Committee Transcript 1994-Apr-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AND FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARDS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON ET LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

DALE HARLEY

DIANE SPENCER
MARIANNE WILKINSON

PETER HARRIS
VIVIAN GRANT
ANITA O'DONOVAN

BRIAN BOURNS

CONTENTS

Saturday 16 April 1994

Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and French-language School Boards Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 143, Mr Philip / Loi de 1994 modifiant des lois concernant la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et les conseils scolaires de langue française, projet de loi 143, M. Philip

Dale Harley

Diane Spencer; Marianne Wilkinson

Al Brown; Jim Watson

Marion Dewar

John Gruber

David Bartlett

Tim Cole

Brian Coburn

Fiona Faucher

David Pratt

Peter Harris; Vivian Grant; Anita O'Donovan

Brian Bourns

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

*Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)

*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Conway

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mrs Fawcett

Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Waters

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Klopp

Johnson, David (Don Mills PC) for Mr Turnbull

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L) for Mr Offer

White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Ms Murdock

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Barnes, Doug, director, local government policy branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau)

Tomlinson, John, senior counsel, legislation branch, Ministry of Education and Training

White, Drummond, parliamentary assistant to Minister of Municipal Affairs

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0904 in the Radisson Hotel, Ottawa.

Consideration of Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards / Projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française.

DALE HARLEY

The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): The first witness this morning is D.R. Harley Consultants Ltd. Good morning and welcome. You have been allocated 20 minutes for your presentation. I know the committee would appreciate a portion of that for questions and answers, so proceed.

Mr Dale Harley: Thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak to you and express my concerns with respect to Bill 143. As a business owner in Ottawa, which makes me a taxpayer, as well as a resident of the township of Osgoode, which makes me a taxpayer out there, I have a number of concerns with respect to this bill. While I have many concerns, I only have a few minutes to speak, so I'm going to limit my comments to three, those being increased taxes, decreased service, and finally, leaving mayors off regional council.

With respect to increased taxes, I've yet to be convinced, and see any evidence to convince me, that reforming municipal government is going to result in lower taxes. However, what's fairly clear is that bigger is not necessarily better when it comes to operating government, and there are a number of facts I have to support this.

Let's first of all look at bigger bureaucracy. The bigger the bureaucracy, the bigger the average salary, and I'll cite three examples: The city of Ottawa with a staff of 350 has an average salary of close to $70,000; for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton with 316 employees, you're looking at $65,000; on the other hand, in my own township, Osgoode township, there is a grand total of 13 employees but only $34,000 average salary. What this seems to indicate is that bigger bureaucracies result in bigger expenses.

This regional reform is also intended to decrease the number of elected politicians in the region. While we may end up with slightly fewer politicians, we're going to end up with significantly increased costs. An example here is that it's estimated it'll cost approximately $2 million for the salaries and the other expenses associated with the 18 elected regional councillors. While those 18 elected regional councillors are replacing 32 part-time councillors, the salary cost associated with them was only $683,000. So we're looking at approximately an additional $1.5 million in politician expenses.

We're also seeing that while we're going to end up with fewer elected councillors in places like the city of Ottawa, we've already seen evidence of the lobbying taking place there for them to get increased salaries and more expenses for the fact that they're going to be representing additional people.

Increased debt with respect to servicing charges: The per capita debt for the city of Ottawa is approximately $400 per resident. Out in the other municipalities we see that it's little or none. I'll go back to my own township of Osgoode again. We have a per capita debt of $7. So bigger translates into bigger budgets, which translates into bigger debt in the servicing of that debt as well.

In fact, the study by Price Waterhouse concluded that moving to one-tier government would increase annual expenditures of municipal governments throughout the region by approximately $25 million to $77 million. In addition to that, there would be another $12 million to $29 million for initial startup costs and implementation costs as well. What that translates into is an average tax increase of 5.5% to 16.5% -- totally unacceptable. What this evidence here seems to support is that bigger government can only result in bigger tax bills.

Decreased services, my second concern: As a business owner in Ottawa and as a resident out in a rural township it gives me the opportunity to witness firsthand the level of service provided to me by both of those organizations. Let me tell you, my experience has been that my township is much faster at responding to my inquiries, much less likely to make administrative mistakes and is also much more helpful in addressing my needs. Once again, we see that bigger is not better.

It would also appear that my fellow residents throughout the region would also agree with this. According to a study conducted for the Kirby commission by Coopers and Lybrand, it indicated that residents were much more satisfied with their local municipalities; 76% were satisfied as compared to only 57% being satisfied with regional government. Bigger government, decreased services.

Finally, leaving mayors off regional council: The fact that mayors will not be represented on regional council really reduces the input that communities outside the greenbelt have with respect to regional issues. This really doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider that the fastest-growing parts of the region are those communities outside the greenbelt.

0910

We also see that Bill 143 does not reflect the public consultation that's gone on for a number of years, as well as all the related research that's taken place. A poll conducted by Factor Research back in September 1993 revealed that 79% of the respondents surveyed felt that local mayors should sit on regional council. None of the past studies that have gone on, Mayo, Bartlett, Graham, Kirby, recommended taking mayors off regional council. Yet what does Bill 143 propose? Taking them off.

Finally, all the mayors in the region with the exception of one -- surprise -- believe that mayors should remain on council. When you have that many elected officials representing that much of a population saying, "Leave us on regional council," they're speaking not on behalf of themselves but on behalf of their constituents, their taxpayers. They want them left on council.

There are a number of really good benefits in terms of leaving mayors on council. These include greater accountability, greater cooperation and greater fiscal responsibility.

In terms of accountability, nothing burns my butt more than to hear someone say, "Sorry, that's not my responsibility." You have to make one elected official accountable, and that's particularly true out in the rural areas where we can go if we have a concern and we're not going to have to the buck passed. Rural mayors, given the large geographic areas that they have to represent, need to be more involved, not less, in representing their residents' interests with respect to urban and regional issues as well.

Greater cooperation: We need greater cooperation between regional and municipal government, and mayors sitting on regional council ensure this cooperation since they're working together collectively for some common causes and objectives. What did we see in Winnipeg? The model in Winnipeg resulted in just a complete disaster when mayors were left off regional council.

Finally, greater fiscal responsibility: I think regional council would benefit greatly from the proven financial track records of the rural municipalities when it comes to controlling operating costs, deficits and tax increases.

I've spoken for the last three minutes expressing some concerns I have with Bill 143. Let me just take a couple of minutes to talk about some suggestions, ways to make Bill 143 better.

First of all, leave mayors on regional council. Regional council will benefit greatly from having regional mayors. You'll have greater accountability, you'll have greater cooperation and you'll have greater financial responsibility. In order to address the concern with respect to representation by population, it's very possible, and in fact has been proposed by the rural mayors as well, to institute some form of weighted voting system or some form of pooling votes as well. Delay Bill 143 until the financial impact has really been determined. It is evident that there's not been a thorough examination of the financial impacts of Bill 143 on local taxpayers and the government has not yet convinced me it's going to give me better value for my tax dollar in Ottawa or my residential tax dollar back in Osgoode. I would encourage the government to carry out a proper study of the financial implications of this bill.

Go with the status quo for the November 1994 municipal elections. What's the rush? I think the regional governments have been around for 25 years. Another three years is not going to be a crisis. It's not going to hurt. What's the rush to have Bill 143 enacted anyway? Give people more time to understand the issues and give you, the government, more time to communicate the facts surrounding this bill.

Finally, hold a regional referendum. Let the citizens of the region vote on how they want their region to be run. Placing Bill 143 on the ballot on this fall's municipal elections will permit plenty of debate, plenty of discussion. People will understand the facts and then they will be able to decide themselves. It's we, the people, who have to live with the consequences. Let us make the decision, not Queen's Park.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank you again for the opportunity to present this brief. I'm sorry to hear that many of my fellow business owners and residents in the region were not afforded the same opportunity. Given the ramifications of the bill on the region, I would have expected the NDP government to have provided more time to hear from all of us who are concerned with respect to this bill, as well as those few who do support it.

I would also have appreciated, as I know others would, more effort on the part of the government to communicate about these hearings as well. Is it possible that the government's not really interested in hearing what we have to say here in eastern Ontario? Evidence to date would tend to support the conclusion that they are not.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Thank you for your presentation. As you know, if this model of regional government is implemented -- I shouldn't say "if" because it will be, let's be honest -- do you think this is the end of local government in Ottawa-Carleton?

Mr Harley: It's certainly the first step towards the end. You're going to have a situation where rural or non city of Ottawa municipalities just are not going to have enough say. While they may have an elected regional council, the linkage there, cutting across boundaries, does not permit good cooperation and coordination.

As a result of that, you're going to have people take less and less interest in their municipal government. When people take less interest, they don't vote. When people don't vote, they say, "Why should I run?" What you're going to end up with is that the quality of politicians at the municipal level is going to drop dramatically. When you end up with poor politicians, you end up with poor-quality service. When you end up with poor-quality service, you give them the boot and then we go to a single tier. So yes, in answer to your question, it is the beginning of the end.

Mr Grandmaître: What you're saying is, yes, we did need some fine-tuning to regional government in Ottawa-Carleton, but this is going too far.

Mr Harley: Yes, I believe it's going too far.

Mr Grandmaître: My biggest concern is that this model will be repeated elsewhere throughout the province of Ontario. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Municipal Affairs are supposed to promote the local decision-making process and this will certainly kill local government as far as I'm concerned.

Mr Harley: This is true.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a quick question. You probably weren't here yesterday, but most of the representations from the city of Ottawa, and particularly the mayor of Ottawa, were very forceful, saying, "Get on with this and really what we ought to have is one-tier government." Why do you think the city of Ottawa takes that position and in such a forceful manner?

Mr Harley: I can't really speak on behalf of city of Ottawa politicians. That's their job, to make their own comments. Being a little cynical on things, I sometimes take a look at the debt of the city of Ottawa, I take a look at the condition of their infrastructure. I take a look at the condition of the bureaucracy. Quite honestly, they probably look with a bit of jealousy at the other municipalities in the region and say, "Hey, we want to have part of that as well and we want them to help us take care of the problems we have." That's a cynical view. I can't say whether that's true or not.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'd like to thank you, Mr Harley, for an excellent presentation. Just looking at the numbers you've quoted in terms of satisfaction of local municipalities and regional government, I can say that those numbers -- and even a little higher for local municipalities -- are about the same from where I come from in Ontario, and I suspect you'll find that kind of feeling right across Ontario. You'll also find that the provincial government and the federal government are even lower than the regional government on the satisfaction scale.

Mr Harley: I have intentionally left all references to provincial and federal governments out of this.

Mr David Johnson: But I think that again substantiates your "bigger is not always better" theory.

Mr Harley: Very much so.

Mr David Johnson: That's something I've been trying to convey as well. If you look at the salaries, there's no question that the bigger municipalities feel obligated to pay higher salaries.

Volunteerism is something you haven't mentioned, but my recollection from yesterday is that Osgoode has a volunteer fire department.

Mr Harley: That's true. An excellent one. I know. They've been to my house.

Mr David Johnson: For example, in the city of Ottawa, and not just Ottawa but large municipalities, they do not have volunteer firefighters. Indeed, in many cases in the negotiated contract it is forbidden to have any volunteer firefighters where there's unionized staff. We may say that volunteers don't fit in with big government. That's very true. That's the way it works out, but something is lost there and I think when the citizens of Osgoode are prepared to work together to give that kind of service, that's something that should be encouraged.

I think we have ample evidence that governments can't afford to give all the services that all people want. It just can't raise enough tax revenue; it's impossible.

0920

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): There are a couple of things I wanted to pick up on, and I want to thank you for your presentation and for coming here today. One is the tax issue and the service issue that you brought out. The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is unique. In fact, you folks have a real advantage that the rest of us in the province don't have -- I don't have in the area I come from, in Durham region -- and that is that for urban services you pay at a different mill rate than in a rural area such as you're in now. I don't believe there's any intent to change that. So basically, you wouldn't be paying for transit services --

Mr Harley: Mr White, I just want to point out that I'm here speaking as a city of Ottawa taxpayer, business owner. On the side, I happen to have decided to live outside of the city of Ottawa. I grew up in the city of Ottawa; I know it very well.

Mr White: What I'm trying to point out though, sir, is that you're paying taxes in two different locations so you're aware of the fact that there's two different mill rates then.

Mr Harley: That's correct.

Mr White: And that the mill rates that you're paying in Osgoode are lower than in the city of Ottawa.

Mr Harley: I believe so.

Mr White: So you're aware of the fact that the services that you're paying for in Ottawa, even with regionalization, are less than in Osgoode.

Mr Harley: Some of the services I receive in Ottawa are completely different from the services I receive out in Osgoode, hence the difference, yes.

Mr White: Right. And with the Price Waterhouse study, I believe there was an intent there to generalize services from Ottawa to Osgoode to Vanier to everywhere in the region, and you as a taxpayer in both those locations know that is not what has happened.

Mr Harley: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Mr White: You know that you're paying a different mill rate in Ottawa than in Osgoode.

Mr Harley: That's correct.

Mr White: And the Price Waterhouse survey was based on --

Mr Harley: But different municipalities also pay different mill rates as well.

Mr White: I realize that, but at the regional level that's also happening.

Mr Harley: In the city of Ottawa I pay a higher mill rate. I receive a higher level of service as a result, of water and sewer and fire and police etc.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Thank you, Mr Harley, for taking the time this morning and giving us your presentation.

DIANE SPENCER
MARIANNE WILKINSON

Ms Diane Spencer: My name is Diane Spencer. I am a resident of Kanata. I wish to thank the standing committee on resources development for allowing me to speak on Bill 143, RMOC reforms. I am speaking as a concerned citizen and I would like to address the importance of keeping mayors on regional council, and I would like to explain why.

When Mr Kirby was commissioned to do a study on regional reforms, I was a community association president in Kanata. I was very aware that residents wanted openness and public participation with no surprises. They want to be able to voice their opinions to their elected officials and, more importantly, they want to be heard.

I was impressed with Mr Kirby's many meetings across the region to discuss regional reforms and I was pleased to see so many people attend and be so vocal. The people believed that the government truly wanted their views, and they thought the government would listen to their concerns. Unfortunately, I feel many are discouraged with the results of Bill 143.

After I wrote to the Honourable Mr Philip, he wrote to me in February 1994 and stated that the purpose of this most recent study completed by Graeme Kirby was to obtain the views of the public on one-tier government, direct election and any other issues raised. After I wrote MPP Hans Daigeler, he kindly sent me a copy of a letter he received in May 1992 from the Honourable David Cooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time. Mr Cooke stated that he would be appointing a consultation commissioner to review the outstanding issues with the public and with municipalities.

The key point here is that thousands of taxpayer dollars have been spent on another study asking for public opinion, and they have received valuable input, but in the end Mr Philip and the NDP government are not listening to the people, the region, the mayors or local municipal councils. It appears that they gave public participation only because they knew it was politically correct.

The reason I say this is because there is overwhelming support for keeping mayors on regional council.

Mr Kirby did not recommend that all mayors be removed from regional council. His recommendation number 11 proposed that besides the regional chair, there would be 18 councillors directly elected from regional wards and 10 local mayors would sit on regional council. Only the mayor from the village of Rockliffe Park was proposed to be excluded.

Regional council and 10 of the 11 mayors and their municipal councils recommended that mayors remain on regional council. What better recommendation than from those who will be working together in a coordinated effort for a better regional council for the people?

In August 1993, the majority of the 700-plus-member Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, supported a motion to keep mayors on regional council. This is representative of a great number of intelligent, experienced people who have grave concerns over a proposal to remove mayors.

If mayors were removed, Ottawa-Carleton would be the only region in Canada which would exclude mayors from regional council.

When mayors were removed from Metro Winnipeg council, it created a chaotic situation which we don't want to happen here.

The Kanata community associations' joint committee represents all seven community associations across Kanata. They unanimously voted to keep mayors on regional council. They have submitted this information to Mr Philip.

Residents want accountability and accessibility from their elected officials. When they have a problem, they contact their local mayor and/or councillors first, or they attend a convenient evening council meeting in their own municipality. Many residents are unfamiliar with regional council. Also, many residents cannot take off work to attend the region's daytime meetings downtown. Now many are uncomfortable knowing that their directly elected regional councillor will not sit on their local city council to hear their problems. If residents have a problem that must be addressed at regional council, then they want their well-informed mayor who is experienced, knowledgeable and more familiar with up-to-date local matters to represent them there. I believe by having representation at the region with both mayors and regional councillors, there will be better communication between the two and residents will then be assured that both the local and regional issues will be thoroughly examined. And, as a result, the people, the municipality and the region will benefit twofold.

I have heard much discussion on parochialism. It happens everywhere, even with community associations, and it will happen with regional councillors as they try to please residents in their ward. Residents want to protect the uniqueness of their community, and they want their mayor and councillors to ensure that their community grows in a positive way.

The public responded to Mr Kirby's recommendation as it was written in recommendation number 11 with mayors kept on regional council. I am sure, like myself, they had no idea recommendations could be changed arbitrarily by the NDP government after they gave input.

Mr Philip later advised the public that mayors will not sit on regional council. He states that the wide range in populations of the area municipalities makes it impossible to achieve representation by population if the mayors remain. I understand, however, that Mayor Nicholds has suggested it is possible to keep mayors on regional council and has offered some suggestions, one of which is the use of a weighted voting system based on population. Why isn't Mr Philip considering any of these suggestions?

The key point here is that if Mr Philip wanted mayors off regional council, he should have made that recommendation to the public initially, not after the public has responded to an entirely different recommendation, which was recommendation number 11. There should be no final passing of any radically changed recommendations until the public can respond to any new proposals.

0930

Although the government's efforts to inform and obtain input from the people was impressive for Bill 77, I must say that there was a noticeable lack of communication between the government and the people after the region and each municipality submitted their reports. I would have liked to see how each municipality responded to Kirby's recommendations. I would have liked to know why Mr Philip did not listen to the majority who wanted mayors kept on regional council. And I certainly feel that a much earlier newspaper article should have been placed in newspapers asking for speakers for this public hearing. I am also disappointed in the NDP government's decision to limit debate on Bill 143, as I know there are many, many people who wanted to speak.

In a newspaper article on April 7, 1994, it stated that reduced public hearings were "necessary to get the contentious bill passed in time for next fall's municipal elections." On February 11, 1994, Mr Philip also stated that he would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm his commitment to having this legislation in place in time for the 1994 municipal elections.

I am sure I am not alone in saying I do not want a flawed bill rushed through just because an election is quickly approaching. Alarm bells should be ringing in the ears of the people.

To conclude, it is my hope that at the final voting hour, all voting members will listen to what the majority of the people, regional government, mayors and municipal councils want, and as a result they will:

-- Vote to keep the mayors on regional council. Avoid making too many drastic changes at once. Let the people see how well mayors and directly elected regional councillors can work together.

-- Vote only for recommendations that will not increase taxes. These are difficult economic times for many. Now is not the time to implement any costly changes; and

-- Vote only for the recommendations that the majority want passed.

Bill 143 is not totally lost. I believe that making changes slowly, wisely and carefully will be the best way to improve regional government. The people have given input in good faith. Now it is time for the government to listen to those who vote for them.

Ms Marianne Wilkinson: My name is Marianne Wilkinson. I am a councillor in the city of Kanata. I have had 17 years on local government, nine of them on regional council, so I am considered sometimes to be the historian around here.

I spent yesterday here listening to the debate and Diane offered me a chance to put forward an idea that came as a result of hearing what was said yesterday. What really concerned me was the fact that time after time it was stated by people that this bill will pass, that really this is just a charade, that you're listening but in fact the decision's already made. And that, to my mind, is extremely difficult because there were many different viewpoints being made by different people from across the region yesterday.

So last night I sat down to try to think of a way out of this impasse and I have a suggestion for you. The one thing that is time-driven, if you have anything that's time-driven, is doing the legislation for the directly elected regional councillors, which is something which is widely supported within the region. My suggestion is that you only do that right now; that you include within the legislation the fact the mayors may sit on regional council if, as a result of a referendum at the fall election, the people of this region vote that they should be there. Since the mayors are being elected anyway, if it's passed in the referendum then they can immediately go on to regional council and there would be no three-year delay or any delay at all. That way the people, who are the ones who are going to be governed by the system here and who are the ones who should decide for themselves how they wish to be governed and not have it imposed by any other level of government, can do so. And then we can find out who is right.

We heard different points. This person says that the mayors shouldn't be on and this group says they should be and it's back and forth and back and forth. I personally support them there because I think linkages are terribly important and communication is terribly important, and that's a way to keep communication. I think if you wanted to put down a weighted voting to allow for representation more by population, then that could be worked out in the question between now and the election. I have no objection to that. I think the key thing is to have the voices of the people of the communities in Ottawa-Carleton heard.

Additionally, of the other items that were discussed, I think there are some real problems with a lot of those items. They could either be handled by other questions -- I don't think there's anything wrong with having people's viewpoints made known as long as the questions are clear and there's enough time to have public debate on it before they have to vote on them. I wouldn't want to just say, "Are you in favour of Bill 143 or not?" That's too generic. I think people have to have specific questions because they relate to that. They don't relate to a bill number. That doesn't mean anything to the general public at all. They relate to items and key items.

I really think that this is an opportunity. Someone yesterday said we need to have a solution for the 1990s, not the governments of the -- I think they said the 17th century, actually. Your provincial government is based on a model of 1867. The only thing that's happened with that is I think there used to be a senate in Ontario, which is now gone. But in fact, you're still operating largely under a system that's over 100 years old, and you're not planning to change your system.

You're doing a radical change here. It's been pointed out again and again, there is no other place in Canada that doesn't have the head of council on the second tier, whatever they call it. So why don't we look at a new format for the 1990s and say, let the people decide. It's so easy these days to do that. It used to be difficult, but it isn't any more. We have electronic ways -- we're going to be using voting machines in Kanata this year. We'll find out how well they work. But there are ways of tabulating, and even a question could be set up in such a way that if it's complicated, that you count the ballots for the electoral offices first and you count the questions the next day. I don't know why it all has to be counted before you allow anybody to know what's happening. I think you need to have this year's solution.

I was told you could have two amendments or something yesterday. I was listening carefully all day. Why not do it and do it by saying: "This is the government for the people of Ottawa-Carleton. Let them decide. We, as a government, believe in democracy, and democracy is that the majority rules with the protection of the minority"?

If the majority here want the mayors on regional council, it's no skin off your nose. It doesn't bother you. You want to have a system that works for here. Maybe it's different from the system that works for there. With our communication systems today, why do we all have to be operated the same? So a community of 400 people is operated the same as one of two million? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. So that's the challenge that I want to do. The community associations in Kanata have said they want the mayors still on. I think the majority of this region does. But there's only one way to find out for sure and that's ask them, and don't impose it, because if you impose it, you're going to create bitterness. Bitterness is not the way to govern locally.

I'll give you an example. I was the reeve of March township. March township was growing together with two neighbouring municipalities as an urban area. We went to the province and said we wanted to be one municipality. It was a minority government. We had to get three-party agreement, because they didn't want to bother, because it didn't make any difference to them. The three municipalities, which were March township, part of Goulbourn township and part of Nepean, got the province to put in legislation to form the city of Kanata, done by the people asking the government, not the government telling the people. That's the way I think government should be. That's what your challenge is. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Time for one brief comment or question.

Mr David Johnson: Councillor Wilkinson, Ms Spencer, thank you very much for your comments and excellent ideas. Your idea is that each of the 11 municipalities would have the same question on the ballot.

Ms Wilkinson: I think you could probably get the municipalities to get together to determine the final wording. That does not have to be in the bill. There is time to do that. I do realize, by the way, even directly elected, you put the municipalities in a terrible box, on a technical point, to even do that.

Mr David Johnson: And if the answer was favourable, then you'd have the 10 presumably --

Ms Wilkinson: Then on the first of December, they take their office the same as everybody else, because that's three weeks later.

Mr David Johnson: There would be simply a count of the vote right across all 11 municipalities.

Ms Wilkinson: That's right.

Mr David Johnson: Very democratic.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you very much for your presentation. Unfortunately, there's not really a lot of time to develop the question I had in mind, but essentially, I wanted to ask you, Ms Wilkinson, since you are a councillor, why you think that a councillor representing the ward couldn't do the job of representing their ward in the same way that a mayor could, which has been an issue here?

Ms Wilkinson: There are slightly different points of view. I think that coordination is a necessity. The regional system is a two-tier government system in that a lot of the things done at the region are initiated by the local municipality or vice versa. There's a lot of cooperative type of work going on between regions and local governments. Planning is a good example, waste management, lots of different things. We have lots of contacts back and forth continuously.

If you have the mayor there, they are extremely familiar with all the day-to-day things going on in their municipality.

Mr Gary Wilson: And you don't think a councillor could be in the same way?

Ms Wilkinson: No, because I've been both, and I've been off and on. So I've had that kind of experience. You would be working with your people, you'd be talking with them, but you're not there every day. You can't be. It's that extra depth of knowledge that most people have that is really important. Initially, probably any regional councillor will have served on a local council, but in 10 years' time that may not be the case and they may not know how the local council even works.

0940

Mr Gary Wilson: No, but surely they'd know their ward very well and the impact of the council on that ward, perhaps even in more depth than a mayor, who has wider responsibilities.

Ms Wilkinson: That's quite possible. That means you'd balance your knowledge of working with your people in your ward and the mayor's knowledge of the community, and to put the two together is dynamite. I think more information is better, not less.

Mr Grandmaître: I direct my question to staff. Mr Barnes, this is the second time we have heard the possibility of resolving our problems in Ottawa-Carleton through the referendum style. Mrs Wilkinson is repeating what the regional chair suggested some months ago. Has the ministry considered that possibility, a referendum?

Mr Doug Barnes: I would have to say that what's in the bill is currently what the minister wants to bring forward, and the deliberations to arrive at that also include submissions by many people, including the regional chair, which had that suggestion.

Mr Grandmaître: So what you're telling me is that what we see is what we're going to get.

Mr Barnes: You're asking me a political question which I really am not in a position to answer, Mr Grandmaître. If you want to ask me a question with regard to referenda, I can tell you how they work.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Barnes, I don't want to go into details. Was it considered, yes or no?

Mr White: Mr Grandmaître, the issue Mr Barnes points out is that the referendum is a means of securing consultation. The ministry, under many different political stripes, has sought consultation on this issue over the last 20 years. It is a form of consultation.

Mr Grandmaître: Was it considered?

Mr White: We have had the Kirby, the Graham, the Bartlett reports. We have had extensive consultation. This is another means of consultation. Many people might find it to be just as intrusive, especially if you have a piece of legislation which imposes this form of consultation upon the region.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Oh, my God. How could consultation be intrusive?

Mr White: A referendum would be intrusive if it was mandated by legislation.

Mr Grandmaître: Intrusive?

Mrs O'Neill: Our case is made.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Spencer, Ms Wilkinson, thank you for your presentation.

Ms Wilkinson: Mr Chairman, I had prepared a press release on what I said which I could give so you'd have copies of some of my comments.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

AL BROWN
JIM WATSON

Mr Al Brown: Thank you for the opportunity of participating and commenting upon the proposed legislation. My name is Al Brown. I live in Nepean and I'm a former councillor in Nepean. I'll say at the outset that my purpose of participating in this hearing is not with a view to returning to politics. However, I feel I have some comments to offer from my background.

To me, it's clear that this proposed legislation is but the first step to imposing one-tier government on this region. But what is really the rationale? Nothing is perfect, of course, but in my mind, the current system runs fairly well, believe it or not. As I mentioned, I come from Nepean, which is a fairly well-run, debt-free municipality with a great deal of amenities. What advantage is there to being merged with the others?

You might say this is parochial or self-serving, that Ottawa provides the jobs and places for people to work and we live in Nepean. While this may have been true in the past, I suggest that the high-tech industries, which are the growth areas, Nepean and the other municipalities are now creating at a much faster rate than Ottawa, in the inner area. In fact, it's a two-way street: People travel to Ottawa to work, and people travel from Ottawa to Nepean and to the other municipalities to work. And if there is a bit of competition for new industry between municipalities, I believe that's healthy.

In any event, I participated in some of the Kirby hearings, and at least in Nepean I found virtually no support for a one-tier government or indeed for the proposals expressed under this legislation.

On representation, which was alluded to by the last speaker, it's my view that by creating a separate class of regional councillor, who in some cases represents parts of two municipalities -- for example, parts of Nepean are now going to be combined with parts of Ottawa -- you're removing the level of government a step from the people and the local issues. On the other hand, from what I understand, the local municipal councillors will have their jobs reduced to nothing very meaningful; they'll be in charge of parks and bylaw enforcement.

Also, I find it reprehensible that it's proposed to remove the mayors from regional government, and I cite the many reasons that were cited by the previous speaker, Ms Wilkinson. Beyond that, as I already said, the proposal is to combine parts of Nepean and parts of Ottawa into one ward. The councillor from that ward surely cannot represent a particular city, such as Nepean or Kanata, as well as the mayor.

Furthermore, it's now late April and a very late date, as far as I'm concerned, with regard to the fall election, the election being the first week or so of November. It's going to be very difficult for any serious candidates to plan for the election. This planning should be well on the way by now. Having been involved in many municipal campaigns, I know it's difficult enough in these times to raise money and support, but with the uncertainty in the organization which has persisted for the last year, it must be very tough for credible candidates to go anywhere.

It's also my understanding that the wards would be established solely by the province, which I find offensive. It implies a lack of trust in our municipalities and their ability to organize themselves.

Finally, I would add a comment on regional policing. Everyone agrees, I think, including the government, that the costs will be greatly increased, and to what end? This is a move away from community-based policing, which appears to be working very successfully in our municipality. Recently, Ottawa police announced that if there's not a crime in progress, essentially a life-threatening crime, from what I understand, they will not respond until they get around to it. I can see this being the norm across the region, because those extra costs will not be putting more personnel on the street. We can't afford to pay more taxes and at the same time get less service from our police department.

I will conclude with a recommendation. My recommendation is to leave things alone, or, if we must change, don't do it for this election but give it more time for consideration and introduce changes for the 1997 election.

Mr Jim Watson: My name is Jim Watson. I'm a city councillor for the city of Ottawa. I'd like to begin by thanking the opposition members of the committee for pushing for the public hearings, and also Mayor Franklin and Mr Brown from Nepean for allowing me the opportunity to share a part of their time, because like most citizens of Ottawa I was given virtually no notice of these committee hearings, nor was the public. As a result, we've had to team up and it's strange bedfellows, Nepean and Ottawa sitting at the same table together, because while we have differing views on regional reform, we both share the opinion that Bill 77 and subsequently Bill 143 would not be good for the taxpayers of this region.

0950

I want to talk about the process of this piece of legislation and not the details of the bill; that's been talked about ad nauseam yesterday and it will be again today. I find it unbelievable how poorly this process has been handled from day one, when Bill 77 was first introduced. It's ironic that the minister of the day who introduced Bill 77 is now the government House leader. I find it strange that we had a bill that came forward, House management was clearly not well handled on the part of the government, the bill was not passed by the end of December, and candidates could register for office at the beginning of January. We were then told that a new bill would be introduced. Full-page ads were placed in newspapers in this region advising that the bill would be passed by May 1. The Speaker of the Legislature in fact said that those ads bordered on contempt of the Legislature because the legislation had not been passed.

The reality of the situation is that this is not only unfair to the taxpayers but it's also unfair to anyone who wishes to seek public office at the local level. We are now in a situation where we're months away from a municipal election. Anyone who is an incumbent or non-incumbent is at a terrible disadvantage in terms of not knowing the final outcome of the boundaries, not knowing the final outcome of Bill 143. I place the question to you as politicians: How would you react if your government came and within six months of an election changed your boundaries dramatically? How would you react as someone who wishes to seek public office? It puts individuals in a very unfortunate situation.

I also want to comment, as I mentioned a little earlier, my concern about this process, the fact that there has been virtually no public consultation with the people who are going to be most immediately affected. It is also unfortunate that various members of our council in the city of Ottawa who happen to support the legislation were given advance notice of these hearings and an opportunity to put their name on the list, and someone like myself, who does not support the legislation, had to find out about it on Thursday. Ads were placed in papers at that time. Thanks to the good graces of the city of Nepean I was able to share a few moments of time to address you.

The two largest community associations in my ward, which is represented one half by Ms Gigantes and the other half by Mr McGuinty, were both asked to pass resolutions of support for the old Bill 77 a few months ago. When the additional cost of political salaries, political bureaucracies and office renovations for regional councillors were explained to them, both of those associations overwhelmingly voted against the piece of legislation.

Now, like a deathbed repentance, the government is trying to desperately push the legislation through at the last minute with a day and a half of public consultation, despite the fact that there are dozens of other people in my community and throughout the region who would like the opportunity to speak before the committee but have not had that opportunity. So I would ask members of the committee to please consider showing some leadership. I know it's difficult in a parliamentary system for a committee to go against the will of the government, but I ask that you take the bold step and reject this bill, because at this point the status quo would be better than this bill; from the point of view of the taxpayers, it certainly would be cheaper.

The Chair of this committee is from Sarnia, one of my many former home towns. Sarnia and Sarnia township went through enormous changes over the years, but there was public consultation and it was not brought in at the last minute, at the stroke of midnight. The public at that time appreciated that. They may not have agreed with the amalgamation, but they appreciated that it was not coming in at the last minute.

The thing that's disturbing a number of people is that changes that are going to be fundamental to the makeup of this government of this region are being brought in literally months before the public goes to the polls, and I don't believe that is a fair way of doing things. I would ask members of the committee to please take into account the timing factor, because we have seen reform proposals come and go over the years, but we've run out of time. I don't think the public really has a true sense of the full implications of Bill 77 and its successor Bill 143. Thank you.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you very much to both of you. I come to this committee as a member from the regional municipality of Niagara, and I have to tell you in all honesty that regional government is the most reviled form of government among the citizens of region Niagara that you could possibly imagine. It's been noted that over 76% of the people in the city of Niagara Falls, which did take a referendum in 1991, wanted to see its dissolution.

They, in fact, if you gave them the option of one-tier government would overwhelmingly vote for it, because they feel that they would like to see two-tier government eliminated. Having regional councillors I would see as an advantage, personally, not even as an MPP but speaking strictly as a citizen and taxpayer of region Niagara.

I would take it, Mr Watson, that you have some concerns about process, a process that's been going on for some 20 years, which likewise in Niagara has been going on for a considerable length of time and we end up with the same situation, although there have been some different recommendations here.

Having heard Mr McGuinty's remarks in the House, I suspect he's reflecting his citizens and that you're probably reflecting many of your taxpayers', that while they may have some concerns about process, they agree with the concept of one-tier government.

Mr Watson: I should just point out that while talk of reform has gone on for 20 years, Bill 143 certainly is a relatively new piece of proposed legislation which has only been before us for three weeks, about 20 days.

Ms Haeck: My question to you was whether or not you personally agree with the concept of one-tier government. I've heard your comments about 143.

Mr Watson: If I could just follow up on that in terms of another consideration, you talked about regional councillors. I happen to also be, as all my colleagues on city council are, regional councillors as well. One of the things the public has some appreciation for is the fact that there's one-stop shopping: When you call your councillor you can deal with a city matter, a regional matter. There's no confusion among the electorate, there's no bickering back and forth. That's what I really fear is --

Ms Haeck: That's a very good point in light of some of the other presentations that have been made. I think it actually puts to rest some of the concerns of the other members of the audience.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Haeck.

Ms Haeck: Mr Huget, I'm sorry. I just feel he was making some very good points that had to be remarked upon.

The Chair: Do you wish to conclude your response, or are you finished?

Mr Watson: The reality, Ms Haeck, is that in terms of this piece of legislation, I see we're not going towards one tier. I'm here because of the good graces of Nepean and I'm going to be sending a written submission in terms of my own views on the one-tier issue that I hope that you would take into account and consideration.

Ms Haeck: Most definitely.

Mr Daigeler: At the beginning of both of your remarks you made reference to the fact that Nepean and Ottawa appearing together looks like strange bedfellows. Actually, this brings up a good point, that we in Nepean certainly don't have anything against being in bed together as long as it's consensual. Frankly, I feel quite strongly about this. The imagery is quite good because --

Mr Grandmaître: He's addressing the wrong bill.

Mr Daigeler: I'm not talking about Bill 45.

Interjections.

Mr Daigeler: These are inside jokes here.

I feel the imagery is not inappropriate, because frankly, what I heard yesterday from the city of Ottawa very much suggests a forced approach. If there is cooperation and sitting together, as you are doing now -- you're working things out -- I think it can be done, it has been done in the region and it should be done. I think that's the point that I'm trying to make here.

1000

I was not aware of your position. Has there been at your council a debate on this matter? When your mayor appeared yesterday, whom was she speaking for? Did she speak on her own behalf or did she speak on behalf of the whole council on the basis of a discussed position?

Mr Watson: That's a very good question, Mr Daigeler, and having not heard what the mayor said, I can't really comment. Mayors often say things that they believe in and their councils don't believe in, but our council did take a position generally in support of regional reform, although I was one of I think two or three who did not share that point of view.

When this issue came forward the public seemed to think, when you talk reform, "Oh good, it's going to change the way we do business; it's going to save us money." I think as more and more comes out about this bill, we're realizing this reform is not going to save the taxpayers money. It's going to be more confusing. There are going to be, I think, fiefdoms built up within the region and the city and sparring back and forth.

I think the fact that we're here together shows that there is the need to reform the system and there is a spirit of cooperation, but I think this bill is going about it all the wrong way. I think the fact -- I go back to the procedural point of view -- the fact that we're at the last minute trying to ram a piece of legislation through with virtually no public input -- politicians love to talk about public consultation but the public are getting fed up with the sham of public consultation where you fly in and nod and go off and do what the majority wants to do.

I'm offering the challenge to the government members of the committee: I think if you listen to some of the comments of the public and the politicians who are appearing, you'll realize that there is a great deal of concern about this legislation and I hope that common sense would prevail at the end of the day. Because I don't think this is the kind of reform that the public wants or can afford.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Councillor and former Councillor. One aspect that perhaps we're not thinking of here: I believe that the people of Niagara, if they're expressing discontent with regional government, and that discontent is being expressed I think across Ontario, frankly -- it certainly is in Metropolitan Toronto -- that in their mind the option is not necessarily to go to one tier at a regional level but to go back to the local councils and simply do away with the regional council. I think that's maybe something that is not coming through.

But even in Metropolitan Toronto, I can tell you, there's a significant movement now to do away with the regional council and to go back to the six local councils. It's not going to be something that's going to be easy to achieve, but that seems to be the kind of flavour.

It's apparent to me, from speaker after speaker, that there's been virtually no consultation on this bill. The government talks about the Kirby report and all the consultation associated with that, but there are so many different aspects of the Kirby report to what we're seeing here today. It's becoming more and more apparent that, far from the overwhelming support that the government claims, there's very underwhelming support. Even in the city of Ottawa now I'm seeing that.

My question, particularly to you, Councillor, because you're involved in the middle of this: I'm becoming more confused as to what is the driving force behind this. If the people seem to be opposed to it and the political leaders have problems with it --

Mr Daigeler: It's called the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr David Johnson: I'm trying to step back and say, why are we doing this or what is the motivation? Is there some political philosophy? Do you know what it is?

Mr Watson: That's a good question. I think perhaps the member for Ottawa Centre might be better able to answer that question than I can.

One of the things that we find, regardless of who's in power, there's always this thing -- whether it's a myth or reality -- that eastern Ontario is often forgotten in government, and we see it time and time again.

Here is probably the most important piece of legislation dealing with regional government to come before us in many years, and again here we are on a Saturday morning in the month of April, months away from municipal elections, and we don't feel that we've been listened to. Yet, when Metro Toronto had its issue with tax reform, market value assessment, which quite frankly split this community -- my community happened to suffer probably the most of any in the region. But special and preferential treatment was given to the residents of Toronto because they appeared to have a stronger voice around -- whether it be the cabinet table or the Legislature and more time was spent on that issue.

Now we're here at the last minute dealing with a piece of legislation that's going to affect every single taxpayer in their pocketbook and we don't appear to have any commitment on the part of the government members to at least listen to the arguments.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope at the end of the day that substantial amendments do come forward or, better yet, that you say: "Look. We tried. It clearly doesn't have the support of the public. We're better off with the status quo." This has acted as a catalyst for at least various groups to get together and talk about the problems of overgovernance. That's what it boils down to, because a friend of mine once said that Ottawa-Carleton, probably without a doubt, is the most overgoverned jurisdiction in North America, with six school boards, 11 municipalities, a regional government, and the NCC, which in essence is a form of local government.

The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing this morning to express your views.

MARION DEWAR

The Chair: The next witness is Marion Dewar. Good morning and welcome. You've been allocated 20 minutes, and the committee would appreciate a portion of that for dialogue, questions and answers.

Ms Marion Dewar: I'll try. I was a local municipal politician and we've been involved in this kind of dialogue since the early 1970s in Ottawa-Carleton and I served with some of your colleagues on the Ottawa-Carleton regional council.

Just hearing some of the debate this morning, I guess I want to preface my remarks with one of the things that is happening, I think, around the world, which is the reduction of organizations into smaller organizations that have been able to nurture and feed a very strong nationalism that we have seen happen in countries that is not a very comfortable kind of direction. I'm thinking of course of what's happening in Bosnia, what's happening in Africa and those kinds of things. I've done some work in the development field.

I think in Ottawa-Carleton -- not that I have any bias or anything -- we have probably managed to deal with minorities in a better way than many of the communities across the country, and I think it's really important that we continue in that kind of element. So philosophically, if we're talking about breaking it down and getting rid of regional government, I probably would have said in 1974, "Get rid of it." I think now that we couldn't get rid of it anyway with any reasonable, rational sense, so let's try to make it work and make it work well.

I used to be the mayor of the city of Ottawa and I can't tell you how often people used to say to me, "But it's not your fault. It's regional government," and I'd say to them, "But I'm on the executive of regional government." They could never quite get those two concepts because they didn't elect me as their regional representation; they elected me as their municipal representation. They couldn't divide necessarily in their own minds.

The Mayo report came in with some of the similar recommendations around 1975-76 from Carleton University and then we had the Bartlett report. I'm really glad to see Mr Bartlett here this morning because he did consult. Certainly Henry Mayo consulted and Graeme Kirby consulted. I went to meetings when Graeme Kirby was there and he was crying: "Where are the citizens? All I get are old municipal politicians or municipal politicians, but where are the citizens?"

Mr Daigeler: In Ottawa there were lots.

1010

Ms Dewar: Oh, I was out in Nepean at two of them and there weren't a lot of citizens.

Interjection: You couldn't have been at the same meeting I was in.

Ms Dewar: No, I obviously wasn't. But I think the big thing that we have to look at is, all you have to do is look at the voter turnout and what you're looking at is a very small turnout compared to what the turnout is both provincially and federally. It's always been something in my heart that I've felt very bad about, that I think municipal government can be the government that's closest to the people and yet the people don't turn out to it. I have many friends who are not politically involved with anything who don't vote municipally for the simple reason: "I'm sick to death of all of you people there, all of you representatives. I get school board lists like this and I get the same kind of thing from regional council that is making all the big decisions about the budget these days and I don't have any say." These are the kinds of comments that I've had.

So I think that what you're doing in directing the bill the way you are is a positive thing. I don't accept the fact that there has been no process because, as I say, there's been a process going on in this region since 1976: same questions, same outcomes usually and then resistance to change.

I also think it's important that you are reducing the number of elected representatives. I think we have to look at ourselves -- and I'm saying this now as not holding a position -- you would have to question what my interest is if I were the mayor of the city or of anywhere else and how does that fit with the general electorate. I think there are times when there are some conflicts.

I also have, and I have had over the years, a real concern about a person who is elected by 8,000 or 9,000 people having an equal vote as persons who are elected by 25,000 to 30,000 people. That's what our ward breakdowns are in our highly urbanized areas versus our rural area. So we are starting to look at representation by population. To me, it's a much more democratic kind of representation.

I also would like to take just a minute and talk about economic development and also the regional community associations. For years -- and I'm talking about both being at the regional level and at the city level, and before I was elected to council I worked in the city of Kanata -- I heard the private sector saying, "We really need, first of all, a stronger thrust in economic development by the region." The private sector feels very strongly about that, and I know why, because when they're out looking for a business or wanting to get something established and something done, they want to get it done. They don't want to go to a couple of layers of government; they just want to move with it.

Secondly, I don't think that within an area like ourselves that competition of one municipality versus another municipality is a good thing. I think it's negative energy because if something comes into the town of Orleans that is industry-oriented, that brings jobs to this region, we all benefit. I think we really have to look in those terms of about everybody benefiting and doing the rationale of economic development as far as that's concerned. Certainly your community organizations across the region have said that they want to see less government and they want to be able to look at things in a way that is rational.

When people talk about regional policing -- and we are the only region that doesn't have a regional police force. We were the only region that didn't have regional child care, and if you ever try to get that through regional council, I can tell you, when you've got people who represent, as I say, 7,000 or 8,000 people versus 25,000, you'll never get the chance. All you have to do is look at the history of Ottawa-Carleton and the reason we don't have a regional police force is because it wasn't done in the original act, and it was the only place. They never made that mistake again when the provinces were putting regional governments in place.

If we think that having five or six different police forces is going to give you more community policing, then obviously administratively you don't understand how services are delivered. You have to deliver services in different parts of the community in different ways -- I feel very strongly about this -- but you wouldn't deliver policing in every part of Ottawa the same way. You wouldn't deliver policing in other municipalities the same way. If you do, you're not doing a good job. You've got to look at preventive policing. You've got to look at some standards across the region. You've got to look at sophisticated, forensic kinds of approaches where they'll tell you they share their information and so forth.

We had a tragedy that I happen to know a lot about from a personal point of view, about a year and a half ago, two years ago, and it was a combination of forces working together where one didn't know what happened and a man died in the process. The time has come that we've got to put the administration under one order and then divide your policing sections up so that they're administered with different ways to respond to that community. I think that's crucial.

As far as the cost, nobody consulted us about what cost it was going to be when they established regional government. They were the heydays and there was lots of money around, and it cost us. People don't always look at what the short-term and the long- term costs are. When I have to do maintenance to my home and it cost me a lot this year, it's because it's going to cost me less 10 years from now. I think that's the kind of thing that we're looking at when we're looking at the reduction of elected representatives, as well as looking at the reorganization of the Ottawa-Carleton region.

One of the things I want to say too -- and I just can't help it because it's a personal thing with me -- is one of the reasons that this bill is being rushed through is because of our adversarial government structure. I don't blame any of you because I know that's the system we're in, but the reality is that the opposition held up the bill from going through because they were doing tradeoffs in back rooms, and I hate all that kind of thing. I just think it's the kind of system that I'd like to see reformed so that we start to do some problem-solving with our opposition and our government instead of all this "Because it comes from one place, we've got to oppose it the other place." You're all so bright and you care so much and you're there because you do care about your constituents and yet you end up always in adversarial positions instead of getting together and doing things, which I think we were able to do very often at the local level.

It's just a comment, but instead of sort of getting all uptight about the timing of the bill, look at yourselves and realize that you've all been party to making sure that the bill gets held up, both from the government side, I must say, as well as from the opposition side. Once in a while we should look at that honestly and say, "Well, you know, we use the tricks of the trade to do this, but let's not pretend that it's some glorified kind of great goal that we were trying to do in holding that up."

The Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?

Mr Grandmaître: Mrs Dewar, I think the very first line in your presentation this morning was that everybody was looking for a reduction in their organization or a reduction in the size of their government. I think people are requesting this for an economic reason, but also people in the 1990s are expecting better communications, better consultation with their government.

This is a perfect example. I don't want to go back to the days of David Bartlett and even Mayo and so on and so forth. We did have consultation. But the way this late Bill 143 was introduced, it was insulting to the opposition. You know. You've been around politics for, God, I don't know how many years but a long time; long enough to realize that --

Mr Daigeler: Not as long as you.

Mr Grandmaître: To blame the opposition for holding up this bill I think is totally false because this government has used that closure power on 13 different occasions, and if this bill was so important to the government, it would have had closure on it and it would have been a settled matter tomorrow morning. But no, they wanted us to linger and pretend they were consulting people, but they weren't. This is why we're meeting on a Saturday morning, at the very last minute, at the 11th hour, and this bill has to be back before the committee on April 25, and that's it, May 1.

Your message was well appreciated. I think not only the government but the opposition has learned something. But you have better connections than I have with the present government and I think that's the message you should pass on to the government, that we should have better consultation, not simply say, "We're having consultation," but really mean it.

1020

Ms Dewar: Ben, you know from working with me, and we have worked together for a long time, I'm a pragmatist. One of the things that makes our governing bodies very negative at times is that we are always trying to attribute blame instead of looking at solutions.

The reality is that we're into an election year this year and there's been another study done, of the three, of Ottawa-Carleton region, with many of them with the same flavour, the same thread through the fabric, of what needs to be done. What we need is to have that reform take place, because it's been restated so many times, and it does reduce the number of elected officials and it does give people representation by population. It also gives people the ability to know who is doing what in their region so they can go to them. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it needs to get through.

It's not as if Ottawa-Carleton regional reform came on the agenda in the last year. It's been there for a long time. And don't forget, we were the first experiment and we've lived through a lot of the difficulties in the region.

But you talk to the man or the woman on the street in any of your communities and ask them about regional government -- I'm not talking about the activists that are coming forward and so forth -- and they'll say to you, "Just give us one local government and get rid of the National Capital Commission." People who aren't from this area don't realize that we can go through an economic development, we can through a planning process, and we can have it stopped because the federal government owns about a third of our resources, our land mass in this area. Really, both the provincial and local governments haven't got as much say as they'd like to have, so the people would like to know the direct communication with their councillors.

Mr David Johnson: I suspect we may have to look at models that do eliminate regional government. It won't be easy, and to me it was unthinkable even a year ago, but having gone through the process I've gone through in the last year, there seems to be a great deal of sympathy for that and we have to look at those kind of models.

I'm going to make two comments because I'll probably only get one chance, and you can respond to either one. You've put so much emphasis on rep by pop throughout your presentation. What I'm asking you to respond to as one part is that you were candidate in the federal election for the NDP, I believe.

Ms Dewar: Yes.

Mr David Johnson: I think of Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island has been overrepresented for ever, yet nobody seems to object to that. If you had been the elected member in Ottawa -- I don't know where you ran, but wherever you ran here -- I doubt you would gone into the House of Commons and demanded that Prince Edward Island receive its proper representation by population. I think you would have said, "Canadians recognize that Prince Edward Island has a special status." If it applies there, why doesn't it apply here in Ottawa-Carleton? If it applies at the federal level, why can't it apply at the local level? That's one aspect.

The other aspect: Doesn't it bother you a wee bit, as a person who cares deeply about municipal government -- you've certainly had that reputation; you've spoken about it today, about minorities etc. It just seems to me a bit inconsistent that here you are supporting a stronger regional government, which is getting away from local people, which is getting away from what people want, and indeed some people are coming here and saying that where this is headed is a one-tier regional government, which will be extremely remote, providing all the local services that people care about at a remote level. Isn't that inconsistent with your past?

Ms Dewar: I don't think so, because what I'm saying is that I don't think the level of the numbers of bureaucracies you have necessarily delivers closer services to people. For instance, in our social services community here in Ottawa-Carleton -- and I would ask any of you to talk to community and social services departments in the province of Ontario, because I've consistently heard that we have done things that are quite unique in terms of decentralizing, starting new programs, working in partnerships with community groups. This is at the regional, because community and social services has always been regional here.

I don't think the administration, the power to administer, necessarily removes the service from the people. We've got far too much administration, and I think that's what people are really complaining about. If we can have a single administration, with programs that are decentralized, then you start to -- I mean, if you want me to really carry on, I think we should get rid of school boards in Canada and I think they should be under local -- but that's not on the agenda.

Look at the European models, though, in France and Belgium, Germany and so forth. That's what happens. You have a commission of education that has a lot of power at the local level but then a variety of different kinds of schools. You have different schools under different kinds of jurisdictions.

The Prince Edward Island thing: I used to be very active in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as well as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and there isn't anybody in any of those associations who hasn't raised the point of Prince Edward Island. Of course, the reason we probably will never be able to do anything about it is because of the BNA Act and the way we're paralysed in Canada in terms of constitutional change.

The reality is that Prince Edward Island is probably the size of two wards of the city of Ottawa and it gets direct transfer payments from the federal government that municipalities in Ontario can't have. The other thing is that we have argued over the years in the municipal field that we should have a say as a legitimate level of government in the BNA Act so we could have that kind of thing.

In many ways, it's really important that we look at a region together that works together, is completely bilingual, that cares very much about its minorities, about its two official languages, that operates everything in those two official languages. The regional municipality and the city of Ottawa are officially bilingual; the province isn't.

Mr White: I will try to be very brief and very quick. The issue that's before us of course is that despite the thousands of consultations, we still hear from people saying that the Regional Municipality of Carleton Act of 1969 works very, very well, thank you very much: "It's not broke. Don't fix it." But you were alluding to the fact that from a police standpoint there are some problems and it doesn't work, that this is a structure, particularly in the police area, that is broke and does need to be fixed. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that from your experience with the police commission.

Ms Dewar: If you're working, for instance, in a municipality where, as here, we have several municipalities and you cross the border from one municipality to the other, you have a different kind of policing service and a different chief to whom the police officers are reporting and who administers it. What we need to do in our region is consolidate that so your police officers are working under one principal standard, one service and one kind of delivery. That means that you'd be able to take some of your resources and put them into different models in different areas.

I hear "community policing" all the time from people who oppose this and say it's going to stop community policing. I suggest to you that we were into community policing in the city of Ottawa before any of the other municipalities had even talked about it, yet we were the largest municipality. We were looking at that in 1978 and implementing it.

I happened to be in Toronto yesterday and was talking to a person totally unrelated to anything political, a lawyer who works on patent law, just to let you know how far removed he is from what we're doing in municipalities. He said, "I am beginning to feel so good about our metropolitan police force," because we now have bicycle policing along the areas where a lot of our aboriginal police are. He said, "I was down on Queen Street yesterday," I think he said, "and there were two police officers and a group of aboriginal people, and all I could hear was laughter." He said, "It made my day, because I thought, here are the police officers and the aboriginal people, and a couple of them were obviously street people, and they were laughing and cheering together."

That wasn't because of the structure of having six different police forces -- they don't have them -- but it was the structure of a policy of how to deliver a force. I happen to think that's right. Gosh, we've got to get rid of all the layers of bureaucracy and start to say, "We can administer this" -- and somebody mentioned high tech. With our high tech we can certainly put in administrative units that are very efficient and then get our services to people, use our resources; instead of just laying them off, use them to deliver services to people, because that's how we can really respond to people.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing this morning and presenting your views.

1030

JOHN GRUBER

Mr John Gruber: Good morning, sir. I will try and not raise your antagonism level by going overtime. My wife will be surprised. I represent myself and I'm a resident of Kanata.

I speak as a concerned citizen who has endured the introduction of regional government, the amalgamation of various communities to form Kanata, Bartlett, Graham, Kirby, market value assessment, Bill 77 and its offspring.

I accepted the minister's suggestion on Kirby and previously provided comment on Bill 77 and 143, variously, to the two concerned ministers, Minister Gigantes, my local MPP, my councillor and mayor. I have used all available public information, including press -- mostly, to my community, foreign -- and the system to provide my public input to the government.

My purpose and concern with Bill 143 are fourfold:

-- First, the process, which seems to have obscured the problems to be solved and any factual logic base and a solution flow.

-- Second, the regional policing amalgamation and the control-cost-service impact on communities like Kanata which have paid for full OPP service.

-- Third, the apparent arbitrary exclusion of mayors from regional council.

-- Fourth, to me, the surprise and random inclusion of school board changes in 143.

My process concerns are with Kirby through 143 only, not historical. I can best illustrate them by quickly going through Kirby's mandate, which was of course, as has been stated earlier, to consult, but the point that should be noted is that unlike the other two studies, Bartlett and Graham, Kirby had no mandate or resources to undertake research or analysis.

The Kirby recommendations were delivered in November 1992 and he brought forward all of the Bartlett and Graham recommendations, to total 41. We were all asked to provide comment by February 1993, again a very tight time frame.

The city of Kanata response included a citizen task force and public discussions. The final submission was prefaced by a number of regionally oriented principles. It endorsed 28 Kirby recommendations outright and only asked for change in 13.

Bill 77 was tabled suddenly, on July 22, 1993, on the general premise that it was based on a series of recent studies, with the need to act now in order to streamline the delivery of regional services. Because there was no direct linkage to the Kirby recommendations, implementation appeared arbitrary, with no logic or fact foundation from the earlier study needs. I note, coincidentally, the release of the 10-year, fairly expensive, Colter study on Niagara policing. That arrived without any connection but simultaneous to Bill 77.

The minister insisted on passage of the bill, and all changes were resisted, including very expensive ads he has taken out. I saw no cohesive, publicized intergovernmental plan to staff and implement Bill 77.

The regional amendments prepared on December 19 by the regional solicitor in an attempt to move Bill 77 were issued as a report or annexes for municipal comment. They were never discussed or approved by executive council and were subsequently withdrawn on March 28. I would ask you to note those amendments; they will come up again. The regional chair, on March 2, in a local community association stated he had been unsuccessful in having Toronto make any changes to Bill 77.

Bill 143 was tabled and received second reading on March 24, with no notice and few copies available. I concluded, from my examination, that most changes are verbatim, from those regional proposals, annexes A-2, A-3, and A-5. It appears that no public or municipal changes were heard and certainly not officially included.

And then of course the legislative committee: We first had notice on April 7 in the press with a target for bill passage by the 25th, and our attendance at this meeting was only confirmed on the 14th.

If I could summarize my process concern: There is now a great rush for public comment on a revised bill, with no time to assess or provide normal municipal and other inputs. The value of the extensive and structured Kirby consultation is obscured since changes are not supported by known research or analysis. Throughout, the minister has consistently resisted Bill 77 changes.

Another concern is the sudden random inclusion of Education Act changes. Yet the school board fact-finder study, the Bourns study, as I understand it, was completed well after Bill 77 with, to my knowledge, no known public input or discussion since.

The regional council is going to have to manage this lot, yet never discussed any of the withdrawn proposals, three of which are almost verbatim, as I said earlier, in Bill 143. If the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature ruled that the minister was very close to contempt with his $12,000 ad, I personally can conclude that he must be in real contempt with the process.

I now address regional policing. My concerns in Bill 143 are that Kirby recognized that policing was carried out by three municipal forces, the OPP under full service contract to Kanata and Rockcliffe Park, and the OPP free to the remaining rural areas. He stated that all forces provided excellent service but could be better, but he did not specify how.

Kirby examined preceding studies and regional arrangements in many other jurisdictions. Because of mandate-resource limitations, the municipalities had to fund the financial study. He did conclude there would be some large cost increases -- for example, Kanata at 82% or more -- for no better service.

Bartlett, and I respectfully use his name, recognizing the agenda this morning, in 1993 written public commentary stressed that regional policing in this region has not been the subject of recent research and nobody has enough information on which to reach an informed conclusion, then adds: "Pooled ignorance does not necessarily produce wisdom."

Based on everything seen during Kirby, any non-anecdotal problems of interoperability, communication, cost and common procurement could be addressed by better cooperation within the existing structure, in my view.

The lessons from the Colter study, released the same day as Bill 77, could not possibly have been applied. From that study, I conclude there is no universal consensus on the beauty of police regionalization.

1040

My specific concerns with policing as it affects my community are that:

-- The bill is very specific about municipalities that have their own force and those that did not pay for OPP but quite deliberately avoids any reference to those, like Kanata and Rockcliffe, that have been paying for full OPP service. Yet there is a very clear and deliberate act to remove control by abolition of all municipal boards and the exclusion of all current board members from the planning process.

-- The costs for Kanata policing will clearly increase. In a rural-urban mix, personnel, which are 88% of the total cost, are not reducible by any managerial or technology changes. Kanata currently has the lowest police to population, police cost to municipal cost, supervisory and support to constable ratios of anybody in the region.

-- In accordance with the act, the region will pay principal and interest on all assumed policing liabilities. The assets are non-liquid and transfer without compensation. The size of this debenture liability is not known but, to me, we have another large hidden cost for the taxpayers.

-- The region can change tax levy for an area municipality experiencing increased costs for up to five years. In my view, no amount of mill rate bookkeeping can change the fact that the costs will be more for no better service and certainly, initially, less. The press has noted possible provincial grants which, in my view, is in direct contradiction with the disentanglement process in which grants, I believe, are trying to be reduced, if not eliminated altogether.

-- There is no published regional policing model or plan and thus the release of the Niagara regional study could be assumed as connected. I've assumed it, I don't know whether anybody else has. For Kanata a more appropriate model would be London and the OPP police contract after the Westminster annexation. That would be a better model for my city, I believe.

-- The minister, in a response to me, stated that people often work in areas other than their residence, inferring that there is disproportionate sharing of services. It's a good theory, a good principle, but locally it means the core provides services, I have to say it, often anecdotal, to outports like my own community. In truth, there are pluses and minuses and no one, including Kirby or anybody who has followed him, has carried out an analysis to determine the pluses and minuses. Until that plus and minus is quantified to see whether in fact the living, working, cost-service flow is in fact one way or the other, I am getting a little tired of having to pay for philosophies.

Regional council: The withdrawn regional proposal that I have referred to earlier states that Kirby recommended 18 councillors, directly elected, and the mayors of all area municipalities, except Rockcliffe. It was endorsed by regional council with a similar recommendation made by Bartlett. It concludes that Bill 77 is inconsistent with the position of regional council or either review commissioner. It is a political issue on which a staff recommendation would be inappropriate. Again, because this was excluded, whereas annexes A-2, A-3, and A-5 from the same withdrawn document were included, I conclude the logic for Bill 143 is not in the public domain.

In my view, the arbitrary exclusion of the mayors from regional council removes a check and balance where an expensive regional councillor with a singular regional focus or other philosophy is elected. The mayors are the focus for municipal financial accountability which they would bring to the regional table in addition to the directly elected connection through the municipality to the citizens. Much of the suggested $100,000 regional councillor's office costs is only necessary if there is no official functional interface with the municipal staff, which the mayors provide.

As far as I can tell, aside from the minister, the people who seem to favour the mayors' exclusion are, of course, the mayor of Ottawa, whom the press has identified as having "huge costs, policing and infrastructure problems"; Minister Gigantes, who -- I quote the press now -- "exploded when the mayor issue was raised and was ecstatic when Bill 77 was reprogressed"; and one of my local councillors, who is a failed MPP candidate, who was an aide to the first Gigantes ministerial incarnation; and some of the press, again mostly foreign to my community. I am still astounded by the incredible logic leap of a ministry director, quoted in the press, who equated regional attendance records, all within the rules, with reasons for mayors' exclusion from regional council.

Education Act changes: It's just a surprise to me, but curious, that the school board study contained more school board analysis than Kirby did on regional policing, yet avoided amalgamation.

Finally, sir, I would like to make my recommendations on Bill 143. I believe the process used has such a degree of unstructured and inconsistent documentation to raise serious doubts as to its integrity. The strange route of the amendments, the inflexibility and time compression would lead me to the conclusion that there has been a de facto will to circumvent the Legislature. If the press release was near contempt, then, as I've said before, this has to be contempt plus.

I doubt that there is sufficient systemic ability to withdraw Bill 143. Therefore, I would recommend, as a minimum, inclusion of the mayors in article 5, and if it'll help anybody, put it on a five-year trial; exclusion of Kanata from article 32.2, thus allowing for local choice on policing: contract OPP, regional, whatever is chosen; re-examination of the regional policing feasibility factors; and finally to re-examine all education fact-finder recommendations. I thank you for your patience and time, sir.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Mr Gruber. That's quite a lineup of support that you've outlined for Bill 143. I don't know what to say other than --

Mr Gruber: How do you spell "support"?

Mr David Johnson: I think your comments are bang on. I think there was a political agenda behind this and it has been driven through, and the opposition parties sort of behind the scenes have been tried to be levered into supporting it before having heard the public deputations. Now we're hearing the public deputations.

On the first page you've said that it seems to have obscured the problem to be solved. What in your view is the problem that needs to be solved today?

Mr Gruber: What is the problem today or the problem with Bill 143? My problem is with Bill 143. I don't know what problem it's trying to solve. I do not know what the problem is that they're trying to solve with 143.

Mr David Johnson: Is there a problem to be solved?

Mr Gruber: Not in my view.

Mr White: Mr Gruber, you've brought up a couple of points in terms of the introduction of Bill 77. Mine will simply be a statement, which is simply that the revised Bill 143 does take into account many of the recommendations of the Colter commission in regard to policing, particularly the longer time frame that's implemented with this changed bill. The longer planning time frame allows for the coordination of police services and the implementation of those regulations over a much longer period. That's a direct reflection of the Colter commission that my friends from Niagara are concerned about.

Also, the Bourns task force in fact did not report back before Bill 77's introduction. The report date here is November 2, and Bill 77 of course was introduced some four months prior to that. That's why 143 includes the Bourns recommendations.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Gruber, you're certainly an informed voter, and I thank you for the chronology that you presented, because it's very accurate. You haven't put the final chapter in there that we did have closure on second reading as well, many of our members who wanted to speak not being able to speak even at that stage, let alone at third reading.

1050

My question to you is about the school boards and I find this -- well, I've used very strong words in this area because it is very extraordinary to open the Education Act and throw a major change in education into an act such as this. It's not been done as I know it. If you think there's a reason, what's the reason for that in your mind, and do you realize how hard that is for the francophones in this region to deal with?

Mr Gruber: I really have no opinion because I have not studied the Education Act. My concern with it was what appeared to be the random inclusion. I have no particular brief one way or the other way with the good or the bad. I accept your argument on face value. Could I make one suggestion?

The Chair: Certainly.

Mr Gruber: I respect Mr White's indication of what's now in Bill 143. My question is how it got there, because the only way that it could have got there was those two amendments, which were generated, to the best of my knowledge, which I saw at public meetings here, by the regional staff. They withdrew it. So all of a sudden we have an immaculate conception into Bill 143 of these, regionally generated and never discussed or approved.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for bringing that forward.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gruber. The committee appreciates your taking the opportunity to appear before us this morning.

DAVID BARTLETT

Mr David Bartlett: Mr Chairman, I have a short statement, which I think will take about 10 minutes, and then I'm obviously open to questions.

This is kind of a significant occasion for me because eight years ago I was involved in the, frankly, not-so-immaculate conception of the legislation which is now before your committee and, from where I sit, as you'll understand, it seems to have been a long gestation period.

My name is David Bartlett and, for the record, I held elected office for 20 years in what is now Ottawa-Carleton. For 12 of these years I was a member of the council of Rideau township and for seven of them I was mayor of Rideau and a member of the regional council.

I was never a full-time politician. My income that mattered came directly or indirectly from the federal government, where I was employed in a professional capacity for something over 30 years and enjoyed it. My employers were sympathetic to what I'm sure they regarded as my municipal aberration and willingly accepted that I worked to deadlines rather than working to hours. It would be nice if we all had bosses like that, but mine were really very good.

It was hard work, but this arrangement served me and my employer and the upper- and lower-tier governments, I think, pretty well. It follows that, apart from the regional chair and the mayors of the major municipalities, I do not think that elected municipal officials should serve full-time.

At about the same time as my voluntary retirement from the public service, my neighbours retired me from elected office as well. In retrospect, they did me a favour and themselves too. I don't think I was a bad mayor, but I had really been around too long and didn't have the sense to quit.

Some months later, Ben Grandmaître, who's here as a member of your committee -- he was then the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and my former colleague on the regional council -- invited me to undertake a review of regional government in Ottawa-Carleton, and this I was glad to do. It was a very, very interesting and instructive 18 months.

From the beginning, there were two presuppositions that guided my work. They weren't in the terms of reference, but I was quite clear about them in public meetings and they appear in my phase 1 report.

First of all, I didn't realistically expect an early or necessarily even a favourable response to my recommendations. By that time, I had been around government for close to 40 years and I had some idea of how they work and how fast they were not going to be. On the other hand, I thought that anything I could do that would take some of the mystery and mythology out of the public perceptions of the regional government would be worthwhile.

It was in this context that I went about the job. I attached, and still attach, more weight to the research and the analysis in my report than I do to the detail of the recommendations, some of which have been overtaken by events and time and some which may have been wrong.

The faculty of public administration at Carleton University, under the leadership of Katherine Graham, agreed to direct the research, and I think they did a super job. Looking over it eight years later, it's reassuring that the research studies and I think the analysis which we jointly made -- I made with the research team -- has stood up really very well.

Most of the provisions of the legislation which is before you are fully consistent with the thrust of my analysis. So I appear fundamentally in support of the substance of Bill 143. I know nothing about the process. I haven't followed the debates in the Legislature at all. But as far as the substance is concerned, I hope that you will give it a good report. In this context, I make no comment whatever about the education side of the bill because I have no competence in that area at all. My opinions would be pooling the ignorance that the previous speaker mentioned.

Secondly, in preparing the reports, I wanted to put forward recommendations and conclusions which would appear realistic in the political climate of 1986. Ten years earlier, with much more time and resources, Professor Henry Mayo had embarked on a similar study of local government in Ottawa-Carleton and his report was perceptive and clever and well researched and even amusing, but it dropped like a stone because politically it was just too far out to fly and nothing has been heard of it since.

This didn't strike me as a very productive way to proceed, and I decided to water the wine and moderate my formal recommendations into something that I thought would be useful to, at that time, Minister Grandmaître. I must say, in case there's any misunderstanding, that I received absolutely no instruction, guidance, advice, leaning on or other interference from the minister. I had to phone him once to untangle a bureaucratic snarl having to do with pay and office space. Other than that, he stayed right away, and I give him credit for that.

Mr David Johnson: He wasn't interested, eh?

Mr Bartlett: It's in this context of being politically and popularly acceptable and realistic that my recommendation to retain the local mayors on regional council should be seen. Eight years ago the notion that any regional councillors be directly elected was radical. I expected that my recommendation that they be directly elected would be resisted, as indeed it was, by local councillors from Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester and Vanier who served at that time and still serve ex officio on the regional council. Frankly, I concluded that if the local mayors were also viscerally opposed, the recommendation would have no chance of acceptance, and so it came out as it did. Better half a loaf than no bread.

If I were making the recommendation today, I think that public opinion has changed to the point where you no longer have to compromise the principle of direct election in order to effect the reform. A number of factors probably influenced this change in public opinion. As far as I know, we don't have any polling data on it, so some of the people in elective office and others will disagree about the extent of the shift. I think it's there.

The bitter resentment caused in some circles by the imposition of regional government in 1969 has pretty well receded into history. Young people really don't much care about old insults. Believe me, the people who were active in 1969 in the Carleton county context felt themselves grossly insulted and they will never forgive or forget, but they're getting pretty old.

The population of the city of Ottawa, which was about two thirds of the regional total when the first RMOC act was passed, is now down to around 45% and falling. So the perceived risk of political domination by the big, bad politicians in the big, bad city steadily loses credibility. Perhaps most significantly, I think there's now widespread recognition that the whole region is a functioning economic and sociodemographic unit with its own requirements and priorities which are of a different order than those of the local municipalities.

When I was doing the review, I came across the satellite imagery of Ottawa-Carleton, and I may have shown it to some of the members of the committee in earlier discussions. You can see the population density. You can get a pretty good idea of land use. You can see how the transportation systems work, but you cannot even guess at where the lower-tier municipal boundaries might be. They're an artificial construct in this context. They have some historical validity, but they're simply not in the region as a functioning economic unit. They're just not meaningful.

We're even more of a functioning economic unit, incidentally, than the regional municipalities in southern Ontario, where the economies of the adjoining regions tend to overlap. Apart from the Ottawa-Outaouais linkage there's no overlap on the Ontario side with any other significant municipality at all.

I am not, incidentally, a proponent of one-tier government. I think there are a lot of municipal issues which are of great concern and importance at the neighbourhood level, which have no significance whatever beyond it. Things like local parks and recreation, minor roads and sidewalks, animal control and the administration of the Drainage Act -- God help us if urban politicians ever get involved in the Drainage Act. I don't know whether any of you worked on it, but it's the most arcane piece of legislation that ever came down the pike. The farmers understand it and it's a mystery to everybody else. This sort of local thing will always be more effectively and sensitively and cheaply handled by very local councils, and I think Bill 143 is right to leave them at the local level.

1100

I'd just say a few words about the regional police force thing. I didn't look into the pros and cons of this eight years ago, partly because a credible study would have exhausted all my time and research budget and partly because at that time I gave the subject low priority as a political non-starter. One of the previous speakers actually quoted the report on that point.

To the best of my knowledge, no serious research has yet been undertaken. Graham Kirby's advisers produced some numbers on the back of an envelope for him and these showed that costs would rise significantly, but Mr Kirby would be the first to confirm that no in-depth study was made at that time. At present, therefore, regionalizing the police force can be justified only as an article of faith, and it's hard to argue over articles of faith. This particular one doesn't appear in my political prayer book, but I'm known as a bit of a heretic anyway and I could certainly be wrong. I have no grounds to feel strongly either way.

There are one or two things you can say with some assurance. It's a pretty reliable rule of thumb in public administration that there is no practical upper limit to the economies of scale in capital-intensive services. As the size increases, the unit costs should continue to drop for things like power generation and water and sewer systems and transit ways and that kind of thing -- generation, at least.

On the other hand, for labour-intensive services, like social welfare administration, schools, universities and the police, unfortunately any economies of large scale are rapidly overtaken by the increasing costs of supervision and accountability and control. This is what the economists and management theoreticians call system complexity. There's no doubt in my mind that a regional force will be substantially more expensive than the present arrangements, and that was Mr Kirby's back-of-the-envelope conclusion. And that's the bad news.

The good news is that a regional force might be more effective, albeit more costly. There is something to be said for common systems and standards across the whole metropolitan area so that things like radio wavelengths are compatible and one police car can talk to another police car.

In addition, a larger single force might be able to provide more advanced specialized services to deal with drugs or white-collar crime or terrorism or whatever. Yesterday's news carried a report that the RCMP are closing their Ottawa forensic lab. Forensic services for local forces are, in any event, deplorably slow. They talked about six months to get a report back. Perhaps a regional force could afford its own lab, though this would be beyond the reach of any of the present small local forces. The example might be unrealistic. I'm not an expert in police work; I offer it only as an illustration of the sort of thing that might be useful.

In summary, then, it may well be that in 1996 the public will be prepared to pay much more money for better policing. Again, I'm not an expert, but they currently seem not very happy with the frequency of assaults and robberies and other transgressions that we read about in the daily press.

Finally, a last short word. May I take advantage of everybody's indulgence to squash a rumour which surprised me the other day? I was told that I was planning to stand for the regional council. This is absolutely untrue. I hung up my skates and gave away the keys to the penalty box nine years ago and I would have to be mad to get back in the game. All old warhorses sometimes flicker a little when the bugles blow, but I'm not going into the fight. I acknowledge I may sometimes be wrong, but I don't admit to being crazy. I have no ulterior motive for my presentation to the committee.

I could babble on all morning about regional government, but I think it would probably be better if I opened to questions.

Mr White: Thank you very much, Mr Bartlett. You went over, to some degree, your involvement under the auspices of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the honourable Monsieur Grandmaître, and why your report did not include the removal of mayors as automatic members of regional council. You were saying that you clearly believe it would be better to do that and you've explained your reasons behind that.

At the time when you were commissioned, the time you were doing your study, were the ideas of direct election, of representation by population and the kinds of things you're saying you now endorse, including the mayors not automatically being on regional council -- were those ideas current, were they proposed to you, were they in common knowledge in the area?

Mr Bartlett: There was a good deal of concern with the perceived imbalance on regional council, that is, the extreme difference between the mayor of Ottawa representing at that time about 300,000 people and me representing 10,000. Leave Rockcliffe out of it, because that's an exceptional case. There was concern among some of us, although I don't know how wide the public concern was, that what you did on regional council really didn't matter in electoral terms; that is, you stood or fell entirely on your service as an alderman or your service as a mayor.

I worked hard on regional council, but I am convinced it didn't swing 50 votes for or against at election time. Yet even then the region was spending a billion dollars a year, so it seemed to be too important for that. Some of us talked about the benefits of direct election. It wasn't a foreign idea, but it certainly hadn't entered into any sort of conventional wisdom at that time.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): It's good to see you here, Mr Bartlett, in the flesh, so to speak. You have achieved mythic proportions, whether you know it or not. You've been oft quoted in these debates, on both sides of the fence.

I'm sitting here in opposition and I occupy a rather unique position because I intend to support Bill 143. I'll be supporting it because the people to whom I look for advice and guidance with respect to local issues -- my mayor, councillors, police chief, board of trade -- support Bill 143, so I feel an obligation to support it.

I want to ask you more about this issue of whether our municipal councillors and regional councillors ought to be full-time or part-time. You will understand that under the terms of this bill and under the construct of the new municipal wards, some of those wards will have up to and over 40,000 people. I represent about 70,000 people. Where are we going to draw the line in terms of who should be full-time and who should be part-time?

Mr Bartlett: It's interesting that just last week -- I've been away from this subject doing other things for quite a while -- I was invited to do a little brief for the citizens committee appointed by the regional government to advise on exactly this point. I'd be glad to pass on a copy of the brief if it is of interest.

In substance, I think the real problem is with who pays for election campaigns. Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems to me that service on regional council should take about 15 hours a week -- five hours in meeting and 10 hours on paperwork -- and that is within the limits of a part-time job.

My own view is it should be regarded as voluntary and that people should get a pretty generous allowance for expenses, including the money to pay somebody to paint your house and look after your kids and tend your garden, which you haven't got time to do yourself, but that it should be regarded as volunteer service, just like service on the board of the children's aid society or the Boy Scouts or whatever.

The real problem with these large constituencies is going to be, how do you pay for elections? When I was active, I didn't accept campaign contributions. I thought that put me in a conflict-of-interest situation and I simply paid for the cost out of my municipal stipend. I could run a campaign for $3,000 or $4,000, so that was possible. But in the new, larger wards, it's going to take at least $15,000 and probably a good deal more to mount a credible campaign, for reasons that are too long-drawn-out to get into here, and where that money is going to come from, I don't know.

If you're going to say members should be able to campaign independently of outside support, you're going to have to pay a substantial salary or honorarium or allowance or something. If, on the other hand, you say, "You'll have to raise the money from somewhere," I think you're going to see political parties in regional government, because I don't think there's any other way you can do it without putting yourself in the pockets of somebody who's going to want to call the shots.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Mr Bartlett, for an excellent presentation. You clearly brought to us, for example, on the policing issue -- I think you've clarified, and I agree with you 100%, that the costs will go up, there's no question. You've said that the economies of scale will be overtaken by the extra administrative costs of a broader police force. You say there may be additional benefits to be accrued, but clearly the costs will be substantially up.

1110

In terms of the mayors, I'm not clear exactly where you're coming from. You now apparently support direct election. That's not inconsistent, though, in my view, with the mayors serving on the regional council. Certainly in Metropolitan Toronto there's direct election, but the mayors serve on the regional council, and in other jurisdictions the same thing happens. I would ask you (a) for clarification of that: Yes, you support direct election, but cannot the mayors serve on at the same time and bring the local influence, the local linkage?

And (b) you've also admitted that you've been away from this for some time. The original study was done with a great deal of rigour and analysis. Now you've freely admitted that there's no information you're really basing your current advice on with regard to the representation, so how should we treat the advice you're about to give us right now vis-à-vis your well-thought-out and -researched initial study?

Mr Bartlett: In my view, the logic of the situation is that the regional councils should all be directly elected and accountable to the people for their regional service only. If I might put it flippantly, I see no more case to put the mayors on regional council than I do to put Peter Clark in the provincial cabinet. It's two different functions. As I explained earlier, I felt earlier that that was too radical a change to make eight years ago in the political climate of the time. The case was there, but it just wouldn't go down politically.

Retaining the mayors on regional council was a recognition of the fact that historically they'd been there right back into the county council days and it would be a less radical shift -- the first bite of a cherry, if you like -- to combine the mayors with the directly elected councillors. It really was a purely pragmatic thing.

There is a sort of case to be made, which I haven't heard made in the press discussion and so on. I'll make it, because there's a balance in here. If the mayors are on regional council, the case for having them there is that they will represent the municipal corporations, not the electors, because the electors can be represented by their directly elected councillors. There is in some areas a case, for example in a common approach to labour negotiations, where perhaps the municipal corporation could usefully use a voice at the regional council table, and a voice that was out in public and not in the back rooms; that can't be handled by officials. I'm not persuaded by that argument but I concede that it has some merit. But if there is an argument, that's where it is.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bartlett, thank you for your presentation this morning.

TIM COLE

Mr Tim Cole: My name is Tim Cole. I represent no lobby group or elected body. I have never held public office. I hope to God I never do. I'll leave that to you gentlemen and ladies.

Seriously speaking, my major reason for attending is not to bring vast, learned knowledge but simply to speak as a taxpayer and a citizen and a member of a municipality. Over the last years, like a lot of people, I have felt rather battered by an endless stream of committees and an endless stream of political representatives. I think I speak for a lot of people who lack the background who feel we have very little impact on the decisions that affect our everyday lives. What I can say is what I am: I am a student of history by interest, and what I see happening here has happened through history too many times.

I was struck by a comment Mr Bartlett made -- so I'm going a little off my topic -- of looking down on a satellite imagery shot and not being able to see the municipal boundaries. I've heard that comment numerous times before. One can also not see latitude and longitude lines, but they're none the less important. You can't see country boundaries, and you need only look at the world and discover that there are 100,000 people fighting and dying over them. The fact that you can't see them from space, with all due respect to Mr Bartlett, I'm not sure is a compelling argument either.

I don't want to speak to the education angles. I think everybody has said that. I'm no expert on it. I have my own feelings about the boards that I'm afraid are based more on prejudice and anger and trying to figure out where in hell I'm going to find the money to pay the tax burden, so I'm not even going to discuss it. If you'll pardon me, I'd really rather avoid it because I'm not that well informed about it.

Most of my background on this comes from Bill 77, which Bill 143, I gather, has encompassed to some degree. What I wish to speak to are simply the changes to the local region and what I see as a trend that I'd rather, if not oppose, because I don't believe in opposition for that sake, but merely modify it with an eye to what the common folks of the town feel we need.

As far as regional police forces go, I have such mixed feelings. On one hand I do agree with economies of scale, and while I spent very little time working for the RCMP as a civilian member, I spent enough time to get an idea of the kinds of economies that you require for large scales, things like forensics labs and identification labs. In that sense, yes, perhaps amalgamation may make sense. I think it has to be traded off against the excessive costs of administration. As crazy as it sounds, that leads into my major thrust on the structure of the region.

I am truly afraid that no matter how noble the aims, a separate region will turn into nothing more than a fourth level of government. In a time when we're struggling mightily to pay for our existing three levels of government, not even counting the National Capital Commission, I question the wisdom or the validity of coming up with a structure that will almost inevitably expand to an additional level.

I know that's not the intent now; it rarely has been. But historically, bureaucratic institutions expand. I read one very tongue-in-cheek comment that described bureaucracies as living organisms: They live, they breed and they reproduce. I'm not sure at this point that we shouldn't try to institute birth control. All right, I'm being flippant, and I do apologize. Well, not really.

But my point is that bureaucratic structures, by their nature, have a tendency to expand, and that is something that one has to be very much aware of and very concerned about in the creation of a large, supermunicipal agency.

One has to ask where the dividing lines are between the municipalities and the region. Already it's become an incredible maze to try to get anything done. I wanted to toss at you just one trivial little problem. My dog happens to be an extremely efficient killer, alas, and when she managed to kill a rabbit on my property, I had a minor problem: What do I do with the carcass? It took me no less than eight phone calls to get rid of that bleeding dead rabbit, and what I ended up doing was I talked to a road crew. He said, "Well, we can't pick it up off your property, but I tell you what: If you throw it out in the street, I can pick it up."

1120

But of course, I couldn't throw it in the street because that was a violation of another bylaw, so I had to put it in a bag marked "Dead Rabbit," and the guy came by and picked it up and said, "Oh, a rabbit," and threw it in the back of his truck, and I said, "This is ridiculous." He said, "Yeah, but don't get me in" -- nasty word that we shouldn't say here -- "with my boss."

This is what we've got now with one and a half levels of regional government, municipalities and regions. It's already a maze, and I'm terrified that that's going to happen with a separate region.

The issue of direct responsibility has always been one that's been part and parcel of the country. Representative government, responsible government is the fundamental makeup of what made Canada and to a lesser extent the United States, but I'm not necessarily convinced that having a whole separate set of elected representatives from wards which do not recapitulate municipal boundaries will serve us.

The model that I'd really like to at least have the commission consider, and I know there's little consideration that you can put in at this point, but I would really like to consider more an agency that coordinates the actions of municipalities, because that, throughout the country, is what we're missing, coordination of activities. We have a massive duplication of services between federal and provincial levels, and we're developing the same problem municipally.

Really the model that I would see is one of a coordinating agency, and while in the past a centralized government has been essential, you now have one major weapon that we did not have even 10 years ago, and that is the advance of information technologies to bind groups and to bind agencies.

For that reason, I would really like to destress the power of a regional government and instead remove it to the level of a coordinating agency. I know that's not in the cards, and for political reasons that I'm sure you understand better than I do, I'm not sure that's ever going to happen, but I do want to make my statement clear. It's the same problem in miniature with the school boards. Nobody wants to give up fiefdoms, nobody wants to give up their power. And it's not anything evil, and it's not anything nasty, and it's not a whole bunch of nasty-minded little people huddling in their offices saying, "Oh, dear, I'm going to lose my power," because it's a lot of well-meaning people who are trying to do the best for their constituents.

I would like to see mayors have some role in the new regional government. If nothing else, at least to be able to establish links between the municipalities and the region, because I do fear that with a region totally and separately elected, it will inevitably diverge, and we will inevitably end up with yet another maze of regulation.

I have very little concrete to base this on. As I said earlier, I'm speaking purely as a member of the great unwashed. But I do think it's important that people like myself speak to you, because I think what's happened with us for many years is that a lot of people did just like I did: We went to work, and we said, "Well, we'll leave it to the guys that know how to do it." We went out every few years and we voted for somebody and said: "Whew, boy, that takes care of that one. Now I can go and I can read the paper and curse at the radio for the next four years."

I would really like to convince a few more people like myself to try to take a little more active role, even if it's an active role that's not based on vast learning. It's an experiment for me, and I trust I'm not wasting your time, but I do appreciate the opportunity to come and speak to you as somebody who has no party affiliations, no affiliations with any interest group, but just somebody sitting there looking at the tax bill and just wondering how in the heck I get a pothole fixed.

That pretty much is it.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Cole, it's interesting that you would come in your perspective of historian. I think that's what you said you were.

Mr Cole: Amateur.

Mrs O'Neill: That's somewhat my background. I think you're very accurate in your assessment of this as a fourth level of government. I think many of us have already determined that. I'd like to ask you many questions, but the one I will ask you is, how do you feel about the way in which the decision has been made, the process? You said you are representing no one other than yourself. I know you were here this morning; you've been here listening to several of the presentations. Do you feel the decision has been made from within Ottawa-Carleton or not?

Mr Cole: I do not feel it has been made within Ottawa-Carleton. Right or wrong, my impression is that this decision has been made in Queen's Park. We have heard it in the House, the comments from Mr Rae and Mr Philip and Ms Gigantes. We have seen it stated outright: "Bill 143 will be passed by the end of April, period."

Maybe that's not the intent, but certainly that's the feeling I get. The feeling I get is largely, "We know what's better for you; now go away." Whether that's the feeling you want to give, I don't know; that's the feeling I get; that's the feeling the folks I have coffee with and shoot the breeze get. And right and wrong, perception is often as important as reality.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for coming forward and speaking on behalf of those people.

Mr Daigeler: Also, thank you for appearing and giving us your viewpoint. I think you reflect that ambivalence that's out there: On the one hand, people would like to have less government -- it's the in thing. These days, it's the in thing: less government.

But frankly, and I said that yesterday, certainly in the Ottawa-Carleton area, we've had lots of governments but I feel they've done a good job. For the most part of it, you know, you look around and I like what we see. And perhaps the governments that have been there were, perhaps not 100%, but to a good degree, responsible for that. So, something has worked.

Perhaps we should make some adjustments and obviously we want to reduce costs; there's no question about it. But at the same time, to throw out the baby with the bathwater I think overlooks the fact that what -- I'm proud of living in this area because I think it works well. It's achieved, in comparison to many other areas, a lot.

So I am saying, what really is so seriously wrong that we have to go to something totally different? Let's make some adjustments, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Mr Cole: Do you know, I agree with you? I'm an engineer by training and I've watched a lot of projects where it's: "Oh my God, it's failed. Throw it all out and fire the engineers and get new ones." I don't advocate a total overhaul. Yes, we have done a lot that has worked extremely well. But, I think it's also a mistake to assume that simply because something has worked for many, many years, it shall continue to work without change.

The whole aim here has to be to allow the systems to change as the requirements change. Many of the parliamentary systems that we have now came from -- I'm afraid I'm falling into my tendency to lecture again. Pardon me. But many of the parliamentary systems we have now came from a period of low population density and, quite frankly, widespread ignorance and widespread illiteracy. And that has changed now. If nothing else, the vast rate at which information passes has made a huge change in it. So now you have a group of electorate that are bombarded with a tremendous amount of information but do not necessarily have the time or the inclination to process it.

Yes, we have done a lot that is good and a lot that is admirable. I don't have any truck with the policy that says, "It's all a crock." Because the fact that we can get by and drive down here in the morning and see you, says that we've got a lot that's working well.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Cole, thank you for your deputation. I can tell you that there are other people across this province of Ontario who are talking about regional government becoming more of a coordinating agency. So it's not just yourself. There are other people who are looking at this perhaps as a model for eliminating regional government.

What bothers me is that we hear a person with the background and experience of the previous speaker, Mr Bartlett, and I'm sorry he's not here, saying there's no more rationale for the mayors being on the regional council than Peter Clark being on the provincial government. That goes right back to your point about, we're starting to recognize four levels of government. What he's really saying is that the local government is one level, the region is another level, and the province. They're all distinct levels.

The last time I looked, the regional government is a municipal government, as are local governments. They're both municipal governments.

Mr Cole: It's not quite the same.

Mr David Johnson: Your point that governments naturally live, breathe and reproduce: from my experience, if you establish a new, distinct level of government without the linkages, a regional government, it will expand, it will look for more power, it will look for more authority and the cost will go up.

Mr Cole: And it's natural, not evil.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, you're right.

Mr Cole: Actually, I would like to see more linkages between municipalities and regions with the provincial government. And now we have the option to do that without the expense of bringing in an additional representative, because I know the information superhighway is a buzzword and, speaking as an engineer, it makes me mildly ill, but there is the method to get those links now, where we can do it, and we can get a lot of links from plain, ordinary people. Granted, Bill Clinton's note in the Internet, whitehouse.gov, is not working well, but the concept can work, and I would like to see more ties just to keep the coordination so we're not tripping over our feet and we're not wasting a lot of money.

1130

Mr Daigeler's point is well taken and I thoroughly agree, we've done well, but now we have the ability to put tighter and tighter links so that we're not tripping over ourselves and wasting a lot of effort and a lot of money. That's my whole point for being here and I really thank your indulgence.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Mr Cole, for your presentation. I found it very interesting, although, I must say, I got the impression that you're a bit more innocent than your response to Ms O'Neill's question when I think she said thanks for coming down and speaking for all those people who are sitting in the coffee shops. You didn't really dwell on that at all to say, "This is something that I've discussed with my colleagues and we are all" -- you came back with some, I thought, rather more, say, philosophical viewpoints.

Anyway, I just want to ask you about the coordinating committee, to say that there are some problems with the way that would work, as you could probably recognize --

Mr Cole: Oh, yes, definitely.

Mr Gary Wilson: -- and the previous speaker, Mr Bartlett, mentioning participation of direct democracy in voting for the regional councillors would provide that coordinating committee with some authority, and I think this is the question and just how well they are attuned to the issues in the wards that they'd represent. You'd have that kind of very direct, I would think, participation between the citizens in the wards with their councillors. So I'm just wondering what you think of that as being the coordinating committee with the authority that you wouldn't get necessarily with just a coordinating committee which would have to coordinate other bodies.

Mr Cole: You have indeed hit the crux of the problem in that a coordinating committee without authority is virtually useless and powerless, and that's been the problem all around, everywhere in the world. The problem I see with separate regional councillors is that the theory is that they represent their constituents, but in practice I do not see that there is a direct representation of elected representatives representing constituents, largely because the situation has changed now. It's no longer a case of a small, interested group of people feeding their viewpoints into their own speaker, and I'm not certain that that will act as a coordinating body. My fear is that it will act as a separate body.

I know that my comments may sound more philosophical. I can't quite represent other people because I don't claim to represent them. They may come out and beat me over the head and say, "Cole, you idiot, I love this." So I have very little to say to you that's concrete. I, as much as anything, want to give the feeling of a taxpayer trying to make a living.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Cole, thank you for taking the time and presenting to this committee.

BRIAN COBURN

Mr Brian Coburn: My name is Brian Coburn. I'm the mayor of the township of Cumberland and I'm also a taxpayer in the region of Ottawa-Carleton. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I wanted to share with you some of the comments that I've heard since this entire process started, and I don't think all of them can be put down on paper to reflect the true feeling and the sentiment of some of the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton. I was just listening briefly to a couple of the presenters this morning.

We have a situation in Ottawa-Carleton where it runs reasonably well, and I don't think you can point anywhere in the free world where it runs perfectly. If you keep that in mind and you keep the comments of our residents throughout Ottawa-Carleton when this process first started, they said yes, if it makes sense and it's affordable, please change, but don't make change just for the sake of making change. I think the reference to breathing and health and growth is very appropriate. This isn't an opportunity to create more jobs; it is an exercise to improve the ability of the taxpayer to communicate with those of us who are in legislative authority to implement their wishes and to satisfy their needs in our community.

Now, I am sure and I hope the committee has access to all of the comments that have been sent to the minister from our public, from community associations. No? Well, I think that's of paramount importance if you don't have that. It's of paramount importance that you damn well do.

Mr David Johnson: Freedom of information. We can't get them.

Mr Daigeler: The minister won't give it to us.

Mr Coburn: You have community associations across this region who represent the public who have their thumb on the heartbeat of a community. And each municipality has its own unique characteristics throughout the municipality.

Similarly, as a duly formed corporation with the region of Ottawa-Carleton, Cumberland represents one of 11 municipalities that is a corporation and is a partner in what goes on in the region of Ottawa-Carleton. And if you liken that to anything else in our society in terms of structure, usually the head of that corporation is at the table when decisions are made, or at least to be able to bring to that table the comments and the sentiments of the people whom they're representing.

I, as mayor of Cumberland, am no different. I'm the chief executive officer of the corporation of Cumberland township and I expect to be able to be heard at the table where the decisions are being made, nothing less. The people I have talked to -- and they're not hundreds of thousands; they're hundreds of people -- over the last couple of months since this final proposed solution has been presented have told me -- and these are the people who don't understand what we do as legislators. But I'll tell you, they're people who are trying to protect their pockets and they're people who have confidence and trust in me as the mayor. I'm elected at large in the township of Cumberland, as are 11 other people in this region. We're elected at large to represent the views of our corporation and our people, along with decisions made by our local councils, and I take those decisions and directions to the regional table.

I don't know how many of you or how many at Queen's Park have walked the walk. I don't know how many of you have been municipal politicians. And I fully understand that at Queen's Park in some areas you'd like to see local municipalities disappear, because they're nothing but a pain in the backside. You want to get rid of 820 snivelling municipalities so you can replace them with maybe 15 or 20 regions across this great province. The people don't want that, folks. They don't want it.

It's ironic that we have a solution in front of us that removes the decision-making process further from the public. If we're listening, on the news day after day after day the public is saying: "We want public meetings. We want you to be more open. We want to be able to contribute." How in the world can they contribute and be part of the decision-making process if it's a squeeze to not have the head of their corporation there when the decisions are being made? Kind of ironic; sadly ironic.

Our system works. It doesn't work perfectly, but it works reasonably well. There are pieces of this legislation that are good and economies of scale that are of benefit to our residents in Ottawa-Carleton.

Our council has made a presentation to the minister. They were supported by council and I won't elaborate on those but rather the gut feeling that I hear out on the street. In my former life, and maybe my future life within six months; I don't know -- today I'm the mayor and in six months, and that's a very real thing -- I was a truck driver, nothing more and nothing less, struggling to try to make ends meet. You know, in this world you're born, you get a bit of an education, you go through life and then you die. And what are you trying to do in between the time when you're born? You just try to make ends meet and get through this and try to make it better.

I might be accused that I'm here simply because of financial concerns in terms of the mayor being on regional council, and I would say that's a very shallow reason for people to hang their hat on and say the mayors are parochial, because I may not be here in six months. And do you think I'm going to sit here and argue for 25Gs or 20Gs for somebody else? I'm here arguing because of the principle of bringing our views of our residents to the decision-making process.

I have no problem with direct election of regional councillors, but mayors, in my view, should sit at the regional table, throughout our country. Whether you're on unemployment, it doesn't matter what your status is in life, you mention "mayor" in Cumberland, they don't all know Coburn is the mayor, nor do they really care, but I'll tell you that when they've got a problem the name that's synonymous with everybody is the mayor. When they call the mayor, they expect to be able to get some solutions, or at least to get some direction, and not be fumbled off to some other department. Whether it's Coburn who is here or whoever is the mayor of Cumberland, this position represents the views of Cumberland township.

1140

Another thing I'd like to point out to you is that throughout the region of Ottawa-Carleton -- this isn't unique; it's across the province, it's across the country -- people move and live in specific areas for specific reasons, whether it's access to education or whether it's transportation, things that satisfy them in that form or whatever, or just the general déjà vu of a community. That's what makes us so unique here. Cumberland isn't the same as Kanata or Nepean or Rideau. We have some similarities. Our taxes might be a little more and our services might be a little more than some others. But they pick their communities throughout Ottawa-Carleton to live in because that's the quality of life they have agreed to pay for and enjoy.

In keeping with that, they expect to have that community interwoven with senior levels of government. Anything you do, whether at it's the regional level or the provincial level, is interwoven with what happens in our communities.

If you want to get rid of municipalities and just deal with community associations, and I kind of suspect that's where all this is headed, then you would get rid of municipalities. But you didn't. You have 11 municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton that are corporations and, I reiterate this, should be at the table where decisions are being made, or there should be representation of those mayors, whether it be five or six or something. There has to be a process where the mayors' views are enabled to be enunciated during the decision-making process.

I just want to touch on the fact that it's tradition again. The word "mayor" has been part of our history that everybody identifies with, folks, everybody. To me, when I speak to people throughout our community, they seem to accuse us -- I'm talking of us collectively, all those who are in legislative positions -- of not being in touch with what's happening out on the street. We're not rubbing shoulders and sometimes we make decisions because we're caught up in what we're doing.

The former presenter touched on that very well, "You're just struggling along and you pay the bills and, Jeez, I expect to get some action for that." If you remove the decision-making process another step away from it, it makes it that much more difficult to get a rabbit even picked up off a road allowance, never mind off the guy's property, just to get it off the road allowance.

I'm not going to burden you. I don't have any paper. These are just some gut feelings that I got from a lot of, not only our residents but from other people across the region as well. I am really surprised, and I find it mind-boggling, that this committee would not have access to the hundreds of submissions that probably thousands of residents have given to the minister over this period explaining their views and their position. I don't know how in the world you can make a recommendation based on two and a half days of 20-minute presentations, limited to 40 or so people, and come to some commonsense conclusion. That just escapes me.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Mr Mayor, for your deputation. You certainly bring a great deal of credibility to this hearing. I must say that some of your colleagues are here and I think Al Bouwers, in particular, has been here every minute over the last two days and other mayors have been here on and off. It certainly shows the intense interest in this topic.

I found very interesting your opinion that the hidden agenda here may be the disappearance of the municipalities and that the municipalities are a pain in the backside for the provincial government. I think that's very real. I think that's so, because municipalities, being so close to the people, reflect the real wishes of the people; the mayor in particular, but the council reflects the real wishes of the people. Sometimes that's not too popular if we have, as a provincial government, policies or philosophies that we would like to get through.

For example, I think of the Bill 120 accessory apartments issue, various housing policies, that sort of thing, that may not be in tune with the majority of people. Municipalities tend to reflect the will of the people and consequently I think there's a conflict. I believe you're very correct that this could well be the hidden agenda behind this whole proposal.

Maybe just in terms of a question to you: I have real concern, from what we've seen here today and yesterday, that there are so many people who are opposed to this structure of government. I'm wondering what the political environment will be if this is plowed through, if this is forced through, notwithstanding the comments that have been made. I'm just wondering what the political environment is going to be, how the municipalities and the region are going to be able to work. My sense is that we're in for political turmoil in this region over the next number of years.

Mr Coburn: It's my view that no doubt after this goes through and you have direct election of regional councillors, I'm sure that, by and large, there'll be very credible people sitting on regional council. However, they are sitting there dealing with their regional issues that have to do with major arterials, sewers, economic development, policing and that kind of thing. The impact of that, though, on the local municipalities, is that they will not have the same feel for the local residents and what's happening there. That will have disappeared.

Then it falls back to the mayor and the local council to lobby the directly elected representatives. It's a genuine concern on the part of our residents that it's one more person you've got to go through to get to a solution. The ones that have spoken to me, in large numbers in our community, have said, "I'd just as soon pick up the phone, call the mayor's office and you handle it."

If you call the mayor's office, then I have to go and lobby, make an appointment, number one -- "Take a number, Coburn" -- and meet with my regional councillors and find out if my agenda, our residents' agenda, coincides with their agenda, which sometimes it won't because we're cross-boundaries.

It adds another step to the process. This really concerns me and it concerns a lot of residents. We are trying to streamline our operations, not add another step to getting to the solution. You go to Sears; you don't want to go through three people before you get your merchandise and get out of there. You want to go to a one-stop shopping kind of thing in your municipality, and that is elicited then at the regional council table. It's more confusion.

As I said before, the majority of our people have no idea how any of this works. They're just out there paying the bills, just trying to get on with life. When they have a concern, they'd like to be able to get the most direct reply to it, and that comes with a mayor who has a finger on the pulse.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr Coburn, for your presentation. I certainly found it fascinating for a number of reasons, one of them being that my mother was born and raised in Cumberland --

Mr Coburn: Oh, is that right?

Mr Gary Wilson: -- and she also went to the Ottawa Normal School, as it was called then. I mention these, of course, to show the historical aspect. Her name was Minogue, by the way. There are still some of the Minogue family there.

Mr Coburn: There sure are.

Mr Gary Wilson: In looking at some of the figures, though, I was amazed to see that the population of Cumberland, which I imagined was a hamlet from mother's accounts of it, was actually around 40,000 people. Then I headed out to Orléans yesterday and found out that a person living in Orléans actually is now living in the township of Cumberland. That amazed me as well. In talking to him about this he said, "Well, these things happen and we're in that township now because changes are made." That, I think, is the essential point, "changes are made." The world changes and we try to adjust to them to make it work better.

1150

I think this is the whole purpose of government, to make sure we come up with the services people need, find ways to find out what people want and then provide them and then have an accountability system so that if we're not providing them, we hear about them. This is, I think, what we're trying to do here, to provide regional services on a regional basis, and that's where the direct election of regional councillors comes in.

I'm wondering whether with this historical progression, you don't see some value to having services like, say, police services and sewage services on a regional basis that can be provided with decisions made by regional council.

Mr Coburn: There's no question that there are certain services at the regional level, so the region develops in a normal and an orderly fashion, that are best there, but my point that I'm making and that a lot of residents are making is that those decisions are also interwoven with what happens in our community; for example, the decision on a regional road or a development that may fit into a regional plan. That has an impact on our community.

How does that fit with the things we're left to deal with if you're not sitting at the table, where you have the benefit of all the public input at the local level and are able to take that? Regional councillors who are not dealing with that on a day-to-day basis and who are trying to represent maybe three or four communities, as in Orléans, for example: In the Orléans situation, the boundary between the city of Gloucester and Cumberland goes right through the heart of Place d'Orléans. Half of it's in Cumberland, half of it's in Gloucester, which forms the community of Orléans. Half of the residents don't even know where they are. They're in Orléans. They're happy with the environment in Orléans and that is because there is a personal touch to it. They can at least come in, walk in, talk to Mayor Cain, myself, get to the root of the thing and it's dealt with immediately.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm not so sure the --

The Chair: Mr Wilson, allow him to conclude his response. We have to move to Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Coburn: I guess to answer your question directly, it is important that some of those be at the regional level, but what's very important is that the mayors be at the table, because they bring that wealth of background knowledge that is generated in your community to the regional table. I don't understand the dilemma, because it's not like the 11 mayors have the balance of power, but the important thing is that you bring the message from your community to that table and you're part of the decision.

Mr Grandmaître: Mayor Coburn, I know how passionate you feel about Bill 143, especially the exclusion of the mayors, and I feel the same way you do. Mr Mayor, I want you to look in your crystal ball. Bill 143 is in place; this is 1997. I want you to look in this crystal ball and tell me what will happen to the 10 mayors or the 11 mayors in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr Coburn: If this legislation goes through as proposed where the mayors are excluded, the workload does not decrease, in my opinion, for mayors, because you will still have to be up to date on all the things the region is doing so you can go on and lobby your regional councillors.

Mr Grandmaître: And the feeling in your community as well.

Mr Coburn: The feeling in our community is that it's one step closer to removing municipalities completely.

Mr Daigeler: Actually, I have to come -- I don't really want to do it too much -- somewhat to the defence of the government. Frankly, I don't think this initiative is Queen's Park driven; it's Ottawa driven. I think we must realize that. I think we heard that very clearly yesterday from the representatives of the city of Ottawa when they were making their argument.

They happen to have the Minister of Housing who is the member for Ottawa Centre, who was here yesterday, and she has been able to convince her other colleagues to support this thing because they felt, "Well, she speaks for the Ottawa area." Then the minister in the House and in the statement that he made when these hearings began said: "I have the support of the chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade. I have the support of the president of the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens' Associations." It says "Ottawa-Carleton"; for him, he felt it's the whole region.

That's what we have to address. That's what you have to address. I think it's really Ottawa driven and I'm just wondering why Ottawa -- I guess with the exception of Jim Watson, who was here earlier -- is so insistent on pushing this through.

Mr Coburn: If the Ottawa solution to all the region's problems was so great, then we would have nothing out in the suburban areas. They'd all be living in the intensification and supporting that, all living in downtown Ottawa. That's not the case. They move out to some of the suburban areas to enjoy a quality of life that varies throughout the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Certainly, within the city of Ottawa there are some economies of scale, if you look at it very closely, to go to this form of government with no representation of mayors on it. Because they are in the inner core, I suppose all the services throughout Ottawa-Carleton are driven and are first satisfied within the city of Ottawa before they're satisfied elsewhere in the region.

Who gains probably maybe the most from this, at the expense of the quality of life and access to government in the outlying municipalities that surround the region, and which and by the way are at least half or maybe a little more than half the population of Ottawa-Carleton? They are being ignored. This isn't a city of Ottawa solution. That's why I have a lot of reservations that I am sharing with you, based on comments that I have heard, that one size does not fit all and just because Ottawa said, "It's wonderful," the rest of the kingdom says, "It's not quite that wonderful and we want to be part of the decision-making process."

The Chair: Mayor Coburn, thank you for taking the time to present your views to the committee.

FIONA FAUCHER

Ms Fiona Faucher: Good morning. My name is Fiona Faucher. I am the regional councillor for the city of Gloucester. This is my third term as an elected official, my second term on regional council. I was elected at large in the city of Gloucester to sit on regional council, as well as Gloucester city council.

I do not have a written presentation. I received a phone call saying that there had been a cancellation and would I like to fill it, because I had requested earlier to speak to this committee. I just felt it was important to make a few remarks as an elected representative from a city other than Ottawa and to express my support for Bill 143.

My support for Bill 143 comes from a very basic principle that I believe in. I would like to be accountable for the decisions I make around the regional table and I also believe very strongly in representation by population. I think those are very basic tenets of democracy and are the underpinnings of my support for Bill 143.

I am very proud of Ottawa-Carleton. I was unhappy to hear some remarks about the possible removal of the regional level of government in this province. I am very proud of what we've achieved and I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues around the regional council table.

I look at efforts like the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre, our secondary treatment plant, which I think came about through the genuine concerted efforts of a strong regional council and is something that we can all be proud of in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

1200

I also look at our social services system, a particular interest of mine. I think we can be very proud of the services that we offer here in Ottawa-Carleton. I sit on the AMO health and social policy committee and I am very aware of what excellent services we provide to the residents of Ottawa-Carleton in those areas.

I don't think the status quo is acceptable. Progression in terms of an evolution of government is necessary. I understand that when the status quo is threatened people become uncomfortable. The key issue in the transition of this bill is going to be an extreme sensitivity on the part of the people who are elected to regional council and the people who are elected to municipal council and the community associations within all the municipalities to make this transition workable and effectable for all the people we represent. That has to be the bottom line: that we give the best government and the best service to the people we represent in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

That's basically all I wanted to say today.

Mr White: Thank you very much, Ms Faucher. First off, in terms of the services at the regional level, we really haven't had a large number of people presenting a regional view of the future and the interlinking of the various municipalities. I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit to those social services, the kinds of programs that I know the regional municipality has initiated in this area and that are, frankly, on the leading edge, very, very much respected throughout the rest of the province.

Ms Faucher: I'm sure you don't want me to go into details of that. As I said, I'm very proud of the level of service and the quality of the service that we provide. I think regional council has been very sensitive to the needs of its community. In terms of health and social services, regional council historically has developed an extremely good working relationship with the community that it serves, has listened to what the needs are and has been very flexible in adapting to the very specific needs in this community, and has been very generous.

Mr White: You mentioned that you're both a local councillor and a regional councillor. Your views do not necessarily reflect those of your mayor or the council.

Ms Faucher: No, those are my views.

Mr White: But when you are accountable to your electorate -- you're elected at large, which of course creates a great deal of expense -- do the questions that are posed to you, the issues that are brought to your attention, tend to be local or regional, in bulk?

Ms Faucher: This is my second term as a regional councillor. The first time, I was appointed by my own council to sit on region. My only experience is the last election, where I ran at large.

I feel personally that part of the role of a politician is to educate and communicate with the community, because, as has been mentioned and I'm sure you're all aware, there are low voter turnouts and not a lot of engagement with the voters. I must admit that the issues that were brought to me from the community were local in nature. My speeches to the community during the election process were regional, focusing on regional issues, because that's what I felt I was running for.

Mr White: In order to be more clearly accountable at the regional level, despite the good effort that you put forth, being elected at the regional level only would make people aware that's what they're voting for and those are the issues you should be held accountable for.

Ms Faucher: Yes. Especially when I look -- and I say this will all due respect to all my regional colleagues -- at the deliberations on a budget of over $1 billion and the amount of time and energy and effort that's expended at the political level compared to the amount that's expended at the local level in terms of the dollar amounts, I would hope that direct election would allow us to be and make us much more accountable for the expenditure of those dollars.

Mr Grandmaître: Councillor Faucher, in your opening remarks I think the first sentence was, "I will support Bill 143. I want to be accountable." Don't you feel accountable now?

Ms Faucher: I feel accountable at the local level, yes. I do not feel as accountable in terms of my role in the expenditure of regional dollars.

Mr Grandmaître: Aren't you being elected now as a regional councillor?

Ms Faucher: Yes, I am.

Mr Grandmaître: You don't feel accountable even at the regional level; you don't feel comfortable?

Ms Faucher: I don't feel that the community perceives that the onus is on me for regional decisions as much as they would if it was direct election.

Mr Grandmaître: How will Bill 143 make you more accountable?

Ms Faucher: I will be elected directly, as I am now.

Mr Grandmaître: You're now being elected directly?

Ms Faucher: Yes. But the other part of the equation is the people that elect you, and that accountability is a two-way street. I feel that this will provide much more clarity to the voters in this community. They are electing 18 people to deal with regional issues.

Mr Daigeler: Quite often it's been said, "Well, we're moving to direct election." I think what we're moving to is exclusive election, because in Nepean, and now in Gloucester as well, we've had direct elections to regional council for a long time. I would say that in Nepean a good many people, not everybody -- but I think it's quite well known now that we have three people who run city-wide for the region. They're identified; they identify themselves -- in fact, the next presenters identify themselves as Nepean and regional councillors. I think people have a knowledge about that. It took some time.

I understand that in Gloucester you have that system of direct elections to regional council. This is your first term. Am I correct in that? Is this the first term that you have elected your people to the region?

Ms Faucher: Oh, the first term in Gloucester, yes. Yes, the first time we had double direct.

Mr Daigeler: Before, it was appointed?

Ms Faucher: That's right.

Mr Daigeler: So I think one could make the argument that obviously it takes a little while until people get used to this new system and identify you as carrying that regional hat as well. I think that would be reasonable to say, wouldn't it?

Ms Faucher: Possibly.

Mr Daigeler: How many directly elected regional councillors do you have in Gloucester at present?

Ms Faucher: Two.

Mr Daigeler: Why did the city of Gloucester move to the system of directly electing regional council?

Ms Faucher: I believe it was as Bill 143, as a kind of a natural progression. We didn't have a ward system until 1985. We put in a ward system. Everybody was elected at large initially, and the two top vote-getters went to the region. I think it's just part of a natural progression, and I think that's what Bill 143 is too, a progression from double direct to single direct in terms of the regional government.

Mr Daigeler: I certainly agree that there is room for accountability. That's why in Nepean we've had direct elections. But do you not feel that by being totally off your local council and having the mayor off the council as well, this natural link with your community is going to get lost?

Ms Faucher: No, sir, I don't. Again, I think I referred to the sensitivity of those in this transition period as being critical. I don't feel I will be in any way alienated from my community nor lose interest in my community, which is the reason I ran in the first place in 1985.

1210

Mr David Johnson: I missed most of your deputation. It was very brief. I didn't realize I'd miss it all by just stepping out for a minute. Do you favour the elimination of local municipalities in the municipal structure here within Ottawa-Carleton, municipalities such as Gloucester? Do you favour a one-tier system, ultimately, where the local municipalities are eliminated?

Ms Faucher: No, I believe there is a role for both local municipalities and regional government.

Mr David Johnson: There have been a couple of suggestions, by various deputants, that there should be a referendum on this issue. If a referendum was held in your municipality today on this issue, do you think there would be support for the bill in its present form? What would happen? Would people support it or oppose it?

Ms Faucher: Quite frankly, unless there was a lot of education, I'm not sure. I find it hard to answer that question. I do know that the contacts I have had with the public I represent have indicated, basically, "Please get on with it and do it."

Mr David Johnson: In its present form. The reason I ask is because just about all the deputations we're hearing are opposed to it and there have been a lot of letters that have been coming in, although we have a hard time getting them. We can't get them out of the ministry, but indications are that they're overwhelmingly in opposition. But your view is that people still wish to go ahead with it.

In terms of the contact between the regional government and the local government, in my view, it's important to have the mayor on the regional government, to have that linkage and that liaison. You don't share that view.

The experience I've had in my former life, as the mayor of East York, being both on the local government and on the regional government, was that sitting there in the council meetings and hearing what people said on issues was invaluable. Yes, the regional councillor still represented the area that I represented, but he wasn't there at the East York council meetings. Every once in a while, if he was free, he would drop in, but he couldn't be there meeting after meeting. He couldn't be at the committee meetings that East York had. He just couldn't have the same background.

He wasn't there to hear all the deputations, and people will come in, more so. I'm sure from your experience this has happened. They'll come into Gloucester more often than they'll come into the regional government. At least in Metropolitan Toronto, they sure do that. I'm just wondering. At least with my experience, you can't get that kind of linkage or depth of background from a regional councillor on the local issues to take to the regional level.

Ms Faucher: I suppose I will just again refer back to my earlier remarks. I think it's going to take a great deal of sensitivity and effort on behalf of the newly elected people, whether they be regional or local.

Mr David Johnson: I think you'd have to attend all the council meetings and all the committee meetings etc.

One of the previous deputations indicated that Coopers and Lybrand, on behalf of the Kirby commission, did a polling and found that there was a satisfaction with the local municipalities of 76% with their efforts and with the regional government of barely over 50% -- 57% actually. Why do you suppose that regional governments are less popular vis-à-vis their local governments?

Ms Faucher: I think it's probably not a great deal of knowledge about what the role of regional government is and what services regional government is providing. That's an area where we have a lot of work to do.

Mr David Johnson: There was another study that was referred to as well, and this was one I'm not sure I'd heard of before, Factor Research Group in September of last year. There was a survey that was conducted that indicated that 79% of the respondents favoured having local mayors sit on the regional council. You may not be familiar with that research.

Ms Faucher: I'm not.

Mr David Johnson: But, in your view, that's not what you're hearing?

Ms Faucher: I am not familiar with it; I'm sorry.

Mr David Johnson: In terms of your views on the issue, that is just from your personal experience, the mayors not serving on it?

Ms Faucher: Yes.

Mr David Johnson: That's what you're hearing back. Those are all the questions I have.

The Chair: Thank you, Councillor Faucher, for appearing this morning and presenting your views.

DAVID PRATT

Mr David Pratt: I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you today on the subject of Bill 143. I'd also like to state right away, and in the strongest possible terms, my opposition to what I conceive to be this ill-considered and radical restructuring of local government in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

In terms of my experience with local government, I was first elected as a ward councillor in 1988, representing approximately 35,000 constituents. I was subsequently re-elected city-wide in Nepean in 1991 as a Nepean and regional councillor, serving approximately 110,000 constituents.

As one who currently serves at both the local and regional levels, I feel very strongly that this proposed reform initiative will, in both the short and the long term, create a system of local government in the Ottawa-Carleton area which is less accountable, less accessible, less responsive, less efficient, more expensive and more parochial than that which already exists.

I want to emphasize that while I'm speaking for myself, I know many of the views I hold are shared by my council colleagues and by many of my constituents.

It has been said that a political party with a majority in a parliamentary system can function like a dictatorship, since there are so few institutional restraints on the power of the cabinet and the leader of the government. One of the restraints lies in the voting power of individual members of Parliament who, in my view, have a responsibility to oppose any arbitrary, capricious or ill-considered legislative measure or, at the very least, put forward constructive amendments that will improve it. In my view, Bill 143 is a bill that should be defeated. Failing that, it should be significantly amended.

Personally, I have been, and continue to be, an advocate of reforming the structure of local government in Ottawa-Carleton to better reflect the principle of representation by population. I'm also an advocate of the need for a high degree of communication, cooperation and coordination in areas with a form of two-tier municipal government. In my view, a separately elected regional council will not provide a guarantee of better local government and may indeed result in quite the opposite. While championing certain principles, this legislation has ignored others which are equally important.

As you know, a series of reports have been produced on the subject of restructuring local government in the Ottawa-Carleton area: the Kirby report, the Graham report, the Bartlett report and the Mayo report. Notwithstanding all of these studies, surprisingly few of the recommendations contained in these reports have made it into the bill which is now before the Legislature. In other words, many of the provisions of Bill 143 have never been subjected to serious scrutiny by the public, local government officials or academics. Equally important is the fact that the financial implications of some of these reform measures are completely unknown.

One would think that under these circumstances, where significant change is proposed without there having been previous debate or study, the provincial government would do everything possible to ensure that the proposals received a thorough public airing. Regrettably, in my view, this has not been the case.

As you know, in its previous incarnation as Bill 77, the bill was introduced at the end of July 1993. Local councils had a scant four weeks during the summer to formulate responses. While the bill failed to pass the Legislature before Christmas, the government now appears to be poised to ram it through within the coming weeks.

I must take issue as well with the fact that only two days have been allocated here for hearings in the Ottawa-Carleton area. One cannot help but be left with the impression that these hearings are a sham and that they are merely being held to pay lipservice to the process so that the government can say that it has in fact heard the people.

Personally, I find it regrettable as well that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has refused to come to the Ottawa-Carleton area to meet with the public and local councils. If he had come, I think he would begin to understand the depth of opposition there is to this bill. While the truncated process that has been followed has left many people from this area disillusioned with the government, it's the substance of the bill and what it does to local government in our region that is most troubling.

One of the most serious flaws with Bill 143, in my view, is the removal of the mayors from regional council. In my experience, the mayors perform a very important function as a vital link between the upper and lower tiers. Taking the mayors off regional council will inevitably lead to complaints that the interests of the lower tier are being ignored or overridden by regional government.

Do we really want to set up a system which virtually guarantees continuous squabbling and backbiting between the two levels of government? People are tired of the federal and provincial governments blaming each other for the nation's ills. Do you, as participants in the decision-making process, really feel that the public enjoys this spectacle so much that they are prepared to listen to local politicians blame regional politicians and vice versa? I really don't think so.

1220

Having the mayors on regional council will reduce the possibility of conflict between the upper and lower tiers since it will give them some of the responsibility for ensuring that there is a high degree of political and administrative communication, cooperation and coordination between the two levels.

From my experience with local government, I can tell you what constituents are looking for: accountability, both financial and political, accessibility, responsiveness, cooperation and administrative efficiency. While residents by and large tolerate parochialism, they also understand that it is the enemy of good decision-making. I can say without reservation that the system we have in Nepean measures up very well compared to other municipalities, both inside and outside the RMOC, from the standpoint of reducing parochialism.

Allow me to illustrate my point. As one of three Nepean and regional councillors who is elected across the city of Nepean, I'm not constrained by parochial considerations in voting. In other words, like the mayor, I can vote according to what I perceive to be the best interests of the city at large. We do have three ward councillors whose important function it is to ensure that their wards are not neglected, but their votes are always balanced on council by a majority who can take a wider view because of their larger constituency. In other words, our council has a structural bias against parochialism which results, for the most part, in better decision-making.

As far as accountability is concerned, at the present time Nepean residents have an opportunity to vote for three regional councillors, as well as the mayor and their ward councillor, for a total of five of the existing members of council. The current system places far more political power in the hands of the individual voter and enhances accountability. Under the proposed regime, which pales by comparison, Nepean residents will vote for only one regional representative.

On the question of accessibility, the current system is far superior to that proposed by Bill 143. At present, a constituent can call or write to their regional councillor on either a local or a regional problem or issue, knowing that the matter can be raised by the elected representative in the appropriate political forum. This one-stop shopping, which has been referred to before, provides the constituent with easy and efficient access to their elected representative and avoids buck-passing and delays in the resolution of problems or the provision of information. Of course, the question of who is responsible for what will become even more complicated, because Bill 143 provides for regional ward boundaries which cross municipal jurisdictions.

The fact that the province through Bill 143 has determined that it will set local ward boundaries is in my view one of the most egregious aspects of this legislation. As I indicated earlier, the election at large of regional councillors provides for a structural bias against parochialism. By creating six new mini-wards within the city of Nepean, the average population of which would be about 19,000 compared to the current average ward populations of 38,000, this bill will introduce an element of parochialism on council hitherto unknown. Only the mayors will be politically responsible to the entire city.

In addition, this legislation suspends the traditional right of local municipalities to set their own ward boundaries. The result is that the boundaries, as proposed, at least in the city of Nepean, make little sense. One ward which is proposed to have a population of 11,000 has little or no growth potential. As well, the provincial government seems to have completely ignored the fact that making massive changes to boundaries takes a considerable amount of staff time and effort. With so little time before the municipal elections, many municipalities are going to have to incur significant costs by hiring outside help to draw up the new ward maps and to create new voters lists.

Cost is also a factor in relation to the new representation scheme. At the present time, the city of Nepean is represented by six councillors, plus the mayor, as I indicated earlier. Bill 143 will produce six local councillors, plus the mayor, two regional councillors elected solely from Nepean, and two other regional councillors elected from wards that cross boundaries with the city of Nepean. Depending on how you count this new representation, it is either two or four more additional politicians just from Nepean. As well, I gather that the additional cost of setting up new offices for regional councillors has been estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of about $2.9 million. Is this more cost-effective? Is this more efficient? Is this what the people of Ottawa-Carleton really want? I honestly don't think so.

The aspect of Bill 143 which deals with policing remains a great concern. At a time when the focus of policing right across North America is evolving towards more community-based policing and community-based crime prevention, it is ironic that we in Ottawa-Carleton are about to have a system thrust upon us which, on the face of it, appears to be going in quite the opposite direction, with a more centralized and less community-oriented bureaucracy.

The manner in which Bill 143 is currently drafted will also apportion an unequal burden in terms of the cost of policing within Ottawa-Carleton. The bill provides for a transfer of assets and liabilities of the three existing municipal police forces to the new regional force. However, existing assets from the Ontario Provincial Police which are used for the policing of the other, predominantly rural, municipalities within the region are not transferred. In addition, provincial police officers will be included in the new employment pool for the regional force. So the province is in effect saying, "We'll keep our assets, thank you, but you can have our liabilities."

Notwithstanding the fact that a study done last year by Justice René Marin calculated the cost of creating a new regional force to be in the vicinity of around $11 million, the provincial government has not committed itself to any transitional funding. At a time when police budgets are strained to the limit, local taxpayers do not want or need this extra transitional cost. Neither do residents in the cities of Ottawa, Nepean or Gloucester want to pick up the added cost of policing previously serviced by the OPP.

There are many other aspects of this bill which are of concern, especially those relating to industrial parks and sewers. As others have pointed out, the provisions relating to industrial parks blatantly contradict the premise of Bill 40, the Community Economic Development Act, which is to "encourage economic development activities on the part of those who best understand what is needed: the communities themselves." It's worth noting as well that the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp recently passed a motion indicating that economic development should stay with the local municipalities.

With respect to sewers, it's my fervent hope that the province is not about to penalize those municipalities like Nepean that have maintained their infrastructure, so as to subsidize those who have not.

There's a strong undercurrent of feeling in the Ottawa-Carleton area that this bill is designed to create an unworkable system of local government by introducing conflict in a system which currently enjoys a significant amount of cooperation and coordination. While I would like to believe that the government is proceeding on the basis of good faith, I can see nothing in the process that has been pursued or the substance of the reforms which would provide tangible evidence that that is in fact the case.

In closing, I would like to urge all of you to defeat this legislation. Strong local government depends upon communities having the power to set their own priorities. It does not come from the provincial government, or from any particular cabinet minister, for that matter, telling us what they think we need and then setting about to impose it upon us. This bill does not serve the long- or short-term interests of the residents of Ottawa-Carleton and will produce a system of local government that is, and I repeat, less accountable, less accessible, less responsive, less efficient, more expensive and more parochial than that which now exists. It also adds immediate additional costs at a time when the taxpayer is groaning under the tax burden from all levels of government.

To the government members on this committee, I would say that if, in your wisdom, you decide to support this bill, at a very minimum I would urge you to move or support amendments to the legislation which would put the mayors back on regional council, allow local municipalities to set their own ward boundaries, and provide equity for all ratepayers in funding the additional costs for police services. Thank you very much.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Pratt, you've been around local government and studied it long before you became a member, and I know you understand how this municipality has grown to its present state. You're not the first person who's labelled these hearings a sham, nor are these the first set of hearings that have been labelled a sham. Last July I think you were present when the minister came, and on that day even, there was only 15 minutes of questioning permitted, even for elected officials, when we were being told, rather by surprise, that things were going to change quite drastically.

When changes were made in the city of London not so long ago, and the minister was a different minister at that time, even this government decided to send the minister to do the hearings. I find it despicable that the minister has not come to Ottawa-Carleton.

I am very pleased that you pointed out some of the conflicts in this bill: first of all, that Nepean will have more politicians than less as a result, and that there is a conflict between the premise of Bill 40 and this bill. I also feel it's important that you tell us from your perspective why you think this bill is being pushed, why you think it is so important that this bill is being passed by this government, because I think you have an overview and a historical view on the matter.

1230

Mr Pratt: Well, it certainly appears as though it's being pushed by the Ottawa member of cabinet, and I'm not sure that that particular member of cabinet really understands or appreciates what municipal government in this area is all about.

In some respects, of course, there are many people in the city of Ottawa who believe that one-tier government is the way to go, without fully realizing what the implications are in terms of the loss of control of setting the local agenda from the standpoint of the whole range of activities that municipalities are involved in. They see one-tier government as a panacea somehow for the ills of local government in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I think the people who are pushing this bill -- or the person, as the case may be -- really don't understand local government and have an incomplete knowledge of what the long-term implications will be in terms of the fact that it will less accountable, less responsive and even less efficient.

To use an example, I have some figures here that give an example of the per capita cost per municipality in certain areas. It is really enlightening to see where certain municipalities place a focus, whether it's on planning or development, police services. Some municipalities have decided that policing service is something they want to put a lot of money into, focus a lot of attention on. Other municipalities, for a variety of reasons, but based on their own needs primarily, have decided that in fact those limited tax dollars can be spent better elsewhere.

Just to sum up in answer to your question, I think there is a really incomplete knowledge of local government in the Ottawa-Carleton area that is pushing this bill without an understanding of what the long-term implications are.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Councillor, for an excellent brief. It's hard to make any comments in the sense that I agree with so much of it. But just to follow up on the last question, the mayor of Cumberland, who was here just earlier, indicated that in his view the government is intent on eliminating local councils to the one tier because they're a pain in the backside. I translate that to mean that local governments, reflecting the will of the people, don't always agree with the agenda of a government, whether it's an NDP government or, I suppose, some other governments. But perhaps one way to deal with that is to get rid of them and deal with a one-tier government that's a little further removed from the people and maybe a little easier to deal with from a philosophical point of view. Is that a possibility?

Mr Pratt: I think it's a very real possibility, and with the structure of government that we're going to be faced with under Bill 143, without the mayors on regional council, you are going to see those conflicts start to crop up. For instance, if a road that's a regional road cannot be widened, for a variety of reasons, there's a real incentive for the local ward councillor to start attacking the regional system or the regional councillor and saying: "They're not doing enough. Regional government is unresponsive to our needs. They don't understand our needs. They sit down on Lisgar Street, and they have absolutely no understanding of what our local needs are."

That problem is resolved right now, at least from the standpoint of Nepean, because we sit on both councils. We understand the constraints that exist on the public purse at both levels. So you don't have that conflict.

Mr David Johnson: Which leads me into my second question, constraints on the public purse. I agree with you 100% that people are demanding governments that are more efficient, more effective, less costly; that's the number one thing on the agenda. Perhaps it's been there for some time, but I think it's no more evident than today, right now.

That's maybe why the government supports this, but my suspicion is that to the degree that people support Bill 143, if they do, they somehow have this impression from whatever source that the structure that's being put in place will be more efficient and will be less costly. Personally, I dispute that. But I wonder, is that kind of information being conveyed, obviously not to people in most of the municipalities such as Nepean, for example, but in Ottawa itself? is there an impression that this government will be more effective and less costly?

Mr Pratt: I think it goes right to the process that has been followed in connection with the substance of the bill and how it's worked its way through the process. We have here in front of us, I think, a reform initiative that is being imposed from above, rather than a reform initiative which has been talked about, discussed, studied at the local level and then with the recommendations going from the lower level of government to the provincial government, in this particular case. That's been a real handicap in terms of the level of acceptance you have throughout all the municipalities in terms of it actually meeting the needs of the local residents.

Another point I'd like to make is, how many times have you heard people talk about the political system? One of the comments that comes to mind readily when you hear people talking about politics in a restaurant or a cafe, whatever, is, "Why don't they work together?" That is a question that is going to be asked more and more if this system comes into place, because you are going to have that conflict. It falls back too on the provincial and the municipal levels of government to work together to find a suitable reform package that will meet the needs of the people and is fully understood by the people as well. I hope I've answered your question.

Mr White: On page 2, you feel there's an inconsistency between the Kirby report, Graham report, Bartlett report, Mayo report and Bill 143. Mr Bartlett was before us earlier and he said that it was entirely consistent with his report and his understanding of the others. In fact, he fully supported the removal of the mayors from regional council. And he was appointed, I believe, by Mr Grandmaître some time ago.

You talked about cost in terms of the regional government, and Mr Johnson did as well. When this $2.9-million expense came up at regional council, are you aware of how the regional councillors from Nepean voted on that issue?

Mr Pratt: As far as I know, that issue hasn't been decided yet.

Mr White: It was voted on, I believe. You're not aware of how that $2.9-million budget was voted on by your own colleagues at regional council?

Mr Pratt: A remuneration review panel has been set up -- I've appeared before it, as a matter of fact -- and the purpose of that panel is to decide on the level of salary for regional councillors under this new system. Presumably, with that, decisions will be made in connection with whether they'll have one assistant, two assistants or what the structure of the office organization will be. That panel has not reported yet.

Mr White: But the $2.9-million contingency fund, the moneys that have been set aside to accommodate regional councillors, do you know how your colleagues voted on that issue?

Mr Grandmaître: On a point of order, Mr Chair.

Mr Pratt: I would like to answer the question.

The Chair: I'll allow the witness to conclude and then we'll deal with your point of order.

Mr Pratt: Offhand, I can't recall how all my colleagues would have voted for it. I may have supported it at the time. However, I think it's somewhat irrelevant to what we're discussing here today, with all respect.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Councillor Pratt, for taking the time to present this morning. We appreciate your views.

Mr Grandmaître: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr White just alluded to the fact that I had appointed --

Mr Gary Wilson: Is this a point of order?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes it is. If you want to listen to it, it would be appreciated.

Mr White mentioned that when I appointed Mr Bartlett, Mr Bartlett was in favour of removing the mayors from regional council. I say this is false. I want the record to show this. I don't know if he was trying to mislead this committee, but it is false.

The Chair: Thank you for correcting the record. Mr White, very briefly.

Mr White: Mr Chair, very briefly, Mr Bartlett very clearly stated that he did not put that in his report. He said why he didn't put it in his report. He said that he does currently support the removal of the mayors, though.

Mr Grandmaître: Much better.

Mr White: He was before us this morning to make those points, Mr Grandmaître.

The Chair: I appreciate both of those points of clarification.

1240

PETER HARRIS
VIVIAN GRANT
ANITA O'DONOVAN

The Chair: The next witness is Anita O'Donovan.

Mr Peter Harris: I'm not Anita.

The Chair: You would likely be Peter Harris.

Mr Peter Harris: That's right. To my right is Vivian Grant, who is the president of the Dalhousie South Community Association. I have a few sheets here that I'll leave you after I speak, because quite honestly I think I'm going to say everything other than what is on the sheets.

The Chair: Who is seated with you?

Mr Peter Harris: This is Anita O'Donovan.

I'd like to start off by saying thank you very much for the Toronto weather yesterday. Hopefully, today's weather you'll take back with you.

This is the preliminary notice that I was able to find out about the hearing that was in one of our daily newspapers, this small article here. On Wednesday of this week, from our city clerk's office, we received an electronic mail message. So I must say that I feel somewhat privileged to be here. In fact I don't think I've had such difficulty getting into a place or an organization since I tried to get into Studio 54 in New York. There they have a red velvet barrier, but I would have thought here, with the taxpayers involved, you would make it a point that you have a minimum time period for the public to state their opinions.

At the city of Ottawa, we take considerable pride in our public participation policy. You can have a private entrepreneur who wants to put in a restaurant down on Preston Street, and time is money to him. Despite the fact that he may lose $20,000 a month, we insist that there be a time that a sign goes up. There's a minimum of 21 days for people to put in their notice, and we live by that.

I must say that, as a person who has been elected and who relies on the input of the public, because they are my best resource for information, for ideas, for shaping and developing our policy, despite the fact that there was preliminary work done in trying to shape up what you were going to present as a bill, despite that, you know what it's like with trying to get the average person to participate. Until you put something on the table that's concrete and says, "This is what we're going to do," you don't get the reaction.

This is why when Mr Kirby was going throughout Ottawa-Carleton, to the credit of the government, people didn't turn up. You heard from the special-interest groups, which is what you're hearing throughout this hearing. This was a race to the phone: Who can phone their friends. To my astonishment, I had phoned down to the good secretariat of this committee, and I said, "If you're going to give us a day and a half notice, why are you insisting that we fax the appointment?" "Well, Mr Harris, the fact is, it's full anyway."

I'm absolutely shocked. If this is the way things work in Toronto, then you've got to go back and come up with some sort of a change so none of you are put in this type of situation in the future.

Having said that, what is it that the average person in Ottawa-Carleton wants? I think the key question to ask yourself is, is this really necessary? Because, you know, this whole process, in the heart of this whole system, was very introspective. The studies, yes, you're saying, "We had this study and we've had this study for 20 years." Therefore, is that why you're going to implement this, because you've had a lot of studies?

Priorities change; things change. All of last year, all throughout this year, since your term of office, you have said to us, you've been crying the financial blues, the financial stress. We all appreciate that and the position you're in. As a result, there was a controversy surrounding the social contract. There have been the reductions in the health care.

But do you understand how much this is going to cost if we get full-time councillors? You will have 18 councillors. You have to salary them; you have to give them their office. That is going to be at least $100,000 per person. We do not have a place to put them in the building at Ottawa-Carleton. If it's a bare room, it needs rugs, it needs walls, it needs furniture. We are going to have to take out a loan of $2 million to supply that, so you're looking at a $4-million cost.

Is that what the taxpayer in Ottawa-Carleton has been asking you? I have been hearing at the grass-roots level, "Cut back on the taxes; we can't take it any more." The saturation point has been exceeded. People are on the verge, I think, of a tax revolt. Less government, less red tape. You know that. You go through it every day at the provincial government, trying to filter through to get your requests done. Why would you as the government, at this time when the private sector is downsizing, put in a separate new layer?

If you vote for this bill, and I know that there are members of all parties who are going to vote for this bill --

Mr David Johnson: No, you don't know that.

Mr Peter Harris: -- you will be hypocrites. Don't cry the financial blues to us, because you are putting in more government.

The region of Ottawa-Carleton has an AAA credit rating, so things are really wrong, aren't they, at Ottawa-Carleton? You hear so much about accountability, about representation. Here's the agenda for the social services committee. Vivian, if you could pass that through; that's coming up this week. Take a look at the agenda. I just happened to be in the office this morning and there it was.

I've had, within the last two months, two cancellations of committees at the region for this government where everybody says, "Oh my God, a $900-million budget." It's a $900-million bookkeeping procedure that goes in and out and you dictate the policies.

You have said to us, "There's no more money for roads"; therefore, at our transportation policy, our big policy is, "We don't have any more money for roads so we're not going to put in any roads this year and we're going to go for public transit." An excellent initiative on the part of the provincial government. What input did I have into that?

The social services department -- there is the committee agenda for this week -- represents the largest budget department in the region of Ottawa-Carleton. It's $250 million, just a third of the regional budget. There's the committee agenda.

I know you've had the pressure from the interest groups and that it sounds wonderful. In theory it sounds great, but we can't continue to live theory; we have to have practical government. For you to turn around and say to us that we need more government in Ottawa-Carleton, I'm sorry, but that is not what the public has been telling me. I'll turn this over to Vivian.

Ms Vivian Grant: First of all, I would like to say that, because of the short notice, I haven't had the opportunity to speak to the membership of our association, so anything I say here right now is a reflection of my own thoughts. Actually, I didn't really know what Peter was going to say, but what I have to say follows along very nicely, I think.

I want to refer you to a television program I heard last April 8. It was on at 11 o'clock at night and it was a program that was entitled There Goes Our Money. The guest speaker at the time was Milton Friedman, a very well known, highly respected economist in the world today. The reason I mention him is that the thrust of his half-hour speech was simply government and people.

He was 83 years old. To see this remarkable man -- it was just spellbinding to listen to him. But anyway, he did say that going back to the late 1920s, when the government really became much more prominent, that's where it started. I hate to paraphrase what Mr Friedman said, but I can only give you my own interpretation of what he said. He said that the reason for the current economic crisis that's going on in just about every country in the world is an overgrown bureaucracy. It has just got completely out of hand. He named five specific areas where this has taken place -- I'll be very brief -- and he said the answer to this is with the people themselves.

On that, I would like to say that we do, hopefully participating in a -- what they call participating in a democracy today -- I would like to say to you, members of our provincial Legislature, for heaven's sake, hear the voice of the people. Surely they have a right. Let us not become what Lord Acton had said several centuries ago now, I believe, victims of the tyranny of the majority.

1250

Ms Anita O'Donovan: My name is Anita O'Donovan and I have lived in the Centre Town, Glebe, Ottawa South and in Nepean. I currently live in Barrhaven. I've only lived in Ottawa-Carleton.

I want this committee and the Ontario Legislature to know I strongly object to many changes you are proposing. I live in Nepean by choice. I like the system for election of mayor, regional and local councillors exactly as it is. Nepean council is composed of seven members: a mayor, three ward councillors and three regional councillors elected across the entire city. Now I have a direct input into the election of five members of the seven-member city council.

If this bill passes, you will greatly reduce the Nepean councillors' credibility to me. I will have a say in the selection of two members instead of the current five members. For regional council, I currently can vote for four members and the mayor and three regional councillors. You are reducing my democracy from four to one.

With the current system, if I have a question or a problem, I can contact the mayor and one, two or three regional councillors. I have a good choice. They are all accountable to me. I do not have to first figure out if it's my concern, if it's a regional or a local one. If my concern is regional and I want a meeting to discuss this matter, I can currently go to the Nepean city hall and meet with one, two, three or four accountable representatives. Under your system, I can go downtown to Lisgar Street, pay $8 to $10 for parking, to meet one accountable representative.

Members of the committee, if you vote for the proposed system, you will be destroying something that is good in favour of something that is inferior and more expensive. This is not progress. This will further erode taxpayers' faith in government.

Mr David Johnson: I thank all three deputants. Councillor, I'd just like to correct one little thing. I'm unaware of anybody in the Progressive Conservative Party who will be supporting this bill. Certainly the people who have been involved, such as myself, will not be supporting this bill. If anybody did, it would be a surprise.

The agendas will get bigger if this setup goes through. You can count on it. As one of the previous deputations said, the governments will grow and it'll cost more money. I agree, the message that I'm hearing from the people is the same message that you're hearing, that governments need to be less costly, more efficient and more effective.

What I was trying to convey to the previous councillor who was here is that my sense is that the majority of the people in the Ottawa-Carleton region do not support this bill, but to the extent that some people do support it, my guess is that many of them somehow feel that this is going to be more effective and less costly, and they'll be disappointed when it turns out to be the reverse.

Mr Peter Harris: I think that you haven't heard from the average person and you have not had a public hearing. The bill is here, it's before you, and you haven't given the people a chance to speak on it. So you're not in a position -- I've requested the Chair to extend the hearing and to put an ad in the newspaper and have an honest public hearing.

Mr Gary Wilson: I regret to say that, unfortunately, in my view, you spent so much time running down the process of getting here, you didn't have much time to get into the issues and now we're really rushed. In fact I just want to make a clarification. Your colleague to the right, Vivian, mentioned that you're the president of an association, but I understand there's an association called the Dalhousie Community Association that is in support of Bill 143. Is that true?

Ms Grant: Dalhousie ward is a very, very large ward.

Mr Gary Wilson: But is there not an association called Dalhousie Community Association?

Ms Grant: Of course, and there are several others as well. There are about five of them. I can tell you the boundaries, if you interested.

Mr Gary Wilson: Is there not a large, well-established community association, Dalhousie Community Association that supports this bill?

Ms Grant: I have no idea.

Mr Gary Wilson: I see. I thought they were on record as saying that they support it, and you on your part suggested that there was some confusion because you're actually associated with a different community association.

Ms Grant: The name of our association is the Dalhousie South Residents Association. We have been in operation for the last four years. It's the first time that anyone in this area where I represent has ever belonged to any association. It's just one of the five that's in Dalhousie ward.

Mr Peter Harris: Can I comment on the reality of that? At this committee hearing personal contact was made. You would be interested in knowing that the executive assistant to the member of Parliament for Ottawa-Centre was the campaign manager for people that are very much involved with the Dalhousie Community Association. So there are reasons why some people hear about things and others don't.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Harris, I really find it confusing when people tell deputations how they should spend their time. You have suggested that --

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm being called a hypocrite.

Mrs O'Neill: Well, I have a lot of trouble when deputations are told how to spend their time. I'm sorry.

Mr Gary Wilson: Even when you're called a hypocrite.

The Vice-Chair: Order, Mr Wilson.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Harris, you've talked about cost quite a bit and about the process. Are there any other parts of Bill 143, because costs are not part of 143, as you know, and the process is in existence whether we like it or not. Could you tell us the two or three things about Bill 143 that you don't like?

Mr Peter Harris: If you're going to implement it and you really want to avoid the parochialism that everybody says is one of the main bases for implementing this bill, then by rights you should be electing councillors at large because you are going to end up with the same situation that you have now, with the ward structure, whether it be the city of Ottawa or the region of Ottawa-Carleton where you have the downtown versus the suburbans. That isn't going to change. It'll be the same thing. Quite honestly, I think this is something to be aware of.

I personally think it is an insult to the mayors of the different cities that they're not on representing their people; that's my personal view. The present bill is the present bill, but it's just not good enough. I think I have a completely different reason for opposing this than some of the previous speakers, because I personally think you should be reducing the level of governments in Ottawa-Carleton.

This is why I say, if you're going to do it, for heaven's sake do it properly and take the time to really come up with something. Until you put something concrete on the table, that isn't going to happen. The process doesn't end simply because you've had a few meetings before you present the bill.

The Vice-Chair: Ms O'Donovan, Ms Grant and Mr Harris, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for coming out this afternoon and giving us your presentation.

1300

BRIAN BOURNS

The Vice-Chair: I call forward our last presenter for the day, Brian Bourns. You'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you leave a little time for questions and comments.

Mr Brian Bourns: I'll be brief and allow a fair bit of time for discussion.

I conducted a study of the structure of boards of education in Ottawa-Carleton on behalf of the Minister of Education. The provisions in the bill relating to the French-language school board are consistent with my recommendations, and I assume there's some relationship between the two.

My study found, quite frankly, that the structure of French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton was dysfunctional. There was every effort, I think, in establishing the current Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board to establish something that would work well and efficiently and maximize the opportunities and potentials that existed. In reality, it was optimistic, I think, in how it expected the French-language board would work.

For members of the committee -- I don't know how much familiarity you have with the situation -- but currently, essentially, the French-language board is really three entities: a public sector panel, a Catholic sector panel and what's called the plénier or the oversight body which is made up of the two boards -- the two panels make up the French-language board. There are a number of compulsory relationships established in the legislation between the two entities, the public and Catholic, and the plénier.

Both entities, the Catholic and the public, have a constitutional right to manage their schools. I didn't question whether that was appropriate or inappropriate or anything else; it's simply a fact and it's certainly one we're not likely to have much influence on. In that context, the current structure simply provided a forum for those two groups, in trying to govern their schools, to wind up in perpetual and unproductive conflict which, to be blunt, is very expensive.

I found, in my study, if the board were to function as it was hoped it would function, it would probably cost about $900,000 a year less to operate than it does the way it functions at the moment. Similarly, I found that by abolishing the plénier and allowing the two groups to have clear unambiguous authority over the governance of their schools, you could save $700,000.

We're in a situation, by trying to eliminate duplication, the existing structure has really created triplication resulting in higher costs that can be eliminated by any change in the structure -- or, at least, any reasonably likely one.

It's my belief that the proposed structure of establishing two autonomous boards will best meet the constitutional rights of the two communities involved and will do so efficiently and allow them to carry forward.

I also found that particularly the public panel has a terrible financial situation and, to be quite frank, has not been well managed and has not been adequately funded in the past. There's undoubtedly a relationship between the two and there's lots of blame to go around as to how the circumstances evolved. But the fact of the matter is I was concerned in recommending that they become an autonomous body that they still wouldn't be able to function if the financial issue was not addressed.

I was pleased to see the government announcing last week that it appears an accord has been reached with the French-language school board with respect to funding in the future. If that carries forward, and if the changes contained in the legislation today with respect to the French-language boards carry forward and are implemented, I believe we will be in a position, probably for the first time, to have two effective functioning French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton and I think it can only improve the educational opportunities available as well as the accountability, really, of those governing bodies to their communities.

I also studied the English-language school boards and I'd be happy to answer any questions with respect to that portion of the study, although it doesn't make up part of the -- there's nothing in the legislation that relates to that study. I'll pause at this point and see if the committee has any questions.

Mr White: Thank you very much, Mr Bourns, for your willingness to come forth in front of the committee and discuss these important recommendations.

Taking for granted that the legislation as changed includes your recommendations, and I believe that's certainly the intent, they didn't come out of -- they weren't immaculately conceived, but rather were a reflection of the advice and recommendations that you offered. What is your opinion in terms of timing? Should this be something that could wait until the turn of the century or 1997?

Interjection: It shouldn't be part of the bill.

Mr Bourns: My recommendation was that it be done as quickly as possible. I think the situation as it is is wasteful of money and of opportunities and is frustrating both to trustees and the parents and students involved. I don't know what the other options are in terms of how it can be implemented, but I do believe that the earlier it can be accomplished, the better for all involved.

Mr White: I'd like to ask a question of staff here. I heard a comment during your response, that it shouldn't be part of the bill. I'm wondering if we could have a comment in regard to whether the previous bill could have been amended to include these recommendations or whether there was a necessity for a new bill.

Mr John Tomlinson: Since the previous bill, Bill 77, had really nothing in it about the French-language school board, any attempt to amend that bill by motion would have been out of order. Therefore, if you wanted to include it with what was in that bill, you would have to have redone the bill in the way that it was done.

Mr Grandmaître: I think we've proven our point again, that the government wasn't ready with Bill 77 when we were being accused of using delaying tactics in the House to prevent the second reading of Bill 77. I think the parliamentary assistant clearly demonstrated that the government wasn't even ready to include your report in Bill 77.

First of all, Mr Bourns, I want to congratulate you. You had only five months to do a very difficult job, and I think you've succeeded very, very well. But I still claim that your recommendations, the results of your report, should have been introduced in the House as a bill and not included in Bill 143 or Bill 77. I will be forced to vote against your good work and the results of your report for the simple reason that I don't agree with the municipal government decisions that were made. I will be forced to vote against your recommendations.

I want to say publicly that the minister refused to divide the bill into three or four or five parts, because, as you know, it's a very complex bill. We've been accused of using stalling tactics, but I want to tell you that the members of our caucus will be voting against Bill 143. We won't necessarily be voting against your report.

Mr Bourns: I appreciate your comments.

Mr David Johnson: I thank you, Mr Bourns, as well. The point's been made that we have two important issues here. We have the issue of the municipal structure, which in its own right is a huge issue that should not be included with anything else. There should have been two separate bills here: one for the issue that you're here to speak to us about today and the other for the municipal restructuring. That's the problem we're facing. It's pitiful, the situation we're put in.

There's been very little meaningful discussion with regard to the important issue that you're bringing forward. Certainly, we would all support any movement that would make our school systems more effective and less costly. You've brought to our attention a $900,000 cost that perhaps shouldn't have been incurred in one situation and $700,000 in another case. These are issues that we should come to grips with, but I personally can't support the bill the way it is right now, because of the municipal structure, which I think is not in the best interests of the people in this area.

I don't know if you've seen the presentation. Many of us put a lot of emphasis on what the board of trade says, because it's composed of many good people. The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade does not support the amendment that you're hoping we will support. They say we already have too many school boards and we should have fewer school boards, and that's perhaps a view that's shared by other people in the province of Ontario. Even the portion that you're bringing forward to us, I would like to see debated in greater length so I know what all the issues might be, but the main point is that we've got two things that are plunked together and shouldn't be; they each deserve their own debate.

The problem, I think, that we're in here now is the government didn't put priority on this bill last year. It didn't come for debate last year. It's had three days of debate this year. That's it. Now we've got closure. Here we are on a Saturday morning with a limited number of people being given the opportunity to speak to it, virtually nobody has had the opportunity to speak to the French-language school board issue, and the whole thing has to be a sham, and you're caught in the middle of this. I apologize to you for dragging you in maybe even a little further, because I know the message you've got to bring to us is a serious one and it's not being given the debate and review that it deserves.

1310

Mr Bourns: If I might, there was certainly extensive public discussion during the study that I conducted last fall, at the conclusion of the study. I believe really the reason that you haven't got a lot of deputation on the issue of the French-language school boards is because there is generally a consensus within the community that this is the appropriate approach to take. It's not substantially a controversial issue.

I'm sure if you get into the English-language school boards, you would have more of a discussion and debate, but at this point, I think with respect to the French-language school boards, virtually all of the community involved has come to the conclusion that this is the appropriate step to take at this time.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: It should've been a separate bill, right.

Mr Bourns: I can't help that.

The Chair: Mr Bourns, thank you for appearing before the committee this morning.

Mr McGuinty: I'd like to move a motion. There has been someone here who has exhibited a very real expression of interest in these hearings. In fact, she's sat here from the very beginning until this point in time and she speaks on behalf of seven community associations. I've had an opportunity to review her brief. It's short, it's to the point, and I think we should give her the opportunity to come forward and speak now. I'd like to move that motion now.

The Chair: The motion has been moved. Discussion?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): As Mr McGuinty knows, the subcommittee did meet and we did set up a schedule. We realize that there are a number of other people who did want to present, and because of the time constraints couldn't. We did offer them, through the advertisement, the chance that they could do a written submission, which carries just as much weight to the committee members and to the ministry when they review the final outcome and when we get to clause-by-clause on this. We do have a tight schedule where some of us have to catch our flights to get home, and that's why I would vote against this motion.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. Continue, Mr Cooper.

Mr Cooper: The truth is, we realize there are more people who want to make presentations, and there are people who did contact in different orders, and to have somebody just come in off the floor and say that this person's more important and should beat out somebody else who had contacted us earlier is really unfair to other people who won't have the chance to present.

Mr David Johnson: Just to speak on behalf of our caucus, I came down here to listen to the people of Ottawa speak to this issue. My flight isn't for a while yet, and I suspect most people who are flying back to Toronto are on the same flight. I've got time to listen. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

Mr White: I appreciate Mr McGuinty's ongoing support for this bill, as he's previously expressed. I'm wondering in terms of the process, though, if he's not aware that he has a representative on the committee that struck the agenda. Did he not approach Mr Grandmaître on this score? Why did Mr Grandmaître not make this motion?

Mr Grandmaître: As the representative on the committee, you will recall when the subcommittee met to look at a possible list, we were given a pre-typed list and, for your information, Mr White, we had no additional room on that list -- no additional room. I find it very surprising that we've listened to people this morning who were not included on the original list. I'm sure that the clerk or you, Mr Chair, has an answer, but I find it very surprising that some people were added to this list, because a lot of people would like to use five or six minutes to give us their point of view and they're not given this opportunity.

The Chair: For the record, Mr Grandmaître, the witnesses who were scheduled were taken in chronological order, and if there were cancellations, replacement speakers were also taken in chronological order as well.

Mr Grandmaître: How did Mr Bourns find out about this meeting?

The Chair: I have no idea.

Mr Grandmaître: Can we ask Mr Bourns?

Mr Bourns: I found out about the meeting from Mr Sutherland.

Mr McGuinty: Just in response, first of all, to Mr White's questions about somehow the agreement being struck in Toronto, the fact of the matter is that we are now here on the front lines. Regardless of where people stand on this legislation, if we've heard anything, it's that there was very short notice given to the people of Ottawa-Carleton. We've been able to accommodate only very, very few presenters, and regardless of where we stand as individual committee members, if we have one overriding obligation, it's to listen to the people who pay our salaries and put us down at Queen's Park.

I want to say as well that Karen Brown, the woman on whose behalf I'm making this motion, has even volunteered to go down to Toronto at her expense and make a presentation, but there is no room for her there either. I'm just calling for 20 minutes for her to come forward and sit there and make a presentation.

Mr Daigeler: Just very briefly, we appreciate the fact that some of the members who are not from this area have to catch a flight. I think the motion doesn't request to extend these hearings till 6 o'clock, even though we would like to. We acknowledge the fact that the government has moved to have this whole thing finished in two weeks. That's the reality that unfortunately we're living under. All this motion says is, hear that one person who is speaking on behalf of seven community associations, and it's another 20 minutes. Is it really that bad? That's all that's being asked with this motion, and I would hope that the government members would support it.

Interjections: Recorded vote.

The Chair: All those in favour of Mr McGuinty's motion, please indicate.

Ayes

Daigeler, Grandmaître, McGuinty, Johnson (Don Mills).

The Chair: All those opposed, please indicate.

Nays

Cooper, Haeck, Hansen, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), White.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Mr Chair, could we have a copy of that presentation for our files?

The Chair: Yes, I believe there have been written submissions presented to the committee. We are therefore adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1318.