begins negotiations by threatening to lay off 13,000 people, by introducing legislation which effectively destroys the process before it begins. What type of mood would they be setting if you were negotiating with them in private industry?
Mr Fraser: We've been across the table several times with our employer, Inco Ltd, where they came to the table with all types of great ideas about saving costs and taking from the workers with respect to concessions on health care, on pensions. On several of those occasions, we ended up with long labour disputes. It's the wrong way to do collective bargaining. There's a right way to do things; there's a wrong way to do things. What this government has done with the public sector is the wrong way to do business. It's going to set this province back for 20 years to come. We'll be there with the public sector, side by side.
The Chair: Gentlemen, I want to thank you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the standing committee on general government. Thank you very much for coming forward today.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, SUDBURY AND AREA
The Chair: May I please have the representative from CUPE, Sudbury, come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for response to questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself for the benefit of committee members and Hansard at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Dennis Burke: Thank you and good morning. My name is Dennis Burke. I'm a staff representative with the Canadian Union of Public Employees here in the Sudbury office. I would like to say thank you to the committee this morning for allowing me the time to present, but I can't; those I will say thank you to are the opposition members, both from the Liberal Party and the NDP, who made these hearings possible.
Ontarians cannot discuss the Harris government's omnibus bill, Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, without first reviewing the process. The manner in which this bill was introduced into the Legislature, on a day when the media, opposition members and the public were preoccupied with an economic statement, is revealing of the government's intentions. To suggest that the introduction and contents of Bill 26 are anti-democratic is an understatement.
The process blindsided Ontarians. It was meant to stifle public debate with the government's stated intention to make this draconian bill law in less than one month. If passed into law, Bill 26 will centralize unprecedented powers in the hands of cabinet ministers, powers that otherwise would be subject to debate, rules, rights to appeal and court reviews are given unilaterally to ministers. Bill 26 calls for government by regulation and administrative order rather than legislative debate and public scrutiny. Those ministers with unilateral powers are shielded from responsibility and liability for any decisions that they make.
Bill 26 capitulates to the wishes of corporate Ontario. Bars to privatization are removed. Bill 26 will attack the most vulnerable in Ontario. Disparities between the haves and the have-nots will widen. User fees will ensure access to public services by only the affluent.
Bill 26 is not about providing universal and accessible cost-effective public services; it is about an ideology, an ideology that subscribes to the philosophy that if you concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, economic engines will start and benefits will trickle down to everyone. This philosophy did not work in the United States and it did not work in Great Britain. We cannot be so naïve to believe that it will work in Ontario.
1050
Consider for a moment the following, the supposed lost 10 years, as Mike Harris says: In the mid-1970s, Ontario government spending per capita approached the national average; in 1993, it was 9% below the national average. In 1984, Ontario taxation was 5.8% below the national average; in 1993, it was 4.4% below the national average. I hardly think those are lost 10 years.
The "fiscal crisis" in this province is a manufactured one. It is created by the Harris government in its commitment to cut taxes and give money to the wealthy. Overspending is not the problem; the recession and high unemployment are responsible for the relatively high debt in Ontario.
A 30% reduction in taxes, Ontario's largest source of income, will not reduce the debt. In fact, it may very well cause higher debt. Jobs will not be created through this cut. Any tax cuts will be more than offset by the imposition of user fees and the deregulation of drug pricing.
A bill of this magnitude deserves more than a cursory glance. The complexities and far-reaching effects deem it necessary that this bill must be broken down into smaller pieces requiring more hearings.
Ontarians do not know how this omnibus bill will affect their daily lives. We do not believe that the government even understands the impact. This bill, without regulations, is a blank cheque and will most definitely have a disastrous effect on Ontarians.
At this time I'd like to take the opportunity to go through some of the schedules briefly. I think that perhaps it would take a couple of days to go through all of them.
The first schedule is schedule A, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1995. The purpose of this new act is to provide for public disclosure by public sector employers a list of all employees who earn $100,000 or more. It would include all employers receiving either $1 million or 10% of gross revenues from the Ontario government. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For-profit enterprises such as nursing homes are excluded. One must pose a simple question: Why are these enterprises, which derive a substantial amount of their income from the taxpayers of this province, exempt?
Should Bill 26 become law, the privatization of government services will accelerate at an unprecedented rate. A greater number of corporations will earn more income from the public purse at all levels of government. This act should be amended to include for-profit enterprise. The government as well should enact legislation that would provide for public disclosure by for-profit enterprise the amount of moneys each has received from any government body or agency and the amount of profit earned over the same period. Openness and accountability are the foundations of a truly democratic society.
Schedule J, Amendments to the Pay Equity Act: The purpose of pay equity is to redress pay inequities as a result of gender biases, be they intentional, unintentional or systemic. However, in its original form, literally hundreds of thousands of females in this province were bypassed under the legislation. Subsequently, the government of Ontario provided for proxy and proportional pay equity on January 1, 1994.
Schedule J calls for the repeal of proxy pay equity such that females who are unable to compare their wages to male-dominated job classes will face an even wider wage disparity relative to the male working force. In essence, this government is conveying to employers that it is all right to have, based on gender, discriminatory compensation practices. Taken in conjunction with the repeal of employment equity, schedule J is an assault on the working women of Ontario. The future is bleak for these people. Working women will continue to remain in low-paying job ghettos with little chance of upward career mobility. The number of women falling into poverty will rise at an alarming rate.
Schedule K, Amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Any Ontarian who believes this government is committed to openness and accountability should closely examine this provision of Bill 26. The expanded powers to refuse access to records and the imposition of user fees for obtaining access are indicative of this government's intention, that is, to conduct its business under a cloak of secrecy. The net effect of schedule K is to provide access to information to only the affluent, while denying that same right to those who are unable to afford to make a request or pursue an appeal.
Schedule L, Amendments to the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act, 1994: Pensions are no more and no less than a deferred wage. Employers will, as a normal course of action in either granting pension plans to employees or negotiating same with unions, cost out the statutory and regulatory implications of the Pension Benefits Act.
Amendments provided under schedule L are nothing short of legislated theft. Schedule L allows this government to steal from its employees. Schedule L allows the government of Ontario to abdicate from its own responsibilities as it dumps its own employees on to the welfare rolls and privatizes public services.
Equally important, though, and let us not kid ourselves, the government's corporate buddies will soon be knocking at the door requesting the very same exemptions from provisions of the Pension Benefits Act. One would hardly expect that corporate Ontario will be held to the basic minimum standards legislation when the government is not, and isn't that what the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce said to you this morning? This is not just an insult to government employees nor is it just a blatant attempt to steal from government employees; schedule L is an outright fraud brought against the working people of Ontario.
Schedule M, Amendments to the Municipal Act and Various Other Statutes Related to Municipalities, Conservation Authorities and Transportation: Schedule M provisions allow the government to download its responsibility to provide accessible, affordable and equitable services on to the backs of municipalities.
The challenges to be met by municipal government are rather complex: increased property taxes, new or increased user fees and reductions in or complete elimination of services. Amendments to the Municipal Act conveniently create a scapegoat for this government.
We are uncertain as to what the exact ramifications this omnibus bill will have on municipalities. The bill as proposed, without accompanying regulations, leaves the Minister of Municipal Affairs with unlimited power.
The omnibus bill will provide for, among other items: restructuring of local municipalities without local input; restructuring of municipalities in some cases without even municipal consent; dismantling of commissions and boards; privatization of public utilities without referendum; migration of municipal services to for-profit enterprise; the minister to override other pieces of legislation; the minister to withdraw, withhold or seek reimbursement of any or all moneys provided to municipalities; and last but not least, new user fees or taxes, which in essence are the same thing.
Public services provided by municipalities are at risk. To put this bill into context, we should examine a hypothetical situation based on what we are able to comprehend from schedule M to date, because it changes day after day.
A bylaw of an upper-tier municipality to assume a local or lower-tier responsibility needs triple majority support: (1) a majority of votes on upper-tier council; (2) consent from the majority of local councils forming upper-tier municipalities; and (3) those consenting municipalities must have the majority of the electorate in the upper-tier municipality.
Our hypothetical upper-tier municipality is a regional municipality. The regional council is comprised of 18 councillors representing seven local municipalities. In addition, our council has an appointed chairperson.
Our hypothetical regional municipality enacts a bylaw, with the required support, to assume the lower-tier responsibility of garbage collection. Regional council approves the bylaw based on an assumption that garbage collection can be performed cheaper, therefore allowing them to use proposed savings to fund other services. Our upper-tier municipality, despite being fiscally responsible over the years, has a real money problem and a failing infrastructure.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs facilitates this transfer of power and makes regulations as he is allowed under Bill 26. In doing so, he overrides the successor rights provision of the Labour Relations Act and the employment security regulations that accompany the Regional Municipalities Act, as those regulations pertain to waste management. The upper-tier municipality did not request this, however. The minister went ahead and did so. With the stroke of a pen, 25 municipal employees lose employment.
Proposals for garbage collection by the private sector are requested by our upper-tier municipality and subsequently a contract is signed with the lowest bidder. Municipal garbage collection equipment transferred to the upper-tier municipality is sold off. Incidentally, this equipment was paid for by the lower-tier municipalities, who receive nothing in return.
1100
The contractor, now knowing that it would be cost-prohibitive for the municipality to start up their own garbage collection operation, rapidly escalates the price it charges the municipality. The minister requests an audit of our upper-tier municipality and, after reviewing same, threatens to withdraw funding, as he would be allowed to under this bill. The upper-tier municipality must become more efficient and more effective.
Our municipality has some difficult decisions to make. Do they raise property taxes, impose user fees such as tag and bag, or discontinue garbage collection services, letting the private sector assume total control of such?
All of the foregoing occurred without public input. A hypothetical example? Hardly not. This scenario will be played out in many Ontario communities should Bill 26 receive approval. One should look at other jurisdictions in North America very clearly where municipal services have been contracted out holus-bolus and see what those jurisdictions are doing now. They're bringing it back in, at quite the price.
Two other items. There are so many items under schedule M I think we could take a look at, but time doesn't permit.
Public utility commissions, in particular hydroelectric commissions: This bill would allow, in essence, a local municipality to assume total control of that hydroelectric commission and then sell it off so that they could use those funds to subsidize other services they provide. Just look at what happened in Great Britain with the great sell-off, and look at the rates there. The profits that are being made on the backs of the public now are just unbelievable.
There are two very brief comments I have to make about schedule M. One, I guess, deals with credibility. In reviewing documentation in preparing my brief, I was reading the economic statement that the Minister of Finance made to the people of Ontario in November. He said: "We've listened to municipalities. We're going to give them the right to determine where their spending priorities are." Unfortunately, that's what it appears to be on paper, but when you look at the bill, they have no autonomy whatsoever, as the chamber of commerce would allude to, because the minister has the unilateral power to withdraw, withhold or seek reimbursement of grants that municipalities receive. I would hardly think that's autonomy.
Schedule Q: amendments to various statutes with regard to interest arbitration. Schedule Q amends legislation respecting collective bargaining dispute resolution in the fire, police, hospital, public service and school board sectors. Bill 26 would require interest arbitrators to factor into any decision they make the following:
-- Ability to pay in light of an employer's fiscal situation;
-- Extent to which services may have to be reduced if funding is not increased;
-- Local and provincial economic situation;
-- Comparison of terms and conditions of employment and nature of work performed with comparable broader public sector employees;
-- Employer's need for qualified employees.
The ability-to-pay criterion is in fact a willingness-to-pay issue. The budgetary process of government bodies would be the determining factor, not the collective bargaining process and certainly not interest arbitration. Employers can, and they will, fix employee compensation budgets knowing full well that interest arbitrators will have their hands tied and have to award the employer's position with no regard to any evidence presented by employees. The collective bargaining process itself will be undermined. There will be no incentive to employers during the negotiating process to arrive at a settlement. Public employees will be forced to subsidize public services through substandard wages and inferior working conditions.
The criteria that arbitrators "consider the extent to which services may have to be reduced if current funding levels are not increased" poses grave concerns. The role an interest arbitration board has, after weighing all the evidence, is to determine what the provisions of a collective agreement will be. The role of the interest arbitration board is certainly not to determine spending priorities and service cuts. Its sole role is to replicate free collective bargaining.
The proposed amendments to interest arbitration will by legislative decree make this collective bargaining dispute resolution process an instrument of the government's political agenda: Cut services and cut spending.
There's one other point I would like to make, because I heard earlier in the questions that came from the government side of the committee talk about negotiating productivity. I have to laugh at that comment, because this is the government that upon assuming power withdrew the training and workplace innovation funding which had everything to do with productivity and negotiations with unions. They withdrew it. You shouldn't be sitting here talking about how we should be negotiating when you withdraw those instruments that we use.
In conclusion, the ties that bind our province are about to be cut. Universality and accessibility to cost-effective public services will no longer be available, the very foundation upon which this great province was built. The roots of democracy are destroyed when so much power is given to so few individuals with no checks and balances. Ontarians will have no say and no rights to appeal unilateral decisions made by the ministers of the crown. Public debate of issues important to citizens will cease. Our Ontario has no room for government under the cloak of secrecy. Ontario citizens demand and expect that their government is open and accountable. This most draconian and perverse omnibus bill must be scrapped immediately.
On a personal note, I think this government should go further than scrapping this bill. I believe this government should resign for what I term as the greatest hoax ever about to be pulled off on the people of Ontario.
The Chair: We will start off questions with the government caucus. Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just wanted to go quickly to the section on the migration of services between the upper and the lower tier, recognizing that there is a need to downsize government and provide the most cost-effective municipal services to the people. I think in the bill it tries to do that with the ability of the legislation to allow the local people to make that decision, as you mention in your presentation, the triple majority of the upper tier, the majority of the lower-tier municipalities and the majority of the population.
I just wondered if you could maybe give us a little assistance. If that is not the sufficient way to allow the migration of service, to be able to put it where it can be provided the most economical way, how would you propose to make it more democratic or more attainable other than what it presently is?
If I could just add on to that, in your presentation you deal with the privatization in a similar vein, that the transfer means privatization. I would ask if there wasn't more chance for the privatization if a service cannot be adequately transferred to the upper level, where the economies of scale could benefit it being provided on the municipal level, that there's more chance that the local municipality would look at privatization, which the present legislation would allow. I was just wondering if you could answer that for me.
Mr Burke: I think I have a difficult time answering that question because you want me to assume, very clearly, that public services provided by public employees are not cost-effective, and I don't agree with that.
Mr Hardeman: I would point out that I would agree with you that that's not true. In my municipality, where I'd been mayor for a number of years, we in fact checked that out and did a study on it and we went to a publicly operated garbage collection as opposed to the private sector, away from the private sector. So I would agree with you that that's not a prerequisite, but I think it's something that would have to be looked at if that's a possibility.
I was just asking if you had some suggestions on how the transfer or the migration of responsibilities could be achieved better than what the bill provides, recognizing that there is going to be a need for some transfer, migration of responsibilities between an upper and a lower tier. They are both municipal government.
Mr Burke: I believe there's legislation under the Municipal Act right now that allows that. I don't think this government has to bring in any legislation to do that. The regional municipality of Sudbury basically most recently went through a waste management study under the existing legislation, and for whatever reason that regional council decided, they decided not to at this point in time assume control of the lower tier's responsibility. So I don't think there's a need for legislation to transfer from upper to local. It's already in place.
1110
The Vice-Chair (Mr Joseph N. Tascona): Sorry to interrupt. We're out of time for the government side. To the opposition party.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. You anticipated the chamber's presentation, I think, on the pension issue, where you said that you expected your friends to be knocking on the door for the same rights.
My question really is around CUPE's understanding of what you think the intent of the bill is. We've heard from other presenters that clearly the government is on a privatization thrust. There's no question of that. The reason we are now seeing the unlimited fees -- and they're moving from province-wide support for municipalities to having municipalities charge fees, so they're moving to fees. The public have no opportunity to appeal those fees. You can't go to the OMB to appeal them if they're unfair. You no longer can have a plebescite, a referendum on them. So we're going to see a lot more fees. On the Public Utilities Act, the municipality can sell off the PUC without a referendum with this bill.
We've heard others say that this is stage 1 in the move to privatization, which is that you get a fee on something -- on a rink, on garbage collection, on everything -- and then it's far easier to sell it off because you are essentially selling what they call in the business a stream of revenue, and that the real intent in this section of the bill is, as they say, phase 1 of the two phases. Is CUPE of that opinion? If you are of that opinion, how concerned do you think the Legislature should be about that?
Mr Burke: I believe this bill is based on an ideology that was put into place in the United States and didn't work, and an ideology that was put into place in Great Britain and didn't work. If you look at those countries, their deficits, when they went to the trickle-down theory, just shot up astronomically.
I think what this bill is about is pandering to big business. I don't want to be misinterpreted or misquoted, because I think there are a lot of good, decent businesses in this province that really and truthfully care for the people of Ontario, but there are a hell of a lot of businesses that really don't care, that just want to make their profits and get the hell out of here. I think that's what this bill is all about. It's pandering for big business.
Mr Phillips: On the arbitration, the government will say that this is not unusual. We've studied it. The proposals they have exist nowhere else.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr Phillips. It's the NDP time.
Mr Silipo: You've clearly laid out the way in which you see this bill being one of the tools the government is using to put forward its ideological agenda, which as you clearly described has a number of facets, but certainly one of shifting power and wealth into the hands of a few. Certainly what they're doing now for themselves -- in the case of the pension, for example, you pointed out, and the chamber this morning, we'll certainly be seeing requests for that to be applied in the broader public sector and indeed in the private sector. So there's clearly a pattern that's evolving here.
I guess my question to you is, are you seeing already, in your dealings with the employers that you deal with through your locals here, any change in attitude on the part of the employer as it relates to collective bargaining, as it relates to the way in which you deal with resolving any of the ongoing issues and problems that you're dealing with? Is that attitude of the government also trickling down, I guess is what I'm asking, in terms of the kinds of attitudes that municipalities and others are taking vis-à-vis their employees?
Mr Burke: It's coming down full thrust, quite frankly. We're entering a phase where we're into negotiations on collective agreements that haven't been negotiated for three years, and with the fiscal pressures put on some of these employers, we are seeing provisions in collective agreements being proposed that will basically tear apart negotiated provisions that have been there for 30 and 40 years. Employers who traditionally have had good relationships with their unions and with their employees are seeing their relationships fall by the wayside, because of what this government is doing, and we'll continue to see that.
I most recently dealt with an employer, where I had to sit down because of this employer's cuts, and it's the Ontario Library Services North: a 37% cut, and 50% of those employees are gone, some with as much as 20 and 22 years of services are gone out the door. And this is an organization that has worked over the last four years with its union to become fiscally responsible and to keep costs down. What they're being penalized for is being fiscally responsible over the years, because if they had spent money like a drunken sailor, we would be able to save jobs right now, but we can't, because the government has cut them to nothing. This is an organization that deals with providing library services and assistants to libraries throughout all of northern Ontario, which if people don't know is a very large area and deals with first nations libraries etc. There's going to be nothing left at the end of the day.
The Vice-Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Mr Burke. Thank you for your presentation, but we're out of time.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chair, while we are waiting, it's come to my attention that a group this afternoon is going to require the use of a VCR and TV. Can we supply that for the group.
Mr Gerretsen: I would hope so. We've got computers here, so surely we can --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. The next presenter is ready to commence.
Mr Bartolucci: Just before that, Mr Chairman, I want a commitment that if the hotel doesn't have them, you will ensure that this group has the right to present a video?
The Vice-Chair: I can't say that at this time. I'll make the inquiries, but at this time we have a presenter who'd like to use the time for her presentation.
Mr Bartolucci: I will follow up after this presentation.
The Vice-Chair: That would be nice.
NORTHWATCH
The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is Northwatch; Brennain Lloyd. Welcome to the hearings.
Ms Brennain Lloyd: Thank you. I'll just take a moment. My name is Brennain Lloyd. I work with Northwatch. We're a coalition of environmental groups across northeastern Ontario, and I'm going to try to focus on some of the key areas of concern we have with respect to this bill.
Given its size, we certainly won't be able to have a thorough discussion. We haven't had time ourselves to give it a thorough review, and certainly the time allowed today or the time allowed since the bill's introduction hasn't allowed for the kind of thorough discussion this number of pieces of legislation would require.
I want to do four things. I'd like to provide some kind of context or background for our comments. I'd also like to describe the context in terms of environmental law and its development in this province. I'd like to identify and very briefly discuss the character of this bill, what we see as running and riding through this bill, and then comment on just a few of the many areas of the bill that have provoked our concern as well as the concern of so many others.
I hope to do this very briefly because I do believe in allowing time for discussion. Perhaps that's not a belief that's shared by all, but we believe discussion is very important. We regret we have so little time today, but we will endeavour to save some for that.
Northwatch is a coalition of community-based environmental groups in northeastern Ontario. We were formed in 1988 out of two different networks of groups, environmental groups and peace and social justice groups, because we saw in our region a need for a regional voice. There are many environmental and resource management issues that affect us at a regional level, and for that reason we created a coalition. As a coalition we endeavour to provide both that regional voice and some support and information services to community groups as well as to the communities within our region.
1120
We work primarily in the issues of energy, forest management, waste management, water quality, mining and militarism. We have since 1988 participated in a large number of both provincial and federal initiatives, reviews, assessments and tribunals. Part of the impetus through which we were created was the timber class EA, which is now over, and the federal high-level nuclear waste review, which is now upon us, and myriad other issues that affect our region that we provide a regional voice to. We do that by participating in hearings such as this, tribunals, planning processes.
As elected representatives, you are perhaps more likely to hear us or hear of us through those processes, but we also do the work across the region that develops that regional voice: quarterly meetings, a regional decision-making body, a news service, a resource centre, several working groups, a mobile environmental resource centre and lots and lots of meetings. We work with our first nations, our labour and our community neighbours, partners and friends on many of our concerns and share many concerns with them with respect to this bill. Our mandate is to advocate incorporation of environmental considerations into all aspects of social, economic and resource management decisions.
I want to speak very briefly about the context in which environmental law has developed. With environmental law, I think we have developed not solely in the area of environmental law but in public policy development in general. We have developed both a practice and an expectation of public participation. Some might call it democracy. We have -- or had -- a democratic process in Ontario, and it's one which we as Ontarians value and expect to continue. Environmental law in this province has really developed over the last 25 years. It has developed somewhat slowly but quite consistently, I would say, since the late 1960s or the early 1970s.
What we see now is the promise or the threat of a set of rollbacks of environmental law like we have not seen before. We're moving from a process where environmental law was developing over the years, to where we now have a pendulum. I'd just like to say to this committee that if this government insists on creating a pendulum, a pendulum you will have, and a pendulum swings. If, instead of continuing to move forward environmental and workplace regulation, you seek to move backwards, if you seek to create that pendulum, a pendulum you will have, and in five years time it will swing and it will swing with effect and I trust it will swing with force. I would strongly advise that we not create a pendulum, that we continue with a forward motion.
With respect to the character of this bill, there are three things we note. I would describe in terms of trends, but I hope this is not a trend; I'll call it the character. One is the concentration of power, the concentration or transfer of power. We see this throughout the bill, and I might be able to provide a couple of examples of these three characteristics I'm going to identify.
We see concentration or transfer of power in the permitting process, which I am mostly familiar with in the Public Lands Act discussion, where we see permitting removed from the act into the regulations. That's for fire permits, land use permits and so on. What that's doing is moving power from the Legislature to the cabinet table, moving power from the act to the regulation, and that is a concentration of power.
We also see an example in section M, item 33, the waiving of the need of assent of electors to structure or restructure the public utilities commission. That is the removing of democracy, that is a transfer and concentration of power away from the electorate to the municipal government, to the provincial government, to the cabinet. It's a concentration of power; it is anti-democratic in nature.
We're also seeing a second trend or a second characteristic that this bill perhaps both promises and evidences, and that's decision without discussion. We have a tradition of public participation in public policy development, and this bill is attempting to erase that, with some other initiatives of this government as well. This bill is the first example. We saw it introduced in the House without advance discussion, without warning. We saw the struggle for us, as members of the public, to even have the opportunity to speak to the bill. Throughout the bill itself there are many examples of concentration of power and many examples of where decisions are going to be made without discussion.
We also believe we see within this bill an intent to favour the private interest over the public interest. I will call that an "intent" to favour the private over the public interest because I do not believe that in the long run it will actually favour the private interest over the public interest. It's things like, again, dropping the requirements for permits, and a number of changes we see in the Mining Act, which I'll discuss in a few moments. I believe those are the government's intent to provide favour but, as we'll discuss in a few minutes, I think it's a misguided effort, a misguided intent.
Those are three characteristics of the bill, and they're all alarming ones. They're all ones the government should be ashamed of and they're all ones the public is appalled by.
I'm going to walk through the bill, and only some sections of the bill, given the time constraints we're operating under.
The first one I want to comment on, and I'll do that very briefly, is section K, the freedom of information. What we see in section K under the changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is a move to absolute discretion in the provision of information. We see absolute discretion being given to the head of agencies and we see no definition of "frivolous or vexatious."
I think the government does not have a case for the changes it is proposing here. If they do have a case, they failed to make it. I simply don't accept that they have a plausible argument. I do know that we have a very plausible argument for why the changes should not be made: It's going to make information less accessible, less available and absolutely discretionary in its provision.
We have some limited experience with this bill, and I think that fact speaks to the fact that the bill has not been abused in the past. I think we have used it on only one occasion, and we paid a fee for that use of some $19. We were able to do that and it seemed reasonable given the amount of information we were provided. We would have had the opportunity to ask that it be waived had we not been able to pay, but we were able. The information that was provided to us in that instance, with respect to the hydro-electric development in the Moose River basin, was very helpful to us in our discussions both within the region with Ontario Hydro and with the Minister of Environment and Energy at that time. It was a useful exercise and it absolutely should be available to us. We have real concerns that with these changes it will no longer be available to us.
The next section we'd like to comment on is section N with respect to the Public Lands Act. As a regional organization concerned with resource management and land use issues, we have a fair history of participation and experience with the Public Lands Act and activities regulated under it and activities that take place on the public land. We're an intervenor in the class environmental assessment for timber management, we've participated in MNR planning processes, I was chair of the old-growth initiative that developed the policy for old-growth conservation in this province, and we participate locally in timber management plans across the region either as Northwatch or as members of Northwatch. So we have a lot of experience.
I also have some experience working in MNR district offices, a limited one, but I have some experience and some insight into some of the difficulties in those offices. When we see the changes in the Public Lands Act basically to remove the requirement for permits or to move to transfer the requirement for permits from the act into the regulations into some kind of who-knows land -- we haven't seen those regulations. We don't know if the regulations have been prepared. We don't know if the regulations will be in effect prior to the bill coming into effect. And if the regulations are not in effect prior to the bill coming into effect, what situation will that create and what situation are we going to be left with, given the expected deficiencies of the regulations?
What we think we'll see is chaos. We'll see chaos in the woods, we'll see chaos in the planning process, and ultimately we'll see a degradation of natural and resource values. We'll see a diminishment of public participation and we'll see a diminishment of natural values. I think that what we'll see is an increase in the level of conflict around land use and land uses and land values of the very nature that we seek to avoid. I believe we seek to avoid those as public interest groups. I would like to believe that the government would seek to avoid those, as the responsible regulator. I have full confidence that industry and the ministry, the district offices, seek to avoid those kinds of conflict. I think, with the changes that we're seeing under the Public Lands Act, this government is promising us conflict. It's conflict we don't want. We would implore you to not impose it upon us. Nevertheless, that appears to be the course the government is intent on taking.
1130
The third section that I want to comment on specifically is schedule O with respect to the amendments to the Mining Act. There are three areas of these amendments that we find particularly troubling. Those are with respect to the closure plans, with respect to the financial assurances and with respect to the exit ticket. Again, we have some experience in this discussion. Like most members of the public, we have less experience, I would say, than we do in the area of forest management or other resource management issues. I think it's a developing discussion.
In the last seven years we have seen very positive developments in that discussion. We've seen it with the issuing of the green paper in 1988-89, with the changes to the Mining Act in 1991, with the Whitehorse mining initiative in 1993-94. We've seen very positive developments in this discussion, very positive developments in the relationships between industry, government, aboriginal people, labour and environmental organizations, and we've seen very positive developments in our ability as a variety of stakeholders, users and governors, to resolve difficulties and differences.
What we see in schedule O with respect to the Mining Act is again a reversal of that progress we have made, a reversal of those very positive developments.
With respect to the closure plan, our concerns are that we just don't buy the term "self-regulation." We don't buy the fact that having a professional engineer's stamp on a closure plan without not only the requirement but without the ability of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to review those plans -- it's simply not acceptable. It's not reasonable and it's not workable. It may appear workable in the very short term. As our temporal skills get longer, the longer a time frame you want to consider that within, the less workable it will be. So the very suggestion that closure plans are to be submitted without the requirement for MNDM scrutiny, and having removed the ability of MNDM to provide that scrutiny, it boggles the mind how this could be called regulation or governance.
We took a long time to get to the point where we had closure plans required, where we had a set of rules developed in terms of how those closure plans must be completed. What we hear from the mining industry and what we've heard from it for years, and I'm sure it's what you as elected officials have heard, is that what the mining industry wants is certainty. They say, "We can live with the rules; we just need to know what the rules are." Well, we have spent years developing the rules. We had a set of rules and now they're gone. It makes no sense. So the first concern we have is the removal of the requirement for closure plans.
The second concern we have is with respect to the so-called self-assurance. Even the caption sounds silly. It sort of suggests that if you get up in the morning and you're feeling self-assured, you're a good mining company. If you get up in the morning and you're not feeling so confident, you're a bad mining company. Self-assurance: what does that mean? It looks like it means that no certainty is required from the mining industries. They've been telling us for years they want certainty, but they're not going to be required to provide certainty. That's certainty with respect to their ability to meet their responsibilities, to rehabilitate and reclaim land, public land that they have used for their benefit; some benefit to the province, certainly, but to their benefit.
It's the cost of doing business to rehabilitate the lands the mining companies have used, and it's the cost of doing business to provide adequate financial assurances that you're able to do that. Simply saying there has to be compliance with a corporate financial test in a prescribed manner -- who knows what that means? I don't know what that means, but I don't think it means anything very solid, very certain or very good for the people or the lands or the waters of northern Ontario, or of this province more generally.
The third area we have concern with respect to is that of the exit tickets. That's described under the surrender of lands, sections 149 and on of schedule O. This is an even greater problem, given that we have no reason to believe the closure plan is actually going to give us, the public, those who have concerns about the standard of care for the lands and the waters of this region -- there's no test there to say that the closure plans are going to adequately require the rehabilitation and remediation of that site.
Then we get to section 149 in this bill, where it talks about surrender of lands. What it tells us is that if a site is rehabilitated in accordance with a filed closure plan, it's okay. That's an exit ticket, you can walk away from that.
There are a number of problems with that. One, we don't have any cause for confidence in the closure plans and, two, these sites need long-term institutional controls and care. That's the norm, and that's particularly the norm, given the approach that is usually employed in Ontario with respect to closure, or which the mining industries in Ontario favour with respect to closure.
I'll just describe briefly two approaches that are generally taken in North America. One is management through flooding and one is management through dry cover. In Ontario, and in Canada more generally, companies prefer flooding, and this is in respect primarily to acid mine drainage. Companies generally prefer to flood. If you flood a tailings area, you need long-term institutional controls, you need long-term maintenance monitoring controls. That is virtually into perpetuity. As long as the site is acid mine generating, there needs to be those kinds of institutional controls.
If Ontario wants to follow the US example and require multibarrier dry covers, it might be a different discussion. I haven't seen any indication in Ontario, or even in Canada, that regulators are prepared to go that route. If you're prepared to go that route, we might be interested. We think that's a surer way to go, but we don't see any indications.
So what we have is a walkaway from a site that is not securely remediated and we are left ultimately with the public lands to bear the cost in terms of environmental degradation, or the public purse to bear the cost in terms of remediation, cleanup and so on. I think that while most of the sites in northern Ontario -- we have about 2,000 abandoned sites -- are left unremediated and it is not an expense to the public purse, instead it's an expense to the public lands and waters. In some cases, such as the Matachewan dam -- you might remember in 1990 when that dam broke -- that was in the neighbourhood of $2 million or $3 million for the cleanup of one site. So multiply that. You'll find it very expensive, and I just do not believe that's an expense that should be borne at the public purse.
I'll just close by saying there are a number of inconsistencies within this bill, and there is inconsistency about this bill. There are inconsistencies within the bill, there are inconsistencies between this bill and the government's supposed agenda, its supposed mandate, and there are inconsistencies between this bill and Ontario's place in the national and international arena, the place that Ontario has developed, again over years and years of discussion and policy development.
1140
The inconsistencies within the bill: I'll give an example within the conservation authorities where within this bill government assumes greater power over conservation authorities but, at the same time, less involvement. There are going to be no provincial appointees. In the past, there have been provincial appointees to the conservation authorities, and we've seen this as a positive thing.
We're very committed to local decision-making. We're very committed to local people being involved in making the decisions and developing the course for their area's future, but we've always supported there being provincial appointees to the conservation authority under whatever government because we think there is a provincial interest and a public interest that warrants representation.
I think the inconsistency that exists between this bill and the government's so-called mandate -- and I don't accept that the government has the mandate that it has frequently in the last six months claimed to have through the so-called Common Sense Revolution and the issuing of that booklet. I don't think that gives it the mandate to do the things it has done. Certainly it didn't give them that mandate in terms of a majority at the polling booth. But I think this government would generally describe its raison d'être to be fiscal responsibility, and when we look at this bill, we don't see fiscal responsibility. We see tax giveaways to the mining companies. We see the public assuming fiscal liability and fiscal responsibilities for sites which should be the responsibility of private industry. We just see example after example of fiscal irresponsibility.
And when we look at this bill and we compare it to the position that Ontario has taken nationally and internationally, again we see huge inconsistencies and again we'll offer as an example the inconsistencies with respect to the mining sector.
The mining industry, government, aboriginal people, labour and environmental organizations have been working together over the last few years at least, and I would say longer than that, and one of the products of that working together has been the Whitehorse mining initiative. In the Whitehorse mining initiative, Ontario, as well as the other stakeholders, as well as the other governments and as well as my own organization, made commitments. Among the commitments that we made were to things like public decision-making, to closure plans, to environmental assessment, to completing the network of protected areas and so on.
There is a set of commitments that Ontario has made, and if Ontario does not want to keep those commitments, I would suggest that Ontario should say so very clearly. I would say you are saying so; Ontario is saying so through this legislation. But I'd like it in a letter. I'd like the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Premier of this province to write me a letter and say, "We didn't mean any of the things that Ontario signed on to in the Whitehorse mining initiative."
When you do that, then you'll be showing that you are going against the will of not only the people of Ontario but also the mining industry, the government of Canada, the aboriginal people, the environmental organizations and the labour organizations in this province. But if that's what you mean to do, that's what you should do. You should just say it.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we have very little time, less than a minutes for each caucus to respond.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Welcome to the committee. You represent a group that's well known and significant across northern Ontario.
I want to indicate to you, especially with regard to the mining changes proposed in this act, that you're not the only group that is asking the same questions -- and basically it's about asking questions. Yesterday in Timmins, the Ontario Prospectors Association expressed strong concerns that they didn't understand what this legislation meant and what the implications would be to them and how they were to proceed under this legislation. They decried the lack of the public ability to participate in the process.
We also have a letter from consulting geologists here saying exactly the same thing: "We don't understand. We don't know whether this will be bad, good, whatever." They haven't really been able to make that judgement call on the basis that the information around this bill, the regulations, are unseen, unknown and it's totally antithetical to the way the Mining Act of 1989 through 1991 was developed. Have you been talking to the --
The Chair: Mr Brown, I'm afraid you're going to have to leave that as a statement. I apologize.
Mr Michael Brown: Oh, all right. I was a little long-winded.
Ms Lloyd: I have had some discussion with them, and I agree with you. I think we have many common interests and many common concerns with industry, with the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, with the labour organizations. We've developed a common understanding; we've worked hard to do that, and when I say "we" I mean all of those sectors. We've worked hard to develop that common understanding and an appreciation of others' concerns. I've had some limited chance to discuss it with them since this bill's release and yes, I agree that these concerns are common.
The Chair: Mr Martin, please.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): You've certainly struck a chord in me this morning with your presentation. It reminded me of the fragility of the north and of the need to integrate the economy with environmental concerns, with social concerns and for all of us to be working together and how in this bill, for all intents and purposes, most of that has now been removed.
Is there any amendment of any sort that would in any way go a distance to allaying your fears and concerns and anxiety, as the group you represent, re this bill that we could bring forward?
Ms Lloyd: Can this omnibus bill --
Mr Martin: Be amended?
Ms Lloyd: No. What could make the discussion a workable one is to split it out and to look at it section by section, have a discussion and see if there's a need for change or not. This bill contains everything from soup to nuts plus. There's one section in here about giving municipalities --
Mr Michael Brown: More nuts.
Ms Lloyd: Yes, more nuts, that's for sure. Here we go, bylaws on bands. "Bylaws may be passed by the council of a local municipality regulating or prohibiting the playing of bands and of musical instruments on any highway, park or public place." What are they talking about? What is this bill about? I can't play my recorder in the park, or mining companies aren't going to be regulated?
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we have limited time for questions. Mr Sampson.
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I noted your concern, that in your view this bill was concentrating power in the hands of the minister, yet there are some sections of schedule O that I thought, in passing authority to a minister, would have helped the issue with respect to the environmental concerns. As it relates to emergency powers, he's granted even extreme emergency powers to enter property without warrant to be able to deal with environmental concerns that are developing, let alone that have happened. I would have thought that you would have thought that would be a positive focus towards dealing with the environment.
Yesterday, by the way, we had a deputant come to the table and say, "Listen, you know, as it deals with environment, now there are environmental groups, there are union groups, the industry is dealing with it etc, and now with this act you're bringing in yet another constituent and that's the financiers of projects." They said to us, "Listen, this act will make financiers responsible for environmental issues and concerns that are raised as a result of a project development."
I would have thought you would have thought that would have been a positive step towards making access to available money in the event that there was an environmental concern where money had to be spent.
The Chair: Mr Sampson, I apologize. I'm going to have to cut you off. We only have a short time allowed for statements and questions.
I'd like to thank you for coming forward this morning and making your presentation to the committee.
1150
INCO LTD
The Chair: May I please have representatives from Inco Ltd come forward.
Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You'll have half an hour this morning to make a 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 at the beginning of your presentation you take some time to introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Dr Larry Banbury: Thank you very much. I will begin by introducing the three people here today representing Inco. First of all, my name is Larry Banbury; I am manager of safety-health environment for the Ontario division. On my right is Marty Puro; he is superintendent of reclamation and decommissioning, with primary responsibility for mine closure planning in the Ontario division. On my left is Brian Randa; he's land administrator for our exploration department. All of us are employed by Inco here in Sudbury.
Inco Ltd is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995. In the following brief we will restrict our comments to schedule O of the bill that deals with amendments to the Mining Act, specifically the issues of environmental protection and map-staking. I will be speaking to the issues of environmental protection, and when I am finished Brian Randa will speak to the exploration issues, particularly map-staking.
In light of the concerns expressed regarding environmental protection, it must be emphasized that Bill 26 does not contain any amendments to any environmental legislation. Consequently, the requirements for certificates of approval, the prime instrument of the Ministry of Environment and Energy for regulating mines, remain unchanged.
It must also be emphasized that the proposed amendments do not reduce or eliminate any legislated environmental or engineering requirements for the rehabilitation and closure of mines. Government engineering standards for mine closures in Ontario are as stringent as, if not more so than, anywhere else in the world. These guidelines are not in any way changed by the proposed legislation. In fact, the existing act and the proposed amendments will still require mining companies to undertake progressive rehabilitation.
Closure plans will not be compromised and will be reviewable by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Under the present act and the proposed amendments, section 141 requires that the proponent of a mine development submit a closure plan to the MNDM. In addition, the proposed amendments for section 141 require that closure plans be certified in a prescribed form and manner such that the plan complies with all existing requirements and standards.
Where a company wishes to have a closure plan approved by the MNDM, the amended section 142 provides a proponent with the option to submit a proposed closure plan in the prescribed form and manner to the director for approval. In such cases, subsection 142(4) requires the proponent to "pay in advance the amount estimated by the director to be required for considering the closure plan...for approval." It should also be pointed out that subsection 142(2) and subsection 143(3) provide the director with the authority to require changes to an approved or filed closure plan or amendments to such closure plans.
Financial assurance will still be required and a company cannot avoid the financial assurance requirement. The proposed amendments to section 145 not only describe the requirement for financial assurance but also broaden the number of possible financial instruments available to the proponent. Section 145 still requires that the form of financial assurance must be acceptable to the director.
Clearly, the MNDM retains the authority and discretion to review and approve closure plans and the adequacy of financial assurance. The proposed amendments add an additional level of confidence in that a certified closure plan must be certified by a corporate officer, professional engineer and possibly a chartered accountant. These signatures attest that the plan meets the design requirements of legislation and the MNDM guidelines and that the proponent is capable of providing a specified financial assurance. Otherwise, if the requirements are not met, the officers and professional engineer may expose themselves to personal liability. Consequently, the effect of these changes requires the company to be more accountable and responsible than under the present act.
Environmental problems were created by old mining operations in the past, which is why the act was amended by the last government. These situations are from an era when society was not as environmentally aware as today and legislation did not require closure plans and financial assurance from mining companies. As a result, mines and other industrial processes were shut down previously according to the laws and requirements of the day.
It is not in the best interests of society or mining companies for mines to be operated irresponsibly and subsequently shut down. Conversely, it is in the best interests of mining companies to operate responsibly under the laws and regulations and guidelines of the day as society, through its governments, has decreed necessary.
Mining companies have undertaken several measures designed to minimize environmental impacts. For example, the mining industry, along with the federal government and some provincial governments, has undertaken a project called mine environment neutral drainage program. The MEND program began some six years ago, at a cost to the participants of more than $18 million, to try to arrive at new and innovate methods of dealing with mine waste. The MEND program has been successful in increasing environmental protection.
Furthermore, at the national level the Mining Association of Canada has developed an environmental policy for its members. In Ontario, the Ontario Mining Association has also developed a similar environmental statement for its members. As well, Inco and all major mining companies have their own published environmental policy.
Mining activities produce approximately $5 billion in annual revenue in Ontario. Mining supports some 50 communities and employs more than 70,000 people directly and indirectly in both northern and southern Ontario. Consequently, it is in the best interests of all parties to maintain a healthy mining industry in the province.
I will now ask Brian Randa to speak on map-staking.
Mr Brian Randa: I'll address the map-staking issue as a proposal to be implemented in Ontario. The following is a review of areas where changes and/or streamlining can be proposed to the Ontario government to correct administrative problems that have been a persistent frustration since the Ontario Mining Act was changed in 1991. The problems deal mainly with claim acquisition, assessment work reporting and claim maintenance procedures, which require a great deal of administration by both government and industry to maintain claims in good standing.
Historically, the Ontario Mining Act has been the model that other provincial jurisdictions look to for leadership, and in some cases other countries. However, with the complex nature of maintaining mining rights in Ontario, we now see very clearly that other jurisdictions have developed better and more simplified ways to acquire and maintain mining rights, such as the system in Newfoundland, where map-staking and very simple assessment work filing procedures are in existence. These are measures which should be considered by the Ontario government for incorporation into the Mining Act.
The issue of map-staking is not new. In consultation with the government, prior to the changes made to the Mining Act in 1991, map-staking was proposed. However, at the time there was no political mandate for a change of this magnitude and the proposal was only supported by a few major companies. But now, with the mandate to streamline government operations, we expect our proposal to receive broad support.
Recently, the industry has witnessed the Voisey Bay claim rush, where all claims were acquired by the map-staking method and considerable insight was gained into the procedure of map-staking in Labrador. In the 11 months after the discovery at Voisey Bay was announced, there were 255,000 25-hectare claims staked by the map-staking method. This is an area equivalent to nine times the land area staked in Ontario during the same period, and 2.5 times the land area now covered by all the active claims held in Ontario.
The processing and recording of the Labrador claims was administered by a staff of generally three to four people, and up to a maximum of seven people during the height of the claim rush. To date, there have been no boundary disputes or grievances of any kind. The only problem reported was the requirement for the public queuing to submit applications, as the government was not prepared for the large volume of applications in the recording office. However, this problem was rectified with a revised set of procedure guidelines. In comparison, during the Hemlo rush in 1982, 16,000 16-hectare claims were groundstaked, the staff in the recording office tripled to 12 people and claim disputes resulted in litigation. Under the map-staking system, disputes and conflicts would virtually disappear.
The merits of map-staking are further demonstrated by the 1992 staking rush for diamonds in the Northwest Territories, where there were 12,000 square miles of ground staked at an approximate cost of $15 million. The industry and the country would have been better served to have spent most of this money in exploring the ground rather than using financial resources to stake claims manually in the field which could have easily been acquired in an office via the map-staking method.
These statistics demonstrate how overburdened the Ontario system is with administrative details in the acquisition stage. Claims maintenance procedures have always been burdensome, even with the introduction of computerized maintenance of claims by the government. During a staking rush, these statistics also suggest a larger participation by both large and small organizations, thereby creating more revenue and more assessment work than the present system, which is very labour-intensive to run. The benefit of implementing map-staking will be more revenue and less cost to administer, which would meet the government's objective of downsizing.
1200
The benefits to the mining industry of implementing a map-staking system are realized immediately in that it would provide a secure land title with low upfront costs. Inexpensive and accurate global positioning systems are now available to locate easily and accurately map-staked claim boundaries in the field. This was not the case only a few years ago. The discontinuation of groundstaking would also eliminate the destruction of many trees, especially in those areas where the surface rights are privately controlled. The current process of land entry presents a system which alienates private surface rights holders.
The argument that the little guy is left behind is not supported. There are numerous examples in Newfoundland of prospectors profiting from optioning and selling mining claims acquired in the Labrador claim rush. Regulation and procedures can be structured to accommodate all competing parties in the map-staking acquisition system.
It is our opinion that the opportunity to effect a major change in Ontario has presented itself, and the statistics from the Labrador rush dramatically demonstrate that map-staking has very definite advantages for all stakeholders. The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alberta and a small portion of Quebec have implemented map-staking, and the Ministry of Natural Resources in Quebec has stated that it plans to implement map-staking across the entire province, mainly because of cost saving.
Regardless of whether the acquisition process is altered in Ontario, a more simplistic approach to assessment work reporting and claim maintenance procedures should be adopted to eliminate much of the unnecessary paper that flows between the recording offices and claim holders, thereby dramatically reducing much of the administrative detail at both ends. The assessment work approvals process should be fully centralized within the mining lands geotechnical approvals section in Sudbury, rather than some approvals being processed in the recording offices and others in the geotechnical approvals section.
In summary, the reasons for the implementation of map-staking are: administrative simplification; groundstaking is too costly for both government and industry; dollars spent groundstaking can be spent on exploration; it eliminates claim boundary fabric disputes; it reduces damage to trees and the environment; it eliminates alienation of private surface rights holders; more revenue for government; less administration and cost for government and industry.
Ms Martel: My concern around the industry self-regulating is that I don't think the public's going to buy it at the end of the day and I think the mining companies in the province have a problem because of that. I say that for two reasons.
First, I know that the industry right across Canada has spent at least two years now on a campaign called Keep Mining in Canada, which, among a number of other things, tries to make it clear to the public that companies do operate in an environmentally safe and sound way. You've had to do that because there are a lot of people who would prefer that mining be a sunset industry. I supported that campaign because I believe in the importance of this industry.
Second, we already know that in the province there are over 7,000 abandoned sites that require some work, in some cases not a lot, but other cases are a potential danger to the health and safety of the province and also the environment in the province.
People are very concerned that if you move to a self-regulating proposal the number of sites in the province that will end up being abandoned, that will end up being a cost to the taxpayer, is just going to grow. There's a public perception problem around self-regulation, because in this industry there are some bad apples who will always try to avoid any kind of responsibility, and they make a bad name for everyone else.
I want to ask you again, did your industry lobby for these changes with the provincial government? Are you not concerned that the concern I have around public perception and the public view around self-regulation will not be one that comes to pass?
Mr Marty Puro: The need for closure plans does not change for active operations. We, within industry, have taken responsibility for abandoned sites that -- we shouldn't even call them abandoned. They're orphaned sites, abandoned sites which we recognize and accept full responsibility for. We have ongoing programs that will rehabilitate those sites. We have been doing it since the inception of this legislation, and we have an active program to continue. There is nothing in this legislation that absolves us of that responsibility. It's the same as it was. In fact, now there is an additional clause within the Mining Act that requires that a closure report be submitted to the ministry when we are ready to turn that abandoned site back over to the province.
Ms Martel: Let me clarify. There are 7,000 sites in the province that the crown now has responsibility for that used to belong to a mining company. That company has gone bankrupt or is defunct, no longer exists. That land reverts to the crown, and now the crown and the taxpayers have the liability. I understand those. I understand Inco also has some sites, and under closure plans in the Mining Act you have to look after your own sites. I'm concerned about the 7,000 that the taxpayers of the province of Ontario are now responsible for and whether that number of sites will grow if the industry becomes self-regulating.
Yes, the ministry can still look at closure plans, but the problem is that the ministry staff -- and there used to be 19 people who did it -- has now been gutted under this government; there are only four left. They're not in a position to deal with all the closure plans that are going to come forward from companies which already operate and companies which might want to get a permit to open up new operations in the province.
How are you going to convince the public that all the requirements are being met, that the bad apples will be caught and that the companies in the province which do want to operate in a responsible way won't have their names tarnished by other groups which don't care about operating in a responsible way?
Mr Puro: The 7,000 sites you allude to aren't going to go away, you're absolutely right. But under the old legislation we did not have responsibility for those 7,000 sites to begin with. Nothing has changed within this Mining Act except that the closure plans become more of a self-regulating facet and there's more flexibility in the financial assurance part of it. But the 7,000 abandoned sites the province currently has a responsibility for are not addressed either in the old legislation or in the new legislation. There should be no reason to increase the liability.
Mr Sampson: To follow up on that, those 7,000 sites are probably there because at the time they were being developed, it's probably fair to say we didn't have the same environmental focus that we do now or that we may have going forward. That brings me to my next question.
The flexibility with respect to self-assurance essentially says and tries to deal with the fact that mine development, developing a mine, running your businesses, is a very difficult thing to gauge year over year or 10 years over 10 years, let alone day over day, and the money required to deal with mine closures, environmental issues as they result from the activity of mine development, changes as people get more environmentally concerned or less environmentally concerned or as technology changes.
1210
Wouldn't it make sense to you that we should be proposing in the legislation, as we have, financial assurance language that would deal with the fact that companies' balance sheets change from day to day, their ability to support their activities changes from day to day, the requirements of a closure plan change from day to day and the environmental aspects related to the actual development of a mine change from day to day? Doesn't the flexibility that we've built into this legislation deal with the realities of your business?
Mr Puro: Very much so. The issue of financial assurance has not gone away. It provides that the director has the ability to assess the financial strength of an organization and accept the tool that best suits the situation.
Mr Sampson: And, probably more important, reassess. This is not something that's done today and sealed in the vault for the rest of eternity.
Mr Puro: This is exactly right. The reporting process and the verification of the financial strength of an organization to deal with the issue of closure will require that it be reported with a frequency satisfactory to the director, and that may be quarterly, annually, semi-annually, virtually daily if he so requires. He has the flexibility, and we have the need to provide the financial assurance.
Mr Sampson: I appreciate your submission with respect to map-staking. I take it this is an encouragement for an amendment that would actually consist of a whole new section to the act. That's something we might want to put off to another time or another review process.
Mr Gerretsen: Another omnibus bill.
Mr Sampson: I thought I'd better get that on the table before my colleagues took a stab at it. But they already did anyway, so I didn't do much to beat them.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd like to follow up a comment Shelley made. The response troubles me. You say there's just a little change to self-regulation. We in Sudbury certainly, we who may not be as expert as you, are very concerned that the self-regulation aspect of this may have repercussions that will increase the 7,000 orphaned sites we see around the province now.
Having said that, I understand that Ontario is a very important mining jurisdiction. Conversely, I understand that mining is a very important industry in the province of Ontario. So it's important that when we make changes, we get it right. So many other industries in Ontario have been shut out of the process. Were you asked for your input before this legislation came out?
Mr Puro: We have had significant discussions with the MNDM on reviewing the guidelines for closure that we are all working to. Those guidelines have not changed. The point we have been trying to make over the years is that effectively, with our engineers preparing a closure plan and ministry engineers approving that plan, we were getting really into a situation where it was virtually, "Your engineers are better than my engineers," yet we were all working to the same guidelines, we were working to the same requirements and preparing a plan that met those guidelines. If we can assure that we are meeting it, we're avoiding duplication of the technical studies related to closure.
Mr Bartolucci: With regard to schedule O in particular, were you asked for input before Bill 26 was released?
Mr Puro: I don't think it's a specific request. It's been a culmination of ongoing discussions with the ministry personnel over the years as we have been dealing with interpretations of the regulations and the guidelines. I think it was more of a mutual consensus that it probably made more sense to go in that direction, because the requirements do not change.
Mr Banbury: I would also say that discussions took place on the previous amendment to the bill with the government of the day. It's an ongoing consultation between industries and government.
Mr Bartolucci: There seems to be a whole lot of confusion. Certainly the prospectors last day in Timmins were not clear; the environmentalist who was here today wasn't clear. Do you not agree with the firm of Watts, Griffis and McOuat that we're going too quickly with this and we need more time to provide clarification of very complex issues?
Mr Puro: No, we don't. Certainly we have a concern with the follow-up stage of how the regulations will interpret the Mining Act, but the confusion is perhaps coming from the fact that within the act it alludes to "certified closure plans" and to "submitted closure plans." I suspect it's a communications problem as opposed to a need for consultation and change. I think it's a matter of reading it and having it interpreted by the ministry itself. Once that is done, I think people will realize what it says.
The Chair: Gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
Committee members, before we break, those who are travelling please take your luggage to the front desk -- that will be the holding room -- and please clean up your room incidentals while you're there. I've noticed that no one has taken off their jacket, so I'm going to turn up the heat and close the doors and hopefully we can warm things up in here for the afternoon. Thank you. Be back at 1 o'clock.
The subcommittee recessed from 1216 to 1300.
SUDBURY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Good afternoon. May I please have a representative from the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour today to make a presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to receive questions and response from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate if, for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members, you'd take some time at the start of your presentation to introduce yourselves. I understand we will see a little bit of a tape at some point in the presentation.
Mr Marc Leduc: Yes, we will.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Leduc: My name is Marc Leduc, and with me is Mike O'Reilly. Mr O'Reilly is a professional firefighter from the city of Sudbury. He is the president of the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, which represents 104 members. I am also employed as a professional firefighter in the city of Sudbury. Both Mr O'Reilly and I will answer questions from the committee at the end of our presentation.
As well as being a member of the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, I am also a district vice-president with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. My district includes local firefighter associations in the communities of Elliot Lake, Sault Ste Marie, Sturgeon Falls, Kirkland Lake, Kapuskasing and Timmins as well as Sudbury. We also have representatives here today from North Bay and Valley East.
We are here today to state our opposition to Bill 26. This bill goes far beyond merely enacting the provisions of the Treasurer's economic statement of November 29, 1995. The bill contains 17 schedules which significantly affect some 46 Ontario laws.
The bill gives cabinet unprecedented powers to close hospitals, cut off hospital funding, merge municipal governments, tell doctors where to practise medicine, remove price control on prescription drugs, cut pay equity payments and reduce the rights citizens have to request information about government activities. Decisions affecting the delivery of public services and the operation of public institutions could be made without parliamentary debate or meaningful opportunity for public scrutiny and without community, local or stakeholder input.
The bill authorizes cabinet or ministers to do away with contractual rights and obligations contained in existing agreements. The bill would empower cabinet or ministers to make regulations or to issue directions overriding the provisions of any contractual agreements and even overriding or providing exemptions from the provisions of other legislation. The bill also purports to reverse or render of no effect certain decisions already made by courts or tribunals under existing legislation and agreements and to insulate the government against liability arising from future court or tribunal decisions.
We are mostly concerned with two specific areas of Bill 26 that would have a direct impact on firefighters in the province of Ontario. They are schedule Q, which includes amendments to various statutes with respect to interest arbitration, and schedule M, which deals with the Municipal Act and related amendments.
This bill would amend legislation governing interest arbitration contained in the Fire Departments Act. In the fire sector, given the essential nature of our services provided, the terms and conditions of collective agreements must be determined by a process of interest arbitration rather than through strikes or lockouts. Criteria for arbitrators in schedule Q of the bill would totally discredit arbitration as a system of resolving collective bargaining disputes for firefighters. The bill would require arbitrators to consider the following criteria:
"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.
"2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased.
"3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality....
"4. A comparison, as between the employees and other comparable employees in the broader public sector, of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed.
"5. The employer's need for qualified employees."
These provisions constitute a significant interference with the independence and integrity of the arbitration process, requiring boards of arbitration to consider governmental criteria in awarding collective agreements.
The role of arbitrators is to ensure that firefighters receive neither more nor less than employees in the private sector or other public sector employees performing comparable work. It is entirely inappropriate for boards of arbitration to make political decisions in respect to establishing spending priorities of municipalities in determining wages.
Arbitrators have stated that basing an award on ability to pay could render the interest arbitration process largely irrelevant, since the use of ability to pay could allow the government and employers to unilaterally determine wages and benefits by simply allocating a fixed or reduced amount for employee compensation in their transfer payments or budgets. The ability-to-pay criterion leads arbitrators to reach predetermined results and biases their decision in favour of employers. Reliance on ability to pay would undermine the independence of arbitrators and the integrity of the arbitration process.
If employers can unilaterally fix or reduce the budget for employee compensation and then argue that arbitrators are bound by the employer's budgetary decision, this could also undermine the process of collective bargaining itself, since there would be little if any incentive for employers to reach an agreement when it is clear that arbitrators will have no choice at the end of the day other than to award the employer's position.
Arbitrators have also criticized the requirement to apply the ability-to-pay criterion on the basis that it requires public sector employees to subsidize public services through substandard wages, a situation criticized by all arbitrators as unacceptable. Since there is no objective test for measuring a public sector employer's ability to pay, arbitrators have held that ability to pay really amounts to no more than willingness to pay.
By imposing this criterion on arbitrators, government may be able to effectively implement wage controls without doing so directly, thereby using arbitrators as a buffer to escape responsibility.
Similar legislation was adopted by a Conservative government for a temporary period in the early 1980s. At that time, the chair of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission expressed concern that "arbitrators may cease to be available since the proposed legislation will impinge on their independence." As a result of such concerns, the legislation was not renewed after a period of one year.
The ability-to-pay criterion deprives employees of a fair, impartial mechanism for determining their terms and conditions of employment. If arbitrators are directly appointed by the government which lays down in legislation certain criteria which the arbitrators are bound to follow in the determination of their awards, it is inevitable that confidence in the system will diminish.
In determining compensation matters under collective agreements, the traditional criterion used by arbitrators to determine wages in the public sector is comparability with employees performing similar work for the same employer, with employees performing similar work for other employers in the public sector and with employees performing similar work for employers in the private sector. This ensures that wages for employees governed by interest arbitration in the public sector follow negotiated settlements in those sectors where the parties have the right to engage in free collective bargaining, with the right to strike or lockout.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario would lead you to believe that most of the firefighter wage settlements are determined by boards of arbitration. This is not true. In fact, 85% of firefighter agreements have been successfully and freely negotiated by the respective parties without resorting to interest arbitration. In Sudbury, agreements have been determined by interest arbitration twice in the past 15 years.
1310
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario have insinuated for years, because of certain arbitration awards, that the firefighters had the arbitrators in their so-called back pockets. We find this type of attitude totally unacceptable and insulting to the present list of arbitrators in the province of Ontario. We believe that in some instances municipalities opt to let arbitrators determine salary increases, particularly in election years. It is easier to put the blame on arbitrators for increases even though the increase was just and reasonable.
The bill also requires arbitrators to consider the extent to which services may have to be reduced if current funding levels are not increased. The intent of this provision is not clear, along with other criteria listed in the legislation, but it may be to encourage arbitrators to make awards which require employees to subsidize the maintenance of current levels of service through substandard wages.
This consideration may also involve arbitrators in decisions representing the level of service that should be provided by the employer, thereby relieving public sector employers of their responsibility for making decisions for which they can be held accountable.
Any imposition of criteria on arbitrators significantly fetters their discretion, compromises their independence and impartiality, and as a result, our view is that no criteria should be imposed on interest arbitrators.
The other specific area of Bill 26 that we feel directly impacts on public safety is schedule M. Schedule M would amend the Municipal Act to provide the government with wide powers to restructure existing municipalities and localities. Restructuring includes the amalgamation of municipalities; annexing part of a municipality to another municipality; dissolving all or part of a municipality; annexing a locality into a municipality; incorporating the inhabitants of a locality into a municipality; and joining a local municipality to a county for municipal purposes.
The powers to be exercised by the minister or a commission in implementing a restructuring proposal are left entirely to be established by regulation or by the commission itself. The minister is given virtually unlimited powers to determine, by regulation, the composition and the functioning of a restructuring commission, including authorizing the commission to apportion its costs among the municipalities or local bodies affected by the commission's report. Further, the minister is entitled to establish restructuring principles that must be considered by municipalities, other bodies and the commission when developing restructuring proposals.
Apart from the power to restructure municipalities, the bill would give the minister, together with the municipalities, broad powers to alter or eliminate local boards under the control of one or more municipality. The definition of a local board includes school boards, public utility commissions, transportation commissions, public library boards, boards of park management, boards of health, police services boards and other bodies which perform public, municipal functions. In addition, cabinet would have the power, by regulation, to deem any other body which performs public functions to be a local board for the purpose of these powers. Under the bill, the council of a municipality would have the power to dissolve or make other changes to any local board simply by passing a resolution, and this power applies despite any other legislation.
While the full impact of these proposed changes on the operation of municipal services will only be understood when regulations are enacted, the bill would provide the authority for municipalities to eliminate or fundamentally alter the structure and delivery of municipal services. Municipalities may well argue that this power extends to relieve them of the obligation to comply with the requirements of any other legislation, including labour relations legislation. Furthermore, it may be that the power to make changes to a local board could result in significant contracting out or elimination of municipal services if the regulations so permit.
Upper-tier municipalities are given the power to pass bylaws assuming services or facilities provided by local municipalities or local boards where those services are prescribed by regulation. These provisions may allow a regional municipality to assume such functions as firefighting, presently performed by local municipalities. In the event an upper-tier government assumed the function of fire protection without successor rights, affected employees could end up with no collective agreement and no protection whatsoever.
Municipalities and local boards are given broad new powers to pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons. These fees or charges may be levied for any services or activities provided by the municipality, for any costs payable by it for services and activities, and for the use of any of its property. In addition, the nature of the charges that may be made appears virtually unlimited, including fees and charges which are in the nature of a direct tax. Such fees or charges can vary on the basis that the municipality considers appropriate. In this connection, the municipality may treat different classes of persons differently and may deal with each class in a different way.
These provisions, taken together, would appear to allow for municipal poll taxes, a host of user fees and other charges for municipal services, and may even permit municipal charges based on income. While the minister may make regulations preventing municipalities from exercising these powers, the circumstances in which the minister could do so are left entirely unspecified.
User fees could very well become a reality in the fire service. We believe this is a recipe for disaster. In some communities, suggestions have already been made that user fees may be introduced for such services as extinguishing vehicle fires or responding to false alarms. The result would be individuals attempting to extinguish fires on their own and not calling the fire department, exposing themselves and others to serious injury. The situation may also arise where owners of apartment buildings will be tempted to deactivate alarm systems to avoid charges, placing residents and taxpayers at risk.
Prior to the election of the present government, many firefighters from across the province solicited comments from candidates on what their position would be on proposed changes to the Fire Departments Act. Attached to our presentation are written responses by now members of cabinet. All responded in the following: "No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted. And we will insist that changes be fully costed -- both from the point of view of workers, as well as management."
At this time we would like to show the committee a short excerpt from a video from Mike Harris. This video was presented to the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters at its educational seminar in the city of St Catharines last April.
Video presentation.
1320
Mr Leduc: We, as professional firefighters, believe this bill does in fact make drastic changes to the Fire Departments Act, and our members have in no way been "thoroughly consulted."
Firefighters are currently involved in a review of the fire services in the province of Ontario under the direction of the Solicitor General, the person appointed by the government to be responsible for the fire service in Ontario. Thorough consultation is necessary in order to examine all aspects of public safety as well as the safety of firefighters.
We know the province of Ontario is in great financial trouble. However, we are asking the government not to destroy the right of the people of Ontario to a safe existence. We are here today to ask the government to live up to its commitments to us. We are asking the government to exempt the firefighters and the fire service from Bill 26 and allow us to continue discussions on our own piece of legislation, the Fire Departments Act, as was promised prior to the election.
Thank you on behalf of the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association.
The Chair: We begin questioning. You have three minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for the presentation. I've just a quick question on the user fees and the implications that municipalities will be able to charge user fees. Is it your impression that that presently is not allowed? I would suggest that there's a great portion of Ontario that is presently charging user fees for fire service on the provincial highways. The province then pays the municipalities and charges it back to whoever had the fire, through the insurance company. Would you see that as a contradictory situation with what you're suggesting may happen?
Mr Leduc: No, I wouldn't. There are presently user fees in the fire service in the circumstance where you're speaking of on provincial highways where the provincial government is billed. It's not a direct user fee to the person involved, let's say, in a particular motor vehicle accident, if we were called to go to auto extrication on a highway.
This bill would open the door for a different type of user fee. We understand there may be user fees for some fire services that relate to inspections and those types of deals. But when we're talking of mayors in this province who made comments of user fees for emergency services, where this legislation opens that door, we think, as we said in our brief, it is definitely a recipe for disaster.
Mr Hardeman: You did realize that the restructuring proposal that you were expressing in your brief does not apply in the region of Sudbury?
Mr Leduc: Can you explain that?
Mr Hardeman: I think if we read the act, it exempts regional government from that restructuring proposal of amalgamation and changes.
Mr Leduc: That is not our understanding of the bill. We've gone through this bill --
Mr Phillips: The fire department is right and you are wrong, Mr Hardeman. This is embarrassing.
Interjection.
Mr Hardeman: Restructuring?
Mr Leduc: Under the act, in our opinion, this does apply to the region of Sudbury as far as restructuring.
Mr Tascona: I thank you for your presentation. We've heard from a number of firefighter groups across the province, and certainly each one of their presentations has focused on schedule Q. Certainly a part of the government's review of the Fire Departments Act -- this is part of the process. As you know, the deadline was extended for written submissions until February to deal with the impact of this bill. Certainly, I would consider the consultation process that we're going through now has been used by the firefighters to a great extent, more than perhaps any other group I'm aware of in the province.
I'd just like to say about schedule Q that we're dealing with considerations. It's never been said that these are determining factors. I think your president has got assurances from Mr Runciman that the factors in arbitration, these are not exhaustive, and it would be like a normal process where arbitrators consider all the relevant factors. Nothing has changed in that process. There are mandatory criteria that have to be considered, but that doesn't exclude all the factors.
I'd just like to point that out in terms of your concern over this, because the police association presented to us and they wanted to make sure, and one of their approaches was to make sure, that we consider all the factors for the arbitrators. Because the purpose isn't to take out and put in the hands of arbitrators the political decision-making. It's still going to be an independent process, as it has been before.
Mr Leduc: That is not clear in the bill, whether arbitrators can consider only the five criteria or expand the considerations further. On the consultation, the fire marshal's report clearly leaves the arbitration process alone. There was no consultation prior to the introduction of Bill 26 on anything dealing with criteria to arbitrators. If you go through that fire marshal's report, you'll see quite clearly that the fire marshal had deemed to leave the arbitration process as it was for firefighters in the province of Ontario.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much, Marc and Mike, for an very excellent presentation. Just a point of clarification, though, because we have to clarify a point made by Mr Hardeman, and that's with regard to restructuring. The restructuring aspect is there, but there is clearly a shifting of power, and that's what these people are most concerned about. So don't try to misguide your comments. Clearly there is a shifting of power, and that's where the concern here is.
But let me tell you, because I'm interested in the video, and I'd just like to read a section of schedule Q: "Section 6 of the Fire Departments Act is amended by adding the following subsections," and we go down. Do you feel you were misled by Mr Harris and Mr Runciman?
Mr Mike O'Reilly: First of all, thank you, Mr Bartolucci, for clearing up a disagreement that we have had here. Secondly, to answer your question, definitely we feel that we've been misled or lied to or betrayed by the Tory government. We've all seen the video here today. We didn't edit that video.
Mr Gerretsen: Are we sure that's Mr Harris, though?
Mr O'Reilly: We're quite sure it's Mr Harris. We've also got written documents by Mike Harris. So yes, it's very clear we've been lied to and we're very concerned. A lot of firefighters from across the province of Ontario voted for the Tory government under the promise that they wouldn't touch the Fire Departments Act. All we want from them is a little bit of backing up on their promises.
Mr Bartolucci: We've negotiated against each other when I was an alderman, and with the information that you give us about 85% settlements and only 15% going to arbitration, would you then see this amendment as a form of wage control through the back door?
Mr Leduc: Definitely. If municipalities are allowed to set their budgets and use the ability-to-pay argument as well as the provincial government with its control over transfer payments, this is exactly what it is. It's wage control through the back door without actually coming right out and saying that we are controlling the wages of this particular group of workers in the province of Ontario.
Ms Martel: I want to return to the video and follow up on from Mr Gerretsen. The guy I just saw in that video sure looked like and sure sounded like Mike Harris to me. I think that it was Mike Harris. I heard Mike Harris in April of last year make a very, very specific commitment to you folks, to your association. He said very clearly that you would be consulted in any changes to the Fire Departments Act. I want to ask you, are you here before this committee today to tell us that in fact you were not consulted at all about the changes?
Mr O'Reilly: That's correct. We were not consulted with the changes. We have not been consulted with the changes, only promised to be consulted. But up to this time no consultation has been had with the firefighters across the province of Ontario, none whatsoever.
Ms Martel: So why do you think Mike Harris --
Mr Young: You met with the Labour minister.
Mr O'Reilly: A five-minute meeting does not constitute consultation.
Ms Martel: Well, that's the way the Tories consult. "You've got five minutes. Come in and say it fast." That is their idea of consultation.
Interjections.
Ms Martel: Only because we forced it, my friends. We wouldn't be here at all. Only because we forced it.
Interjections.
Mr Leduc: We were promised thorough consultation. In no way, shape or form have we had thorough consultation. There have been some meetings, yes, I admit to that. There have been some meetings with some members of the government, but in no way can it be said that there has been thorough consultation on the changes proposed under this bill.
1330
The Chair: You've about 30 seconds, Ms Martel.
Ms Martel: That's okay. I'll use it. The Tories would like to tell you that there's consultation happening here today, and I want to remind everyone in the room that, were it not for the actions that we took and the Liberals took, we would not be here in Sudbury, Ontario, today hearing from these people.
Mr Gerretsen: Alvin Curling was the guy who did it.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward this afternoon to make your presentation.
Mr Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The parliamentary assistant on municipal affairs told the Sudbury fire group that they were excluded from the possibility of what they put in their brief about the upper-tier municipality taking over fires. The fire department was right.
The Chair: Mr Phillips, it's not a point of order that has anything to do with the rules of the Legislature.
Mr Phillips: No, but I don't think that they can leave with the parliamentary assistant saying they were wrong. They were right; the parliamentary assistant was wrong.
The Chair: It may be a question of interpretation problems, and if Mr Hardeman so chooses, he may decide to clarify that. But it's not a point of order. It's not a point of the rules of the standing orders of the committee.
Mr Hardeman: At the moment I would clarify that the question was whether they understood that the part of the restructuring portion of the bill does not apply to a region. The part of the transfer and the migration of services does. There have been a number of applications put forward where the changing of the municipalities or the municipal boundaries would in fact negate their contracts. That would not apply in the region of Sudbury.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, SUDBURY REGION
The Chair: May I please have a representative from OPSEU, Sudbury region, come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this afternoon 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 responses or questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate if at the beginning of your presentation you would introduce yourselves for the benefit of both Hansard and committee members.
Mr Bill Kuehnbaum: My name is Bill Kuehnbaum. I'm the vice-president of OPSEU and a resident of Sudbury. With me is Peter Slee, who is a staff representative of OPSEU's office in Sudbury.
This presentation deals with two items that are in the omnibus bill, the one dealing with the pension arrangements for civil servants who are laid off and the other dealing with the effect of the elimination of the proxy method of pay equity on a group of people who live in Sudbury and work for the Sudbury Children's Aid Society.
I want to tell you how Bill 26 will cut into the pensions of laid-off government employees by hundreds of thousands of dollars. We expected this government to put many civil servants out to pasture. But we did not expect it to tear up the grass, poison the water and chop down the shade trees before they got there. Bill 26 turns the pasture into a wasteland.
A simple illustration shows the magnitude of the devastation. I've taken here an employee example, employee John Jones, who works for the Ministry of Natural Resources -- we have lots of Natural Resources employees in this area -- whose salary for the last few years has been $40,000. He's age 48 and he has 28 years of service.
If John were laid off today, his pension plan provides the following: In two years' time at age 50, he would collect a pension of $22,400 annually, and this would lead to a lifetime pension of $716,800. All the details, for those who like the arithmetic of pensions, are given on the last page. The lifetime assumption is that he'll live to 82, which is the current factor used by the actuaries of the pension plan. That's the status today, when or if John gets laid off. He waits two years, he starts collecting $22,400, and over his expected lifetime his pension earnings would be $716,800.
Under Bill 26 he would no longer get a pension at age 50. Instead the cabinet will make him wait several years to get a pension and confiscate hundreds of thousands of dollars from his retirement years. Under Bill 26 John will have to wait not two years but 17 years until he turns age 65 before he can collect the same $22,400 annual pension, and the little graph there gives you the details of if he waits till age 65, that's when he starts getting the same annual pension as he would have got at age 50, and if you factor in his lifetime pension, it will be $380,800, which represents a loss under Bill 26 to this individual of $336,000.
Now John could elect to take a reduced pension before he reaches age 65. The following illustrate the impact of taking his pension at age 60 and at age 55. If he waited till age 60 to collect his pension, there would be a reduction based on retiring before age 65, collecting his pension before age 65. The reduction would leave him with an annual pension of $16,800. His lifetime pension earnings would be $369,000. This is a $347,200 loss from the pre-Bill 26.
If he were really strapped for money and had to start collecting his pension at age 55, things get even worse for him. His annual pension is now reduced from half of what it would have been. It now would be $11,200. His lifetime pension earnings would be $302,000. The loss that he could chalk up to this bill is $414,400.
For those of you who don't like charts but prefer pictures, the graph on page 4 shows you the comparison between pre-Bill 26 if you got laid off and post-Bill 26 if you got laid off. The numbers are dramatic. For the most part, his pension will be cut approximately in half.
How does Bill 26 make this happen? Until the year 2000, the plan provides for a factor 80, that is, age plus years of service, retirement window without a pension reduction. John would reach his 80 factor in two years and could retire at age 50 on a unreduced pension.
Currently, when significant downsizing occurs, the superintendent of pensions, under the Pension Benefits Act, has the authority to wind up a portion of the pension plan, and laid-off workers would have access to early retirement as though they were still working. Through the partial windup, John would get his annual pension of $22,400 at age 50. Bill 26, schedule L, removes windup authority from the superintendent and assigns it to cabinet for one unique set of Ontario workers, those working for the provincial government. The cabinet has already indicated it will use its new powers to deny John access to the 80 factor.
The impact on John Jones: Under Bill 26 two things are clear. John will wait at least five years longer after being laid off to get a pension, and the pension he gets will provide $300,000 to $400,000 less for his retirement.
Premier Harris and his cabinet have made much of their adherence to the promises made in the Common Sense Revolution manifesto. Page 9 of that document makes commitments to reduce the civil service by attrition where possible and to produce fair severance arrangements where layoffs were required. This commitment now lies in tatters. Schedule L does the opposite of what was promised. Employees like John Jones already have fair severance arrangements in place. Bill 26 eliminates them. It clears the way for the cabinet to steal pension benefits from the employees it lays off.
We expected this government to escort John Jones out the door. We did not expect it to pick his pocket on the way through. John Jones has already paid for his pension. OPSEU struggled for 20 years, using John's dues, to achieve a conventional pension plan free from political interference.
1340
The OPSEU pension plan is a jointly trusteed plan which was set up under a joint sponsorship agreement effective January 1993. Prior to that, OPSEU members were subject to the public service superannuation plan, a totally employer-controlled plan which successive governments had used as a source of cheap capital.
To get a conventional pension plan, one that was subject to the normal rules, and as part of the sponsorship agreement, OPSEU members allowed the government to reduce its contributions to the plan by $392 million. This was part of the price John Jones paid to get his 80 factor.
The people of Ontario made a commitment to John Jones. When the government of Ontario set up John's pension plan, it put into statute the following promise:
"The plan and the funds shall not be made subject to any statutory provision that does not apply generally to pension plans in Ontario...."
This is much more than a contract between the government of the day and the members of the plan. It is a covenant from the people of Ontario to John that his pension plan will no longer be singled out for special discriminatory treatment.
Bill 26 reneges on that covenant. It singles out John's pension plan for exemption from the partial windup provisions of the Pension Benefits Act.
This affects more than John Jones. There are thousands of John Joneses across the province. In the Sudbury district of the Ministry of Natural Resources alone, there are 23 workers who are eligible for factor 80 early retirement. The application of section L is retroactive to January 1, 1993. If Bill 26 passes unamended, by the end of January this government will have already stolen from the people who have spent their entire working lives in its services hundreds of thousands of dollars of retirement comfort.
This is an act of extreme bad faith which would be illegal for any other employer in Ontario and, but for Bill 26, illegal for even the government of Ontario. In July the government tried by regulation to exempt itself from the partial plan windup provisions of the Pension Benefits Act. On December 20, the Ontario Divisional Court overturned the cabinet order.
Schedule L goes on to shield the government from civil liability for failure to perform its fiduciary obligations to the members of the pension plan once cabinet has, through Bill 26, seized control. To us, that constitutes acknowledgement that the government intends to act in a way which normally would be considered a breach of trust.
Through his election platform, Premier Harris may have received a mandate to reduce the Ontario public service. That mandate required him to do it fairly and by attrition where possible. It did not give him a licence to steal pension benefits from the employees he lays off.
This last concept is important in this community. Sudbury is no stranger to downsizing. Inco has gone from about 19,000 hourly rated employees to around 5,000. Over the last decade improved early retirement programs were the order of the day, not the theft of pension benefits from laid-off workers. Inco is a private sector firm with as much concern for the bottom line as any government in this country.
The government would do well to recall the outrage across this province over the employer grab of pension benefits from Dominion store employees in the mid-1980s. It was this abuse that triggered changes to the Pension Benefits Act, including the provisions from which the government seeks to exempt itself in section L.
There is another group in Sudbury that's going to get shafted. Being a mining town that might be a good term. Those are the people who work for the Sudbury Children's Aid Society, who are also members of my union. On their behalf I want to tell you how the repeal of the proxy method from the Pay Equity Act makes a mockery of the concept of pay equity, breaks a deal that was freely entered into and dooms them to unfairly low pay.
The proxy method of achieving pay equity was introduced after it became obvious that many of the most severe job ghettos where female work was substantially undervalued occurred where there were so many females that no male comparators existed to permit the normal job-to-job comparison between male- and female-dominated classifications.
The Sudbury children's aid society with six males in a staff of 105 was just such a workplace. The only male-dominated job class was the director of finance. All other classes were female-dominated. The parties agreed that another public sector employer just down the street, Laurentian Hospital, was an appropriate proxy employer and negotiated a proxy-driven pay equity plan that acknowledged a wage gap of as high as $10,000 per year for many vastly underpaid classifications ranging from senior social worker to clerical staff.
The parties then negotiated a long-term plan to eliminate the gap -- 3% of payroll was applied the first year, and 1% per year was to be used for the next 17 years; that's right, 17 years to get the pay equity hospital workers got in three. The staff and management were expected to work together on a consensual basis and, even though the 17-year result seems punishing to the workers, they were willing to live with the outcome.
Now through schedule J the government prevents these women from receiving but a fraction of the negotiated adjustments. Once 3% of the 1993 payroll has been paid, the employer's full pay equity obligation will be deemed to be totally fulfilled. At that point, children's aid workers will still be close to $10,000 behind hospital workers who do much the same work. Imagine, $10,000 less a year because they selected to care for threatened children, a predominantly female role in our society.
The pension and pay equity issues are examples of the contempt the government has for the rule of law in the province. Fundamental to the rule of law is the binding nature of the freely reached contract. Parties who do business together and achieve an agreement in good faith must be able to rely on the terms of their agreement being fulfilled. Without that ability, no business could be conducted.
While our system of parliamentary democracy empowers the Legislature to do virtually anything, including flouting normal legal processes, this government's behaviour undermines the respect for law which has been part of the character of Ontario citizens. How can government expect its citizens to respect the laws it passes to fulfil their obligations as citizens when the government itself abuses its power by using processes and enacting laws that exempt it from similar obligations? This will be the long-term legacy of the omnibus bill.
The Chair: We have four minutes per caucus for questions. We start with the opposition caucus.
Mr Gerretsen: I would first of all like to congratulate you on an excellent brief. We've heard a lot about the pension benefit changes and the pay equity changes as well, but your brief actually put it in some human form, where we can actually follow it by examples as to how it affects individuals, which, in all the presentations we have had so far, we have not had. When you come to think of it, it's one of the most outrageous provisions of this act. We've got about 25 different acts that are involved, or schedules etc, but these two are probably the least understood by the general public. On an individual basis they are probably going to affect more people, those who are affected, in a deeper way than anything else in the act collectively.
Would you not think that under normal circumstances this is a negotiating matter? Let's say the government wanted to change parts of this for people who are still in the workforce now. I'm not talking about people who are already pensioned. Wouldn't that be a normal negotiating matter that at least could be discussed and that's the way you bring it to the table?
Mr Kuehnbaum: Yes, as a matter of fact, negotiations are going on now for the agreement that covers John Jones and his colleagues, and pensions are on the table. That is the usual forum for these things to be arrived at. When deciding to make a presentation, I said to myself, "Who's going to be damaged the most and most immediately by this omnibus bill?" It is the people I know who are going out the door. Not only are they losing their jobs but they're having all their retirement comfort cut approximately in half.
1350
Mr Bartolucci: Maybe just add a little bit to what you started to say. How much is this government -- using your words, because I think they're appropriate -- going to be stealing from your pension plan?
Mr Kuehnbaum: In this case, in this one individual case, which isn't that rare, it's $300,000 to $400,000. So it depends, really, how many people they're going to lay off and how close they are to the 80 factor, but it's going to be in the millions and millions and millions of dollars.
Interjection.
Mr Kuehnbaum: Three hundred and some-odd million, I think, which is big numbers and kind of general. But think about it in terms of this guy who's going out the door. He's got to buy groceries, he's got to live for the rest of his life, and this is what he was going to live on. You don't see too many people who control their own pensions opting to cut their pensions in half.
Mr Bartolucci: I've heard a figure of about $250 million. What type of climate does that help establish as you're going into negotiations?
Mr Kuehnbaum: The type of climate it establishes, it virtually assures a strike vote.
Ms Martel: Let me return to the pensions issue, because not only have you pointed out that the government is now making a grab on money that was set aside for people when they retire, but they're actually doing it retroactively too, back to, in the schedule, at least January 1, 1993. So the government that wasn't the government then has the audacity to break a contract that we negotiated with OPSEU at the time and they're going to go back two years in order to grab that money. What do you think about a government that thinks it's appropriate to go back two years to make a grab on money that it's not entitled to?
Mr Kuehnbaum: It sucks.
Ms Martel: What do you think would happen if the same government tried to implement this in the private sector? If this government said to Inco and said to Falconbridge, "It's okay if you do another Conrad Black and you go in and you steal pension funds from the people who work for you," what do you think would happen in this community if the government tried to do something like that?
Mr Kuehnbaum: My guess is that if any private sector employer tried to do that, they would be shut down virtually overnight. We have a different culture in this union; it's going to take us longer to get there, but this is helping us get there real fast.
Ms Martel: So why do you think the government's picking on you, as its own employees?
Mr Kuehnbaum: They may be under the illusion that they're going to get away with it.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): What about the social contract?
Ms Martel: Well, we could talk about the social contract. Let me ask you, Bill, you lived under the social contract. If you had a choice between the social contract and the measures that you see before you, what choice would you make?
Mr Kuehnbaum: I don't have those options, Shelley.
Ms Martel: You'll probably be going out the door.
Mr Kuehnbaum: I hated the social contract, but it didn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars away from people who were being laid off.
Ms Martel: Tell me about the social contract and then compare that to the elimination of proxy for 100,000 women in the province, the women who work in the lowest-paid places of employment in the province. What do you think about that in comparison to the social contract?
Mr Kuehnbaum: The proxy thing isn't understandable. I've negotiated pay equity both from the employer's side and from the employees' side, and the way the rules are set up, if you don't have proxy, you can't achieve the objectives of pay equity if an employer happens to be in a situation where they've hired all women. You might as well -- I hate to suggest it; the government may do it. You just might as well say pay equity doesn't apply if you've got a majority of women in the workplace.
Ms Martel: Don't give them the idea, please.
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate you going through the pain and effort of putting together the chart. I went through it and if we could maybe ask a few questions about that, if you don't mind. What was the name of your candidate?
Mr Kuehnbaum: John Jones.
Mr Sampson: What would be the net pensionable earnings of John Jones if he had been declared surplus, for instance, under the previous government? Would it have been $22,400 or some number different, assuming he had the same age? This time last year, but the same age and the same years of service, would it have been the same amount?
Mr Kuehnbaum: Yes, the same.
Mr Sampson: So his entitlement to the pension is $22,400 and the fact that he's getting laid off is not affecting whether it's $22,400?
Mr Kuehnbaum: That's right. What's being affected is when he can start collecting $22,400.
Mr Sampson: But the pension commission didn't declare that the windup provisions applied if he were to have been laid off last year, so in fact, isn't it true that indeed he wouldn't have got $22,400? He would have got -- what was your number here -- the $16,800 because you would have had to take the deductions? If he wanted to earn his pension right after he was laid off, you would have had to take the deductions for the years of service, the 5% for each year.
Mr Kuehnbaum: No. The pension commissioner has the right to do the partial windup if there's a substantial downsizing in the employer.
Mr Sampson: Right. But somebody who was laid off last year --
Mr Kuehnbaum: There hasn't been a substantial downsizing in the employer. That's over the horizon.
Mr Sampson: No, but somebody who was laid off last year will have an entitlement of $16,800. Somebody who's laid off, for instance, upcoming -- I don't know when the date is, but let's say it's this year -- would have an entitlement under your calculations of $22,400. What do you tell those two people? Clearly there's a significant difference in the pensionable earnings between those two categories of people, somebody who was laid off last year and somebody who was laid off this year. There's a big difference, isn't there?
Mr Kuehnbaum: Right. There were no layoffs last year.
Mr Sampson: At all in the public service?
Mr Kuehnbaum: Not of this variety, of this kind of worker.
Mr Sampson: There were no layoffs at all in the public service last year?
Mr Peter Slee: The reality was that in fact during the last few years, while the Ontario civil service was reduced by some 8,000 positions, there were very few layoffs. There were around a couple of hundred layoffs.
Mr Sampson: But somebody who was laid off would have got the base pensionable earnings of $16,800; is that correct?
Mr Kuehnbaum: I don't know where you're coming from here. You're talking about a hypothetical person in the past when there was not such a hypothetical person.
Mr Sampson: You have a hypothetical person here and I'm just saying let's say that hypothetical person was laid off last year --
Mr Kuehnbaum: Right. My hypothetical person is the person who was laid off as part of a general downsizing in government.
Mr Sampson: Right.
Mr Kuehnbaum: There is no such person, either real or hypothetical, in the past. We see that as being just over the horizon based on what you folks are telling us.
Mr Sampson: Let me try this another way. Is it your view that the government's going out of business?
Mr Kuehnbaum: Well, we can hope. But in this case, no, I anticipate we will have government for a while.
Mr Slee: It's our view that about a quarter of bargaining unit members and members of the pension plan are scheduled for layoff. Listening to the statements of the Premier and the cabinet, 13,000 to 20,000 people out of 60,000 comes pretty close to a quarter.
Mr Sampson: But is that downsizing somehow going to jeopardize the ability of the province to honour the pension commitments of the people in accordance with the regular obligations, for instance, the $16,800 that would have been paid to the person laid off last year?
Mr Kuehnbaum: No. The current pension commitment is that if you get laid off as part of a general downsizing, the superintendent of pensions has the right to partially wind up the plan, which would then lead this John Jones to a $22,400 pension at age 50. That's the current status. What we're complaining about or making this presentation about is because the omnibus bill sets out a change of that status.
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr Sampson. We've come to the end of the government's time.
Gentlemen, I'd like to thank you both for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today. Thank you.
MITCHELL DAY
The Chair: May I please have Mitchell Day come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have half an hour today to make a 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 would appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself and any organization you may happen to represent -- or if you're just an individual, that's fine -- for the benefit of Hansard and committee members at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Mitchell Day: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, honourable members of the committee. My name is Mitchell Day and I'm a recent graduate from university who's just starting off on his career and I wanted to make some passing comments on the theoretical foundations of the Savings and Restructuring Act.
As I have just graduated from school and I've started off in gainful employment, I was noticing, among many other people in my age group, that Ontario is in a very unenviable economic situation. Due to the profligate spending practices of the previous governments over the last 15 years, Ontarians now suffer the consequences of one of the largest government debts in the industrialized world. We're all familiar with the most obvious statistics, that the provincial debt is escalating by $1 million every hour and that the total government debt in Canada is roughly equal to our annual economic output.
1400
The implication for such debt is widespread and far-reaching. First, exorbitant government borrowing has put capital at a premium in Canada. Due to the fact that our level of debt compared to the United States, which has similar economic fundamentals, is considerably larger on a per capita basis, Canadians pay on average 2% more in borrowing costs vis-à-vis our American counterparts. This makes investment in Ontario less attractive, it increases the cost of borrowing for Ontarians and it discourages many from purchasing homes, automobiles or durable goods.
Another important result of this unnecessarily large government debt is the lower value of the Canadian dollar. This makes our currency artificially cheap in order to drive exports, which in turn run the economy. These exports are necessary to provide tax revenues for the various levels of government in Canada. However, the lower-value dollar has also decreased the real incomes of Ontarians on a purchasing power parity basis. Ontarians can purchase fewer goods and services with devalued dollars than they could 30 years ago.
In addition to this, the increased tax burden carried by Ontarians has accelerated this decline in standard of living. As real tax levels have perilously climbed on individuals over the past 15 years, real after-tax incomes have declined. These factors are the prime reasons for the decline of the middle class in Ontario and the increased gap between the top and bottom deciles in income distribution in Ontario.
The middle class has shrunk in Ontario because of real declines in wages due to the high taxes and devalued currency buttressing this government debt. The increased gap between rich and poor, in spite of the economic upturns during the 1980s and in spite of increased income taxes on the productive in our society, has increased, primarily due to the fact that the wealthy in this province have the ability to offset their declines in real income by investing abroad in investments which provide a return to offset this decline.
To summarize, Ontario's been trapped in a vicious circle of escalating debt, increasing taxes and a diminishing standard of living. What seems to me to be a goal of Ontarians and of Canadians in general, if the trends can be interpreted in this manner, is to have an Ontario with a competitive, export-driven economy and a rising standard of living.
The provincial government's role in this is crucial. For these conditions to occur, it is necessary for the government to drastically reduce the levels of debt and taxes. The present government has made it clear that this is its priority; to eliminate these barriers and to create a rising standard of living by reducing government debt, taxes and other barriers to wealth creation in Ontario. By extension, the Savings and Restructuring Act is a very important first step towards achieving this goal.
In particular, I would like to address a theme which encompasses two aspects of this bill. These sections are amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act and the Municipal Act. The common theme with these two sections of the bill is the implementation of user fees or facility charges. The introduction of such fees for a variety of activities would be beneficial to Ontarians on an economic basis, as such fees would ultimately lower taxes, improve services and efficiency, lower government costs and prevent misuse and abuse of government services and facilities.
There is a plethora of reasons why a system of user fees has economic advantages over present funding arrangements. The most obvious is the fact that a direct fee for service creates a tangible economic relationship. The present system whereby government activities are funded from revenues arising from income and sales taxes creates irrational economic behaviour. This is because of the fact that there is a lack of a direct market mechanism in the provision of services. Even though these services are funded by taxation and general revenues, a significant number of people view these services as free. Since these individuals behave as though these commodities are free, the rules of macroeconomics comes into play, the rule being that a scarce good offered for free will be depleted in a much more rapid manner than it would if it were governed by the laws of supply and demand.
This would explain why government spending, even when inflation and population are figured into most of the numbers, has increased exponentially over the past 30 years. By reintroducing a direct market relationship between the user and provider of government services, rational economic behaviour would be re-established and would reduce the strain on a scarce resource, namely, tax dollars.
The Savings and Restructuring Act introduces the utilization of facility charges in two particular instances. First, the amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act would permit the introduction of toll highways into the province of Ontario. Second, the proposed changes to the Municipal Act would give the municipal governments of the province the ability, if they see fit, to charge for various services and activities. Current speculation suggests that services and activities such as use of library and recreational facilities, garbage collection, to name a few, would be prime candidates for funding via user fees. The benefits of such changes would be numerous. First of all, user fees would be able to ease the planning process. The budgetary process would become much simpler, as there is a more direct relationship between revenues and costs.
The main consideration for setting the fees are the variable costs of the services provided. This would also simplify the accounting aspects of such activities, as generally accepted accounting principles would be able to be used in lieu of abstract government accounting principles.
Second, user fees can result in improved efficiency. User fees can be used as a tool for improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness of government operations. Assuming that an activity's sole revenue source is from user fees, then management can determine the cost drivers in that service objectively and tailor solutions which minimize the cost to the consumer while still providing a value added service.
Third, user fees introduce rational economic behaviour and reduce abuse. By having consumers pay directly for certain government services, this reduces the drain on public resources and abuse of the system by certain individuals. For example, users of toll highways would bear the full cost of that highway's maintenance and upkeep through tolls paid. It would also reduce the abuse of services by excessively frequent users by charging them for every unit of such service consumed. This would ensure that there are adequate resources available to service the maximum number of consumers in a value added manner.
Finally, user fees allow operations to become self-financing. If user fees are used solely to finance the related activity, it negates the necessity of increases in taxes. This means that taxation revenues can be used to finance fundamental operations which, due to their nature, cannot be financed by facility charges or other similar levies. In fact, implementation of such a system on a broad scale would give the provincial and municipal governments the opportunity for tax relief as many operations become financially self-sufficient, thus opening up surpluses in general revenues.
Mr Chairman, it is these inherent advantages which make facility charges a viable tool for governments to maintain services while keeping operational flexibility and minimizing the tax burden on constituents. Local government will be given the flexibility to determine which services should be provided by the state, which ones should be funded by general taxation revenues, and which services should be funded by user fees. By having various services paid for by user fees, more general taxation revenues are available to finance key operations, as I've mentioned earlier. This would mean improved primary operations such as police services, fire protection and other services, with surplus revenues being used to reduce government debts, with the ultimate goal of returning funds to the people in the form of tax relief. In the long run, the contained debts and lower taxes would stimulate the economy and would therefore raise the standard of living of the populace.
Ontario's fiscal situation has resulted in a leviathan of a government, excessively high taxation levels, sisyphean policies and regulations, and a diminishing standard of living. The problem is not due to a lack of taxation or revenues. Increases in personal income taxes will only result in revenue decline as real tax rates are on the downward slope of the Laffer curve. Therefore, it is necessary to reassess all fundamental aspects of government expenditures.
First, it is imperative that the role of government at the provincial and municipal levels be defined in order to determine which services are best provided by the province, the municipalities, or by the private sector. Upon defining their respective roles, governments must be given the flexibility in establishing services and financing them in order to maximize efficiency in value added while minimizing the cost to taxpayers.
The amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act and the Municipal Act detailed in the Savings and Restructuring Act would be a positive step in that direction.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a little more than five minutes per caucus for questions. We'll begin with the third party.
Ms Martel: I was interested in your comments about the benefits of the user fees that will now be permitted under the Municipal Act. One of the benefits you talked about was that this would encourage rational economic behaviour and discourage abuse. I wonder if you can tell me how a municipality charging kids to use a library and take out books is going to encourage rational economic behaviour and discourage abuse.
1410
Mr Day: On a fundamental aspect, the idea behind it is that by making some sort of relationship behind it, people are encouraged to respect and take care of these assets that they're obviously paying to use, for example, books. One of the problems that I would assume, although I cannot directly vouch on behalf of the libraries, is the deterioration of books and manuscripts due to people who use these facilities and do not necessarily take the utmost care of them. By bringing in some sort of relationship between the cost and the use behind it and by having supplemental charges, for example, for abuse that's related to it, you would bring about encouraging less abuse of these facilities.
Ms Martel: I think you'd want to check with the libraries to see if there's that kind of abuse that you've just mentioned. But let me ask a second one. How would having a poll tax or a head tax in a municipality encourage rational behaviour and discourage abuse?
Mr Day: First of all, the Savings and Restructuring Act does not per se mention a poll tax.
Ms Martel: Oh, there's some disagreement about that.
Mr Day: The municipalities would obviously have that option to do so, but it would be political suicide for them to implement such a tax, as the populace, I would assume, would not want a shift of the revenue base from a property base to a per-head base. Therefore it would not be a viable alternative for the municipalities to implement such a head tax.
Ms Martel: So why would the government put that in the legislation and allow the municipalities the opportunity to do just that?
Mr Day: Because if the people of that municipality believe that it's a better and more equitable means of raising revenues, then it is their prerogative to implement such a version of taxation.
Ms Martel: Do you want to tell me how a gas tax in a municipality, particularly some in northern Ontario where there's not a good public transportation system and where people have to use their car to drive to work, by and large, is going to promote good economic behaviour and discourage abuse?
Mr Day: It wouldn't necessarily reduce abuse or promote rational economic behaviour per se, as you've mentioned. In addition to that, a gasoline tax is not a user fee per se; it's just an alternative source of revenue. Once again, it's up to the municipalities to determine whether this is in their better economic interests. As the forces of competition would come into effect, most municipalities would probably refrain from introducing a type of gasoline tax, as many residents, if the possibilities were given to them, would probably purchase their gasoline in another district where their taxes were much lower.
Ms Martel: I think that most people who would come before the committee would argue that a levy, a fee, some portion of gas going back to the municipality, is a tax; there's no other way to describe it. If you don't think the municipality is going to use it, why on earth would you put in legislation the power that would allow it to do that? Why would you give them that power if you were concerned about the use of all of those things?
Mr Day: The main idea behind it is the whole concept of flexibility and the ability for municipalities and for governments to change as needs see fit. In particular response, I believe that gasoline taxes and levies would probably be much more beneficial to residents than an increase in property taxes or income taxes, as there is a degree of discretion involved with their purchases; the fact that property taxes and income taxes are involuntary contributions, the fact that people do have the option of whether they're going to purchase more gasoline or not or the levels of gasoline, to some degree. They do not have complete liberty in that sense because of the fact that most people do have automobiles and do need to use them, but it is a more acceptable alternative than increasing property taxes and income taxes.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Martel. Let's move to the government side. Mr Young.
Mr Young: Bill 26 does not empower municipalities to collect poll taxes, head taxes, gas tax, sales tax or income tax. If anybody would like to that written legal opinion, it's been tabled with this committee from the legal services branch that it does not empower that.
But with regard to actual taxes, I was very interested in your comments, because we have hidden taxes that we pay that most people, because they don't see them, are unaware of or they don't view them as a tax. So I was interested in your comments that we have among the highest taxes, in North America anyway, and the hidden taxes, which are higher interest rates and the value of the dollar. When we succeed in our goal of lowering government debt and getting Ontario back on track, who will benefit the most in our society? I realize it's a wide-open question, but who will benefit the most when we have our books balanced and we've been able to reduce our taxes?
Mr Day: An analogy, although it is not a completely appropriate one, is the example of New Zealand, which has implemented similar reforms and which, if I'm correct, the present government is looking at as a possible model. New Zealand had a problem with crippling debt, which it has now reduced. It is now running a government surplus and is bringing in tax relief, which has resulted in their currency being appreciated considerably over the past 11 years since they had the currency crisis in mid-1984.
If I were going to interpret those results, the greatest benefactors would be the working people of Ontario, the people who are trying to save for a mortgage, people who are trying to save money to purchase an automobile, people who already have a mortgage on a five-year term and are constantly susceptible to various interest rates. I believe it is people who are usually borrowers -- houses, cars, durables -- who would have the greatest benefits out of this, as they would be able to enjoy the benefits of what this province has to offer them at a lower cost.
Mr Young: I'm really interested in your comments on rational economic behaviour and free services. Everybody knows things aren't free, and what we're trying to do with Bill 26 is create an environment where people see what services actually cost. I know of one municipality where they brought in a small user fee for garbage, and the amount of garbage collected dropped 40%. Can you comment on that?
Mr Day: Based on my own experience, various areas around the town of Wallaceburg have private garbage collection, and in discussions with residents there, the amount of garbage and waste they produce is considerably less than in areas where they have the city taking care of their refuse disposal. With that direct relationship between the cost of the service and the benefits they receive, there is less waste as a result. It would be very beneficial if people could see a more direct relationship.
Mr Young: You mentioned the role of governments being redefined in providing services. Can you amplify on how that would help us reduce costs overall?
Mr Day: Fundamentally, it is necessary for the people of Ontario to determine what government should do and what it shouldn't do. The government is not this leviathan able to provide all things to all people. It is not a nanny. It cannot be everything. It is not cradle-to-grave. We don't live in the former Soviet Union and we don't live in Sweden. The idea behind it is that people are ultimately responsible for themselves but that government will take care of things when there is an absolute necessity and it's in the needs of the population as a whole. I believe these goals have been somewhat myopic, due to the fact that people do like receiving these government services but they don't want to pay for them. It's that paradox which is leading to our current fiscal crisis. There's a need for frank and honest discussion among all people in this province to redefine government.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the chance to hear from a true believer in the Common Sense Revolution. In one so young, it's interesting.
I will just say there's been no legal opinion, by the way -- this is an aside view -- tabled on poll taxes. You won't find the word "poll tax" in there. You haven't read it, obviously, if you can --
Mr Young: I've read it.
Mr Phillips: Then table the poll tax one. It hasn't been tabled with us.
Mr Young: There's no reference to a poll tax.
Mr Phillips: There's no reference to a poll tax -- exactly. My colleague said it permits the poll tax. You said a legal opinion has been -- there hasn't been a legal opinion. You haven't read your material.
But let's stay with the witness. You talk about rational economic behaviour, and we appreciate that. The government's plan in the Common Sense Revolution is that it wants to cut the deficit. We have a huge deficit problem, as you acknowledge. The government wants to cut $8 billion of spending, and that touches everyone in the province. We've got to cut municipal spending, we've got to cut health spending, although they said they wouldn't. We've got to touch everybody.
Why are we doing that? It says here it's to fund a $5-billion tax cut. We're going to cut $8 billion; $3 billion of it goes to the deficit, $5 billion goes to fund the tax cut. As you well know, having studied this plan, over the next five years the government is going to pay out $20 billion in the form of a tax break. And by the way, it has to borrow every penny of the $20 billion, because we're going to run a deficit over that same period of $22 billion.
1420
In terms of rational economic behaviour, if you were running this company and it were running a deficit of $8 billion, would you be able to go to the bank and say this is rational economic behaviour to declare a $5-billion dividend -- a tax cut, a tax cut that goes to the best-off -- if the deficit were such a crucial problem that all of us have to fight it day in, day out, 24 hours a day?
Mr Day: Even though the analogy you use is rather stercoraceous, the fundamentals behind it are quite simple. It's just based on supply-side economics. If you understand macroeconomic assumptions, what I was mentioning earlier about the Laffer curve, the idea is that an increase in the tax rate does not necessarily result in the same increase in taxation revenues.
As history has shown us with the US federal government and in England when they had tax reforms in the early 1980s, government revenues doubled once the marginal tax brackets were lowered and the number of brackets were reduced. The reason is that people have more disposable income and are able to spend it in the economy, which creates jobs and creates more wealth and more investment, which in turn creates more taxation revenues.
Therefore, the concept of a tax cut is a very viable alternative because it provides the people who can least afford a tax increase, who are the people in the lower income tax brackets, the opportunity to spend more money and to put more money into the economy, to save more, to buy more, and this would in turn create more taxation revenues. Therefore, the tax cut is a very viable alternative in this overall model.
I can understand your concerns over the deficit and the debt, but macroeconomic examples -- I mentioned the United States, England and also New Zealand -- have shown that there have been several revenue benefits out of implementing such a model.
Mr Phillips: I've asked for those studies. No one's been able to show me that this plan of asking everyone to cut, cut, cut to fight the deficit and then to give out a $5-billion tax cut -- if you're making $150,000 you're going to get $5,000 more a year, all in the name of fighting the deficit. We are taking $8 billion in cuts and then giving $5 billion back in the form of a tax break.
If this plan is going to work so well, why is it that the government itself in its own document, its fiscal statement, is predicting that the number of people in Ontario out of work in 1996 will be higher than it was in 1995, and then it will be higher in 1997 than it was in 1996? In other words, two and a half years into this amazing Common Sense Revolution, there are going to be more people out of work in the province than when Mike Harris became Premier. If this great fiscal plan is working so well, why would the government say there are going to be more people out of work halfway through its mandate than when it came into government?
Mr Day: It's really quite simple. In restructuring government you are obviously going to have displacement costs due to the changes being implemented. If I may refer back to New Zealand, there were significant displacement costs as there was lower productivity when tariffs were reduced and also the elimination of many civil service jobs. Unfortunately, when tax cuts and more revenue is given back to the people, there's usually a lag anywhere from one to two years before the benefits actually become tangible to the public, and that is probably why those projections have increased unemployment numbers during the next two years.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Day, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee.
Mr Young: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: I stand corrected. The written legal opinions refer to gas tax, sales tax and income tax, not to poll tax. There have been other comments from the minister on poll tax.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, on a further correction, it does not say in this legal opinion that it is illegal for the municipalities to impose a sales tax. Either I've been given a different version from the member's -- mine's dated December 21. First, he's corrected on the poll tax, but my legal opinion does not say it's illegal to impose a sales tax municipally. Perhaps he has a different, confidential legal opinion.
The Chair: I believe both members are referring to the same documents, tabled December 12, 1995, and December 21, 1995, to the committee. How the two of you choose to interpret it is up to both of you.
SUDBURY REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Sudbury Regional Police Association come forward. Welcome. You'll have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may wish to leave some time for questions and response from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves.
Mr Daniel Zembrzycki: Good afternoon. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here. With me are Austin McGaughay, second vice-chairman of our association; and the president of our association, Arden MacDonald. My name is Daniel Zembrzycki. I am a director of the Sudbury Regional Police Association. I am also a constable with the Sudbury Regional Police Service and have been for the past 12 years.
I am here before you on behalf of 212 police officers and 73 civilian members of the Sudbury Regional Police Association. I am here to express anger, frustration and dismay over the abandonment of the promises made by Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative government to guarantee police funding.
You're well aware of our concerns. We'll be short, to the point, and we won't belabour the issues.
If Bill 26 is passed today and municipalities across Ontario are forced to trim budgets, cuts will be made to law enforcement, thus jeopardizing public safety -- yours and mine.
In 1992, Mike Harris told thousands of police officers that he would provide more priority for policing. He told citizens, "Funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed." During the election, Mike Harris told police his government would "take the cuffs off the police and put them on the criminals by giving the police the support and tools they need to fight crime." Throughout the Harris campaign, promises were made to us, and we believed them, hoping for a bigger and brighter future. On November 29 we stopped believing you.
Presently, our service is 18 officers under staff complement. To date, criminal activity is on the rise, particularly crimes of violence, such as those in the media, and robberies. This has all been documented by Statistics Canada figures that show huge increases over the last decade in virtually every community in the province. It is also a known fact that in Sudbury we're substantially understaffed compared to the national average of police officers to the population they serve. Thus, with the increase in violent crime, our ability to respond to these crimes is being decreased and eroded.
We have recently lost one of our members to violent criminal activity. Citizens of course were shocked, stating that this only happens in the larger metropolitan centres, not here in Sudbury. None of us is immune to crime. It can happen to anyone. It can happen here. It has happened here.
As police officers, we find it unacceptable that our citizens, our children, our families don't feel safe in their own communities, and it is clear that our priorities must change this minute. It is just not acceptable to have 20 officers retire without their immediate replacement.
1430
Police management and police services boards will simply inform the public that all is well. They will proudly tell you they are committed to maintaining front-line policing and 24-hour services in the outlying areas of our region. In order to maintain front-line personnel, valuable but low-profile specialized units are decimated. Our members are transferred out of traffic branches, street crime units or community services branches in order to fill the front-line "bodies in blue."
Safety is suffering. The reality is that we need more than just front-line personnel. Front-line officers listed on paper do not translate into officers on the street protecting you, the public.
We have been told that schedule Q is also intended to prevent excessive increases in the public sector with claims that arbitrated settlements exceed negotiated settlements by an average of 2% per year. In police labour relations that simply is not true.
Police personnel are precluded from any strike action and look for the opportunity to resolve disputes in a fair and equitable manner. If the proposals put forward by our employers are accepted by this committee, the collective bargaining structure as we know it will for all intents and purposes be eliminated.
The Sudbury Regional Police Association is united with our municipal and provincial counterparts. We implore the government of Ontario to fulfil its promises to our citizens. Impose a moratorium on police funding cuts and exclude police services and police personnel from the provisions of Bill 26.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have seven minutes per caucus for questions. We'll begin with the government caucus.
Mr Tascona: I thank you for your presentation. I certainly understand the situation. I'm from an area, Simcoe Centre, down in Barrie and we certainly have issues confronting the police services board and the changes that have to be faced there. I know, though, that the act does not change the process in terms of dealing with municipal budgets. If there is a problem with respect to the services being provided, if there's a dispute between the board and the municipality, you still have the appeal process that you can go through.
I also note in schedule Q the approach being taken by the associations that we met on Friday. Are you aware of what was put forth to us last Friday?
Mr Zembrzycki: Yes, we are.
Mr Tascona: You received their submissions?
Mr Zembrzycki: Yes, we did.
Mr Tascona: Do you share the views of what was put forward to us in terms of schedule Q on the alternatives?
Mr Zembrzycki: Very much so.
Mr Hardeman: I would just like to go back to the issue of accountability or the responsibility for the budgets. You mentioned the decrease in funding to municipalities as having an impact on the police services budgets at this time, and in relation to what Mr Tascona just mentioned, the fact that under the present legislation, and the police services board being totally responsible for the budget, that it would be improbable, if not impossible, for that to have a direct impact unless the police services board was in favour of such an impact. They set the budget and the municipality funds that portion of the budget.
Is your submission suggesting that you are seeing problems with the police services board recognizing the need for the level of policing?
Mr Zembrzycki: Yes, that's what we're seeing. We don't want to be lumped into a municipality budgetary process whereby the municipality is given a knife to cut money and essentially bodies from our ranks.
Mr Hardeman: Taking that one step further then, your concern is losing the police services board in exchange for becoming a committee of local council. You would be looking for an exemption in the act to a police services board being in the privy of council.
Mr Zembrzycki: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Hardeman: That would solve that concern that you would have?
Mr Zembrzycki: Not 100%, but you'd be on the right track.
Mr Hardeman: In your answer to the first question you also expressed some concern that your police services board was not recognizing the need for the level of policing in the municipality. Do you have any recommendations or any suggestions, assuming we were not going in the direction of it being under the mandate of council, how we could correct or look at the problem to have the governance of police services recognizing the need of police services?
Mr Zembrzycki: That's a difficult issue. It would appear that everybody wants, everybody needs, policing. There are many ways today that policing has branched out into the community, one of them being community-based policing. We're making every effort to combat crime from a proactive sense as compared to a reactive sense. We are changing with the times and we would hope that your government is also changing with the times and is also going to assist us in our new endeavours to fight crime.
Mr Young: I'd just like to comment. I've worked with Crime Stoppers as a volunteer in my neighbourhood, which is north Oakville and north Burlington, and community policing. I totally support the police and I appreciate what you're saying. I've been very proud of a number of initiatives that this government has done which immediately gave you police permission to use hollow-point bullets and bring in a victims' rights bill, as well as the appointments to the parole board; I was particularly happy that 95% of them had experience in law enforcement. We'll continue to bring forward those initiatives.
If you have a second to comment on the changing nature of policing, like community policing, police in my neighbourhood don't come to calls about barking dogs or arguments over fences any more, so there are fewer demands on them in those areas. That's true, isn't it?
Mr Zembrzycki: No, not really, sir. You've got to understand, first of all, that when you want a free service and you have a problem, who are you going to call initially? It'll be the police, be it a barking dog, a neighbour dispute, a parked vehicle etc. We are not looking at cost recovery right now. Maybe that's something we will be looking at down the road. Perhaps I could take a few steps back.
You mentioned Crime Stoppers, you were on the board with Crime Stoppers and you're quite aware of the system, how it works where people call in with tips and those tips are acted upon by police officers in investigation. Would you be satisfied if there was a backlog of 50 or 75 tips that were sitting in a computer somewhere, where there weren't significant amounts of officers to deal with that information and we had crucial, vital information to go to make arrests, seize stolen property, seize drugs, and we just didn't have the officers to act upon it? Would you be satisfied with that system?
Mr Young: I wouldn't be happy with that. Is that the situation in Sudbury right now?
Mr Zembrzycki: I understand that a lot of the police services are having that problem. Their call load is based on a priority basis and they have to attend to those priorities before they can even look at the Crime Stoppers backlog.
The Chair: Thank you. We must move to the opposition's time now.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much for your presentation, Dan. I came across a resolution in our readings and I'd like to read a few "whereases" and the "therefore" and ask you if you support it:
"Whereas the government of Ontario made commitment in the Common Sense Revolution to the people of Ontario that funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed; and
"Whereas the Premier of Ontario and members of his cabinet have further reinforced this commitment in their promises leading up to the 1995 provincial election; and
"Whereas the government of Ontario has not lived up to its commitments to maintain police funding and has introduced legislation that will enable municipalities to further reduce funding levels;
"Be it therefore resolved that the Police Association of Ontario, representing the 23,500 front-line police personnel in the province of Ontario, calls upon Premier Harris, Solicitor General Runciman and the government of Ontario to take immediate steps to fulfil their election promises by placing a moratorium on reductions to police funding levels and to exclude police services and police personnel from the provisions of Bill 26."
That's from your provincial association. Do you support it?
Mr Austin McGaughay: That is correct.
Mr Bartolucci: Austin, before the election or during the election, of course, all candidates debated with the police association and we did locally, certainly, and you received our views, you received the views of the Conservative Party and those of the NDP. By and large, the association supported the Conservative Party. I think that's common knowledge. Do you feel betrayed by them?
1440
Mr McGaughay: We do at this stage because we are of the opinion that their views have completely changed. Prior to the election we had the now Solicitor General, Mr Runciman, at a Police Association of Ontario meeting in North Bay, right in his own area. At that time Mr Runciman stood there and assured all the associations represented there that he would take the handcuffs off and let the police take back the streets and give them back to the public.
Mr Phillips: Now they're on the arbitrators.
Mr McGaughay: That's what he assured us and he has not done that at this stage.
Mr Phillips: They're on the arbitrators.
Mr Bartolucci: Section Q is very interesting. I spent a little bit of time on the police services board and spent some time negotiating. Really, if you don't have a fair and level arbitration process, do you in fact have any bargaining power at all? Dan.
Mr Zembrzycki: No, sir, you don't. You've got to understand that we don't have the right to strike. We don't look forward to strikes. We deal with them on an occasional basis and we bear no pride in doing that. But we're not allowed to strike; that's not what we're looking for. We're looking at a fair and equitable process and obviously, if you take our right to arbitration away, where has the fairness gone?
Mr Phillips: I don't think there's much doubt that there was some bargaining going on at a table you weren't at. That was between Mr Leach and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They were told their grants to the municipalities were going to be cut by about 50% and they said, "Well, all right, give us something back." So as I said before, he said he was going to take the handcuffs off, but he put them on the arbitrators. There is no doubt -- even the government would admit it -- this essentially directs the arbitrators on how to make a decision. If the field was like that before, there's no doubt it's like that, and you're there.
I guess my question is this. You looked at legislation across Canada. Have you found any legislation that directs arbitrators to make decisions both in the settlement of remuneration and also allows them to enter into decisions on service levels? Does that exist anywhere else in Canada?
Mr Zembrzycki: Not to our knowledge.
Mr Phillips: In terms of I guess the relationship you will have -- I assume the Sudbury council is, as other councils, fair and what not -- just in terms of the bargaining relationship between yourself and your employer here and frankly around Ontario, how do you think that will impact the relative bargaining positions of the two parties when they sit down to discuss the contract?
Mr Zembrzycki: It's definitely going to be one-sided from now on if this is allowed to go through as it is.
Mr Phillips: In terms of the relationship between our policing community and the community as a whole, I don't think there's any doubt when the election was on it was pretty clear that this was, "We are 100% supportive of our police community." One of the reasons they got elected, frankly, was because of that commitment, and now we find, barely six months into their election mandate, into their government, I think it's fair to say, the biggest change in collective bargaining between police and the municipality is this proposal here. I don't think there's been anything as sweeping as this since collective bargaining started between the police. What is likely to be the impact on morale in our policing community?
Mr Zembrzycki: It really can't get any worse, sir. It's got to get better, and that's why we're looking for positive changes from this board and this review process.
Mr Phillips: In terms of the section you touched on briefly, it says here the arbitrator, in making the decisions, shall consider the following:
"2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced...."
By the way, we've heard many mayors come in here and say that's what it means, that the arbitrator can make the decision on the extent to which services may have to be reduced. What's your organization's view on the arbitrator having that power to determine the levels of service?
Mr Zembrzycki: I think you have to look at the budget process. The police budget in itself is probably 85% to 90% wage-heavy. So when you say a 5%, 10%, 15% cut, you can only cut so many vehicles and so many pens and pencils. When it comes down to brass tacks, you're going to lose blue bodies on the street.
The Chair: Let's move to the time for the third party.
Ms Martel: I want to begin by asking a question about what you might have been told by the Tory candidates that your association would have met with before the election. I know certainly Sharon Murdock and I met with your association and we responded to a number of concerns and questions that were raised. I wonder if when you met with the local Tory candidates, they promised you that a Mike Harris government would not cut funding for police.
Mr McGaughay: Basically what they were saying is the same thing that was being said on a provincial level, that before anything else, they would not touch or reduce police funding so that we would not be able to do our job.
Ms Martel: I would expect that when you told members of your association that, your members believed the Conservative candidates when they told you that, didn't they?
Mr McGaughay: I believe so.
Ms Martel: Do you think that a fair number of your members voted for the Conservatives based on that promise?
Mr McGaughay: I don't know. I can only assume. I don't have any numbers.
Ms Martel: You find yourself now in a position where in fact you have a massive cut in grants to the municipalities, which will in the end result in probably cutbacks to police services. You've got almost a 50% cut in the transfers, and some of that money would have paid for policing. You'll have municipalities now in the position that they'll have to cut police services; probably the same here in Sudbury. When you met with the Conservative candidates, were you given to understand that that would happen?
Mr McGaughay: No.
Ms Martel: You also now have a provision in Bill 26 which, frankly, effectively guts any ability you have as an association to bargain collectively in the province. You have the spectre that now every arbitrator has to take into account the employer's ability to pay, and that will in effect render the process for collective bargaining null and void. When you met with the Conservative candidates, did they tell you that was also coming down the pike?
Mr McGaughay: It wasn't even an issue then.
Ms Martel: Can you tell me why either the Conservative candidates or Mr Runciman or Mr Harris told you one thing before the election and now are doing something completely different?
Mr McGaughay: I don't know. I can only assume that somewhere down the road they've come up with new information or something. But it's a complete turnaround as far as I'm concerned.
Ms Martel: I just got a copy this week of a letter that Mr MacDonald sent off to Mr Harris actually. It was quite a strongly worded letter outlining the concerns that the association has with respect to Bill 26 and with respect to the funding cutbacks to municipalities which will result in a funding cutback to police services. On page 2, it very clearly says: "Our members would rather not have your government betray the citizens and police communities of Ontario. We ask that you reconsider these issues carefully." I think that's pretty strongly worded, as your brief was today.
How do you feel about having to be here today and, in essence, try to describe your feelings about the betrayal that has now been put in front of you?
Mr McGaughay: We really didn't intend to be here today. We're policemen. We're supposed to be out on the street protecting the citizens of our community. We're not politicians. We leave that up to you learned people.
Mr Gerretsen: Careful with the word "learned" now.
Mr McGaughay: This is not our area. So yes, we feel betrayed. I don't know what's going to take place.
Mr Silipo: One of the interesting things about the arbitration situation -- as you point out, and certainly others have; your provincial association made it quite clear to us, as have the firefighters -- is that, first of all, very few instances of negotiations involving firefighters and police end up before arbitration. So the need to impose these draconian measures isn't even justified by virtue of the experience, because the experience has been anywhere between 10% to 15% of situations going to arbitration. Has that been the situation here in Sudbury as well?
Mr Zembrzycki: Yes, basically that is the situation. We have not gone to work to rule, we have not held back on vital services. We're sworn to protect the public and that's exactly what we're going to do, regardless of what's going on in the back lines.
1450
Mr Silipo: Now, as you know, the association that represents your direct employers, the association of police service boards, as well as AMO and a number of municipalities, have said to us that not only do they want these provisions around arbitration, but in many instances they want them to be even tighter. They've suggested some changes so as to in fact say that the ability to pay should be further restricted to be ability to pay without any resort to any tax increases. We've categorized it and I think it's fair that your association has categorized this also: It's just simply another way of wage controls.
But the interesting thing here is that we're not talking just about firefighters and police. They're the two groups that are most directly and probably most largely affected, but you're being used, quite frankly, it seems to us, as a way to try to set what would then become a pattern of settlement for the rest of the public sector and indeed, as some people have said, even for the private sector.
I guess my question is, how does it make you feel, as the people we rely on, together with firefighters, to keep our communities safe, to know that you're being used for some end in that way?
Mr Zembrzycki: We're definitely not proud of that. We're running on skeleton crews now, as you're well aware. If you've been involved in a motor vehicle collision or if you've had your house broken into and had to wait eight, 10, 12, 14 hours for an officer to attend, you're not going to be very happy when we walk in the door. And yet the officers come in with a very high sense of pride. We do represent a service that we are proud to represent. We take the brunt of the heat from the public on to our shoulders. We only show you our professionalism as such, and we will continue to do this regardless. However, morale is another key issue that we have to look at.
Mr Silipo: I hope the government listens to you.
The Vice-Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we are out of time. Thanks very much for your presentation.
Mr Zembrzycki: Thank you.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 31
The Vice-Chair: At this time we have the OSSTF, District 31, Michel Gravelle, the president.
Welcome to the proceedings. Can you just identify yourselves for Hansard and for the committee.
Mr Michel Gravelle: Good afternoon. I am Michel Gravelle and I'm speaking to you on behalf of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 31, Sudbury. Accompanying me today is John Filo, parent, ratepayer, member of the working class and a supporter of public education. John will outline the effects of Bill 26 on the students and the families we serve.
Even though I welcome the opportunity to express my concerns regarding the proposed Savings and Restructuring Act, Bill 26, I sympathize with the many individuals who were not permitted to exercise this democratic right. I also would like to express my appreciation to those NDP and Liberal members of this committee who attended the shadow hearings last night and heard from a number of individuals and organizations how Bill 26 is an attack on children, women, the poor, the elderly and the working class of this province.
This government is bordering on dictatorship and is threatening democracy itself. This unprecedented and sweeping omnibus legislation threatens the social fabric of Ontario and will cause irreversible damage to the public services and the people whom they serve.
I'm appalled that a democratically elected government would introduce this legislation that would permit decisions to be made by regulation, ministerial direction or administrative order without parliamentary debate or meaningful opportunity for public scrutiny and without community, local or stakeholder input.
Furthermore, it is intolerable that the government grants itself immunity from other laws and court procedures that would otherwise prevent such irresponsible actions. This government is saying that with this bill it can make a new law, and if the new law it makes breaks any existing laws, then the government has the authority to make another law with impunity.
This government may know the language of the bill, but does it realize the full implication of passing Bill 26, which would enact or amend over 40 separate pieces of legislation?
Since it would be an extremely tedious and time-consuming task for most individuals to fully understand the meaning and implications of all the articles of Bill 26 in its entirety, nor is it possible in such a short presentation to comment on all aspects of this massive piece of legislation, I will leave it to people more knowledgeable in other areas to address these questions. I will comment on the few articles that I am familiar with and those that I hold close to my heart.
For a number of years now I have been personally involved in collective bargaining. Over the years, OSSTF and the Sudbury Board of Education have developed a good working relationship. Through the good times and the bad we have been able to sit down and iron out our differences and were always able to reach a compromise.
Even through the social contract negotiations, if I can really call that negotiation, a mutually agreeable solution was reached. The system works. Over a period of years, through free collective bargaining, a mutual respect for each party has evolved. Bill 26 will destroy the cooperative atmosphere of free collective bargaining.
I would like also to comment on the proposed changes to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. In schedule Q of the act, paragraph 35(1.1)1 states, "In making a decision or award, the arbitrator or board of arbitration shall consider...the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation."
Traditionally, in determining compensation matters under a collective agreement, the criteria used by arbitrators to determine wages in the public sector is comparability with employees performing similar work for the same employer or with employees performing similar work for employers in the private sector. "Ability" is an arbitrary word; "willingness" is much more honest.
The provisions in Bill 26 constitute a significant interference with the independence, integrity and impartiality of the arbitration process. Basing an award on the ability to pay would render the arbitration process largely irrelevant, since the use of the ability to pay could allow government and employers to unilaterally determine wages and benefits; governments by reducing transfer payments, and boards of education by allocating a fixed or reduced amount for employee compensation in their budgets. This would undermine the process of free collective bargaining itself.
There would be no incentive for boards to reach an agreement, knowing that the arbitrators would have no choice other than to award for the employer's position. This is just a continued attempt to control teachers' salaries and benefits. The social contract achieved the same thing, but in a more straightforward and honest way. OSSTF will not stand for any government to finance education on the backs of its teachers and other board employees. In the past, our demands and collective bargaining requests have always reflected the economic reality of the province and the community.
Paragraph 35(1.1)2 states that an arbitrator or board of arbitration shall consider "the extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased."
An arbitrator should not have to take on the responsibility of the democratically elected trustees in deciding the appropriate level of service that will be delivered. Trustees should not be absolved of their duties, no matter how difficult decisions are in these times.
Equally disturbing is paragraph 35(1.1)5, which states that an arbitrator or board of arbitration shall consider "the employer's need for qualified employees."
Qualifications have been established by carefully regulated practices relating to the level and type of service delivered. This is an attempt to get the presently qualified people to perform the same work for substandard wages.
1500
Subsection 3 states that arbitrators or boards of arbitration "shall consider...the economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality or municipalities served by the board." Since neighbouring municipalities may have very different commercial and industrial tax bases and economic realities, there could be large inequities between the compensation of the employees in both neighbouring municipalities.
Free collective bargaining should be allowed to continue. There is no need to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
I agree that the provincial deficit needs to be addressed and a more cautious approach to spending is needed. Bill 26 is too much, too fast, without sufficient public input and study, not to mention the lack of parliamentary debate.
Solving our provincial deficit must not be done at the expense of public service employees and the services that Ontarians deserve. Alternatives must be considered.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government of the OSSTF confederated school board model. This is an idea whose time has come. This is a viable alternative which could save millions of education dollars while protecting the constitutional rights of both francophone and Catholic ratepayers. I thank you for your time and attention. I sincerely hope this government will listen to the people on those behalf it governs.
Mr John Filo: I'm sitting here to let this committee know that the concerns that Michel has outlined here are not the concerns of a special-interest group that calls themselves secondary school teachers. I'm here as a parent and as a ratepayer and as the son of an immigrant. The immigrant settled in Hearst during the Depression, cleared some government land, raised a productive family and ensured that I received eight years of post-secondary education. I want to tell you that I'm proud to be a product of our educational system.
I represent unionized workers, wearing my other hat, and for those of you who are unfamiliar with history, more than 100 years ago organized labour campaigned for free public education. The system that we've got here in Ontario is a good system. I heard Mr Sampson speak about productivity, and that brings into mind the yardsticks that are used to measure effectiveness. Well, I'll tell you, if you've travelled the world as I have, you'll know that Ontario has an excellent educational system. It can be improved, but it should not be tampered with the way it is going now.
Let me just speak about some of the general auras and environments concerned with the tabling of this Bill 26. In our schools we teach our children the value of democracy. I have a nine-year-old son and I explained to him some of the basis on how Bill 26 was introduced and I gave him a rundown on some of the debate that has taken place in this committee, and of course he's watched some of the proceedings on television.
The committee, especially the Tory members of the committee, can perform a great service to this province. The strident, partisan way in which you're sitting in on these hearings is something that you should reflect on. You are becoming the special interest group. I'm sitting here with the secondary school teachers. I could have been sitting here with the police; I could have been sitting here with the day care people; I could have been sitting here with the environmental people. As a citizen, I can relate to virtually every brief that you have heard, with the exception of the ridiculous brief that the chamber of commerce came out with, who's wearing a golden blindfold and whose sense of justice and equity in the distribution of wealth and whose sense of fairness is not there.
We've got a province that has a deep and abiding democratic heritage. We want you to preserve that. We don't think you're doing it this way. I heard Mr Sampson say that this bill has had more hearings than X number of bills in the previous thing. Divide those times by the 47 or 48 bills that are in there and you'll see that what you are saying doesn't make much sense. Also one of your colleagues said that they fired five Hydro directors as a cost-saving measure, representing seven one thousandths of 1% of the budget of Ontario Hydro.
We have to come to grips with the situation that we have here in Ontario. I will allow to you that there may be a problem with cash flow, but we're a rich province, a province that has a highly educated workforce, a very highly motivated workforce, and has the ability to accomplish things. People love to live in Ontario. People in other parts of the country think Ontario is a paradise.
When you come in here and say that the education system requires some sort of invented crisis in order that it can be restructured, how do our children perceive that? What sort of role models are our politicians serving as in our schools when we try to teach the democratic process to our children?
The other thing I'd like to end on is, do not mistake the language that the Steelworkers and the unionized people use for rhetoric. There is a deep sense of anger within working people and in the trade union movement. We don't want you to be the beneficiaries of that anger, but with the route that you're taking it certainly looks as if it's going to be directed towards you.
This committee has an important mandate. Do not take it lightly. Don't just vote because that's the party line. Use some common sense. Use what Mike Harris said he was going to use. Stay true to the traditions of the Conservatives that governed this party for 42 years in a caring and compassionate way.
In my other hat I'm also the president of the Sudbury District Labour Council, and we had our own shadow hearings because you could not accommodate a lot of the people who wanted to make presentations to you. We had three hours and 20 minutes of representations from ordinary citizens representing about 30,000 people that we want to present to you for your consideration.
I'm prepared for questions, as is Michel.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation. We have a little more than five minutes per caucus. We'll start off with the opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: First of all, before I ask a question of Michel, John, I'd like to thank you very much for providing all the opposition members with the opportunity to attend the parallel hearings that were held last evening. Certainly we all felt that they were worthwhile and we only wish that some of the government members on the committee would have been there to hear at first hand. But I hope they will spend time viewing the video.
Mr Filo: Rick, can I say that these hearings were widely publicized in the community and everybody was invited, pro or con. We wanted to hear from the community at large. I'll tell you, we never got any pro-Bill 26 representation.
Mr Bartolucci: But we did get one person who admitted she voted Tory and was sorry after she voted.
I'd like to ask Michel a question, if I might, and it has to do with schedule Q. It has to do with the ability to pay. The government has tabled a research paper with regard to the statutory requirements for arbitrators. It's very, very interesting that the very first line of the report says, "Currently" --
The Vice-Chair: That wasn't tabled by the government; it was requested by this committee.
Mr Gerretsen: From legislative research.
1510
Mr Bartolucci: That's right. "Currently, no Canadian jurisdiction statutorily requires arbitrators in wage disputes to consider the ability to pay of public sector employees." Let me tell you, the reason for that is it doesn't work. They tried it in BC; it didn't work. Alberta alluded to it, and Ontario's moving in that direction. Michel, first hand as a teacher, a guesstimate: How is that going to impact on the collective bargaining process, and what's it going to do in real terms to teachers once it's used the way we all know it's going to be used?
Mr Gravelle: I guess I can reply by maybe a question in saying, "What collective bargaining process," but there would be no collective bargaining process. I can't understand how and why a board of education would even want to spend the time to sit down and iron out an agreement that they know at the end of the line, all they have to do is say, "No; go to arbitration, because the playing field is still tipped in our favour and we will get what we want anyway." You have to realize one thing: that the teachers' working conditions are our children's learning conditions, and teachers are human. It's very difficult to sit in a classroom and go to work every day well knowing that you are being taken advantage of by your employer.
Mr Gerretsen: Has there been any discussions that your organization has had with the Minister of Education about some of these proposed changes that are contained in schedule Q?
Mr Gravelle: I would have to say that probably provincially our organization has attempted to do that. I know that as a result of the rally on Saturday, I heard on the news that the minister was ready to sit down with teacher federation leaders to try and iron out the proposed legislation.
Mr Gerretsen: But you weren't consulted beforehand about any of these proposed changes?
Mr Gravelle: Not that I know of.
Mr Bartolucci: One other question with regard to the arbitration process, because, Michel, I want you to outline to this committee, especially the government side, how it's going to cost thousands of jobs across Ontario if in fact this level playing field is totally destroyed. Explain to the committee members how thousands of teachers' jobs will be lost through unfair arbitration.
Mr Gravelle: I think that through reduced transfer payments by the government a board of education can arbitrarily set the amount of money that they can or are able to take in compensation for their employees, and in either giving the choice or deciding that, "We can't reduce the compensation and we have only an allocated amount of money to pay salaries; then we are going to have to reduce the number of teachers." Through continued reduction in transfer payments and the power the arbitrators are going to have, you may find drastic reductions in the number of teachers across this province, and we know how that translates in affecting classrooms. I've heard the minister a number of times saying that any legislation will not affect the classroom, and I cannot understand how this legislation and another number of proposed changes cannot affect the classroom.
Mr Martin: I just wanted to focus on a piece on your brief where you talk about the impact of the changes re the question of arbitration and what arbitrators have to look at and the impact that will have on northern Ontario. We have for a number of years now been trying to find ways to bring greater equity into the whole question of how we teach kids and how we distribute resources and collect taxes and redistribute them and all of that kind of thing. In the north, for the longest time we've had a difficult time attracting specialists of all sorts, particularly and most dramatically in the area of medical care. The question is always whether communities can afford to have doctors.
But when you get into the issue of arbitrators now being able to look at a board's ability to pay and you begin to move away from the formula that's in place where if a board enters into a contract with a group of teachers, the formula that's in place helps out so that there is some level of equity re the remuneration to teachers across the province and places like Chapleau, which is in Mr Laughren's riding, and Hornepayne, which is in Bud Wildman's riding, can afford to at least come close to being able to pay teachers the going rate across the province, is there any fear in your mind -- I have to tell you there is in mine -- that we may end up, in the not-too-distant future, in the same situation re attracting teachers to places like Hornepayne and Chapleau and other communities that don't have the tax base that places like Sudbury or Toronto -- Sudbury particularly -- have?
Interjection.
Mr Martin: Anyway, the issue of attracting and keeping qualified, well-trained teachers.
Mr Gravelle: I think I would agree with you to say that we could see some great inequities from one city to the next. If you happen to be a poorer municipality, then your ability to pay would be greatly reduced and therefore you would not be able to pay the teachers as much as another community which would be a much richer community. You could certainly see where teachers would have the choice in going from one community to the next. Certainly they would have. It could be difficult for a community to attract certain teachers, because they would have a greater choice of going where they wanted to and they could start deciding on what their compensation is going to be just by determining where they want to work.
Mr Martin: We could conceivably, if we take this to an extreme then, find ourselves, particularly if this group here continues to be government, not only will telling doctors where they can practise, but we might be into a situation where we'll be telling teachers that if they want a teaching certificate they need to go to someplace that's underserviced or whatever. I pass it on to Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Very briefly, I just want to make a point and invite any comments that you have about last night's hearings and the kinds of things we heard from people. I appreciate your making a copy of the tape available to members. I hope that government members will take a chance to view it. One of the things that struck me from the hearings last night was the sense of dismay and anger that you expressed in your comments, John, about how people are feeling about the actions of this government as we see it through this bill.
The only question I have from that is, is your sense that this is pretty reflective of the community of Sudbury and the kinds of feelings -- certainly we've heard that a lot today from many groups; firefighters, police, teachers and others. But I think that there's a sense that we continue to pick up from the government side that each of these groups is here promoting or protecting its own self-interest as opposed to speaking in a broader way about the interest of the society as a whole. I wonder if you'd comment on that.
Mr Filo: Well, as you recall, there was one lady who said she voted Tory and now she's sorry. That's more and more reflective of the community at large. I'm in a position where many business people call me up and say they disagree with the way in which Harris is handling the finances of the province. They're responsible people, they think that there should be some sort of fiscal integrity, but they don't think it should be done at the expense of the poor, the disadvantaged, the minorities and the women.
1520
These are businessmen who wear three-piece suits and who say to me, "John, I don't want that income tax cut because what I see in the streets, what I see in the doorways, disadvantaged people, homeless people, people freezing to death, I don't want that type of Ontario for me or for my children." It's common, it's everywhere. People come up to you and say to you that this is a province you have to continue to struggle for because if the Tories get their way, we're going to need more police, we're going to need more security measures and we're going to need a different way of financing these things because --
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're getting into the other caucus time. I apologize.
Mr Young: I know that none of our caucus members were invited to your alternative hearings last night.
Mr Gerretsen: You were. I invited you at the airport.
Mr Young: I heard nothing about it.
Mr Gerretsen: Come on, Terry.
Mr Young: I knew nothing about it. I thought you were kidding. I'm sorry, John, I thought it was a private meeting. I'm dead serious.
Mr Filo: This is the sort of thing I commented on. Let's not be so brutally partisan. If you were invited to the meeting, why don't you say you were invited to the meeting?
Mr Young: I'm telling you, I was not invited to the meeting. Mr Gerretsen and I kibitz sometimes when we're on the road and I didn't know.
Mr Filo: You haven't tried the clipping service? It would have appeared in the paper.
Mr Young: I beg your pardon, sir. I was not formally invited to your meeting. We would have considered coming.
Mr Filo: The public wasn't formally invited except through advertisements.
Mr Young: Part of the problem is, when you don't invite members of the government, you only get --
Mr Bartolucci: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: John Gerretsen, Gerry Phillips, Tony Silipo were not formally invited to the meeting. Is that correct, Mr Filo?
Mr Filo: That's correct.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bartolucci, that's out of order. We're in Mr Young's time, please.
Mr Young: The point I'm trying to get at, sir, is, when you don't invite members of the government, you only get one side of the story, you don't get all the facts. We've heard numbers flung around here by experienced parliamentarians today which I feel are misleading. We're talking about 50% cuts and 40% cuts. Are you aware of how much of a cut in funding the city of Sudbury took from the government in this financial statement? Do you know it's only 5.5%?
Mr Gerretsen: Somebody else had 95%
Mr Young: This is the appropriate document. The city of Sudbury only took a 5.5% cut. The point of this bill is so that cities can restructure so they don't have to raise taxes etc.
Mr Filo: Is that true that the city just took that cut? What about the cuts in welfare and social assistance? What about other cuts? Why do you want to restrict it to the actual municipality grant? Why don't you speak about all the cuts?
Mr Young: Why don't you let me have my time? You've had your time. You said there's no stakeholder input. The Minister of Education has met ongoingly with your union since being elected in June a number of times, including attending your annual general meeting, as well as with other major unions. There's been lots of stakeholder input. As well, at these hearings we will have heard from 49 different labour groups by the time it's all said and done. You see what I'm saying? It's not fair to say there's no consultation and that no one's listening. It's not fair and it's not accurate.
I wanted to ask you, with regard to affordability -- you talk about a deep sense of anger. We have felt a deep sense of anger from taxpayers who are taxed to the hilt. They don't have any more money. That's why we're including affordability in the arbitrators act. In some school boards in Ontario the teachers have what is called a retirement gratuity, which is basically a gift of a year or half a year's salary the year they retire. I've talked to a lot of taxpayers and when they find out about that they feel it's unfair, they feel it's too generous and they feel they can't afford it. Can you comment on that?
Mr Filo: Yes, I can comment on that. Many of those teachers were conscripted or recruited into the educational system when the salaries that were being paid were very substandard. My principal came to school on a bicycle, not a 10-speed, not a mountain bike, but a bicycle because he could not afford a car. He got into the education business because they weren't paying salaries, but they were offering such benefits as this sick leave gratuity.
If you research the educational field, you'll find that most of those sick leave gratuities are either phased out or being phased out. So sure, it looks like the wealthy banker's wife getting family assistance, but when the facts are put on the table, you'll see that the percentage of money that that represents is minuscule compared to the education budget.
Mr Young: We are also consulting with other stakeholders regarding the confederated school board. Can you comment on your confederated school board model and how it might help us address the scarce resources?
Mr Gravelle: I think in looking at reducing the number of school boards, a report came out in the fall with the reduction of the number of school boards, and we were looking at very large encompassing school boards but still retaining the public and the separate school boards and some francophone school boards. I think that one local school board is all we need. It could be divided up with the curriculum and religion and language decisions being based on their boards, their own school jurisdiction.
I think that there could be massive savings and certainly money being reduced by administration and putting money back into the schools and maybe avoiding some problems of closing schools, which we are facing right now in the Sudbury area, and putting money back into classroom materials and books and all kinds of resources that we desperately need. It would certainly mean a lot of saving of money that is being addressed right now in competition between schools and parallel boards within one organization.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward to make your presentation to the committee.
RICHARD PENTNEY
The Chair: Would Richard Pentney please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Pentney, 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 to receive questions and responses from the three caucus members.
Mr Richard Pentney: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, parliamentarians from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, politicians all. My name is Richard Pentney. I've been a resident of this community all my life, which is now 57 years. I'm retired from the local community college, in which I taught the public relations and business communication courses.
I want to add some additional background and to explain to you why I'm here today. I want you to know that I was a school board trustee in the early 1970s, and once again a school board trustee in the early 1990s, 1989-90-91. Having left the school board as a trustee, I became the chairperson of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council for an additional six years.
I served on the provincial air ambulance committee, I served on the developmental assessment review committee that looked at the effectiveness of health councils across this province after they'd been in existence for 10 years, and I also served on the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Commission that ensures that when you go into a health facility to have an X-ray that the machine is fine-tuned and you do not receive an overdose.
I have been president of a local cottagers' association, and I set a precedent in fact in taking a secondary plan through the process that dealt with a body of water and its surrounding water table and the area that it covered to be added to the local official plan. I also have been a director of the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations that represents 560,000 cottagers in this province.
1530
The reason I'm detailing my background is that I want some time during this discussion to point out to you some concerns I have about what's happening in this province and the responsibilities you have as politicians from all stripes.
Since I arrived this afternoon, I've had several people ask me who I represent. I don't represent the CAW. I don't represent CUPE. I don't represent OPSEU, although I was a card-carrying member for 23 years, eight months. I do not represent the OFL. I do not represent the Steelworkers. I do not represent the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation or any of the teachers' groups. I do not pretend to represent anyone else other than myself here this evening as a person who's been involved in this province and in a variety of areas over the last 25 years. If Floyd was still here, I'd say that I've been at it longer than he was. Floyd doesn't live too far away from where I live and I've known him a good length of time.
I'm not going to pound the desk and categorically declare my detractors incompetent. On balance, quite frankly, there are more parts of Bill 26 that I agree with than I do not. However, there are some things I disagree with. Nevertheless, change is clearly needed.
Watching the Legislature since November 29, I think I can make the following generalization, and I think I can make it for a lot of other people in my community: No recognized party at Queen's Park finds the status quo acceptable. In fact, the choice is no longer truly between just change and the status quo. The choice that is before the taxpayer of Ontario is change versus the declining status quo.
Government can no longer continue to be all things to all people. Restructuring government and restoring confidence in the financial strength of the province is essential to the future of this province.
Mr Chairman, today the debt in our province, as you well know, stands almost at $100 billion. In 1980, seven cents on the dollar was paid on the interest on debt. Today that figure stands at 20 cents on the dollar, and it is estimated that if no measures are taken, this figure could rise to 40 cents on the dollar by the close of the decade, not too far away from now.
Major change is required from all levels of government. Believe me, I can speak from experience. There must be a refocusing of the role of government in society and the role of the politician in society. Decisions must be made on what the priorities are for the people of Ontario and a commitment must be made to perform and deliver them well.
If we are to restructure government to face our current fiscal crisis, the flexibility, tools and empowerment that Bill 26 represents are in fact needed. This bill will provide the flexibility to help the government and its transfer partners restructure and streamline to provide better service for less. It will also implement measures to reduce regulations that obstruct investment and job creation.
As Ernie Eves said on November 29, the government is committed to creating an Ontario of opportunity rather than dependence, where genuine need is met with compassion and support and where government is a partner in change rather than an obstacle.
The government is doing what it said it would do. The government is cutting red tape and reducing the regulatory burden on taxpayers and companies that are trying to build a better province. The opposition parties have failed to recognize the government's effort in this regard and continue to throw criticism at the government. Let me speak to some of these criticisms.
Last week I attended in this same room the health hearings on Bill 26. At that session, like today's, the first thing in the morning a motion was put by the opposition to extend the number of hours of public hearings. Let us talk for a moment about this hearing process.
The government House leader made an offer originally to refer this bill to three legislative committees and to hold over 360 hours of public hearings. This offer was firmly rejected by the Liberals and the NDP. Following the overnight antics of Scarborough North MPP Alvin Curling, the Liberals and NDP demanded and got 300 hours of committee hearings. That's 60 hours less than they were originally offered.
When the public hearings on Bill 26 are over, there will be more committee time on this bill than on any other bill in the previous 10 years of Liberal and NDP government.
I would suggest that if consultation from the citizens of Ontario rather than grandstanding was what the opposition wanted, then perhaps 45 of the first 80 witnesses would not have been from the unions, of which the majority were from the public sector. I think that one presentation from the CAW in Kitchener would have been sufficient, instead of four, allowing other interested groups to express their suggestions.
It should also be stated that before drafting Bill 26, each minister held extensive consultations with representatives of their transfer partners. In addition, the Finance minister met with numerous stakeholders and representatives, both public and private sector, throughout the fall. Indeed, the Common Sense Revolution platform itself, upon which the Harris government ran, got elected and is governing, comes directly from four years of direct consultation with the people of Ontario.
I would now like to address the substance of the bill itself. As you are no doubt aware, the economy of northern Ontario is very much resource-driven. Here in the north, we are particularly pleased with the changes made under the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. By directing all hunting and fishing revenues to a dedicated fund for resource management and conservation, Bill 26 has taken a gigantic step forward by generating needed funds for enhanced environmental protection. It is a user fee that the users have been demanding. It was promised by the Liberals, declared impossible by the NDP, and done by the Mike Harris government.
In changes to the Mining Act, the new bill maintains environmental standards and closure requirements while recognizing that every mine is unique. It offers an industry which spends approximately $250 million on pollution prevention annually greater flexibility to achieve those standards while making room for future technological improvements. It also provides companies practising sustainable mining practices with wider opportunities to gather the financial assurance necessary to meet these closure and reclamation standards.
I have qualified support for the changes to the Municipal Act. The changes to the act will enable municipalities to impose user fees as well as the opportunity to privatize certain services, which will provide greater accountability and efficiency and enable more grass-roots decision-making. I believe that through measures such as these, the government of Ontario is sending out a clear message that the province is once again open for business.
I'd like to say that change is never easy. It is always viewed with suspicion. However, the silent majority of Ontario, the average taxpayer, need and support the changes that are proposed under this legislation.
As I sit here and watch your deliberations, trying to make changes for the better in spite of the inertia of the status quo, I am reminded of a passage that I once read:
Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted the darkness off the earth. That man, the submissive and the first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about the beginning. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one, and that one paid for his courage.
Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing more than their vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was new, the vision unborrowed and the response they received, scepticism. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, they paid and they won.
Ladies and gentlemen and parliamentarians from Toronto, I want to add one other aspect to my presentation today. In dealing with my students at the local college, I dealt with what was considered to be image and its related studies of image of various groups within the trades. For instance, where does the school teacher stand on a scale? Where does the lawyer? Where does the architect? Where does the child care worker? Where does the politician stand?
I'm pleased to know that I likely have more credibility standing here than you do, because you rate the lowest of the low. Individually, you are all very, very wonderful individuals, but I have a very serious concern about your institution as politicians. I say this because in my last year of teaching I presented a small test to some of my students. I asked the 35 students in the class: Who is Bob Rae? Out of the 35, 32 were able to identify Bob Rae. But the question, I should add, had two parts to it. I said, "Who is Bob Rae and what party does he belong to?" These students, by the way, came from our secondary school system. Some of them also came back from our local university to attend courses and were given credit for doing so, but they had to take this course from me. Thirty-two of them, if I recall, were able to identify Bob Rae, but none of them could in fact put Bob Rae and the NDP together, out of 37 students. I even asked them who Brian Mulroney was and what party he belonged to. And guess what? Our youth certainly knew who he was, but many identified him as a Grit.
1540
Mr Gerretsen: That's enough. Now you've gone too far.
Mr Phillips: Lay off.
Mr Pentney: I have a very serious concern, Mr Phillips, about the fact that --
Mr Gerretsen: You've ruined my day.
Mr Pentney: Yes. John, I have a very serious concern about the image that politicians have within the province of Ontario. I plead with you -- and this bill allows it to happen to some extent -- to get on with the task of governing this province well. Because I don't think the people, generally speaking -- and this is an in joke for some of my friends back here. I don't think that, even if the government was made up of the crew from the Star Trek Enterprise, generally the people of Ontario give two hoots in hell. All they want is to be managed well and to have a reasonable level of service provided at the most reasonable level of cost. It's up to you, all of you, to get on with the task of improving this province.
If anything last week demonstrated to me, when I saw the kerfuffle that went on in this room -- and I wasn't dealing with the interest groups. I was talking to some of the people who were here just to see what was going on. Do you know what they said to each other? "What the hell are we paying these guys for?" I'm certainly clear in my mind that if we want this province to get on and be the province that we think it could be and should be, then it's your collective cooperation that will bring it about. Thank you. I stand open for questions.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. I appreciate your perspective and I appreciate, as someone who supports the Conservative Party and Mr Harris, that you're here to support also what they're doing, and that's fair. That is also part of the process.
I take exception to a couple of points in particular that you've made. One is that the government is doing what it said it would do. We've heard from many a group and many an individual about their sense that the government is doing far different things than it said it would, if we look at some of the actions the government has taken and the positions Mr Harris took during the election on health care funding, on no user fees for health care, no cuts to health care, no cuts to the classroom in education. Time, I suppose, will bear out the truth of those, but certainly the sense at this point is that he has broken some pretty fundamental promises.
The firefighters and the police, who were both here earlier today, very clearly said, "Mr Harris has broken some key promises he made to us." In the case of the police associations, I can tell you, having heard them, the Ontario provincial association, as well as the Ontario firefighters in other settings, they were quite clear in saying: "Many of our members supported the Tory government on the basis of the commitments and the promises that were made to us. Those promises have been broken." That's part of the reality, too.
Mr Pentney: I appreciate the points you're making, except none of that has been translated into reality yet. The transfer of information and transfer of direction and responsibility down to the local level and the local politician has yet to take place, and I could go on, as a school board trustee, in all the areas you've mentioned. I would suggest to you that that has yet to transpire. And the decisions that are going to be made at the local level are done in peril that if they do other than what the local people want, 1997 is not too far away and they will have to be accountable and stand up and be counted by the population who will vote for them in another year from now. If they turn around and impose a lot of user fees and make changes to the police services and make changes to the firefighters, or if the trustees make changes other than to the classroom, they will have to stand before the electorate to be judged.
Mr Silipo: But those changes are being made now. They're not things in the future. The police say to us, "We were told that there would be no cuts to the budget for police," but that is happening. The firefighters say to us, "Mr Harris clearly said to us" -- and we saw him on tape this afternoon -- "that there would be no changes made that affect firefighters and the firefighters act," but this legislation amends the firefighters act. It's quite clear, and there's been no consultation. Mr Harris said very clearly during the election that there would be no user fees on health care. There are going to be user fees by virtue of this legislation.
So don't tell me that these things may happen or may not happen, unless you know something about the amendments that we don't know. They are happening, and that is the reality of what's going on.
I don't disagree with you, and we all recognize, that changes have to be made. We're not here defending the status quo versus the Tory government wanting to make changes. We're talking about, what is the point of making changes and how do you make changes in a way that protects the basic services and the fabric of society that we've developed in this province? You don't make those changes by ignoring those things we've built up over years.
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much for coming today. I very much appreciated your story about the questions you asked your students. It reminds me of the reporter interviewing a group of students as they were leaving on their Christmas vacation. He put the question to them, "What's Bill 26?" and one fellow replied, "It's the bill that comes after Bill 25."
I also agree with you -- keeping the theme here -- and most parties would agree that the status quo must go. But what you'll find is a difference of opinion on how one effects that "must go" between one side of the table and the other, perhaps even the three parties represented here at the table.
I'm sure you're going to hear from the other side of the table, so I'll lead into this. One of the items you'll hear shortly, if you haven't already, is that our initiative on how the status quo should go is really nothing but masking an attempt to provide a massive tax cut. My colleague across the floor tried to put that in the business vernacular and say we're trying to provide a dividend to some shareholders. While I understand his attempt to use a business analogy, since he has had some experience in that, we are in fact proposing, not unlike many corporations and businesses forced to restructure because of the financial situation, to provide a rate reduction, basically a lowering in the sales price.
Really, the taxpayers are buying government services; when they send their tax bill in they buy a level of government services. It costs them an income tax rate or a property tax rate or a user fee, but they are buying something: They're buying a level of government services. What we're saying to the taxpayers is: "You've been paying too much for what you've been getting. We think we ought to provide that same level of service at a lower price." Would you disagree with that philosophy?
Mr Pentney: No, I wouldn't. I want to have an opportunity to say something else, and I'll get to what you're saying. I made it a point to say to you people that I was a trustee in 1972 and I was a health council person in the early 1970s, and we talked back then about the fact that the status quo etc needs change. I want you to know that the most frightening experience I had was coming back as a trustee in 1989, and guess what? I sat in almost the same seat I sat in back in 1972, and I looked around and, lo and behold -- Rick will understand who I'm talking about -- some of the same faces were there, sitting in the same place, and the same deliberations took place.
1550
The only thing that had changed was that government had indicated through Bill 30 that school boards would be responsible for the exceptional child at both ends of the intelligence scale. Other than that, over three years I could have predicted what was going to be said on every level of deliberation, be it the budget time, be it busing, be it transfer of teachers, be it whatever. It was absolutely frightening that in all that time, that was the only change that had taken place.
Subsequently, I've listened locally to the three years of debate for hospital restructuring. Guess what, my friends? In the early 1970s, when I was health council chairman, I heard the same arguments by the same people. Nothing had changed. Nothing has changed today.
The people of Ontario are not prepared to hear it again. This morning I stopped to get gasoline, I stopped to pick up the Globe, I stopped to have a bite to eat, and I stopped to pick up some cough lozenges. Each of those guys knows me, and they said, "Pentney, why've you got your duds on?" I said, "I'm going to speak to some politicians this afternoon," and they said, "Give them hell." It doesn't matter what stripe. They don't care who the hell you are, what party, whatever -- just "Give them hell," because they're not satisfied with the status quo and they want some changes. They want you people to act responsibly on their behalf to bring about those changes for this province.
Mr Gerretsen: Let me just say first of all, as a newly elected member -- about 70 of us are new, and most of the 70, if they're really honest, will probably tell you they're disappointed by the system, that everything is from the top down and most things are structured that way. Hopefully, we can make some changes to this bill, but probably not, because it's already been determined by five or six other people in the cabinet and what have you, and it's a fait accompli. That's probably the most frustrating thing, and maybe that's why a lot is going on.
You say a whole list here of people you represent. You've been on the school board and the colleges. Let me ask you this: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Conservative Party of Ontario?
Mr Pentney: Certainly am, and proud of it.
Mr Gerretsen: And are you working for the present government in a political capacity right now?
Mr Pentney: No.
Mr Gerretsen: But you were handing out material on behalf of the Conservatives last night.
Mr Pentney: I met them, and you were introduced yourself to me in a political capacity indeed.
Mr Gerretsen: I just wanted to get that on the record. There's nothing wrong with that, absolutely nothing.
Mr Pentney: You introduced me to my own member.
Mr Gerretsen: I was trying to get hold of your material last night.
Mr Pentney: As you introduced me, you tried to get your hands on it, John. Mr Klees introduced himself to me.
Mr Gerretsen: And you said he was a lot younger than I am. That's why I'm really upset at you, if you want to know the truth.
Mr Pentney: Having spoken to him last Saturday, you've aged a lot, John.
Mr Gerretsen: On page 2, you say the ministers had extensive consultations with their transfer partners, and then you talk about how Harris consulted with the people of Ontario. Do you not think it's a little odd that you in your own terminology talk about having consultation with the transfer partners, but not with respect to the people of Ontario on the massive changes introduced in this bill?
Mr Pentney: They've given you plenty of opportunity to do that.
Mr Gerretsen: When?
Mr Pentney: In the last two weeks that you've been at it.
Mr Gerretsen: But if that hadn't happened, if we hadn't sort of demonstrated, we never would have had these hearings. The 360 hours of hearings in Toronto would have gone from 9 in the morning till 12 at night, five solid days, by three committees. We wouldn't have come to Sudbury, to Timmins or anyplace else. It would all have been done down in Toronto. Do you think that is effective consultation with the people of the province of Ontario, to have it all done in Toronto?
Look, this isn't even consultation. You can make a presentation for a few minutes, then the Chairman, who's a very competent individual, says, "You got two minutes to ask questions." That to me is not consultation. It's presentation and then "Go away," or something.
Mr Pentney: I hate to use the word draconian, heaven forbid, but --
Mr Gerretsen: I never knew what that word meant either until these hearings.
Mr Pentney: But I want you to know that the people of Ontario expect you and you and you and you and you to do your job and to do it well --
Mr Gerretsen: Tell these guys we want some input into the system.
Mr Pentney: -- and that means, if we are on a bent for turnaround management in this province that's going to change this province dramatically, which will transfer down to the lower level that needs to be changed dramatically, it needs to be done forthwith and as quickly as possible.
Mr Gerretsen: Exactly. And not all good ideas rest within one organization.
Mr Pentney: During the half-hour I've sat here, we have just gone into debt by another $500,000.
The Chair: On that prompt, Mr Pentney, thank you very much for coming forward today and giving us your half-hour presentation.
Mr Pentney: I've enjoyed it -- 15 minutes of fame. Thank you.
Mr Young: Mr Chair, on a point of order: If members ask the delegations what political party they belong to and raise their voice, is that going to be productive for these hearings?
The Chair: Members can ask that question if they so choose, Mr Young.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 30
The Chair: Can I please have representatives from OSSTF district 30 come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and thank you for coming to present to the committee. You have half an hour.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members of the committee. We have a deputant ready to speak. I'd appreciate it if you'd give them their time.
Gentlemen, please introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Geoff Shaw: I'm Geoff Shaw, division president of Sault Ste Marie OSSTF. This is Jim Agnew. He's our provincial councillor from district 30. We are here representing the close to 400 teachers in our district, which stretches from central Algoma to just east of Sault Ste Marie to Wawa to the north. We're here and we'll speak as representatives of the teachers, but wearing my other hat, my teacher hat, I know we are the last group to present today and I recognize that last-period classes get testy and cranky. Bear with us, if you would.
Mr Young: As long as you don't give us any homework.
Mr Shaw: There will be homework. At the outset, let us communicate to you the fact that our members are very bitter about the way in which the current government and its predecessor have treated education and education workers. Our anxieties are aggravated by actions and approaches of the current government that suggest the abandonment of Ontario's system of public education.
Too frequently, governments embark on initiatives without demonstrating a sensitivity to the concerns of those very groups that will be most dramatically affected by the changes. The manner in which this bill was introduced, the intention of the government for speedy passage and the unprecedented scope of its contents are all matters which should concern all citizens in a free and democratic society.
Furthermore, we are very concerned that the process of public hearings, part of which we're involved in today, may turn out to be merely the appearance of consultation rather than the substance.
This stage was built into our legislative process for a very good reason: to allow others to look at what might be poorly crafted and hastily conceived or even erroneous proposals.
The government of the day, in our view, has the obligation to act on behalf of the citizens of this province, all of those citizens, and any legislation it creates should reflect that obligation. In our view, this bill does not reflect that obligation. It requires many changes. To pass it as it stands would be not only an arbitrary action but one that smacks of arrogance, and such an action would fly in the face of democracy.
Should the Savings and Restructuring Act be passed into law, we'd devolve into government by fiat. This is a prospect that no person who values our democratic traditions can look upon with anything but dismay and trepidation.
Bill 26 negates the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, thereby removing a safeguard that has served the public interest so well throughout our history. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" becomes "government by cabinet and ministerial pronouncement."
This is not an encouraging transformation. In fact, some would call it monstrous. Civil rights, democratic traditions and the rule of law must be given precedence over government expediency. To act otherwise is to abdicate completely the fundamental responsibility that legislators bear towards the public that elected them.
1600
This government is dedicated, so it says, to the concept of less government. It would get government out of our faces, as the saying goes. This is not quite the reality of Bill 26. Government is still very much in our face, and in a way that is more arbitrary and oppressive than ever. What has disappeared instead are the processes that check the arbitrary actions of the provincial government.
As Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star wrote: "The omnibus bill permits the government to stage a kind of coup d'état against elected MPPs. It gives the Harris Tories unprecedented powers to do things they were never elected to do." Democracy is thereby terribly, perhaps fatally, diminished.
The most insidious aspects of the bill are the sections in which the government grants itself exemption from legal pursuit for violating provisions of existing law or contractual agreements. This is not democracy at work. It is much closer to dictatorship.
Again quoting from the Toronto Star, not that that's necessarily our favourite newspaper, but none the less the quote is appropriate:
"With a majority government, the Tories are of course entitled to make the policy changes they campaigned on. But the Legislature does not exist as some frivolous gesture to democracy. Nor do voters elect and pay opposition MPPs to be mere decorations at Queen's Park.
"Proposed laws are meant to be reviewed and debated -- and, yes, sometimes amended -- so that Ontario gets the best possible outcome, given the Legislature's political makeup. At the very least, the voters' representatives -- of every political stripe -- should be allowed an opportunity to digest a new bill."
Anybody who watched the parliamentary channel when this bill was introduced would know that applied to ministers as well as to the opposition. No one in that room seemed to understand the implications of this bill.
I'm going to turn to Mr Agnew at this point for some specific comments on three or four of the schedules of that bill.
Mr James Agnew: We listened with interest to the presentations that went through the afternoon, and I'm sure that you're going to pick up on some common threads in your questions. We have specific recommendations on different parts of the bill.
Schedule J, the amendments to the Pay Equity Act: We recommend that this section be withdrawn. This does not directly affect teachers per se but it does have an effect on education workers outside the teaching area. We are deeply concerned about this backwards step. The government should be in the business of removing barriers to equity employment; it shouldn't be erecting more of them. Neither should the government be encouraging an economic system that continues to regard women as a source of cheap labour, and particularly government should not be treating its own female employees in a discriminatory manner.
Schedule L, the amendments to the Public Service Pension Act: Again, this does not directly affect teachers; it has some effect on some educational workers as the provisions of the bill come in. But it raises a great deal of fear in the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation because we are also partners with the government in a pension plan. To have a partner impose unilateral changes on any pension plan and to also do that in a bill that was not originally destined for any public hearings creates an atmosphere of anxiety and suspicion.
Bill 26 and schedule L are an attack on the whole idea of pension partnerships and on the stable funding of pension plans. The action is arbitrary, oppressive, undemocratic, and it should be withdrawn.
One aspect of this schedule would remove from the government its responsibilities under law. In effect the government, having become the lawbreaker, then removes the means to bring it before the courts. This removes the government from the rule of law, and this can't be tolerated in a democratic society.
Schedule K and the amendments to the freedom of information act also raise concerns for us as teachers and educators. In this schedule we have an attempt to erect barriers rather than to remove them. In this case, the casualty would be the free flow of information in a free and open society. One has to ask why this schedule was included in this bill or why it is not a separate piece of legislation. Was it to deal with what were identified as possible high-profile cases of abuse of the system? If so, it's an overreaction of major proportions. We decry this erection of barriers to the free flow of information. It flies in the face of democracy in a democratic society.
The section of the bill that says information can be denied on the grounds that the request is "frivolous and vexatious" raises a great deal of concern because this denial, the way the bill is structured, could in fact be made by the very person who is subject to the request. This is hardly opening government to public scrutiny. It is closing it to the very citizens who elected it. It requires review. Changes should be made. It should be dealt with as a separate piece of legislation which could be examined separately.
Schedule M, amendments to the Municipal Act and various other statutes: Of direct concern to us as teachers and education workers is the power included in this schedule to dissolve or change local boards. We're all employees of such local boards and, by and large, we have managed to work together to create a productive and economically responsible school system. We do not see the need for the dissolution of such boards, nor do we see any benefit to giving municipal government control over these bodies. Education is not something to leave to the same discussion as snow removal, sidewalk construction and other things that are before an overburdened city council. It is much too complex and much too important to society to be lost in such discussions.
The concentration of power, first in the hands of the municipalities and then in the hands of the cabinet in Toronto, in the ministries, for example, is a retrograde step. We currently have a system that provides an opportunity for community-minded citizens to participate in public life. To put in place a system that could reduce the number of boards in our communities is not a forward-looking action.
We appear to have a government that is intent on concentrating power in the hands of fewer and fewer people in the name of fiscal restraint. Such concentration of power without democratic constraints is unacceptable.
Schedule Q: There has been much discussion about this since we arrived at noon. This gives provincial arbitrators unprecedented powers. We have concerns about the impact of this on arbitrators under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. It instructs arbitrators to consider the employer's ability to pay, the economic situation of the locality, it instructs arbitrators to identify what services should be reduced and even says that they can address the employer's need for qualified employees.
Arbitrators would have the right to order cuts to services and order cuts to qualified personnel. This is a cynical and self-serving plan to compel arbitrators to become fellow travellers with a government driven by a slash-and-burn agenda.
The premise of this section Q seems to be that somehow we have education costs in the province that are unjustifiably high and are somehow out of control. This is not the case. One only has to look at what has happened to cuts in education, for example, through the social contract, the amount of money that has been cut from the education budgets. Mr Eves, in his economic statement, provided data that OSSTF provincially has analysed and questions rather seriously. We have included the StatsCan version of the data beside Mr Eves's presentation of the data in appendix 1. One of the things that seems to be left out of Mr Eves's statement is the enrolment of 100,000 kindergarten students even though the cost of the kindergarten students is included. This in itself seriously skews the figures.
Ontario's costs for education are competitive. They're in the middle in Ontario. When we're compared to the United States, even though we are 21st in average income we are 29th -- we are down the scale -- in what we spend on education. So you don't see a system that has spending out of control. In fact, you have a system that -- maybe it should not be called restrained, because some of it was constrained, but it's both restrained and constrained.
1610
To give a government, which in essence provides funds through the grant structure, the power then to have arbitrators consider the ability to pay is putting both of those in the same camp, meaning that we have back-door wage controls in education.
The conclusion: I think you can see that what we see as the main tenet of this bill is a removal of the power from the legislative forum and placing it in the hands of the ministries. The process of democratic review is in this way thwarted.
Sections of the bill exempt the government from any legal recourse a citizen may take. This is undemocratic. It goes beyond the rule of law.
The power of municipalities to levy direct taxes as well as user fees will create increasing inequities in the province. It's a great concern in the north where you have poor municipalities. In order to generate any kind of revenue, what kinds of user fees would you have to put in place? I was saying to my colleagues here, if you put user fees on garbage collection in a place like Sault Ste Marie -- I live in a semi-rural area of Sault Ste Marie -- where's the garbage going to be dumped? It's going to be dumped on the sides of the roads where I live.
This bill is called the Savings and Restructuring Act, and it's curious to us that even though it's designed to save hundreds of millions of dollars, it has overlooked a possible way of saving large amounts of money by restructuring the governance of education, that is, through confederated school boards.
We'd like to speak briefly on confederated school boards. We presumed, in putting this together, that you were familiar with the idea of confederated school boards. We see it as a way of doing two things: creating economies in the structure by putting in place local boards which are umbrella boards over the jurisdictions in education which are public, religion-based and language-based. By doing this, the religious interests and the language interests could be protected within the forum of the confederated school board.
At the same time you would create a reduction in costs, by removing duplication of services; by not creating competitive use of buildings -- you'd have shared use of buildings; equipment and facilities could be more rationally obtained; services that are really difficult to get in the north -- it is difficult, for example to attract psychological services, speech-language services -- if these were delivered through a confederated school board, there would be a benefit to the students and the system.
In short, confederated school boards would make sure that we could deliver the necessary programs, that we would fully use existing facilities, and we would avoid the proliferation of needless expenditure in education.
That is the end of our presentation. We have attached some indexes -- I've already referred to the one on spending -- which you might want to look at but which we won't go through in detail here. We're willing to entertain questions.
Mr Young: I won't start by asking you what political party you belong to because I don't think it's appropriate, although I will say we've had some former NDP candidates appearing at the hearings and they've been heard and treated with the utmost respect.
Your concerns about exemptions from legal pursuit -- I just wanted to comment: There's lots of precedent in common law that goes back hundreds of years, for certain duties of political officials to be protected from that. It's not a new idea. They exist today in every free country in the world.
I'd like to ask you: If local boards were exempted, if it was clarified that local boards were exempt from municipalities, and as well -- it's a two-sided question -- if there were a sunset clause that addressed the ministerial power, because we're in a time of major change now, if there were a sunset clause that said this power disappears after a certain length of time, would that address your concerns?
Mr Shaw: Can I ask for clarification in terms of the power you refer to when you --
Mr Young: You referred on page 6 to ministerial power, your concerns that the minister has too much power. I assume you're talking about in health restructuring. Am I correct?
Mr Shaw: The general sense through Bill 26 is a concentration of power in the hands of the ministers and the people who are working for the ministries as opposed to a concentration of power in the Legislature itself. That's what I see in Bill 26.
Mr Young: Other presenters have given an example of the ministerial power to appoint a commission for hospital restructuring or for municipalities. If there were a sunset clause in that, that that power was only temporary, would that address your concern?
Mr Shaw: I really would have to see what that involved. Secondly, I would have to ask the question, why is it necessary? Not the sunset clause. Why is the concentration of power necessary?
Mr Young: To make change happen, but there's a much longer answer.
With regard to local boards being under the authority of the municipalities, if it were clarified that school boards are not included with that, I assume that would satisfy your concerns there.
Mr Shaw: That would certainly help.
Mr Agnew: That would definitely help, but in a lot of small communities there's almost an undeclared war between the municipalities and the school boards about the tax bills. Municipalities have threatened not to collect them even though they have the legal obligation to collect them. There is a great deal of friction there and there are municipalities that would love to have some of the provisions that are in this bill to in effect take over school boards.
Mr Young: Really I want to tell you it's an excellent presentation. I am parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education. I'm going to take it back and discuss it with him. Your ideas on confederated school boards are very interesting. You know that we're looking at that and trying to find ways to accommodate everybody's rights and everybody's guarantees and still reduce the administrative cost of education, so I want to tell you that at the same time.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for your presentation. I've been looking at schedule Q and the conclusion there that you've made in terms of the arbitrators having the right to order cuts to services or to qualified personnel. Clearly in the legislation that's being put forth are some mandatory criteria to consider, which are not exhaustive but they're basically to be considered only. There's nothing in the legislation that would give arbitrators any more power than they presently have in terms of deciding a case, and as you know, you're not subject to having to go to arbitration under the collective bargaining process.
But I'd like to deal with your premise where you say that the premise is based on dealing with the education costs and teachers' benefits etc. I don't believe that's the premise we're dealing with. I think the premise we're dealing with is a fiscal debt problem and being accountable to the taxpayers, and not pointing out one particular group. As you know, there are all kinds of changes that are out there, and we're trying to basically deliver the services for less and basically trying to work through the problems that we have. So I wouldn't want you to hold that premise as being put out there. Certainly the process of arbitration, we're trying to bring some fiscal reality to that.
Mr Bartolucci: Just let me clarify something that Mr Tascona said.
"Section 35 of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
"(1.1) In making a decision or award, the arbitrator or board of arbitration shall consider the following criteria," and they list the five criteria.
Mr Phillips: Not "may."
Mr Bartolucci: Not "may," or not "might," but "shall." Clearly, that is an extremely important word in this amendment.
Now, I'd like to follow up with the section Q, because you know if there's one section that upsets me the most, it's this government's desire to destroy collective bargaining. Could you outline to the members of the government, because the members of the opposition clearly understand, what's going to happen when the school board uses that for the arbitrator? What's it going to do to the PTR, to the pupil-teacher ratio; what's it going to do to the quality of classroom education; and what's it going to do to the size of the classroom that the teacher has to teach on a daily basis?
1620
Mr Agnew: First of all, the disturbing thing for education is that the ability to pay, because of the way the grants are structured, is really created by the government, because the government creates the ceiling, the government creates the base mill rate, and then wealthier communities are able to pursue more through local taxation. Smaller communities, Chapleau, can't do that. Central Algoma can't do that. Sault Ste Marie is kind of in the middle; they can do a small amount of it.
But in fact, as the police services representative said, we're in the same situation. Education is personnel-intensive, and when you cut costs, you are taking away personnel, and you can't take away personnel without affecting your classroom. Either the class sizes are going to go up or the support service is not going to be there. The quality is bound to go down, because the way to cut costs is to have a school that is not maintained as well -- small amount of saving. Take away the staff who are delivering and you get the larger savings, and that's what would be cut.
As for the ability to attract people, what do you do in a community that is running on 90% grant and has 10% to get from the mill rate? They can raise the taxes as far they want. They're not going to get enough money to hire any more people.
Mr Bartolucci: Clearly, schedule Q will cause cuts, and these cuts will hurt kids.
Mr Agnew: It's wage control.
Mr Phillips: Just a couple of comments. One is that when the members opposite said, "Would you like a sunset provision so five years from now it disappears?" my own judgement on that is it's like: "Would you mind a temporary dictatorship? It'll be gone in five years. We just need the dictatorship for the five years."
Your brief is absolutely right, by the way. Right now, as the bill is written, a municipality can eliminate a school board by a bylaw. That's clear.
Now, what's very important is for the government to amend this, not to pass in regulation, which is what they've implied; they will protect school boards through regulation. If you don't understand the process, and I now do, having been there for a while, regulation means they take it to cabinet, cabinet signs a piece of paper, and on Saturday a school board, when they read the Gazette, finds it's gone.
I think you can have our assurance we will be ensuring that is in the act that school boards are protected. We have no assurance from the government that that's its intention. I guess the question to you would be, how threatened would you feel if, by regulation, you could be eliminated at the signing of a pen?
Mr Agnew: Threatened.
Mr Shaw: All government by regulation threatens.
Mr Martin: I want to thank you for coming the distance that you have to make your presentation today, and it's certainly been a good one. I want to, in my questioning, put it in a broader context perhaps and to maybe pick up where Mr Phillips left off this idea that somehow all of this will be sunsetted in five or six or 10 years is supposed to make people feel a bit more comfortable about the fact that in the meantime a whole lot of people are going to be hurt real bad, some of them irreparably. As teachers, probably more than anybody, next to parents, you will see it most directly and most often in your day-to-day interaction with students.
This party, in campaigning for government and wanting to be government, suggested it would not do anything that would impact the classroom as far as education was concerned. It seems to me that everything they've done so far impacts your ability to teach kids, impacts kids' ability to learn, and that to me is all about the classroom.
When you take 22% out of the take-home pay of single parents and the poorest of the people who live in this province and then expect that kids are going to go to school well fed and with nice clothes and be able to participate in the extracurricular activities that we've come to appreciate and enjoy as part of the standard of living and quality of life of this province, in my mind, it affects education, it affects the classroom. It shows up at the door of the classroom every morning, and the teachers that you represent have to deal with that.
The previous presenter said to us, suggested to us, that this government is doing no more than what it said it was going to do when it ran in the election. What has been your experience so far, and what has been the experience of your membership so far, when you consider the whole context within which you now have to deliver education in the classrooms in places like Sault Ste Marie and central Algoma and Wawa?
Mr Shaw: It's difficult to answer that, because all we've had so far are the minister's announcements about the cuts, $400 million being taken out of education starting in the spring, in the next year's budget. So in terms of a direct impact on us now, there isn't any. Ask me this a year from now and I can give -- well, I can tell you right now what much of it is going to do. We were discussing it in the car coming up, how our board is going to manage to cut several million dollars out of its budget and where it's going to come from.
Operating on the perhaps naïve assumption that it isn't going to affect the teacher in the classroom, which of course is nonsense, the first thing that's going to go are all the supports for special-need students. They're going to be on the chopping block. Every high school in the Sault has got a special-ed teacher: gone, undoubtedly gone, if the government holds to its promise not to affect the classroom. Well, what happens to those kids and what happens to the needs? Those needs haven't gone away. The kids are still there. The needs are still there.
That's going to be the kind of thing that's going to be happening to us, and we know that's coming down the road; we just don't know the exact final form it's going to take.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for coming forward this afternoon and making a presentation to the committee. We appreciate it.
We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 am.
The subcommittee adjourned at 1627.