CONTENTS
Thursday 15 October 1998
Northern Services Improvement Act, 1998, Bill 12, Mr Hodgson /
Loi de 1998 sur l'amélioration des services publics dans le Nord de l'Ontario,
projet de loi 12, M. Hodgson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr John Ritchie, senior counsel, legal services, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel
Mr Christopher Wernham, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.
NORTHERN SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES PUBLICS DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO
Consideration of Bill 12, An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à offrir aux résidents du Nord plus de choix et de souplesse dans la mise en place de mécanismes de prestation des services qui tiennent compte de la situation unique du Nord de l'Ontario et à permettre l'accroissement de l'efficience et de la responsabilité en ce qui concerne la prestation des services à l'échelle régionale.
The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): We reconvene this meeting of the standing committee on general government to deal with Bill 12. Failing any opening comments -- I think we've dealt with that -- for the sake of order here this morning we are now dealing with a government motion dealing with section 10, subsection 41(7). I assume everyone has that before them. Perhaps I could call on Mr Spina to address that amendment, or move the amendment first.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): There was a drafting error that is being corrected. It clarifies that the prohibitions on providing the enhanced level of services and charging fees --
The Chair: Mr Spina, before we speak to the motion, could I have on the record moving the motion, please.
Mr Spina: I move that subsection 41(7) of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Non-application of provisions
"(7) An order may provide that a board,
"(a) shall not exercise the powers referred to in subsections (4) and (6) in respect of the required services specified in the order; and
"(b) shall not enter into an agreement for the provision of a required service by an authority referred to in clause (5)(b), another board or any other person or entity."
The Chair: This is moved by Mr Spina as he has read the amendment. Is there any debate on that amendment?
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to hear the explanation of the parliamentary assistant and then I have a specific question.
Mr Spina: In clause (a) there was a drafting error that was corrected. It clarified that the prohibitions on providing the enhanced level of services and charging fees can apply to one or more services.
Clause (b) complements the amendment to subsection 41(5.1). The minister's order may prohibit ASBs contracting with each other to provide specified services. What we're trying to do is make that complementary so they can't.
Mr Bisson: Specifically, what I want to know is, because this mentions paragraph 6 of subsection 41(2), one of the eight additional services that an ASB can go and get from the minister once it's established or set out in that part of the bill, one of those being police services -- the parliamentary assistant would know there's the debate ongoing right now in the city of Timmins in regard to policing services between the Timmins Police Services Board and the Ontario Provincial Police.
I guess my question is a fairly straightforward, simple one. Under this ASB legislation, could the city of Timmins decide to go by route of the preferred option, which would be that within the boundaries of the city of Timmins, the Timmins Police Services Board police about half of the area, which is the urban part of the community, and the rural part is done by the Ontario Provincial Police? My question is, could that arrangement stay under the ASB afterwards?
Mr Spina: Yes. That's part of the reason the clause is here. What it's saying is that you cannot contract the other ASB to split the services, but it does permit you to contract the deliverer of the service. So whether it was OPP or the local or regional police force, they can contract that in any way they can. But if those services are under another ASB -- they should be dealing directly with the deliverer of the service is what I'm saying.
Mr Bisson: So the city of Timmins could say under this scenario, if they were to go by way of ASB and require the police services as one of the additional services they delivered, that the police of the city of Timmins will police the built-up urban area, as they do now, and the ASB will contract the service for the remainder of the built-up area through the Ontario Provincial Police.
Mr Spina: If that's what they choose, but the agreement has to be made directly as opposed to through the ASB, or the other ASB.
Mr Bisson: Then it would be logical that you could also do that if they don't use an ASB. I see a nod, but I want for the record --
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: So if they don't go by way of an ASB, the city of Timmins can keep their police and contract out the services in the outlying areas, the rural part of the riding, to the Ontario Provincial Police and do that directly with the OPP.
Mr Spina: As governed by the police act, yes.
Mr Bisson: The second question that follows from that comes on the heels of what I asked you about this section last week. I've had a chance to go back and talk to municipal officials. You would know from the papers this week -- I just brought one article with me -- that the DSSAB negotiations have broken down in our area. I'm not going to bore you with all the details; I think we know what they are. Suffice it to say that there is a feeling with the Highway 11 corridor that they don't want a DSSAB set up that would have the power of balance tilted towards the city of Timmins. Both parties have walked away from the board in regard to a DSSAB. The city of Timmins doesn't want part of the DSSAB and neither does the Highway 11 group want anything to do with the DSSAB. They're looking at trying to set up their own.
My question is, and I come back to this legislation, if the city of Timmins and the municipalities of Highway 11 were to decide that they want to put forward proposals that would see them, for example, create one ASB which would be a Highway 11 ASB, for example Matheson to Hearst, excluding Timmins, would the ministry look at such a proposal in a favourable way, and could they do it with the exclusion of Timmins and let Timmins do their own?
Mr Spina: As I said in the past, I can't answer for the minister on a theoretical proposal. What I can say is that if all of the factors surrounding the positive delivery of services in a more efficient manner met all of the criteria that we are trying to lay out, both in the legislation and in the regulations, then the minister could look at it favourably. We've always said that a well-designed ASB, complete with a consent mechanism etc, would supersede a DSSAB. If all of the parameters in the proposal met the criteria and the objectives of all parties, then clearly an ASB could replace a DSSAB model and the scenario might play out that way.
Mr Bisson: So the minister would have the ability under this legislation, if he chooses, to allow, if it's viable, an ASB to be formed that would exclude the city of Timmins?
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: Again for the record, and this is important because we know this debate is going to be ongoing November-December this year, Parry Sound is an example that has created its own DSSAB, as I understand it, separate, that is a smaller entity than the ministry originally had anticipated. Again in the Sault Ste Marie area, we know that the city of Sault Ste Marie is basically going on its own with the municipalities just around it, which are smaller unorganized areas, and then the greater Algoma area is creating its own DSSAB that's going to deal with delivering services under the Ecker bill.
What we've got is a scenario similar to what we have in Timmins. Sault Ste Marie is going on its own with a couple of municipalities around it that are fairly small, and the rest of the region is going on its own, so you're going to have two separate ones. I can see the precedent is there and I acknowledge that the parliamentary assistant is saying the minister does have the power to set up an ASB that would make some sense geographically and economically and it would be a possibility to do a Highway 11 ASB that would exclude the city of Timmins, as we've seen in Sault Ste Marie and we see in Parry Sound.
Mr Spina: Provided all of the criteria were met.
Mr Bisson: Yes. Again for the record, we know that's been done in Parry Sound; we know it's been done in Sault Ste Marie. Our ASB would actually be larger than most of theirs, so I don't see any logic why we would say no. Again for the record, rather than just having you sign, for the record --
Mr Spina: Beyond what I said, I can't say any more than that. Thank you.
Mr Bisson: All right. No further questions.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Any further comments? I call then for this motion: All those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.
We'll look at the next motion, a government motion.
Mr Spina: I move that subsection 41(9) of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Administrative functions
"(9) The Attorney General and a board may enter into an agreement under part X of the Provincial Offences Act and, without such an agreement, a board shall not provide the services referred to in paragraph 4 of subsection (2)."
This clarifies the need for an agreement with the Ministry of the Attorney General before an ASB can provide courts administration and prosecutions under the Provincial Offences Act. It's just to ensure compliance with the act under the AG.
The Vice-Chair: Any questions?
Mr Bisson: I take it this is an extension of what you did under Bill 108, where you basically transferred to municipalities the ability to prosecute provincial offences at the local level.
Mr Spina: Yes. What it does is, it says that if it doesn't fit the criteria, then the board cannot just arbitrarily jump in and begin delivering the services. So it's a clarification.
Mr Bisson: A couple of specific questions on this one. You would know there was a fairly significant debate when it came to French-language services when we transferred those services through Bill 108 to municipalities. There was an amendment agreed to at the committee-of-the-whole level that basically, according to the government, gave certain protections to French-language services once those services are transferred to the municipality. I'm of the view that the amendment doesn't go as far as it should have, but nonetheless it's there.
Will that particular amendment also apply? Will the same practices established in that amendment apply to this particular section?
Mr Spina: I believe, if I recall the amendment correctly, it's that where the local municipality chooses to continue to deliver services in French, they are permitted to go ahead and do so.
The philosophy here is, I think, very consistent with the other local services alignment legislation, where French-language services were not addressed in Bill 152. What we're saying is that we're trying to make it consistent with all the other legislation, Gilles, so that the province is no longer delivering the services, which of course would mandate the delivery of French. Where the population is substantial, sufficient enough to warrant the delivery of French services, that is one of the criteria that would be addressed through the minister's order. The minister would look at the program-by-program basis of the ASB applications and determine that if the population is there, then he or she, the minister, would include that as part of the proposal that ought to be considered and adopted.
Mr Bisson: Before I go any further, for the record I have a question of the clerk of the committee or the Chair. I notice we don't have translation equipment here today. I would much rather have this debate in French, to be honest. I'm just wondering why we don't have any translation equipment, because if I speak in French at this point nobody's going to understand me, other than myself. Can I have an answer why we don't have translation equipment?
The Vice-Chair: I'm told that it's only available in room 151 and there was no request to put it there.
Mr Bisson: Again, for the record, I feel a little bit uncomfortable -- just understand that this debate and this next amendment I was planning to do entirely in French. The problem I now have, because there is no translation equipment, is I'll be talking to myself. That's not fair to members of the committee who want to hear what I have to say, and I guess under protest I'm going to do it in English but I just want to put that on the record.
On this particular amendment, as follow-up to the parliamentary assistant, you said at the beginning it would be up to the municipalities to decide if they want to provide French services. I would want to say categorically, very strongly, that's not what the intention of Bill 8 is. You know that Bill 8 says that in areas that are designated, French-language services will be provided for provincial services. My concern here is that once you transfer the Attorney General's responsibility when it comes to provincial offences to the ASB -- to me it's not if I want to do it; it's "You're going to do it." So that's the answer that I'm looking for from you, that you're going to at least live up to the commitments of the amendments made in Bill 108, which are minimal, where the minister will ensure that French-language services are provided to francophones according to that amendment we passed under Bill 108.
Mr Spina: Let me clarify that if I can. Help me recall Bill 108; that's really what I'm asking you to do. If I understand correctly, and I think counsel also advised me on this, there was an amendment in 108 to say that where French-language services were being provided by the province, it is to be carried on. Is that correct?
Mr Bisson: I don't want to get into that debate again, but originally there was no amendment. The minister was going to take the position that services would be protected through the memorandum of understanding that would be signed between the Attorney General and the municipality.
We had proposed an amendment that basically extended the Courts of Justice Act protections and the Bill 8 protections into Bill 108. That was not accepted by the government. Instead, your government negotiated an agreement with l'association des juristes ontariens that basically says, in a synopsis, that if I, as a francophone, go to court in the new municipal structure and I'm refused services in French, I now have the ability to appeal to a provincial court that my case was somehow prejudiced by the fact that I was not given a trial in French. That's the amendment that you guys have agreed to. I think that doesn't go far enough, but I want to know if that particular amendment is going to still stand when it comes to this legislation.
Mr Spina: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments or questions? I call then for the vote.
Mr Bisson: I want a recorded vote on this one.
Ayes
Elliott, Froese, Bert Johnson, Rollins, Spina.
Nays
Bisson.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is carried.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Just very quickly, I want for the record the reason I voted against it. I realize you're going to apply the amendment that was accepted under 108, but my position is that the amendment does not do anything anywhere close to what I want it to do.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.
The next motion is an NDP motion.
Mr Bisson: I'm the only member on committee and I have one of my staff people here who is patiently wanting to tell me something having to do with caucus services. Could we have a five minute-recess?
The committee recessed from 1025 to 1031.
The Vice-Chair: We'll come to order again. Mr Bisson, you're going to introduce this NDP motion?
Mr Bisson: I move that section 41 of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"French language rights
"(11) When a board provides or ensures the provision of a service under subsection (1) or (2), the same French language rights (including those under the French Language Services Act and the Courts of Justice Act) exist as if the service were provided by the government of Ontario."
I think the motion is fairly straightforward, and we got into this a little bit earlier. I just want for the record yet again to make sure that I put this on Hansard. We're at a committee hearing this morning where translation services are not available. Normally this debate would, in the Legislature and other committees, be done entirely in French and translation would be available to members who can't speak French. Unfortunately, this committee room is not equipped for translation services. I would prefer to do this debate in French, but I think it would be unfair at this point. Members would not have an idea what the arguments on the merits of the amendment are. I want to make sure that people understand, so I'm doing this under protest. I would rather do it in French; nonetheless, I will have to do it in English because we have no translation services, which is an item I will raise with the Speaker at a later date. I wasn't aware that this was the case.
The amendment is very straightforward. We see the government, by way of this legislation, transferring over to municipalities a number of services as set out in the act. If we look at the act itself under subsection 41(1), these are core services. We're transferring over child care, assistance under the Ontario Works Act, 1997, public health services under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, social housing, land ambulance services, and homes for the aged.
These are all services that are now protected under Bill 8. So if I live in the city of Timmins or I live in Hearst, Kapuskasing, London, Ottawa, Sudbury, Toronto -- all places designated by Bill 8 -- I know as a francophone I can go to any of these counters and get services in French because they are protected under Bill 8.
Further, you are also by way of this legislation now allowing muncipalities to go get additional services that they would offer under the area services board. Those are set out in subsection 41(2). Those are services promoting economic development; airport services; land use planning under the Planning Act; administrative functions under the Provincial Offences Act, such as we just talked about, by transferring over provincial responsibility to the municipalities for the services of provincial offences when it comes to prosecution; waste management; police services; emergency preparedness; roads and bridges; and any other services that the minister may require. That part has been amended.
The point I make is this: Most of those services under subsection 41(2) are also services that are either protected under the French Language Services Act or protected under a federal statute, in the case of the airports. Provincial airports are protected under the French Language Services Act. For example, Kirkland Lake, Kapuskasing and Hearst are provincial airports that are now transferred over to municipalities. Those are airports that would have been protected under the French Language Services Act.
So my amendment is quite simple, quite clear. It's saying that if we agreed in this Legislature back in the 1980s that we would establish by all-party agreement at the Legislature with the Tories, the Liberals and the NDP that we would provide services in designated areas under Bill 8, I don't want to see that eroded by way of this act. The amendment is a friendly amendment, not to establish new services for francophones, but let's at least guarantee that when we transfer over the services by way of the ASB, the French Language Services Act would apply.
Mr Spina: I fully respect the opinion and the comments and the frustration that the member feels. I agree with you that you should have had the right to be able to debate this in your first language choice. We respect that.
One of the things we have to keep in mind with respect to this bill is that the objective of the ASB bill or this Bill 12 is not intended to be something that prescribes, something that supersedes other bills. You very clearly articulated that many French-language services are currently being protected in various ways under other acts, under some transition agreements and so forth.
The concern we would have in supporting your amendment is that this Bill 12 will then become prescribing over other acts. That's the concern we have, that our objective with Bill 12 really is to be complying with the other acts. Where French-language services are being guaranteed by other acts and other agreements and other regulatory powers, the ASB act would then follow suit. The expectation is that where French-language services are being delivered now either by the municipality -- and many of the services that you indicated were already municipal services being delivered in both languages -- we would expect that this would continue to be provided under the minister's order where it's not covered by a specific bill.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'll keep my comments very short today. I'm going to be very much in support of this amendment. The parliamentary assistant said that Bill 12 does not want to prescribe or supersede other acts. I agree with him. Let's make sure then -- and I think this is the intent of the resolution -- that our legislation, and this particular piece of legislation, works in harmony and in compliance with other acts; in particular, in this instance, Bill 8.
What this shows to the people of Ontario, those who wish to have services in the French language, is that there's a common respect for French-language services and a common availability of French-language services. It's a friendly amendment, as the member said. What it does is it ensures that that common respect is there. It sends a clear message as well that since we're going to prescribe the option of Bill 12 to the people of northern Ontario, there is the corresponding right and option that that service can be delivered, managed and executed in both official languages.
Although it's a friendly amendment, it's very important for the people of northern Ontario and for all Ontarians to understand that Bill 8 was put in place for a particular reason. What this amendment does is ensure that there is harmony between Bill 12 and Bill 8. It is a friendly but very important amendment and I will be supporting it.
1040
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Madam Chair, first of all I want to say that I will not be supporting the amendment. I think one of the important things we have to recognize is that when Bill 8 was passed with all-party support a number of years ago, it was put in place to obligate the province to deliver services in those designated areas in both French and English. It didn't go so far as to impose that upon municipalities. Municipalities, the governments closest to the people, that represent their local community, proceeded on their own. I think in almost every instance where the French Language Services Act applies provincially, invariably in those areas where we have that need for French as the first language, the local government has seen fit to provide those services in the languages that their constituents would like.
I think it's important to recognize that as the local government in the north decides that they want to set up an area services board, they will be able to provide the services for their constituents, again, in the same way that they provide their present services. The local service board, the area services board, is not a branch or a structure of the provincial government but in fact a local service board designed for and implemented to provide local services.
We think that in the areas where they would be taking over a service that is presently provided by the province that would be provided by an area services board, the minister could and would through the regulation approval put in there what amount of French-language services would have to be provided in delivering that provincial service, keeping in mind that if it was a provincial service, it is covered by Bill 8 and would be provided that way.
In setting up an area services board, the minister could in that regulation provide for the required French-language services. We believe that should be done on a case-by-case basis. That shouldn't be done across the board, that everything that was shall be. Invariably there could be areas that presently are not covered by Bill 8 in an area and where in setting up a service board it may very well include that area. That would require special consideration on an individual, case-by-case basis. It's far better for all our citizens to have it there so it can be applied fairly and equitably and appropriately for all citizens.
With that, I would not be supporting the amendment put forward by the member opposite, as I think the government approach is a far better approach in dealing with French-language services.
Mr Bisson: I'm really feeling a little bit upset, I guess is the word -- not a little bit; quite a bit upset. I really want to do this in French. First of all, as a member, I have a right to express myself in French according to the standing orders, and I'm feeling somewhat at a loss here not being able to do so because we don't have translation services. I asked the clerk to see if there's some arrangement that could be made, because as far as I'm concerned, I don't want to do this debate in English.
I want to respond to a couple of things because I think you're way off base, both the parliamentary assistant to municipal affairs in your last comments, and I want to comment to the parliamentary assistant to northern development.
The comment was made that basically where Bill 8 now applies, municipalities on their own are providing services to their local citizens in French. Non. Ça n'arrive pas. Pas pour deux secondes. Doesn't happen. What you have are municipalities that still refuse to provide services to their citizenry in any kind of official manner in areas that are designated by Bill 8 by majority, not by minority. The vast number of municipalities out there which are covered by Bill 8, by and large, do not offer officially any services, when it comes to municipal services, to the people in their constituency in French.
You have it happening in communities like Hearst and Kapuskasing. It's a bit of a different situation there. The francophone population is, by majority, the largest voting block within those communities, and by and large they tend to elect francophones to council who understand the issue. It only is logical at that point that those municipalities declare themselves to be officially bilingual. But in such cases as a whole bunch of communities out there where francophones are not the majority -- they may be 20%, 30%, 40% -- they do not control the councils in any kind of way and are at the whims of their municipal councils who choose not to declare the municipalities officially bilingual.
I come from the city of Timmins; 47% of the population in the city of Timmins by and large is French. We are not a bilingual community. Our municipality is not officially bilingual. They do offer services unofficially to the citizenry of the community of Timmins in French. They do that as a policy, but it is not a bylaw as passed by the municipality. The reason we need the amendment is for that very fact. The municipalities will not deliver those services in French. We're being told that already.
I have one article here on what's happening in the DSSAB in the city of Timmins. The article says that the fear on the part of the municipalities on Highway 11, and one of the reasons they don't want to go the way of the DSSAB, is because the DSSAB will not declare itself officially bilingual. The people in Hearst and the people in Kapuskasing and the people in Cochrane and all communities in between, who are by majority francophones, are pretty upset that that is not going to be done.
It's not to say that the city of Timmins would not want to offer services in French, but they will do so on an unofficial basis. One of the reasons people have pulled out of the DSSAB is because they know that this new board will not declare itself officially bilingual. If that doesn't happen, they will have no protection under the DSSAB act or under this act to be able to determine and to make sure that services are provided in French. Communities that I represent, and also, as the francophone affairs critic, other communities outside my riding, are saying to me, "Gilles, please make sure whenever they're transferring over services that we do protect ourselves and what we have now under Bill 8."
I say to the parliamentary assistant, with all respect, you're off base. That is not the history; that is not the example we've seen in Ontario. Municipalities by and large don't. I don't need to remind you of the debates of the late 1980s in Sault Ste Marie and Brockville and a whole bunch of other places which went around declaring themselves unilingually English after Bill 8 had been passed. They didn't do that for the fun of it. They were pretty serious when they did it because they don't want to provide services in French to their citizenry. All the more reason why we need to have this amendment passed.
The parliamentary assistant to municipal affairs said that this should be done on a case-by-case basis, inferring that once ASBs are set up, we should look at it service by service, region by region, municipality by municipality, and decide what would be the best appropriate mix. That ain't good enough. We have an act now. It's called Bill 8. It says that if you're in a designated area, so be it; you're covered by the French Language Services Act. It's not on a case-by-case basis; it's a provincial statute.
In this particular case you're saying, "Once we transfer services over to the municipality, we're going to do it case by case." It's not good enough. You need to have the protection of a statute because we know what's going to happen case by case. The ASBs are not going to come to the provincial government requesting that the government put inside the memorandums of understanding clear protection for French-language services. It's not going to happen.
You had said it was put in place to obligate the province, not municipalities. Your comment at the beginning was that when the province put in place Bill 8 in the 1980s, it was done in order to obligate us in designated areas when it came to provincial services, not municipal services. You're right. That's exactly what the policy decision was by the provincial government. But it was never contemplated by the provincial government at that point that we were going to transfer over the majority of services that were then and are now provided by the province.
Ambulance services: Nobody would have thought in the 1980s we'd be transferring ambulances over to the municipalities. Daycare: Never did we think we were going to transfer that over to the municipalities. Public health, social housing, homes for the aged: Those were not things that we were planning on transferring over to the municipalities.
When we had that debate, it was to protect those services. That's what it was all about. I remember the debates. I remember watching them well. People were saying, "I call an ambulance and I can't speak English and I can't get the ambulance attendant or the person answering the phone at the other end to understand what I'm trying to say." The government put in that statute in order to protect francophones when it came to the ability to interact with the government with those provincial services. Your government is deciding later that you're going to transfer over services to the municipality that used to be provincial services. I'm sorry; that doesn't go with me.
To the parliamentary assistant to northern development and mines, I want to say -- and I've got to say again, this debate should be in French. But for the record, I'm going to make these comments and decide what I do after that. You want to prescribe to other acts is the intent of this legislation, Bill 12. You want to make sure this bill is in compliance with other provincial acts. If that's the case, let's make it compliant with Bill 8. Bill 8 is a provincial statute. We all want to be compliant with our provincial policies. Make it consistent and prescribe it according to Bill 8. Basically that was your argument, that you wanted to make it prescribe. I say make it prescribe to Bill 8.
I ask the parliamentary assistants to respond and hopefully change their minds and to make sure we're going to adopt this amendment, because this is not a question of extending services; this is a question of keeping what we've got.
Mr Spina: I appreciate your argument. I have to I guess reiterate and perhaps clarify that the objection is not based on whether or not the language rights are entitled. Rather, it's a technical one. If we entered, for example, into an ASB area, district -- we create a board under application and proposal -- and there was a particular area that may not have been covered by the zones under Bill 8, then by prescribing it here in Bill 12, the concern we have from a technical point of view is that this could require perhaps a dozen other acts to be entirely amended in order to conform so that all of the acts are consistent with each other.
By allowing the flexibility to be here in Bill 12 at the minister's order, we feel there's no question that it can be and should be compliant with Bill 8, Bill 108 and the zoning that has already taken place within the province where French language rights are respected and implemented.
That's the only real technical reason for objecting to the clauses. We do not want Bill 12 to begin to prescribe how the services will be delivered where for half a dozen or a dozen other acts.
We just want to ensure compliance as opposed to being prescriptive. This bill is permissive legislation. You know that. If we were creating something like you've described, Bill 108 and the other Who Does What bills with the exchange of services upward and downward from the province to the municipalities, I could understand that argument being made in those cases. Those services are very particular. The fundamental problem is that these services tend to be fairly broad-range, and we want to ensure that it is compliant and not prescriptive. That's the basic underlying disagreement with the motion as it is stated at this point, with all due respect, sir.
The Vice-Chair: You raised the issue a number of times on the question of translation. I have been advised that room 151 is available. Obviously, normally this is done prior to the convening of the committee. I'm also advised that it takes about half an hour to have it set up in order to be able to do this. I do have the authority to call a recess and reconvene then in 30 minutes in room 151.
Mr Bisson: Merci beaucoup, madame la Présidente.
The committee recessed from 1055 to 1131.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to resume. Just for the information of the committee, if you'll look, the French is two and English is one.
Mr Bisson has moved subsection 41(11). The discussion continues.
M. Bisson : Je veux qu'on soit clair sur ce qu'on fait ici aujourd'hui. Le gouvernement introduit le projet de loi 12. Ce projet de loi va donner à ceux dans les municipalités dans le nord l'habilité de créer des régies régionales qui vont avoir l'habilité de gérer certains services que la province est en train de transférer aux municipalités.
Le problème dans le nord de l'Ontario est qu'on n'a pas de municipalité régionale comme dans le sud, et une fois que la province commence à transférer de gros services comme les ambulances et d'autres services, ça devient bien difficile parce qu'on n'a pas de régie régionale capable d'adopter la responsabilité de gérer ces services.
Premièrement, je veux mettre sur le record que je ne pense pas que ces services-là doivent être transférés au premier lieu. Mais quoi qu'il arrive, en transférant ces services, le gouvernement par le biais de la première partie de la législation dit : «On va donner à cette régie régionale qu'on va créer sous ce projet de loi, le service de la garde d'enfants, sous la section 41(1) ; on va donner aux municipalités locales à travers leur régie, le droit de gérer la loi sur le programme Ontario au travail,» qui est un service provincial présentement protégé sous la Loi 8, Loi sur les services en français -- pareil à la garde d'enfants ; «le service de santé publique prévu par la Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé, encore un service qui est protégé sous la Loi 8 ; on va transférer le logement social, qui est présentement une régie provinciale couverte sous la Loi 8, qui dit que si un francophone se pointe au bureau du logement social, il a le droit de demander des services en français sous la protection de la Loi 8. On transfère ce service aux municipalités et à la régie qu'on a créée dans ce projet de loi ; on transfère les services d'ambulances terrestres prévus sous la Loi sur les ambulances.»
Encore présentement, si je demeure dans une région désignée parce que cela est un service provincial, j'ai le droit de demander les services en français. On transfère ces services à la régie locale. Les foyers pour les personnes âgées, prévus par la Loi sur les foyers pour personnes âgées et les maisons de repos -- encore un service présentement couvert, désigné sous la Loi 8, qui dit que si je suis un francophone aîné, je peux avoir des services en français à mon foyer pour personnes âgées. On transfère cette responsabilité aux municipalités par le biais de cette régie.
Donc il y a six services essentiels qu'on transfère aux municipalités qui sont déjà gérés par la province de l'Ontario pour la plupart, qui sont des services protégés sous là Loi 8.
Deuxièmement, la section 41(2) dit que si les municipalités décident à travers des régies locales, régionales, de gérer d'autres services au-dessus des six qu'on transfère, on a le droit de demander au ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines de nous donner la responsabilité de gérer les services suivants.
Les services qui favorisent le développement économique. Par exemple à Timmins, il y a ce qu'on appelle Timmins Economic Development Corp. Les régies locales vont peut-être décider qu'elles veulent faire ça dans toutes les municipalités et offrir ce service en commun à travers les régies. Présentement, c'est un service qui n'est pas désigné sous la Loi 8, un des seuls.
Les services des aéroports : Si c'est un aéroport fédéral, on est présentement couvert sous la Loi sur les services en français faisant affaire avec le gouvernement fédéral, et le gouvernement fédéral de M. Chrétien est déjà en train de transférer les aéroports fédéraux aux municipalités. Ce qui va arriver avec nos services en français est un autre débat pour la Chambre des communes. Mais quant à nous, la province, la plupart des aéroports des villes comme Kirkland Lake, Hearst, Kapuskasing et d'autres communautés sont des aéroports provinciaux, et un aéroport provincial doit offrir des services en français. Si je suis un passager sur une ligne aérienne, si je vais embarquer sur Bearskin Airlines ou Commercial Aviation ou n'importe laquelle de ces compagnies-là, j'ai le droit, quand je me pointe à l'aéroport, de demander des services en français parce que c'est protégé sous la Loi 8.
Troisièmement, on dit l'aménagement relatif à l'utilisation sous l'aménagement du territoire -- ça, c'est les «planning boards» -- est un autre service qu'on peut transférer.
Important, numéro quatre : on peut demander aux municipalités à travers notre régie régionale que la province nous transfère les fonctions administratives et la poursuite prévue aux terres de la personne sous la Loi sur les infractions provinciales. On a eu ce débat et on a donné sous la Loi 108, justement l'hiver passé, l'habilité aux municipalités d'aller rechercher les responsabilités de gérer les infractions provinciales à la municipalité -- aux services des municipalités. On dit dans ce projet de loi qu'on va donner ce droit à la régie régionale qu'on va créer sous la loi 12, et présentement si c'est un service qui est provincial, c'est un service premièrement qui est désigné sous la Loi 8, donc j'ai le droit de demander des services en français à ma cour provinciale. Justement, les municipalités qui ont choisi de prendre les services à travers la Loi 108 du printemps passé ont le droit, grâce à un amendement qui a été mis en place, d'avoir une protection minime de nos services en français si les municipalités prennent la responsabilité de gérer les infractions provinciales. On a déjà fait le précédent dans cette assemblée : demander la législation d'allouer un amendement qui aurait protégé d'une manière minime du moins les services. Ma position est que dans la Loi 108, l'amendement qu'on a adopté ne protège pas directement de manière concrète les services en français, mais nous donne du moins l'habilité d'aller à la cour pour nous assurer devant un juge provincial que nos droits ont été violés, ayant été jugés devant un tribunal municipal qui était seulement fait en anglais. Il faut du moins cette protection aux francophones quand on transfère.
La gestion des déchets et les services policiers prévus par la Loi sur les services policiers : encore, si on demeure dans une municipalité couverte sous la Loi 8 et que la police provinciale offre des services, elle doit offrir des services en français sous la Loi 8. Il n'y a pas de «peut-être, on pense qu'on va le faire» ; c'est une obligation législative sous la Loi sur les services en français.
La capacité, des moyens d'intervenir dans des cas d'urgence dans le cadre de la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence, n'est pas présentement couverte sous la Loi 8, et ça, on comprend. C'est peut-être quelque chose qui doit l'être, et autres : routes et ponts, infrastructures et cetera.
Je viens juste de faire une liste, qui n'est pas mal énorme, des services qui sont provinciaux et qui sont payés et gérés par la province de l'Ontario, et c'est des services qui sont protégés sous la Loi 8. Si je suis francophone ou anglophone ou francophile et que je me pointe vers un bureau d'un de ces services-là, présentement j'ai le droit, une fois que je m'en vais au bureau, de dire, «Moi, Gilles Bisson, je veux être servi en français.» Ils doivent le faire sous la Loi 8. On a fait cette loi en 1986. Dans le temps, les trois partis ont été d'accord -- le parti de M. Harris, le parti de M. Rae et le gouvernement de M. Peterson -- et ils ont fait un projet de loi qui dit : «On est tous d'accord, les partis. On croit que nos francophones doivent avoir leurs services offerts en français et on a mis en place, à l'unanimité de la Chambre, un projet de loi qui dit que si un francophone se pointe pour des services provinciales dans une région désignée, on va lui offrir des services en français.» Jamais on n'a pensé pour deux secondes en 1980 qu'on était pour transférer tous ses services-là, qu'on avait protégés sous la Loi 8, aux municipalités. On n'a jamais attendu à ce qu'on était prêt à prendre cette position. Donc le gouvernement a établi la loi pour couvrir les services provinciaux, oui, mais jamais avec l'intention que tous ses services-là pourraient être transférés aux municipalités.
1140
Là, le gouvernement par le biais de la Loi 12 a dit, «On va transférer tous ces services provinciaux aux municipalités, on vous les donne, les six essentiels dans la législation, les six qu'on a nommés, et les huit autres qu'on a nommés au-dessus de la deuxième section de la loi, si les municipalités veulent les avoir. Le gouvernement par la porte en arrière est en train de nous ôter nos droits sous la Loi 8. C'est pour cette raison que le parti NPD emmène cet amendement qui dit très simplement que, quand vous transférez les services de la province aux municipalités, dans la régie locale, la régie régionale qu'on crée sous ce projet de loi, on demande que les services soient protégés pour les francophones. On demande que, si un francophone se pointe vers l'aéroport de Kirkland Lake, ou s'il s'en va se pointer vers la ville de Timmins pour demander des services du système de logement, ou vers n'importe quel autre service provincial qui est transféré, comme les ambulances, nous, les francophones, on va encore avoir notre droit garantie sous la Loi 8.
Le gouvernement à ce point-ci a parlé sur le projet de loi et a dit : «Non, on ne va pas supporter l'amendement du NPD, que l'assignation qui a été mise en avant par l'assistant parlementaire aux Affaires civiques et aussi aux Affaires du développement du Nord et des Mines, nous disent-ils, on ne veut pas le faire parce qu'on pense que ça va devenir un peu compliqué.» C'est la manière dont vous l'avez expliqué, monsieur l'assistant parlementaire. On va le laisser s'exprimer lui-même, mais la manière dont j'ai appris ca : si on transfère les services à travers la province aux municipalités, on veut s'assurer que ce projet de loi respecte toutes les autres lois provinciales et que toutes les autres lois provinciales soient respectées sous la Loi 12. C'est pour cette raison qu'il ne voulait pas supporter mon amendement. Je veux vous rappeler que la Loi 8 est une loi provinciale, et si on va respecter toutes les lois, pourquoi exclurait-on la Loi 8, la Loi sur les services en français ? Donc, je ne pense pas que cette assignation-là tienne debout.
Le deuxième point que l'assistant parlementaire a fait, avec tout respect est : «Mais l'autre point est que ça devient compliqué. Une fois qu'on transfère les services aux municipalités» -- je veux que vous clarifiiez ce point, ce que vous avez dit toute à l'heure, qu'une fois qu'on transfère les services aux municipalités et si on accepte l'amendement de l'NPD, de protéger les droits aux francophones comme dans la Loi 8, ça va devenir pas mal difficile de décider comment traiter certaines régions. J'utilise comme exemple que si on a une partie de la géographie qui a présentement une protection sous la Loi 8 -- on va dire que c'est un carré -- et qu'on transfère des services à la régie régionale qui devient plus grande là où c'est déjà protégé sous la Loi 8, comment est-ce qu'on va s'adapter pour être capables de dire qu'on donne tous les services en français pour ceux qui sont dehors où c'était protégé sous la Loi 8.
Je dis à l'assistant parlementaire que je pense que ça peut s'arranger très simplement. On dit, soit on prendra une décision au comité et à travers l'assemblé qu'on va s'assurer que tous les francophones on droit à ces services dans les régies, soit la majorité des citoyens sont couverts sous la Loi 8 et on étend ces services-là pour toutes les personnes dans la régie, soit on exclut ceux en dehors de la région de la Loi 8. Il y a un couple de manières de faire l'approche, et j'aimerais demander premièrement, avant que je voi l'assistant parlementaire, au conseil législatif la question suivante. Si j'ai bien compris l'assistant parlementaire, il nous dit qu'une fois qu'on transfère les services aux municipalités à travers les régies, et que la régie est plus grande que la superficie d'où on trouve les protections sous la Loi 8, en d'autres mots une région désignée sous la Loi 8, et la régie est plus grande, qu'est-ce qu'on fait avec ceux qui tombent en dehors des régions désignées par la Loi 8 ? J'aimerais avoir peut-être l'opinion du conseil législatif : est-ce que c'est une préoccupation, et si oui, comment est-ce qu'on peut arriver à clarifier ce point ?
M. Christopher Wernham : Je pense qu'on pourrait demander au conseiller juridique du ministère de répondre à votre question à travers la présidente, parce que moi, je suis nullement spécialiste des questions de politique dans ce domaine. Je suis simplement ici pour aider le comité à éclairer des questions de rédaction législative, la clarté des mots, par exemple.
M. Bisson : Avec tout respect au conseil du ministère, la même question.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Ritchie.
Mr John Ritchie: My French is not good enough. I'm afraid I will have to speak in English.
The policy of the government as I understand it is to proceed on a program-by-program basis in a situation of local services realignment. In these instances you're talking about, with complicated boundary changes and so on, the minister would be in a position to take a look at each program to ensure that the French-language services were continued by identifying the areas where they are provided and where they should be continued. Then the minister would be able through the order to require that. That's what I understood Mr Spina to say in answer to your question.
M. Bisson : Je comprends qu'un ministre fait partie du problème. Premièrement, vous êtes en train de transférer aux municipalités six services essentiels qui sont établis dans la loi sous 41, donc ce n'est pas programme par programme. Dans ce cas-ci c'est six services qui sont transférés si vous regardez dans le projet de loi 12. Ce sont les services de garde d'enfants, Ontario au travail, protection du système de santé publique, logement, ambulanciers, et les foyers pour aînés. Ça fait six services qu'on transfère, donc ce n'est pas programme par programme. Vous êtes déjà en train de les transférer aux municipalités, puis ils vont avoir besoin de cette législation pour les gérer dans une régie régionale, donc ce n'est pas programme par programme. Vous avez clairement dit qu'il y a six programmes qui y vont, donc, ça c'est la première affaire.
Le point au conseil du ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines, avec respect: on ne veut pas être dans une situation où on a besoin d'attendre, nous les francophones, pour avoir nos droits protégés par un ordre du ministre. C'est pour cette raison-là qu'on a établi la Loi 8. On a dit qu'on allait avoir la Loi 8, qui est très claire. N'importe quel ministre de n'importe quel gouvernement, pas de différence dans les couleurs, on a une protection législative. On ne veut pas être dans une situation où le ministre M. Hodgson ou le ministre M. Bisson ou le ministre M. Bert Johnson décide lui-même, programme par programme, quand il approuve les plans qui sont établis sous le projet de loi 12, quels services vont être établis et donnés aux francophones. C'est contre l'entente de la Loi 8, et je demande encore soit à l'assistant parlementaire ou à son conseil législatif, pour quelle raison voulez-vous aller de cette manière ? Nous, on voit ça comme une perte des droits linguistiques qu'on a. On ne voit pas ça comme avancer, c'est un recul.
The Vice-Chair: I have Mr Rollins next.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I request a recess so we can go into the House.
The Vice-Chair: I would normally wait for the bell.
Mr Rollins: There won't be a bell but there's going to be a vote. I request a recess. I think that has to be dealt with.
The Vice-Chair: If you wish to have a recess, we can do that.
M. Bisson : On revient à 3 h 30 ?
The Vice-Chair: We will be back at 3:30.
The committee recessed from 1149 to 1533 and resumed in room 151.
The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting back to order. I appreciate the members recognize it's late in the day, if we could work closely.
I now turn your attention to section 10, the NDP amendment to subsection 41(11). It's the French language rights. I need a mover for the motion. Oh, it's been moved. Pardon me. It's been moved and it's in debate now. The Chair recognizes M. Bisson.
M. Bisson : Avant notre départ ce matin, on était en plein milieu de la discussion de, pourquoi c'était nécessaire que notre amendement soit adopté. Comme on le sait présentement, on a dans la province la Loi 8, Loi sur les services en français, qui était établie dans les années 80 avec l'approbation des trois partis politiques ici en Ontario. C'était unanime. Ce droit, c'est très simple, veut dire que n'importe quel francophone, ou francophile ou quelqu'un qui demeure en Ontario et qui demande des services en français dans une région désignée, va les avoir. En d'autres mots, si on demeure à Timmins ou à Kapuskasing, où c'est désigné francophone sous la Loi 8, on peut demander des services ambulanciers et d'autres services provinciaux en français.
Le problème c'est que, avec le projet de loi 12, on transfère ces services, qui étaient des services provinciaux, aux municipalités, et que cela tombe en dehors de la Loi 8. Une fois qu'on sort un service de la province et qu'on le donne à une municipalité, la Loi 8 n'applique plus. Donc, on fait un amendement très simple qui dit : une fois qu'on transfère ces services provinciaux, dont on a parlé ce matin, aux municipalités, la Loi 8 doit venir avec. On a un amendement à ce point-ci qui le demande.
Le gouvernement m'a répondu que non, le gouvernement n'était pas d'accord avec cet amendement, que le gouvernement ne voulait pas parce qu'il y trouvait un couple de problèmes. On est rendu au point où j'ai des questions spécifiques sur les problèmes à poser à l'assistant parlementaire.
L'un des problèmes que vous avez annoncés quand on parlait ce matin, c'était que vous trouvez que ça va devenir compliqué. Une fois qu'on aura transféré les services de la province aux municipalités, à une régie régionale qui va desservir la population dans de différentes municipalités avec un service qui était provincial, ça devient difficile. L'exemple que l'assistant parlementaire a utilisé est : «Qu'est-ce qu'on fait si une région désignée sous la Loi 8, pour prendre un exemple, dans une certaine région géographique» -- il sera peut-être plus facile d'expliquer.
Supposons que, pour les membres, cette région-ci sous la section 20 des services en français est désignée sous la Loi 8, ce qui veut dire que n'importe quelle personne qui reste dans la région numéro 20 a, sous la Loi 8, les services en français. Le point que faisait l'assistant parlementaire, c'est que si on a une nouvelle régie qui est créée qui est plus grande que la région numéro 20, comment est-ce que la loi pourra d'une manière adéquate répondre à ce qui arrive aux municipalités qui restent en dehors des régions déjà désignées sous la Loi 8 ? C'est le point qu'a fait l'assistant parlementaire.
Je veux demander un couple de questions bien simples et spécifiques. Est-ce que, premièrement, vous avez un problème avec le fait que les francophones reçoivent ces services en français ? Y a-t-il un problème philosophique ou idéologique de la part de votre gouvernement que les francophones ont accès à ces services ?
The Chair: The question has been directed to the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Spina: With respect to Bill 8, I have no problem with francophones receiving the services under the context of Bill 8 and other acts.
M. Bisson : C'est la réponse à laquelle je m'attendais. Je sais que le gouvernement conservateur en opposition dans les années 80 ont voté pour la Loi 8. Je pense qu'il est logique que le gouvernement conservateur va être consistant avec la position qu'ils ont prise en opposition en 1986, en votant pour la Loi 8. Donc, ce n'est pas ça, la raison. Il faut savoir ce qui est le problème si on veut l'arranger.
La prochaine question que je demande à l'assistant parlementaire, c'est que si vous n'avez pas de problème avec le fait que les francophones ont des services en français sous la Loi 8 sur les services provinciaux, êtes-vous opposé à ce concept, que les francophones reçoivent ces mêmes services en français une fois transférés aux municipalités, idéologiquement ou philosophiquement ?
Mr Spina: No, I have no problem with that concept. In fact, with respect to that, I want to draw to the member's attention a couple of phrases in the bill that we feel would cover this. Do you want to get to that now or would you like me to discuss that afterwards?
M. Bisson : Oui, mais excusez-moi. Je n'ai pas tout compris.
1540
Mr Spina: OK. If you go to -- I understood him, thank you, translator.
M. Bisson : Je sais que M. Spina comprend assez bien le français, avec respect. On s'est déjà parlé.
Mr Spina: If we refer to section 38(1)(j), which is on page 6 of Bill 12, it says that the bill will "(j) provide for such other matters as the minister considers appropriate to facilitate the consolidation of service delivery and ensure ongoing service delivery in the board area."
Then below, in the next section:
"(2) Despite any other provision of this part, an order,
"(a) shall not derogate from standards for the provision of services imposed under any act."
I interpret that as complying with Bill 8 and any other act that is in a position to deliver francophone services where they have been and where they are warranted under the context of the existing act.
M. Bisson : OK. Si votre interprétation de la section 38(2)(a) est, comme vous le dites, en ce qui concerne les transferts aux municipalités, que ces services doivent être en mesure de toutes les autres lois provinciales -- je ne suis pas d'accord que cela veut dire exactement ça, mais si on accepte votre interprétation, pourquoi n'accepteriez-vous pas un amendement qui le met au clair, qu'une fois que l'on transfère les services, ils resteront désignés sous la Loi 8 ?
Mr Spina: The difficulty we have with the amendment is what I explained to you earlier today and previously: that it is very broad in nature, and the structure of your amendment, if it were adopted into this bill, could mean that we run in contravention of some of the other acts in other ways. Where services are not specified in other acts, then we would be imposing the delivery of the services under this act.
In your comments this morning you indicated, monsieur Bisson, that you felt that not adopting this amendment would take rights away from francophones where they are currently being made available. I think that your lobby, shall we say, or your request in your comment about perhaps legislation -- all kinds of legislation, Bill 8 and other -- that ensures francophone rights doesn't go far enough. Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant.
The important fact is that I think you're asking Bill 12 to go beyond its mandate, its context. If you wanted francophone services to be ensured in a greater manner, you should be looking to change other pieces of legislation. The concern is that putting this into Bill 12 compromises a whole lot of other pieces of legislation that we would have to make. In other words, Bill 12 would end up probably being an omnibus bill of some sort and we would have to list almost anything and everything that would be impacted by this. I think that's beyond the scope and the intent of this bill.
M. Bisson : Je ne suis pas d'accord avec cette interprétation. Vous dites que la raison pourquoi vous n'acceptez pas notre amendement est que la Loi 8 s'étend aux services une fois transférés aux régies régionales qu'on va créer, que ça va nous mettre en contravention avec d'autres lois. Je me demande, et je vous pose la question : quelle autre loi va-t-on contrevenir en s'assurant que les francophones sont protégés sous la Loi 8 ?
Mr Spina: Monsieur Bisson, this morning you listed a number of services that would be coming out of ASBs, whether they are mandatory or optional. In some of the acts, where the services are currently being delivered by the province, they're assured francophone services under the zoning structure of Bill 8. Is that correct?
Mr Bisson: Yep.
Mr Spina: OK. Was that English or French?
Mr Bisson: The "yep" was English. Autrement ça aurait été oui.
Mr Spina: I thought it was my --
M. Bisson: Les traductions, des fois c'est un peu mélangé, hein ? Yep : oui. C'est un anglicisme.
Mr Spina: Thank you. Merci. In any case, where the services are currently being delivered by the province, the minister has given the assurance that it is his intention to provide the continuation of bilingual services, in appropriate instances, through the order establishing the area services board. Where services are already under the responsibility of the municipality in terms of administration, even though they may be funded -- things like the social services, for example, where they're administered by the municipality but they're 80% funded by the province -- there wasn't the obligation, shall we say, under Bill 8 to deliver services on a bilingual basis if I understand it correctly.
In that regard it may not change, and I'm not sure if I'm picking the right service here, but where the responsibility was municipal before and it now comes under the responsibility of the ASB, this is where the problem could arise that we are now imposing that bilingual service, whether it's justified or not, to that municipal government. That is the reason why it has been stated by the minister that it is his intention, and I can quote from the assurance we've been given, to provide for the continuation of bilingual services in the appropriate instances through the order that would establish the area services board. I also refer back to the compliance and "no derogation" clause that I quoted to you earlier.
Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): This is the concern I have in this issue, especially just coming out of a by-election in a very francophone community. In participating in debate in the town of Chelmsford and listening to the community, it's the assurance that we're after. My friend M. Bisson's Bill 17 as well as his amendment are exactly what the constituents of Nickel Belt and francophone communities are looking at. They're looking at that guarantee of French services, francophone services, being there, especially when we're looking at some things -- for example, ambulance services, social housing, social services -- being downloaded.
If I am correct in hearing you, you're telling me, and when I read the amendment, that there's a doubt. In your answer to Mr Bisson there seemed to be a doubt that those francophone services would be continued. I believe what you're saying is that they may not be continued, or it's your interpretation. What we need for francophone communities is the guarantee that those francophone services are going to be there. That'd why we need Mr Bisson's amendment to that.
When you start looking in areas in the Nickel Belt riding, when you start looking in Chapleau, for example, we have a vast community in Chapleau in the area of Planer Road where the only language is French. The services can't be downloaded on to a municipality to make that choice, and that's what I'm hearing you say. Maybe you can clarify that for me, because there may be a problem with the interpretation device in English, but I'm not sure. Maybe I can get clarification on the statement in answer to Mr Bisson's last question. There seemed to be some uncertainty in the way it was presented.
1550
Mr Spina: Monsieur Morin, I can assure you that it was in the minister's statement that it is his intention to provide for the continuation, and I stress that word, "continuation," of bilingual services in appropriate instances through the order establishing each area services board, when and if that area services board is in fact established.
Mr Blain Morin: So what is, if I may --
Mr Spina: Yes, sure.
Mr Blain Morin: Being a rookie, I apologize in advance if I'm not following parliamentary procedure.
The Chair: No apologies necessary.
Mr Bisson: It never stopped me before.
Mr Blain Morin: You have to be careful with those things.
Could you tell me what "appropriate instances" would be? That seems to be an ambiguous statement. What's an "appropriate instance"?
Mr Spina: Under the context, in terms of Bill 8, there are zones in this province that are designated bilingual. Where the population warrants the bilingual services, it is their right to receive services in French.
Mr Blain Morin: Who makes the determination? The minister?
Mr Spina: It's based on Bill 8 and the minister.
M. Bisson : Écoutez, j'ai un très gros problème avec ce que vous dites, monsieur l'assistant parlementaire. Ce que vous essayez de dire quand on vous écoute nous rassure. On a l'impression quand vous parlez -- je sais que vous êtes sincère. Je ne veux pas dire que vous n'êtes pas sincère, parce que je vous connais. Vous êtes un homme honorable. Mais je sais, et vous savez et nous savons tous ici à l'Assemblée législative, que le problème est que la Loi 8 sur les services en français ne s'applique pas aux services municipaux. C'est là le problème.
Je veux revenir au point. Si on regarde les instances du projet de loi, et vous avez attiré notre attention sur la section 38(1)(j), premièrement vous avez dit que cela dit que, quand ça vient au pouvoir du ministre, «Lorsqu'il reçoit une proposition qui satisfait aux exigences de l'article 37, le ministre peut» -- et là on a toutes ces instances-là et on arrive à (j) -- «prévoir les autres questions qu'il estime appropriées pour faciliter le regroupement des services fournis et assurer la prestation continue des services dans le territoire de la régie.» Le mot clé, monsieur l'assistant parlementaire, c'est qu'on parle de prévoir les autres questions que lui estime appropriées.
Ce n'est pas une exigence sous la loi. C'est seulement dire que le ou la ministre, lui ou elle, a le pouvoir de déterminer qu'est-ce qui est approprié. C'est le premier problème. Je veux l'éclairer. Cette section du projet de loi dit qu'on donne un pouvoir au ministre pour que le ou la ministre puisse dire : «Oui, je pense que certaines prévisions doivent être faites pour une régie de services régionaux dans cette application et je vais déterminer ce que c'est.» Ce n'est pas prescrit dans la loi. C'est seulement donner au ministre un pouvoir.
Deuxièmement, quand on regarde 38(2), on lit :
«(2) Malgré toute autre disposition de la présente partie, l'arrêté :
«(a) ne porte pas atteinte aux normes de prestation des services imposées aux termes de toute loi ;»
On parle de toute loi. Si la Loi 8 dit que les services provinciaux sont encore protégés une fois qu'on fait le transfert aux municipalités, cette section nous donnera notre protection. Mais le problème est que la Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux services municipaux. On dit dans (2)(a) que le ministre, une fois ayant mis un ordre, un plan en place qui crée une régie locale, il va suivre toutes les autres lois provinciales pour s'assurer que les municipalités suivent tous les autres ordres provinciaux. Mais le problème est que ce n'est pas un service provincial qu'on a ; c'est un service municipal. Ça veut dire que la Loi 8 n'applique pas. C'est pour ça que nous, on dit qu'on a besoin de l'amendement.
Je crois, je veux croire, parce que je ne viens pas ici pour m'assigner avec vous -- il faut mettre sur le record, et je veux le dire, que vous avez été, comme gouvernement sur ce projet de loi, corrects. Vous avez fait une consultation au comité législatif. Vous avez permis au monde dans le nord de la province de venir nous parler. On a pris les recommandations de la part de la population qui est venue nous donner des idées -- pas toutes les idées -- comment améliorer la loi, et le gouvernement, avec «crédit», a fait des amendements majeurs sur la législation, et on respecte, on dit «Bravo !». Vous avez fait une bonne job. Donc, ce n'est pas une question de vouloir vous taper sur la tête pour la politique ici.
Si on dit que le gouvernement et l'opposition travaillent ensemble sur ce projet de loi parce qu'on s'en va tous dans la même direction, et je sais que votre gouvernement une fois, au troisième parti, à l'opposition en 1986, a supporté la Loi 8, et vous me dites en tant qu'assistant parlementaire au ministre responsable de ce projet de loi que vous croyez que les francophones doivent avoir des garanties législatives, excusez-moi. Il n'est pas là-dedans. Il n'est pas dans le projet de loi. C'est pour ça qu'on a besoin de l'amendement.
Je vous demande directement, faisant affaire avec ces sections-là, les questions suivantes. Quand on lit l'article (j), que le ministre prévoit «les autres questions qu'il estime appropriées», êtes-vous d'accord avec moi quoi ça fait ? C'est donner la capacité au ministre de prendre des décisions sur le plan.
The Chair: Parliamentary assistant, if you'd like to respond, and then the Chair would like to recognize Ms Munro.
M. Bisson : OK, puis je vais revenir avec d'autres questions. Si tu peux répondre à la première question ?
Mr Spina: Yes. Oui.
M. Bisson : Donc la réponse est oui, que ça donne le pouvoir au ministre d'ajuster le plan. Je vais avoir d'autres questions quand ça revient à mon tour. Veux-tu continuer ?
The Chair: Ms Munro, did you have a response, question within the context of what we're discussing?
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Yes, I'd like to think it is within the context of what we're discussing.
I wanted to come back to subsection 38(2). To me, the critical issue here is when the reference is made in 2(a): "shall not derogate from standards for the provision of services imposed under any act." We've heard clearly the responsibility of the minister in Bill 12 in relation to other acts.
While I understand the position taken by Mr Bisson about it being a municipal activity, that fear that things might come to be a municipal activity I think is one that goes against the principle of the bill itself in the fact that each of these activities is in fact a provincial activity; that is, in terms of legislation. When communities make the decision to apply for an ASB, they are doing so under the aegis of all of these pieces of legislation.
It seems to me, then, that this section gives them that responsibility. Just as they must perform all the other functions under certain legislative requirements and mandates, so they must also deal with Bill 8.
The Chair: Monsieur Bisson, do you have a further comment on this section?
M. Bisson : Ce n'est pas vraiment un commentaire. On est dans les questions.
Pour continuer sur la section, (j), on va revenir au point qu'a fait Mme Munro. Je veux continuer le point parce que je pense que ça va clarifier où je m'en vais. Si on est d'accord, monsieur l'assistant parlementaire, que l'article (j) donne au ministre un pouvoir pour faciliter le regroupement de services, est-ce que j'ai raison de croire que cet article (j) ne donne pas une obligation au ministre ?
Mr Spina: I would interpret that as a fair comment, yes.
M. Bisson : En d'autres mots, on est clair que (j) donne le pouvoir au ministre ; (j) ne donne pas d'obligation. C'est très important. Si on s'en allait à la deuxième partie, puis je pense que ça va peut-être clarifier le point que Mme Munro -- je ne sais pas quel est votre comté, madame, excusez-moi -- a soulevé, je veux croire que vous êtes sincère, vraiment. Le problème est qu'on sait qu'une fois que ces services-là seront transférés de la province aux municipalités, ce ne seront plus des services provinciaux. Ils sont mandatés par les lois provinciales qui doivent rencontrer certaines normes quand ça vient à ce service. On va prendre n'importe le quel de ces services ; on va dire les services d'ambulances.
1600
On transfère aux municipalités une responsabilité provinciale gérée par la province. La Loi 8 est écrite d'une manière qui dit qu'un service géré par la province et donné par le gouvernement provincial dans une région désignée doit être offert en français. Le problème, c'est qu'une fois qu'on transfère le service à une municipalité, il n'est plus géré par la province, il est géré par la municipalité, et la Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux services municipaux.
La question que je demande à l'assistant parlementaire est très simple et ça vient, je pense, au point de tout le débat : est-ce qu'une municipalité aujourd'hui en Ontario a la responsabilité de donner des services municipaux en français s'il s'agit d'une région désignée sous la Loi 8 ?
Mr Spina: I want to go back to a comment you made earlier when you asked me, is the minister obligated to follow the rules of clause (j)?
M. Bisson : Il est obligé de suivre les règlements, oui. Je comprends ce que vous dites. Je dis que sous la section (j), ce n'est pas une obligation qu'on donne au ministre ; on dit que c'est un pouvoir qu'on donne au ministre. C'est ça le point que j'ai fait. Mais continuez.
Mr Spina: What I understood from your question was, do these clauses obligate the minister, and my answer to that was yes. I took from your response that you didn't agree with that.
Mr Bisson: No.
Mr Spina: OK.
M. Bisson : On peut revenir sur ce point-là, la question, dans une seconde, mais je veux que vous répondiez à l'autre question que je vous ai posée. Est-ce qu'une municipalité qui est dans une région désignée a présentement une obligation d'offrir des services en français, les services municipaux ?
Mr Spina: Under Bill 8, of course, no, the municipalities are not obligated.
M. Bisson : Exactement.
Mr Spina: What we are saying is that the minister is bound under no derogation, so that if there are francophone services currently being offered under a provincial service that is being delivered and we don't want to derogate from the existing act, it would seem to me that the minister would and should have the power to say, "We must continue these francophone services in the downloading, in the shift of these services from the provincial government to the area services board" if and when it is created.
M. Bisson : Il doit l'avoir, oui, mais il ne l'a pas. C'est ça le problème.
Je veux revenir au point. Vous avez répondu oui à la dernière question, qui est, si une municipalité qui offre des services qui sont en base des services municipaux n'accepte pas la responsabilité d'offrir des services en français sous la Loi 8 parce que ce sont des services municipaux -- et vous êtes d'accord avec ce point. Vous avez répondu que oui. On regarde ce qu'on fait dans ce projet de loi. On transfère aux municipalités des services qui étaient gérés par la province et on dit ; «Tiens, les municipalités, c'est à vous autres. La balle est passée. Allez gérer votre système d'ambulances, allez gérer le système de santé publique, allez gérer, vous autres, le système de logement qu'on appelle Ontario Housing. Allez gérer le bien-être social sous Ontario au travail. Allez gérer ces services-là. C'étaient des services provinciaux protégés sous la Loi 8 d'antan et ils sont maintenant des services municipaux ; ils ne sont plus provinciaux.»
Je pose la question très clairement pour le record : il n'y a pas une obligation dans la loi qui va exiger à une municipalité d'offrir ces services en français s'ils ne choisissent pas de le faire, oui ou non ?
Mr Spina: There is no obligation on the part of the municipality under the strict rules of Bill 8.
M. Bisson : Oui.
Mr Spina: No argument with you on that. However, what we are seeking to achieve here is that the continuation of services to the existing standard or better is continued once the services are transferred from the provincial responsibility to the area services board. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
If you wanted us to impose, and I say that with all respect, the French-language services with all the other services to the individual municipalities, then that is beyond the scope of this bill. It's beyond the objective of this bill, as Ms Munro indicated, because to achieve the goal that you are seeking, I believe -- and this is not an argument with you on whether it should be or not -- is more properly debated and should be included with respect to Bill 8, or perhaps on an individual basis for specific services, whether it was court or social services, police or emergency preparedness.
Mrs Munro: I want to come back to a point you made when you asked Mr Spina about the jurisdiction of Bill 8 over municipal services. I understand the point you were making in relation to the responsibility for francophone services, but I don't think that is the issue here in that what we're saying, and what has been said clearly throughout this piece of legislation, is the opportunity for communities to deliver provincial services. Very clearly, they are bound to maintain the standards of those provincial services. They are legally bound to follow those acts which legislate those particular activities. So, as comes up in here in section 2, they are bound then to follow in the same way that those services would be maintained by Bill 8.
I understand your point about, "Where are municipal services today and how are they delivered?" but that isn't the issue in this bill. These services are to be maintained at a provincial standard, and that's clear in my mind with this whole notion of the derogation.
The Chair: Monsieur Bisson, and then the Chair would recognize after that -- M. Marchi, you wanted to speak as well?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Sergio. You're not the only one.
M. Bisson: J'étais pour dire quelque chose mais je ne vais pas le dire. On va dire ça en privé plus tard.
Non, vous n'avez pas raison. Voici le problème. On va prendre un service, par exemple. On va prendre un des services sous la section 41(1), les foyers pour les personnes âgées prévus par la Loi sur les foyers pour personnes âgées et les maisons de repos.
Votre réponse est à moitié correcte : il y a un acte provincial qui établit des normes quand ça vient aux services et comment on gère nos foyers pour les aînés, pas de question. Mais nulle part dans cette loi est-ce qu'on dit que les services doivent être offerts en français. Il n'y a rien dans la loi qui établit les normes et les règlements, qui établit les services et les places dans les maisons pour les âgées, qui dit, "And by the way, you will offer services in French." Cette loi ne le dit pas du tout. C'est la Loi 8 qui le dit.
On va prendre un autre exemple, les services d'ambulances. Le projet de loi qui établit les normes de services quand ça vient aux ambulances dit que la province est responsable pour les services d'ambulances. Il y a des standards qui sont établis. Il y a des politiques provinciales qu'on doit suivre. Il y a certains règlements sous la loi qu'on doit suivre. On transfère ces services aux municipalités, et oui, les municipalités vont être obligées de suivre les normes de la province comme établies dans la Loi sur les ambulances. Oui. Je suis d'accord sur ce point-là. Le problème ? Allez lire la Loi sur les ambulances. Ça ne dit pas, "By the way, you must give services in French." Ça dit : «Tenez les normes, tenez les standards, tenez ce que vous avez besoin de faire. C'est comme ça que vous avez besoin d'organiser vos services ambulanciers.» Mais elle ne dit jamais, nulle part, qu'on doit offrir les services en français.
On regarde le logement social. Encore, par réglementation du cabinet et par la législation, on établit ces services. Oui, les municipalités vont falloir suivre les règlements établis par la province quand ça vient à la loi provinciale sur le logement, mais il y a encore un problème. Allez lire la loi. Elle ne dit pas du tout que vous allez avoir des services en français. Il n'y a rien dans la loi qui dit ça.
1610
Il n'y a que deux lois dans la province de l'Ontario qui disent qu'on doit donner des services en français. Savez-vous lesquelles ? La première était sous Roy McMurtry, the Courts of Justice Act où aux alentours de 1970 le gouvernement provincial de M. Davis a pris une décision. Ils ont dit que dans les cours -- parce que dans le passé, si tu étais un francophone et tu allais à la cour provinciale et qu'on t'a dit, "Excuse me. We don't speak French," tu n'avais pas de choix. Tu avais besoin de faire ton procès en anglais.
À un point, M. McMurtry, qui était pas mal à l'avant-garde quand ça vient à cette question -- je crois que M. McMurty a pris des pas qui étaient pas mal importants dans la journée, et je lui en donne le crédit -- a dit, "On a besoin d'établir dans la loi des standards qui disent que les francophones ont des droits à exiger que le procès soit fait en français." Or, dans cette loi, oui, il y a l'établissement du droit des francophones d'avoir des services en français.
Même là où on a transféré les infractions provinciales sous la Loi 8 aux municipalités, la manière dont vous-autres avez transféré les services, vous avez oublié d'inclure cette provision mise dans la loi par M. McMurtry. C'est là qu'on a eu le débat l'année passée. Nous, les NPD, sous mon nom, avons mis un amendement qui disait qu'on devait suivre les mêmes règlements qui étaient établis dans le Courts of Justice Act. Je ne vais pas rentrer dans le débat, mais éventuellement vous avez fait un amendement qui était pas mal faible, mais vous n'en avez fait qu'un seul quand même.
Le point, madame Munro, est que ce sont les seuls services établis par une loi, la loi sur le système judiciaire, où il y a une provision qui dit qu'on doit donner les services en français. C'est la seule. Il n'y a aucune autre loi provinciale quand ça vient aux services qui dit qu'on doit donner des services en français.
Donc, j'arrive à la deuxième partie de mon assignation. C'est pour ça qu'on a fait la Loi 8. La Loi 8 a été mise en place parce que, en 1986, à travers l'accord de M. Peterson et de M. Rae, on a dit : «Écoute. Ça fait assez longtemps que les francophones sont en arrière du bus. Les francophones ont besoin de prendre leur place en Ontario. Ils ont besoin d'avancer dans la ligne. Ça fait trop longtemps qu'ils se trouvent en arrière quand ça vient aux services.»
On a reconnu en 1986, dans l'accord des MM. Peterson et Rae, et avec l'appui de M. Harris en opposition cette journée-là -- M. Villeneuve, le ministre, était là, ainsi que M. Sterling et d'autres de vos ministres d'aujourd'hui. Ils ont dit, «On reconnaît que dans les lois provinciales d'aujourd'hui, quand ça vient à l'établissement des services en santé, en soins de longue durée, aux services policiers, à tout service provincial, à l'exception des services judiciaires, il n'y a aucune provision pour assurer pour les francophones des services en français.» C'est là qu'on a établi la Loi 8, la Loi sur les services en français.
La loi a dit, «Dès ce temps-là, tout service donné par la province, tout service qui est établi par une loi provinciale ou par règlement du cabinet -- les services de santé etc -- va être établi d'une manière où les francophones dans une région désignée peuvent avoir des services.» C'est pour ça qu'on a fait la Loi 8.
Autrefois, et l'assistant parlementaire a fait le point d'une manière, je pense, un peu plus tôt, il n'y avait que trois manières de donner des services en français : soit on voit à chacune des lois, on ouvre chaque loi dans la province et on y insère un amendement qui dit, «On va donner des services en français» -- mais ce n'était pas pratique. Cela aurait été un gros bill omnibus, et on a dit, «On ne veut pas faire ça.»
Le deuxième choix qu'on a eu, c'était d'établir une loi qui dirait, «Sur tout service provincial et tout acte provincial, on donne les services en français,» et c'est la manière dont a voulu le faire.
Ou on aurait besoin d'avoir un amendement à la constitution qui dirait, «L'Ontario est officiellement bilingue.» En 1986, les politiciens du jour n'avaient pas assez de courage pour dire, «Oui, on va prendre la prochaine étape.» C'est quelque chose que je voudrais redresser dans le prochain parlement quand on revient au gouvernement.
Tout ce que je veux faire avec vous-autres, je veux me protéger. Je veux savoir que, quand je me réveille demain matin, les services en français vont être là tels qu'ils étaient hier. C'est tout ce que je veux avoir.
Le point que je fais est que, quand vous et l'assistant parlementaire dites, «La section (j) et la section 2(a) ou la section 2(b) assurent que les services vont être donnés en français», vous n'avez pas raison. Ce n'est pas le cas, parce que les normes provinciales établies dans la loi n'exigent pas que les services soient donnés en français. La loi donne seulement les normes de livraison des services. Le problème, c'est qu'on les transfère aux municipalités et «bang», on sort de la Loi 8.
Je reviens à ma question, qui est très simple : si on passe ce projet de loi sans amendements -- et j'aimerais poser la question à votre avocat. C'est correct, monsieur l'assistant parlementaire ? Je ne me rappelle plus son premier nom.
Mr Ritchie: John.
M. Bisson : Si on passe ce projet de loi demain et on ne fait aucun amendement tel que j'ai proposé, dans une ville du nord de l'Ontario -- on va en prendre une, pas pour la signaler mais en exemple : Thunder Bay. Ils ont en place une loi d'intérêt privé qui dit : «Nous-autres, on est officiellement unilingues. On ne donne pas de services en français.» Est-ce que votre loi va exiger qu'eux s'assurent que les francophones vont avoir des services en français quand ça vient aux ambulances ?
Mr Ritchie: If the minister's order required them to, then yes, they would be.
M. Bisson : Exactement. C'est le point qu'on fait, mais il n'y a pas d'assurance dans la loi que le ministre a besoin de donner l'ordre. C'est ça le problème, non ?
Je veux être clair : le problème qu'on a, c'est qu'on met toute notre confiance dans le ministre. Vous êtes correct quand vous dites, dans la section, que si le ministre exige que la Loi 8 soit appliquée, il peut l'exiger dans l'ordre. Je suis d'accord avec vous. Le problème est que si le ministre n'exige pas que ce droit-là soit dans l'ordre et la municipalité dit non, il n'y a aucune protection législative pour des services en français. Oui ou non ? L'assistant parlementaire n'y répond pas.
Interjection.
M. Bisson : Bien, écoute.
Mr Ritchie: The whole scheme of the legislation is set up as a framework and an enabling basis and it depends on many, many details in connection with the provision of services and all the rules surrounding it to be set out in the order. This is the way we'd anticipated it and this is one of the things, along with a very large host of others, that we will have to sort out at the time.
I guess our thinking was that it's better to have the proposal in front of us with local people sorting out a lot of details among themselves and the facts of the case being, as best they can, worked out among the people affected and then leave the final decision-making and the final pulling together of it through the minister's order.
That was the approach taken with French-language services and maybe a couple of hundred other things that I suppose could have been set out. If we could anticipate everything from proposals to issues to new legislation, we could have written a 200- or 300-page bill and tried to cover everything into the future, but this took an opposite approach.
Mr Sergio: I have a question of staff as well. If I understood well with my rusty French the points by Mr Bisson, it is that he doesn't want to see the legislation as it is proposed with respect to French services, but rather he wants to see incorporated the rights of the French-language services, if Gilles will listen to me --
M. Bisson : J'écoute. Excuse-moi, monsieur Sergio.
1620
Mr Sergio: S'il m'écoute, ça me fait plaisir. Je ne suis pas certain que j'ai bien compris votre point de vue regardant ces lois-ci.
Allow me for a second -- je vais poser une question en français si je peux expliquer --
M. Bisson : Excellent.
M. Sergio : Votre problème avec le projet de loi ici --
M. Bisson : L'amendement, oui.
M. Sergio : Il n'y a pas de garantie que les services en français soient inclus partout dans la loi et que c'est seulement une proposition.
M. Bisson : Mon amendement dit que si le service est transféré aux municipalités, la Loi 8 va s'appliquer.
M. Sergio : Exactement. Vous voulez quelque chose d'universel.
The Chair: Excuse me, through the Chair, please. I think it's important. If you want to have a chat, you can step outside. Thanks.
M. Sergio : Donc, vous voulez quelque chose d'universel, que les services en français soient procurés partout, y inclus les municipalités.
M. Bisson : Oui. Si la province transfère ce qui est un service provincial, maintenant couvert sous la Loi 8, qui a été transféré à travers le président et transféré aux municipalités, on veut que la Loi 8 s'applique. En d'autres mots les villes de Timmins, de Thunder Bay, de Sudbury, toute la gang, si elles rentrent dans ce projet de loi, seraient obligées de donner les services qui étaient provinciaux et les offrir en français.
Mr Sergio: Just to clarify again for staff here, Mr Chair, I guess the point he's making, and I have it clear, is that he wants to see the laws of French-language services, if the province were to unload those services on to the municipalities, so that the municipalities would have to provide those services in French as well.
The Chair: If I could just make sure, this is a very important --
Mr Spina: Is that included? Could I have an answer from staff, please?
The Chair: Yes, that's what I'm really trying to do, is to contain the debate. We're looking at a very specific interpretation of Mr Bisson's and your question and I think we should rest much on what the legal counsel says. I think it's an important response that may be able to deal with this particular amendment.
Mr Ritchie: If I understood the question correctly, you're asking whether there is a provision in the bill that would require French-language services to continue where they are now being provided by the service provider and there's a transfer of responsibility for the service to the area services board, and we're assuming that French-language services are provided at the present time; would that continue because of some provision in the bill? Is that the question?
Mr Sergio: I think he wants to see guaranteed in the legislation that services in French are provided if and when needed at the local level as well. Will they be provided?
Mr Ritchie: That is the intention, to require the continuation of French-language services, where they are now in existence, through the minister's order.
Mr Sergio: Is that an imposition on the local municipality to provide services in French?
Mr Ritchie: There will be if the order requires it.
The Chair: There is a semantics argument or an argument of interpretation here and I think we've had it described to us, through the Chair's understanding, if there is a service that is in continuity and being offered in French, then it would be downloaded, then my impression of what Mr Ritchie is saying is that the intention is to continue that service on, abrogated by that section Mr Spina referred to. Is that right?
Mr Sergio: Couldn't we eliminate that "if"? I think that "if" is a big stumbling block.
The Chair: Clearly I think that's -- the next person in order, if we can't contain this, we'll go back to Mr Bisson and then we'll recognize the member for Nickel Belt.
M. Bisson : Monsieur le Président, je pense que le point que vous avez fait est important. Je demande la question, qui est très simple: on sait que Thunder Bay a passé une résolution locale qui dit, «Nous, on est une municipalité unilingue,» et justement ça fait six mois où le présent maire a essayé de passer une résolution pour renverser cette décision précédente, que la municipalité de Thunder Bay n'est plus considérée comme municipalité unilingue anglaise, et ça n'a pas passé. En d'autres mots aujourd'hui, ce mois, cette journée, la ville de Thunder Bay est encore officiellement déclarée une municipalité unilingue anglaise.
J'écoute les assurances de l'avocat pour le ministère et l'assistant parlementaire qui ont dit que, quand on transfère ces services-là aux municipalités, si le ministre donne la garantie dans la loi -- ce n'est pas dans la loi -- si le ministre décide dans l'ordre de s'assurer que les services sont donnés en français, les municipalités vont être obligées. Mais, toute la responsabilité est avec le ministre, pas dans la loi. Le ministre peut décider non, de ne pas le faire, ou oui, de le faire.
La question que je vous pose est très simple. Supposons que la ville de Thunder Bay, qui est unilingue anglaise, dit, «Nous, on ne veut pas avoir de services en français ; on décide qu'on ne veut pas les donner pour quelques raison.» Est-ce qu'un ministre peut dire non ? Est-ce qu'un ministre peut dire dans la loi, «OK, on ne va pas donner les services en français» ? Y a-t-il cette habilité dans la loi ?
The Chair: A response, please.
Mr Spina: Mr Bisson, I think we have to keep in mind three basic facts here. First of all, under Bill 8 we have designated zones in the province. Second, if a municipality chooses to do what you describe, declare itself unilaterally unilingual in English, or in French, I am guessing here that if they are in a zoned area, they are contravening the act and cannot do that.
M. Bisson : Non, pas du tout.
Mr Spina: That was my understanding.
M. Bisson : Non, pas du tout. Une municipalité peut se déclarer unilingue anglaise ou française. Ce n'est pas une contravention de la Loi 8 parce que ça ne s'applique pas aux municipalités. La question que je vous demande est très simple, puis c'est là où je veux avoir une réponse : si la ville de Thunder Bay, qui a décidé qu'ils sont unilingues anglais, qu'ils n'ont pas d'obligation sous la Loi 8 présentement, dit au ministre, «Nod, nod, wink, wink, ne nous obligez pas à faire des services en français,» est-ce que le ministre peut dire, «OK, on ne donne pas les services en français à Thunder Bay» ? A-t-il le droit sous la loi, oui ou non ?
The Chair: Mr Spina.
Mr Spina: The clarification would be this: Under the context of the clauses that we have in Bill 12, we rely on the phrase or the clause that says: "Despite any other provision of this part, an order, (a) shall not derogate from standards for the provision of services imposed under any act." If we are dealing with a provincial service that is being transferred to an area services board and the minister sees fit that the continuation of bilingual service will be present under the proposal of the ASB, then my guess is that the municipality will have to abide. However, if you have a previously existing municipal service which was not covered under "bilingual act" --
M. Bisson : Tu ne réponds pas à la question que je t'ai demandée.
Mr Spina: -- then I would think that the minister's order cannot suddenly create a bilingual environment where one did not exist on a municipal service. On a provincial service, that is where we can talk about the derogation of standards that we will not expect to happen because that is covered in the clause, "The minister is obligated not to derogate those standards." Therefore, in my interpretation, if the service provided by the province on a bilingual basis were given to an area services board and it is now the responsibility of the municipality, then if he is going to maintain the standard, it makes sense to me that the bilingual standard should be maintained as well. However, if it was a previous municipal standard, I don't think it's fair that the province now impose a bilingual standard.
M. Bisson : Ce n'est pas ça qu'on demande.
The Chair: Excuse me, through the Chair. I want to recognize the sequence of speakers, because you have had ample time, and I just want to recognize the other contributors: M. Morin and then M. Sergio, please.
1630
Mr Blain Morin: Perhaps, if I could, I'll ask the parliamentary assistant to explain just that last part to me again. What I'm hearing is that there was an automatic transfer of francophone services on downloaded services. For example, we're bringing land ambulance services down and they were francophone services before; they were provincial services. You bring them down -- they were given at one time as francophone services, as bilingual services -- and it's not automatic if, as my friend M. Bisson says, you now have a municipality like Thunder Bay that has passed a bylaw saying, "We're English only." When the services are transferred down, what I'm understanding is that the minister is going to have to make an order to continue those services in French if you have a municipality that designates itself as English only. Is that what I'm hearing? And then who applies for the order?
Mr Spina: Let me ask a question. If a service was transferred to an area services board and it was not bilingual where it was before, would that not be a diminution, a reduction in the standard of the delivery of that service?
Mr Blain Morin: But that's not what we're asking for.
Mr Spina: But that's what you are implying, sir.
Mr Blain Morin: No.
Mr Spina: We're saying that there's a certain standard of service that is being provided at this point. I'm suggesting to you, if that service was transferred to an area services board where it was bilingual and it is now being transferred, like land ambulance, and it is no longer a bilingual service, would that not be less than the standard that was there before?
Mr Blain Morin: I'm sorry. I don't --
Mr Bisson: It's a convoluted argument.
Mr Spina: Well, no, hang on. If the land ambulance right now, as you described -- I'm taking your example. If a land ambulance service is being delivered now by the province on a bilingual basis, and that is now transferred to an area services board, but it was not transferred on a bilingual basis, English only, would that not be a reduction in the standard of service that was being provided from one to the other?
Mr Blain Morin: Yes, it would.
Mr Spina: Therefore, my conclusion is that in order to be consistent with that standard, you must transfer and continue the bilingual service from the province to the service delivery agent, which in this case would be the ASB.
Mr Sergio: The question from Mr Bisson is, will the minister act and say, even though you have declared yourself unilingual, no, you have to provide the service in French as well?
Mr Spina: If it was there before, you must. Otherwise you compromise the standard of the bill.
The Chair: That's a pretty clear interpretation. Anybody have any further questions on that?
M. Bisson : Je félicite l'assistant parlementaire, qui est en train de gagner son pain aujourd'hui. Il fait une très bonne job pour le ministre. Si je ne connaissais pas la loi, je penserais qu'il sait de quoi il parle. Mais la vérité -- je ne veux pas dire la vérité ; ce n'est pas parlementaire. Je veux retirer ce commentaire.
La situation est que les services en français ne sont pas garantis sous la Loi sur les ambulances. Il n'y a rien dans la loi qui gère les ambulances qui dit que tu dois faire les services en français. C'est fait sous la Loi 8.
Vous avez utilisé le scénario d'un service qui est présentement bilingue, les ambulances. On le transfère aux municipalités. Si ça arrive à la municipalité puis on donne le service en anglais seulement, est-ce que c'est moins de service qu'avant ? La réponse est oui. C'est oui. Il va sans dire.
Mais, écoute, ça dit sous cette loi, dans l'article 38(2)(a) : «ne porte pas atteinte aux normes de prestation des services imposées aux termes de toute loi.» Le problème c'est que la Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux municipalités. Seulement la Loi sur les ambulances s'applique aux municipalités dans ce cas. Ce qui arrive, il n'y a aucune exigence qui existe dans la Loi sur les ambulances qui veut dire que les services en français vont être offerts. Il n'y est pas. C'est dans la Loi 8 ; c'est ça le point.
La question à laquelle je reviens avec vous est, si on lit cette loi, on dit que le ministre a le droit, une fois que l'ordre -- toutes les municipalités dans la région de Thunder Bay ont fait une régie régionale pour les services. On s'assied ensemble et on dit, «Nous autres, on est tous d'accord. On va aller rechercher les services sous le paragraphe 41(1), 1 à 6. On va les prendre. On veut les avoir.» On s'en va s'asseoir ; on fait un plan.
Ils écrivent un plan, puis dans leur plan ils ne prennent pas la responsabilité de donner les services en français. Dans leur plan ils disent, «Nous autres, on va les donner, on va les organiser d'une certaine manière, ce que notre géographie va être, ce que notre représentation sur le conseil d'administration va être», mais nulle part dans leur plan disent-ils qu'on va donner les services en français.
La manière dont votre loi est écrite, ça ne devient pas la responsabilité, mais ça devient la décision du ministre de dire, «Moi, est-ce que je vais inclure les services en français, oui ou non ?» Ça devient la décision du ministre, et non une obligation. Si on regarde la loi puis on regarde la section (j), le ministre prévoit «les autres questions qu'il estime appropriées», lui. Cela veut dire qu'une fois que le plan vient au ministre, lui il dit, «Thunder Bay est venu avec un plan. Dans le canton ils vont faire une régie d'administration régionale. On est contents, c'est beau», yay, yay, yay.
Il arrive avec le temps, puis là monsieur Hodgson dit, «Mon Dieu, qu'est-ce qui se passe là ? Ils n'ont pas respecté la Loi 8. Ils disent qu'ils ne veulent pas donner les services en français.» Là, il a une décision politique. Parce que ce n'est pas une obligation dans la loi, ça devient une décision politique. Il dit, «Est-ce que je vais donner, en tant que ministre, les services en français, oui ou non ?» parce qu'il n'y a aucune obligation dans la loi.
C'est ça le point. Je sais que vous faites un bon travail à défendre votre ministre et à défendre la loi. J'ai bien du respect pour l'assistant parlementaire. Je ne veut pas dire ça d'une manière négative. On s'accorde très bien Mais la réalité dans la loi, ça devient seulement la décision du ministre. Ce n'est pas une obligation du ministre de prendre le plan et de s'assurer que les services sont donnés en français. Je vous demande la question telle quelle, puis j'ai besoin d'une réponse assez claire.
De là, monsieur le Président, j'ai deux questions qui vont être assez courtes.
La première est celle-ci : on fait un scénario. Thunder Bay arrive chez monsieur Hodgson. Ils donnent leur plan et ils disent, «Nous autres, on prend les services, but in English only.» Là le ministre a le plan. Est-ce que le ministre est obligé de donner les services en français dans le plan, est-il exigé de les inclure dans le plan ?
Mr Spina: I think you've made the argument positively yourself, and I will repeat some of the things that you said to answer your question.
The first part is, if the services are being provided in French now and the proposal comes forward from Thunder Bay and it says, «We don't want to have a bilingual service. We just want unilingual English», or French, would the minister then look at it and say, well, it's a political decision?
I would suggest to you that it is not a political decision, because if that provincial service is currently being offered on a bilingual basis -- and you answer the question yourself -- if it fails to continue on a bilingual basis, it's a reduction in the standard of the delivery of that service. Therefore, in looking at the clause that says that it shall not derogate from the standards, in my opinion, the minister is obliged, whether the proposal comes forward or not. If the proposal comes forward in that way, if I were a minister and French services were there, I would reject the proposal under that context.
M. Bisson : Je reviens à ma question parce que, comme j'ai dit, j'avais deux questions. La première n'a pas eu de response.
La question que je vous demande est celle-ci. Le plan vient. Ils ont omis d'y inclure les services en français parce qu'ils ne veulent pas le faire. Est-ce que le ministre peut dire non ? En d'autres mots, est-ce que le ministre peut dire, «Je suis d'accord avec la municipalité et je ne veux pas inclure les services en français» ? Peut-il le faire, oui ou non ? A-t-il ce pouvoir ? En d'autres mots, c'est la décision du ministre. C'est ma première question.
Mr Spina: The minister is obliged to follow the clauses of the bill as they are set out. If he derogates from the standard of the existing service, then he can be challenged in court.
1640
M. Bisson : Oui. Le problème, c'est que la Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux municipalités. C'est ça le problème. On va en rond. Je sais qu'on va en rond.
Laissez-moi le mettre de cette manière --
Mr Spina: It doesn't apply to the municipality, but the ASB can apply to the municipality.
M. Bisson : Écoute. La Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux municipalités, ne s'applique pas aux municipalités régionales de la province, et ne s'applique pas aux municipalités des comtés dans le sud de l'Ontario.
Le problème qu'on a, c'est que la Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux municipalités, et dans cette situation, là, c'est pour ça que je dis que ça devient la décision du ministre. La section dit que le ministre prévoit les autres questions quand ça vient aux plans, le ministre prévoit «les autres questions qu'il estime appropriées.» Ça veut dire qu'il y a une décision à prendre.
La deuxième partie, la section 38(2)(a), dit, «ne porte pas atteinte aux normes de prestation des services imposées aux termes de toute loi.» Le problème avec ça est que la Loi 8 ne s'applique pas aux municipalités, ça en est au point, donc, je vous pose la question.
Puis, j'ai une deuxième question après. Si le plan vient de Thunder Bay et ça dit qu'on ne donne pas les services en français, ils n'incluent pas les services en français, est-ce que le ministre peut, sous la loi, être en accord avec la municipalité pour ne pas inclure les services en français ? Est-ce possible dans cette loi, oui ou non ?
Mr Spina: I'm not sure whether he would agree. Does he have the power? Probably, but I think it is challengeable, and it's challengeable because, based on your own answer and my question to you, it becomes a reduction of the standard of the level of service. Therefore, if the minister agrees with that, he is contravening Bill 12.
M. Bisson : Vous êtes d'accord jusqu'au point de dire que oui, ça devient la décision du ministre, parce que c'est la manière dont c'est écrit. Ce n'est pas moi qui l'invente, c'est la manière dont c'est écrit.
Je veux clarifier quelque chose, et je veux poser une deuxième question.
Vous avez dit tout à l'heure que vous craigniez que notre amendement va obliger le ministre et obliger les municipalités à offrir des services là qu'ils n'étaient pas bilingues dans le passé.
Services de développement économique : il y a des municipalités qui ont des services de développement économique qui ne sont pas offerts d'une manière bilingue, parce que ce n'est pas quelque chose que la municipalité dans le passé a fait en français. Vous craignez que mon amendement va obliger les municipalités à offrir d'aller créer de nouveaux services en français.
Je veux vous assurer que non, ce n'est pas le cas. Tout ce que notre amendement nous dit, c'est que s'il y a un service qui était provincial -- on ne parle pas du tout des services municipaux, on ne parle pas des services fédéraux, on parle seulement des services provinciaux. On dit seulement que, dans les instances où les services étaient provinciaux, une fois qu'on les transfère aux municipalités, on les transfère avec la Loi 8. C'est tout ce qu'on dit.
Je ne demande pas au gouvernement d'additionner des services aux francophones. J'aimerais en avoir, mais je sais que ce gouvernement ne va pas m'en donner. Nous, une fois arrivés au gouvernement, on va s'organiser, on va aller dans la direction de déclarer cette province officiellement bilingue. Une fois pour toutes, cette question-là va être finie. Parce que moi, je commence de être tout fatigué comme francophone à venir ici chaque fois m'assigner soit avec le gouvernement conservateur, libéral, ou même NPD.
Moi, je veux m'assurer comme francophone que ces services-là sont protégés. Nous, dans notre amendement à votre projet de loi, mettons ça au clair : n'importe quel service provincial qui était là où les services doivent être offerts en français à cause de la Loi 8, si on le transfère d'une région désignée sous la Loi 8, demeure tel qu'il était avec la province une fois transféré à une municipalité en vertu des services en français. C'est ce que nous, on veut faire, cette clarification.
La deuxième question que j'ai pour vous est assez simple. Si j'étais le ministre et j'avais ce pouvoir, et que Thunder Bay est venu me dire, «On a un plan mais ça n'inclut pas les services en français», moi, je sais ce que Gilles Bisson ferait. Je dirais, «Une minute, là. La Loi 8 va s'appliquer dans ces situations-là.» Il n'y a rien que les municipalités pourraient faire, parce qu'elles seraient obligées sous cette loi de me donner mes services en français.
J'irais aussi loin de dire que si Joe Spina était le ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines, j'espère croire que monsieur Spina ferait la même affaire que monsieur Bisson pour dire, «Oui, je vais m'assurer que les services sont en français.»
La question que je vous demande, au nom de votre ministre : si un plan vient devant votre gouvernement -- ça ne fait rien de quel ministre il s'agit, si c'est Snobelen qui est le ministre demain, toi, M. Hodgson ou Mike Harris lui-même -- êtes-vous capable de nous dire aujourd'hui d'une manière concrète que, pour sûr, dans toutes les régions désignées de la province présentement, tous les services transférés vont être les mêmes, qu'on va avoir les mêmes protections des services en français ?
Est-ce que tu comprends ma question ? Pour être clair : est-ce que le gouvernement de Harris va nous assurer dans ce projet de loi et mettre sur le record -- parce que je vais m'en aller dans la Chambre lui demander ça pour m'assurer -- qu'avec n'importe quelle municipalité qui vient en avant, qui demande un ASB et qui dit, «On oublie les services en français,» votre gouvernement va assurer, pour sûr, 100%, jurer sur la Bible, que les francophones vont garder leurs droits sous la Loi 8 ?
Mr Spina: The focus of your question was, would Mike Harris and cabinet and anyone else who is a minister guarantee that the transfer of services where they are bilingual currently will continue? The answer is yes.
The Chair: I think we have the parliamentary assistant's opinion on a very important question that we spent considerable time on. Through the Chair, listening to all of this debate, I think there's a --
M. Bisson : J'ai une suggestion qui possiblement va arranger votre problème.
Je sais, parce que j'ai été l'assistant parlementaire au ministre, que je ne peux pas parler pour le ministre. Puis je veux croire que ce que l'assistant parlementaire nous a donné aujourd'hui est une grosse concession, parce que vous êtes le premier à votre gouvernement de nous le dire, nous la communauté francophone. Quand on a posé la question à M. Harnick, à M. Harris et à d'autres membres dans la Chambre, on s'est fait dire non. Là, vous nous dites oui.
Moi, je demande au comité quelque chose de très simple. On peut passer à d'autres amendements et moi, je vais retourner dans la Chambre lundi demander une question et avoir cette garantie du ministre dans la Chambre. S'il nous la donne, je suis prêt à accepter le mot du ministre dans la Chambre et on continue.
En d'autres mots, on peut traiter les autres amendements et on revient à ce point-ci jeudi prochain, une fois que le ministre lui-même aura clarifié ce que l'assistant parlementaire vient juste de nous dire va être la politique du gouvernement durant ce terme et, si malheureusement ils sont élus pour un deuxième terme, qu'ils vont continuer la même pratique.
Je verrai une victoire quand je l'aurai vue.
Mr Spina: I can assure you that it is the minister's intention and the response that you will get if you ask him in the House, "Would bilingual services be continued in the order where it is existing?" -- I'm sure you will get that assurance from the minister. I am confident that you will get that assurance.
M. Bisson : On peut tous être d'accord, monsieur le Président, qu'on peut à ce point-ci mettre cet amendement de côté, finir les autres amendements -- ça peut finir le comité beaucoup plus vite -- et on va revenir à ce point-là jeudi prochain ?
Je veux que tu comprennes quelque chose. Je veux mettre quelque chose sur le record. C'est très important. Je veux dire à l'assistant parlementaire et je veux dire au gouvernement, je ne suis pas ici pour vous mettre des bâtons dans les roues. Moi, je suis ici parce que, comme vous, je suis un membre honorable qui est en train de prêcher pour sa paroisse.
Pour moi, la communauté francophone est importante, et je viens juste d'entendre l'assistant parlementaire nous donner ce que je crois être une victoire. C'est une démarche de la politique que le gouvernement de Mike Harris a suivie pendant trois ans. Si l'assistant parlementaire énonce aujourd'hui la nouvelle politique du gouvernement provincial, je suis préparé à accepter ça comme une garantie qu'on va avoir nos droits. Je sais que ce n'est pas légal dans le sens que ça ne va pas être dans la loi, mais au moins on va avoir une manière de protection politique quand ça vient à cette question. Moi, je ne vais nuire au comité, je ne veux pas qu'on continue le débat pour toujours sur ce projet de loi si le gouvernement est préparé à nous donner une garantie.
J'essaie d'avancer le comité, puis je demande si on peut laisser cet amendement-là, ne pas voter dessus, et qu'on continue avec d'autres. On a seulement une heure. Ça va nous donner la chance de finir les autres amendements. On revient avec celui-là jeudi, après qu'on aura eu la garantie du ministre. Comme ça, tout le monde est content. La communauté francophone, le gouvernement, on va tous être contents.
1650
The Chair: We need unanimous consent to stand this particular motion down until we've completed the other amendments. I'm asking the question on standing this amendment down, section 10, subsection 41(11) --
M. Bisson : Monsieur le Président, je veux être clair. J'ai demandé qu'on traite tous les autres amendements qu'on peut aujourd'hui, mais si on ne finit pas toutes les affaires du comité aujourd'hui, on veut revenir jeudi et finir cet amendement une fois qu'on aura eu la garantie du ministre.
The Chair: I would ask our clerk to clarify the procedural requirements here, that this duly convened committee is required to deal with the amendments in order and we would require unanimous consent to stand this particular amendment down to continue in any form. Is that not correct? OK.
I'm asking the question about unanimous consent: All those in support? We don't have unanimous consent.
To go back to the amendment that is before us, I'll give you the views if I am entitled; otherwise, I'll leave the chair.
I think if you read the actual language of the amendment we're dealing with, you'll find that it almost reflects -- I would defer to the legal opinions here, but with the reading of that, there's a specific word that implies the service exists. In your amendment, the word "exist" implies it's the current status of a service, and if that is the interpretation as it is written, then the answer we've received from the parliamentary assistant and the legal advice is that that's exactly the intent of Bill 12.
Much of your argument was based on the fundamental weaknesses within Bill 8, that they are not provided, or other municipalities can opt out. Those are not appropriate discussion with respect to this particular amendment. It's trying to say, does this amendment improve or detract from the bill? I they think tried to answer the question both from the legal perspective and -- is that not your intention, to say that we do provide that continuity of service?
We're in the middle of a motion. We are not standing the motion down; we voted on that.
M. Bisson : Je demande l'unanimité du comité qu'on essaie encore une fois, parce que je pense que cette fois-ci ça va marcher, qu'on passe sur cet amendement pour le présent qu'on continue avec les autres amendements pour qu'on puisse avancer le projet de loi. Je ne veut pas nuire au projet de loi du gouvernement. Je veux continuer avec l'ouvrage qu'on a à faire.
En une heure, on va avoir la chance de finir les amendements du gouvernement. Il y en a beaucoup. On va travailler avec vous pour être capables de s'assurer qu'on peut aller, à travers cet ouvrage, le mieux qu'on peut, et on va revenir jeudi, une fois qu'on aura eu une réponse du ministre sur la question qu'on a demandée avant. On met de côté cet amendement, on revient jeudi là-dessus, et on continue avec les autres amendements en attendant.
The Chair: Just a moment here. We have a procedural, as opposed to a particular, debate here.
I have been advised that we have really dealt with the question of standing this down, and M Bisson has said -- I believe I heard him say -- that if we vote this motion in, he is prepared to, after the minister's explanation next Thursday, withdraw or declare this amendment redundant. Is that not what you said?
M. Bisson : Exactement. Si le ministre revient et qu'il répond comme l'assistant parlementaire, on va prendre --
The Chair: Again, as we go through each section of the bill to approve it, the amendment could be defeated, I suppose, at some other later date. Is that not possible?
I'd perhaps ask the clerk if he would tell you the difficulty here where the government is bound by certain procedural things.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): If the committee passes an amendment, the only way to go back to it is by unanimous consent to re-open that, so --
M. Bisson : Ce n'est pas ça que je demande. Je n'ai pas demandé qu'on vote sur l'amendement. J'ai demandé qu'on passe sur l'amendement. In other words, we stand this down. OK? On continue avec les autres amendements du gouvernement et on les note. On continue à travailler pour s'assurer qu'on peut avoir l'avancement sur le projet de loi, et la semaine prochaine, je demande la question au ministre dans la Chambre, tel qu'on l'a demandée à l'assistant parlementaire, et il répond comme j'ai entendu aujourd'hui. On revient jeudi, on finit cet amendement, et on finit le projet de loi.
Interjection.
The Chair: I have the same interpretation as the clerk, and I think Mr Sergio is asking the same question. I believe we've already put the question of standing this motion down. We sought unanimous consent and we did not get unanimous consent. Therefore we've dealt with this procedurally, and we've had extensive debate. I guess we could put the question on this particular amendment -- yes, Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: If I understood M. Bisson, what he's saying is to defer this one here until he has a chance to ask the minister in the House, and to continue with the other amendments. Am I correct, monsieur Bisson: to defer this one here until you ask the minister in the House and to continue with the other amendments? I don't think we have voted on that.
The Chair: I guess we're procedurally gridlocked, because we've dealt with that very issue.
Mr Sergio: You're the Chair. You have to decide one way or another. It's not that you're in a gridlock here.
The Chair: I'm saying we've already --
Interjection: Could I ask for five minutes?
The Chair: I guess if it's the will of the committee, I would like to accommodate that we move forward. I want to recognize the important time we've spent on this, and I think it has been well defined.
I will call a five-minute recess, please, if people want to caucus.
The committee recessed from 1657 to 1709.
The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting back to order. We've all had our appropriate time to figure out how we move forward.
Mr Blain Morin: I think it's important to realize the significance of the amendment that we're putting forward or what we're asking for here. The significance is that we want to maintain service for francophones.
Through the Chair, I share a story and my concern. This is about maintaining service. I have a municipal background, and at the municipality I work for, out of 500 employees at the city of Sudbury, for example, we had two designated francophone positions. Now, the city of Sudbury was designated as a francophone community.
My concern is that we have in the bill services that are significant to the public safety when we deal with land ambulance, significant to public safety when we deal with housing, for example. On those issues, we have to maintain the francophone services. What we're looking for is a maintenance. Why we need the maintenance of those services is because when we start downloading those services, there's a big difference between a francophone going into a municipality and asking for a building permit compared to a downloaded service -- ambulance services, for example -- where it's life-threatening. We have to maintain it. In my area, my constituents are concerned with the maintenance of that. We somehow need a guarantee of the maintenance of that.
I would suggest -- and I agree. What we're hearing from council is that it is ambiguous in form and can be challenged before the courts in the future. But that doesn't solve the problem. If we have municipalities that are going to be out there challenging that section of the act, the francophone community will suffer. My constituents in Chelmsford, during debate in this by-election, made it quite clear that we have to maintain francophone services in the community, especially around this bill.
It's not a question of turning things around and going back to the old French-English debate, or amplifying that debate. It's a chance here, and what we're talking about is equity. We're talking about the rights of francophones in areas like Nickel Belt, in areas like Chapleau, where we really, really need to maintain francophone services around ambulatory care, around social housing.
We have a proud heritage in our francophone community, where things like Festival Boréal are growing. We've established one of the best francophone community colleges anywhere in Canada, in my estimation, with Collège Boréal. It's the francophone community that continued that fight and wanted that fight. My reason for objecting, my reason for needing those assurances at this point in time, is to maintain francophone rights. It's a maintenance issue. It is in no way, and we can't turn it into, an us-versus-them issue.
That's why we're so concerned about maintaining those rights. That's why at this committee level it's so important to talk about those issues and it's so important to ensure, to not take a chance and go through a court challenge. We're the government, and it's important to ensure those rights. We shouldn't be turning those rights over to the courts and having mixed feelings in putting the francophone rights issue in there. We have the power to maintain what we've got today. That's what we're asking. Bill 8 does not cover the services downloaded on to municipalities. We're going to have municipalities out there challenging it. Is that the purpose of legislation in bills, to bring them before the courts? I really have a problem with that.
In my community, as I said, it's so important. When we went through the francophone debate, we heard the PC candidate, Gerry Courtemanche, talk to us. He spoke very fluently and he was simply adamant about protecting francophone rights. What we're asking for is that protection. We need the assurance. We need it. It's got to be in the legislation. At this point, I don't believe you can just take that off and say, "Well, it could go to a court challenge." We can't do that.
The purpose of this legislation should be to maintain those rights. That's the basis of our argument at this time, especially around, as I said, issues in Nickel Belt. The Collège Boréal that was maintained in Sudbury, for example, is training francophones throughout the community. It's really important in areas like Gogama and Sultan, for example, for our economic development to have those trained professionals, and those professionals trained as francophones.
So I'm asking this committee for some understanding, and I'm asking that we don't just pass legislation for the purposes of throwing it in the hands of the court system. We're asking, through M. Bisson's recommendation, for something that's going to maintain the services and guarantee that those services are maintained in the future.
I can't say enough that the issue has to be that we have to maintain those French services, because that is imperative to my community and to communities like Gogama, Chapleau, Foleyet and Sultan. I think it comes down to, is this government going to protect those francophone services in the future? That's what we have to protect, that's what we're asking to maintain, and we believe we can reach agreement here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That's a very impassioned plea.
M. Bisson : Je veux mettre sur le record à ce point-ci : comme vous le savez, tout à l'heure on a demandé le consentement unanime pour qu'on ne finisse pas cet amendement, qu'on mette mon amendement, l'amendement NPD, à côté et qu'on continue avec le restant du projet de loi. On finit ça. On retourne à la Chambre la semaine prochaine, quand j'aurai la chance de demander la question au ministre. Le ministre répondra de telle ou telle manière. On revient la semaine prochaine avec une clarification, puis on finit le projet de loi.
On a eu la chance avec notre chef parlementaire, M. Wildman, on a eu la chance avec l'assistant parlementaire, M. Spina, d'arriver à une conclusion entre les trois partis qu'on pourrait faire ça. Puis je pense que M. Spina a une suggestion de comment on peut se rendre à ce point-ci. Je veux seulement dire pour le record encore, et je veux que vous compreniez, que je n'essaie pas d'obstruer. On fait seulement notre job. On veut protéger les francophones. Ce que je vois ici aujourd'hui c'est un gouvernement qui s'en va plus loin qu'ils n'ont jamais fait dans le passé quand ça vient aux droits francophones. C'est une marque, je pense, positive. On s'en va dans le bord-là.
The Chair: Very good. Now, is that in the form of a motion or -- parliamentary assistant, would you like to respond to that, please?
Mr Spina: I seek unanimous consent, Chair, that we defer this particular amendment and address all of the other amendments on the table and try to get through them by 6 o'clock tonight.
Mr Sergio: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: deferral until Mr Bisson has a chance to ask of the minister in the House clarification of that particular clause.
Mr Spina: He has agreed to defer this until next week, until he has some communication from the minister, not necessarily a question in the House.
The Chair: There's been some agreement, it's my understanding, that the House leader of the NDP --
Mr Sergio: I want to be sure of that. Mr Bisson, your amendment now, it is not until you have a question in the House of the minister? Am I correct?
M. Bisson : L'amendement ne va pas être traité jusqu'à jeudi prochain.
Mr Spina: That's fine.
The Chair: We have a motion before us. Any speakers to the motion to stand this down?
Mr Spina: Was it a motion or unanimous consent?
The Chair: We're seeking unanimous consent to stand this amendment down. All those in support? That's agreed. So we're proceeding, working in harmony.
The next amendment to the bill is --
M. Bisson : Monsieur le Président, encore pour vous assister, pour faire ça plus vite, parce que je veux aider, on avait un amendement, nous le NPD, qu'on avait mis de côté la semaine passée. C'est un amendement qui traitait la question de Sault-Sainte-Marie. Notre chef parlementaire de ce comté-là peut l'expliquer.
1720
The Chair: Very good. Okay, the members would recognize we had an NDP motion that has been stood down. It's in reference to section 10, subsection 38(2.1). Do the members have that in front of them? If the mover would like to speak to it, or the House leader, whomever.
Interjection.
The Chair: It's been moved. It's now back --
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's been moved?
Mr Bisson: I thought I had moved it. Sorry.
The Chair: It's just been stood down.
Mr Bisson: I just moved it over to the House leader.
Mr Wildman: Perhaps I could explain the reason for the proposed amendments to section 10. In some parts of northern Ontario where there is no municipal organization, there has been provision made for land use planning to be done. In most of those areas the planning is done by a planning board set up under the aegis of an adjacent municipality, but in one particular area in my constituency that I'm sure Mr Spina is fully familiar with, knowing his background, the area which is commonly called Soo North, an area that goes from the Sault Ste Marie city limits northward for about 70 miles along Highway 17 to Montreal River harbour, along the eastern shore of Lake Superior, there's a large number of unorganized municipalities, unorganized townships.
Back in the 1970s, because of uncontrolled growth, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Claude Bennett, issued a ministerial order to control growth under his responsibility on the Municipal Act, and appointed a planning board, the Soo North planning board. I may be wrong on this, but I think it's the only planning board in the province that is not attached to a municipality.
In this particular case, the municipality is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Soo North planning board is appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and reports to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It deals with all planning questions, severances, approvals for rezoning -- actually, they're developing an official plan; it hasn't been finalized yet, but it's close to finalization -- all questions related to sub-division plans approvals, all of these kinds of things.
As you may know, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing just recently informed all planning boards in the province that they were going to discontinue the plan's administration grants, which means for those planning boards that are attached to municipalities that the municipalities will have to come up with the administration funding through user fees or whatever, general revenue. That is not open to the Soo North planning board since there is no municipality. So what is being proposed here is, in an area like that, if an area services board is formed and they are prepared to have as one of their functions land use planning, that they purchase the service from an established planning board, in this case the Soo North planning board.
I've discussed this with officials of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This specific amendment has been requested by the Soo North planning board; they were the ones who proposed it. This does not require the area services board, if it is formed, to do planning, but if they decide to do planning, then instead of setting up a new board or starting from scratch, what is being proposed here is that if there is an established board that is doing it, they purchase the service from them. That is the reason for the amendment.
Mr Spina: Thank you, Mr Wildman. One of the things that we're trying not to do, I guess, is micromanage how the ASB proposal comes in. For that reason, we wouldn't support the amendment. We feel that once the ASB is set up, if and when it is set up, it is their decision as to whether they want to contract the Soo planning board, as it exists now, or the Soo north planning board as it exists now, or if they choose to recreate it. To me, it would be foolish for them to recreate the wheel, but that's the reason I would not want to force a tentative ASB -- because we haven't seen a proposal.
If anything, what I would suggest is, rather than have this amendment, that when and if a proposal comes forward to the ministry by the Algoma area or the area around the Soo, if that particular element was not included in the proposal, then I think that's grounds for them to appeal to the minister, to say, "We don't think this is fair," or whatever the case may be. I think it would be best dealt with at the local level by the ASB.
Mr Wildman: I don't want to prolong this, because I know you have a lot of other amendments to deal with. I would say this: The bureaucrats within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing really want this amendment, and so does the appointed Soo North planning board, because frankly they don't know where their funding is going to come from three years hence because of the decision to discontinue the plan's administration grants. They're also very concerned that we may revert to the situation we had back in the 1970s when there was uncontrolled growth and when the provincial government had to intervene and set up the Soo north planning board.
Having said all of that, I think if you read my amendment closely, it does not require first an area services board. There may not be an area services board in the area. If one is formed, it still doesn't require them to do planning as one of their functions. All it says is that if they are going to do planning, they are required to purchase it from the established board.
Having said all of that, I am sure the legal beagles in the ministry could come up with a regulation that would do this.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. It's an important contribution to the history of this amendment. We did have some difficulty, but that's your expertise and it's appreciated.
So we have the motion and the debate that has ensued. It's time to call the question on this amendment. All those in support?
Mr Bisson: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Sergio.
Nays
Elliott, Munro, Spina, Young.
The Chair: We're now at a government motion on section 10, subsection 43(6).
Mr Spina: I move that subsection 43(6) of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by striking out "The Minister of Finance" at the beginning and substituting "The Ontario Property Assessment Corporation."
The Chair: Any comments or questions?
M. Bisson : Très rapidement, je veux une petite clarification, pourquoi vous faites ça. Je n'ai pas un problème philosophique mais je veux savoir pourquoi. Why?
Mr Spina: The motion recognizes the current situation, that the Ontario Property Assessment Corp has since replaced the Minister of Finance for assessment purposes under the act.
M. Bisson : Je savais qu'il y avait une réponse très logique. Merci beaucoup.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, all those in support of the motion? All those opposed? It's carried.
Next, section 10, subsection 49(1): I have a motion by Mr Spina.
1730
Mr Spina: I move that subsection 49(1) of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by striking out "by the Minister of Finance" in the fifth and sixth lines.
For the purpose of clarification, same reason.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Spina. I suspect, Mr Bisson --
Mr Bisson: Same vote.
The Chair: I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? Carried.
We are now dealing with section 10 of the bill, section 49.1, moved by Mr Spina.
Mr Spina: I move that section 10 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Local Services Boards Act:
"Different system for establishing tax ratios
"49.1 An order may provide for a different system of determining tax ratios than that set out in subsection 49(1) where a proposal requesting the system has been made."
The Chair: Any questions or comments?
Mr Bisson: Mr --
The Chair: Chair.
Mr Bisson: "Président" en français. I couldn't translate into English all of a sudden.
Very quickly, and I don't want to take a lot of time on this, I understand where you're going and what you're trying to do here, but I just want to point out that this is problematic. We know that with the change in the taxation system that has previously been done by the provincial government, we're seeing the various tax ratios actually becoming a hindrance to the commercial sector in our riding.
We're seeing a number of examples: Camper City, Roger Cauchon, Urgel Gravel, Bupont Motors, Timmins Garage, and the list goes on. I have a whole bunch of commercial properties in the municipality of Timmins that have seen their taxes go up dramatically, over 100% this year. It's not because the assessment system has changed. That's part of the reason, but that only accounts for about 30% or 40% of the increase. It's not because the city has increased taxes by 2.5% because of the downloading; that's only 2.5%. Now we're at 32.5%.
Their taxes have gone up anywhere from 100% to 127%, and the reason is twofold. The major contributing factor is that the tax ratios as established under the previous legislation by the government have changed the tax rate for those businesses. What you're seeing is an overall increase of taxation over last year of 127%. Take out about 35% of that as new assessment system as far as valuation of property and tax increase.
The second issue is, the same problem exists within the school boards. When you got rid of the six school boards in northern Ontario to make the new school board number one, the English public, you basically averaged out all of the taxes into one common tax rate for commercial assessment.
What we ended up with was that in the city of Timmins where we're assessment rich, everybody got averaged up. We're seeing, for example, all of these commercial properties on Riverside -- the increase in one property was 157% because of those two particular factors.
I just want to say to the government that you haven't heard the last of this. I'm not going to delay the debate, but you're opening up a can of worms with this. I want to put on the record that I'm voting against this amendment for that reason. We should be trying to protect the taxation levels for commercial businesses, not trying to increase them.
Mr Spina: The amendment was really brought in because during the committee hearings in Thunder Bay some representatives from unincorporated areas raised the concern that the municipality should be provided with an opportunity, with the approval of the ASB, to continue to determine its tax ratios for its own purposes. This provides the flexibility for an ASB proposal to provide the municipalities with the ability to continue to set their own tax ratios. That's the reason why we put it in there.
Mr Bisson: Again, two seconds. Not to prolong it, but you have to understand that the tax ratios as established under the previous act are the problem. That's where we're at. The tax rate we have now for commercial properties is actually quite higher on those properties because of the previous legislation. So when we changed the ratios, when we created the ratios in the legislation change two years ago, we ended up with this problem. I'm pointing this out, and I want a recorded vote and I'll vote against this amendment.
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Elliott, Munro, Spina, Young.
Nays
Bisson, Sergio.
The Chair: We will now deal with section 10, subsection 51(3.1). It's a government motion moved by Mr Spina.
Mr Spina: I move that section 51 of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Limitation
"(3.1) A board shall not pass a by-law under subsection (3) until transition ratios are established for the property classes that apply within the board area, other than the residential/farm property class, the farmlands property class and the managed forests property class prescribed under Assessment Act."
The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? All those opposed? Carried.
I have an amendment on section 10, subsection 51(9), a government motion moved by Mr Spina.
Mr Spina: I move that subsection 5l(9) of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clauses:
"(b.1) prescribing average transition ratios for the purposes of subsection (19)
"(b.2) providing for the application of optional property classes in a board area for the purposes of this section."
The objective here is to conform with the wording in Bill 16.
Mr Bisson: Just a reminder. Bill 16 is what bill again?
Mr Spina: To give tax relief to small businesses, charities and others, and financing of local government.
Mr Bisson: Again, just another question. Why do we need to prescribe the average transition ratios? We're providing for a transition between what exists now and what may exist when it comes to taxation rates under the new ASB?
Mr Spina: It's my understanding.
Mr Bisson: And how long will that transition be?
Mr Spina: Whatever the period is in Bill 16 is what we're attempting to comply with.
Mr Bisson: Is that the cap issue?
Mr Spina: No. The formal title of the bill is An Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others and to make other amendments respecting the Financing of Local Government and Schools.
The Chair: It's called a range of fairness, I think.
Mr Bisson: I'm just trying to remember, because this is an interesting one if you're doing this.
Maybe legislative counsel can help. What bill was it -- I should know this, but we deal with so many bills in this place. There was a bill that was established by the government that allowed municipalities to impose a cap on the increase of taxes that would be caused by the changing of the assessment system. What bill number was that? That wasn't 16, was it?
Mr Wernham: I think it was 16, but I stand to be corrected on that.
Mr Spina: I have a further clarification. This adds the same authority that's provided under subsection 363(10) of the Municipal Act.
Mr Bisson: This means to say we're reopening the cap. Is that what that means? If it's that, it's a good thing.
Mr Spina: It permits flexibility in setting those tax ratios.
Mr Bisson: I have a question then. In the city of Timmins, as the example, those businesses I talked about earlier -- Timmins Garage, Bupont Motors, all of them -- have seen their taxes go up some 120%. The municipalities get together and decide to form an area services board and they now have to set the taxation ratio. If the tax has already been imposed by the municipal government prior to this legislation coming in place, it couldn't deal retroactively by inserting a cap on what has been increased already, right?
Mr Spina: No. What it does is, where you have the flexibilities within the municipality, whether they choose to use those flexibilities or not in setting the tax ratios, the area services board would have the same flexibilities as they would if they were a municipality.
Mr Bisson: The specific I'm getting at is that if you've already got your tax bill, and you got a 127% increase like Urgel Gravel, and we pass this legislation and we form an area services board for next year --
Mr Spina: Can they impose it on the municipality retroactively?
Mr Bisson: Yes.
Mr Spina: I can't answer that. I don't know.
Mr Bisson: I don't think they could. Just for the record, I'm going to go back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and try to deal with it, because he indicated at estimates that he was possibly thinking of reinvoking the cap and giving the municipality the ability to go into it. If that's the case, it will protect people like Urgel, Jim Mascioli and others.
1740
The Chair: No further comments? I'll call the question on this amendment. All those in support? No one opposed. That's unanimous.
We have a government motion dealing with section 10 of the bill, subsections 51(16) to (24).
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Can we give the parliamentary assistant a breath of air and a glass of water before he starts to read this?
The Chair: Everyone has the amendment. He isn't required to read it if it's the will of the committee to take a look at it. We're familiar with those amendments. They were tabled some time ago.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I thought it was a requirement, that he had to read the amendment.
The Chair: Are there any questions? Everyone, according to the procedures, has the written text in front of them and is familiar with the issue they're voting on. If they're not, they should raise that question. If they are, we can call the question.
Mr Bisson: I'm not trying to obstruct, just to clarify: If I as a member requested that it be read, you would have to read it, right?
The Chair: Yes, absolutely.
Mr Bisson: OK. I just want to make sure we don't create a precedent that may haunt us in the future.
The Chair: No.
Mr Bisson: Please read it.
The Chair: The amendment I have referred to is moved by Mr Spina.
Mr Bisson: Can we have an explanation? It's a huge amendment.
The Chair: The mover of the motion is Mr Spina. We've got that dealt with. Would you like to address the very long amendment?
Mr Spina: It is to conform with wording in Bill 16, and it reflects new tax provisions for the municipalities. It extends the application to area services boards that adopt taxation model number 2 that's in the act.
Mr Bisson: It comes back to the issue we just talked about. I'm just reading it. Just for the record, one part of it says, "definitions: 'commercial classes' means the commercial property class and the property classes, each of which is a property class that a board may opt to have apply under the regulations" -- so this gets back at the cap issue, actually, doesn't it? I see a head nodding. This means "yes."
Mr Spina: Yes. The regulations that have been made under the Assessment Act, which are there, we just want to ensure that this complies with that. Where the caps were optional in that act, they will be optional here as well.
Mr Bisson: Just for the record, what this means is that when an ASB is created, the ASB will have the ability, if they so choose, to invoke the cap and phase in the tax increases that would be a result of all the downloading and the assessment system etc as under Bill 16.
Mr Spina: As under Bill 16.
The Chair: For the record I will quote the standing order number which permits the Chair to group and/or accept motions that have been tabled. That is standing order 74(c).
Any further debate on this amendment? If not, I'll call the question. Those in support? Those opposed? The motion is carried unanimously.
The next amendment is section 10 of the bill, clauses 60(1)(b) and (c) of the Local Services Boards Act. I'm advised by the clerk that this amendment is in reference to a previous amendment and at this point is deemed to be redundant or not required. I would give the NDP the opportunity to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Bisson: For the record, Chair, this particular amendment was brought forward in order to deal with the issue of the minister having additional powers to change the order. We've now got this clarified under the previous amendment, and this amendment is no longer needed because we got the assurances with the previous amendment. We'll withdraw this particular amendment.
The Chair: All members will dispense with that amendment.
We're also dealing with the next amendment, a government motion.
Mr Bisson: Is this the last amendment?
The Chair: That is the last amendment of section 10. Of course, we're still having the issue which you have tabled, so we can't vote on that section as completed. It isn't completed yet. We're just going to proceed now to section -- yes?
Mr Bisson: Question: So when we're finished dealing with this amendment, we'll adjourn the committee and we'll come back on Thursday morning?
The Chair: That's my understanding. It seems appropriate. It's 10 minutes to 6.
If members of the committee could look at section 11 of the bill, we're dealing with a government amendment to subsection 3 of the bill, item 8 of the schedule to the Local Services Boards Act, moved by Mr Spina.
Mr Spina: I move the section as presented to the members. The rationale: Currently, where the LSBs are providing library services, they're using the "recreation" category. This motion explicitly provides that the LSB can provide the services of libraries.
Mr Bisson: Can we have this read?
Mr Spina: The addition of the provision would formalize the existing local services board practices and the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture's library policies.
The Chair: We've been asked to have this government amendment read. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to respond.
Mr Spina: I move that section 11 of the bill (item 8 of the schedule to the Local Services Boards Act) be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) The schedule to the act is amended by adding the following item:
"8. Public library service
"The board may by bylaw,
"(a) contract for the provision of public library service by a public library board, union board or county library board or by a board of an Ontario library service area acting under subsection 34(2) of the Public Libraries Act; or
"(b) establish and maintain a public library service, and may, subject to the Public Libraries Act, charge fees in respect of such service."
Mr Bisson: To the parliamentary assistant, a comment first, then a question. If you thought I was going to allow you not to read the big, long one, that was only to help you out somewhat. But to try to sneak by me and not read this amendment -- you know we have to have certain consistencies here.
I have a question, though. Last week, I believe it was, we were dealing with the issue of the ability for ASBs to contract out. We're not talking about contracting out in terms of going to non-unionized; we're talking about an ASB that, for example, has to provide public health under Bill 12. Under the legislation in a previous amendment we dealt with, we gave the ASB the ability to contract out to the public health unit that work. In other words, the ASB itself didn't have to do it. What I'm wondering is, why do we have to come back explicitly with this to give libraries that same ability if there's a previous section in the bill that deals with this already in a more generic way?
Mr Spina: If I may, Mr Chair: It's really because of the existence of the services as they are lumped under the local services boards, the LSBs. They were in a recreation category. We're just trying to clarify it here for the purposes of language and responsibility so that an LSB could still be the contracted agent for the ASB.
Mr Bisson: This would stand to reason, then, and I come back to my example of Highway 11. You would know we've had this discussion at committee before. The city of Timmins and the communities on Highway 11 cannot come to an agreement on how to form the district services board as ordered under previous legislation by Minister Ecker. Now both parties have walked away.
If the minister doesn't impose a decision on them, the municipalities are now going to have an ability, under Bill 12, under Mr Hodgson, and Mr Spina, of course -- I've got to give you some credit, Joe -- to go back themselves and form a board. We talked earlier, if the municipalities along Highway 11 decided they wanted to form their own ASB, excluding the city of Timmins and letting the city of Timmins deliver their own services, that would be allowable under the scenario provided that it's financially feasible.
You wouldn't want an ASB that covers only two municipalities. You'd want an ASB that is big enough to operate. In our view, Matheson to Moosonee makes some sense and probably is consistent with what happened in Parry Sound with the DSB and what happened in Sault Ste Marie.
1750
The point I'm coming to is, in forming that ASB -- let's say we did that -- if the municipalities say, "We're going to form an ASB; we're going to call it the Highway 11 corridor ASB," and they set that up, if I understand it, under this amendment and under other amendments that we've done previously, they're now going to have the ability to say, for example, "We'd like to contract our library services out to the city of Timmins" or to some other district board. They would have the ability to do that? The nod, just for the record.
Mr Spina: Yes. They would have the ability to do that because where a library exists under a local service board -- and it's independent of the city of Timmins, for example -- if that's in part of the proposal, what this does is empower the ASB to include that as part of their proposal.
Mr Bisson: This and the other amendment then would say, because of the amendments we've made -- and I've got to say for the record again that we've made some considerable progress in this legislation. All in all, we've made this probably a better bill in the end. Where we're at, if I understand it correctly, if two ASBs want to share services in some way, or an ASB and a local municipality like the city of Timmins decide for financial reasons that Highway 11 is going to set up their ASB but they don't want to run the housing part of it, they want to contract out the housing part to the city of Timmins because the city of Timmins is now doing it for the town of Moosonee and other places within the district, they would be able to do that.
Mr Spina: I've got to clarify something here. Public libraries are not part of the services, optional or otherwise, under ASBs. What it does do is, it does not compromise the LSBs from having the library boards, because they are part of an ASB. That is the clarification.
Mr Bisson: As to the other issue I raised, they would be able to do that?
Mr Spina: The LSB clearly can contract whomever they choose to deliver the library services, whether it's the big brother in Timmins or the little brother in Kap or Hornepayne.
Mr Bisson: I think I know the answer to this question but I want it again just to reassure the communities back home, because I really believe that Bill 12 can go a long way to fixing the problems we now have. If I understand it correctly, by all the amendments we have done on this bill and improving it, we are now in a situation that if an ASB was formed on Highway 11 that excluded Timmins -- right now Timmins Housing offers housing services to Moosonee, and I believe to parts of Iroquois Falls, which would be in the new ASB if they were to create one. The ASB could say: "We would like to contract out to Timmins Housing all the housing parts of their ASB. We will enter into a contract with the city of Timmins and they will run it for us and we'll have an apportioned cost etc." Would they be allowed to do that?
Mr Spina: Yes, they would be allowed to do that, but that has nothing to do with this particular amendment.
Mr Bisson: But it was a great way to get it on the record.
Mr Spina: Yes, I know.
The Chair: As Chair I should have been paying a little more attention. I apologize.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for allowing me that latitude.
The Chair: We've had discussion on this amendment. I'll call the question. All those in support of this amendment? That's carried unanimously.
In former business, we should deal with section 11, as this is only the one amendment. I'll call the question.
Shall section 11 --
Mr Bisson: I just want to make sure where we're going here. We are now going to vote on section 11 in its entirety, which excludes section 10.
The Chair: We haven't voted on 10. We're not able to.
Shall section 11, as amended, carry? That's carried unanimously.
For housekeeping purposes generally, I'd like to group sections 12, 13, 14 and the title of the bill.
Mr Bisson: Again for the record, excluding section 10.
The Chair: Yes. The remaining sections of the bill including the title: Shall this carry? Carried unanimously.
At this point in the day we're still dealing with the amendment to section 10 of the bill. That's my understanding. Any further comments on the procedure? As far as I'm concerned, we're to be meeting next Thursday.
Mr Bisson: One question before we adjourn: There was a Liberal motion I never marked that we had dealt with. It was section 10 of the bill, section 41 of the Local Services Boards Act, amending 41(1). I never marked what we did with that. I take it that it has been dealt with.
Interjection: It was dealt with in the usual way.
Mr Bisson: You mean to say you didn't win it? For some reason I don't have it marked and I'm wondering, is it my error?
The Chair: I have section 41 in front of me now. That motion was tabled and lost.
Mr Bisson: It was defeated. OK -- just for my record. Thank you very much, Chair.
The Chair: It is the administrative duty of the Chair to say that we are scheduled to meet next Thursday, our regular meeting day. With the goodwill of the committee, we'll have resolved the outstanding amendment and we're going to be meeting in committee room 1.
Mr Bisson: We'll be meeting again in this committee room, I would hope. I request that the committee provide translation services.
The Chair: I will instruct the clerk to arrange to meet in this particular room.
We had arranged for a subcommittee meeting right after this. If that's appropriate, I would ask the members of the subcommittee to stand by and we should be able to wrap up just where we'll go from here. Thank you very much. I adjourn this portion of the meeting.
The committee adjourned at 1756.