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

CONTENTS

Wednesday 20 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

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 Offer

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L) for Mrs Fawcett

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mr Conway

Johnson, David (Don Mills PC) for Mr Turnbull

Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mr Jordan

White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Klopp

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

White, Drummond, parliamentary assistant to Minister of Municipal Affairs

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: Mifsud, Lucinda, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1028 in committee room 1.

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

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.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): We'll be starting today on our clause-by-clause of Bill 143. Would you like to start with section 1 and go to a general discussion and proceed?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Before we start the general discussion, could we have some information as to whether the minister will be here at any particular point?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'm not aware of the minister planning to be here today. I will be filling in for the minister as I did last weekend.

Mr Daigeler: While I don't want to denigrate the confidence of the parliamentary assistant, I do think this starts us out on a very poor footing. The minister obviously is again not showing any kind of willingness to get a real feel as to what is behind the views of the people in Ottawa-Carleton. I don't get any sense of reassurance that the sense of frustration that we heard in Ottawa-Carleton was communicated to the minister, and I had hoped that at least he could hear part of that today. Since we have only one hour of debate on third reading, I think it's very, very disappointing that the minister doesn't plan to be here.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I guess the member for Nepean is expressing concern with regard to procedure and I would have to echo that on several counts. Reference was made during the public hearings last Friday and Saturday as to how opposition members had held up the process of the consideration of this bill, and I have to take objection to that, I guess number one in terms of procedure.

I've only been here now a year, but this bill first came forward as Bill 77 some time last year. I'm not sure exactly when, but fairly early on last year, I think. The government didn't bring it forward at that point. There were obvious objections to it from 10 of the 11 municipalities, from many citizens and many organizations, and the government didn't bring it forward.

There was an attempt, as I understand it, to contact various members, particularly those who represent the area, and indicate that there was a desire to get the bill through fairly quickly and that the government wished to get the bill through fairly quickly but it didn't wish to meet with any resistance. The implication was that if any time in the House was going to be allocated to this, then it wasn't high enough in the priorities of the government to bring it forward and use the time of the House.

Consequently, the minister only brought it forward right at the very end of the year, in December, and put it on the order papers, I can recall, as the third or fourth item on some particular day behind a number of other bills -- this was in December of last year -- clearly hoping that it would somehow magically go through in perhaps 15 minutes or half an hour. Certainly it was my view, and I know the view of our party, and I suspect the view of the opposition in general, that in view of all the concerns that had been expressed, that was not giving the bill due consideration. As it turned out, the other bills occupied the full period of time and Bill 77 never did come before the House last year.

To blame that on the opposition parties I think is reprehensible. I fail to understand how a government cannot give priority to a bill, cannot bring it forward as the number one priority, first thing in the day, somewhere well before the end of the year, and show that commitment to a bill, cannot take that course of action but can take an entirely different course of action, which is to put it number three or four on the agenda right at the very end of the year and then blame it on the opposition parties that it didn't get consideration the previous year.

Then what happened is that Bill 143 came forward this year as the concoction of the old Bill 77 with some amendments for the French school board being thrown in at the very last moment without members having really the opportunity for full consideration.

Number one, I have to take the strongest possible objection that the fact we're in this time mess at the present time has anything to do whatsoever with the opposition parties. It's clearly at the feet of the government for not giving this priority last year.

I've talked to a number of people both during and since the deputations on the weekend in Ottawa and I can say that there are many very disgruntled citizens and elected representatives from the Ottawa region.

These were people who expected the minister to be there and they were astounded that the minister would not come to Ottawa to participate in the hearings, because they felt, and they hoped, that even though the hearings were short, the people were prepared to listen to what they had to say. But the fact that the minister wasn't there, and this bill of course emanates from the minister, leaves the clear impression that the fix was in, that the minds were made up and that this bill is going through no matter what people say. I think that's most unfortunate from a procedural point of view.

Secondly, the shortness of the time: Many people did not get the opportunity to speak. There were people clearly there during the proceedings who wished to speak, but they could not be fitted in because of the shortness of the time allocation. There were many other people who objected that all the allocations were already made up before they even read about the advertisement in the newspaper and they don't quite understand how a government can approach a significant bill in that fashion.

This is a bill that is going to affect the most important level of government to the vast majority of the people in the Ottawa-Carleton region, yet it's being considered in a day and a half on a weekend with very limited time for people to speak. In terms of procedure, again, it's most unfortunate. Right from the start to the inglorious end here now, with time allocation and the fact that we are very limited -- we have half a day, essentially, to discuss this today and one more hour, I believe, when it finally comes before the House -- right through this whole piece there's been virtually no discussion.

Many people have taken objection to the fact that the government has said over and over again, "We've had hundreds of discussions through the Kirby report and thousands through the Bartlett report," and da-da, da-da, da-da, etc etc etc. The point is being made that this bill, in many aspects, is distinctly different from the Graham report, from the Bartlett report, from the Kirby report, from the Mayo report, from any of those reports that have gone on in the past. There are new concepts that have come out of this, new clusters of concepts, I guess, that people have not had the opportunity to talk about. The mayors not being on the regional council is certainly one of them. This has come out time and time again.

No matter what is said -- that there have been thousands of hours of consultation on this particular bill and the concepts that are in this particular bill, which are very important to people -- there has been virtually no consultation. I'm afraid we're going to bear the consequences of that once this is passed, as I'm sure it will be, when it's put into effect this fall.

Those are the comments I would make just in opening, then, on the process. I think it's been a very poor process, a process where there were minds made up. Certainly, in the opinion of many people in Ottawa, the minister who represents that area had a great deal of input into this, and perhaps one or two other key figures. They, for whatever reason, felt this was the proper way to go and the government has toed that line all the way along. Clearly, listening to the people, it's my guess that of the deputations we've heard, four to one are opposed to this bill or some provision of this bill. There are certain provisions that they support, but four to one, there's opposition in terms of the bill in its entirety that's before us today. Perhaps I'll leave those as my opening comments.

1040

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'd like to go on record as well to denounce what's happening this morning, but the opposition is used to time allocation or closure. This is not the first time it's happened. I think this is the 13th or 14th occasion that the opposition has been stifled and dictated to by the government, as pointed out by the previous speakers, the member for Nepean, who talked about the process.

I would like to refer to the latest series of meetings in Ottawa-Carleton last weekend. I think it proved that the people of Ottawa-Carleton are concerned. I think people in Ottawa-Carleton would like to see some changes brought on their regional government, but not those excessive changes.

I want to remind the members of the government that from the very beginning of the review of regional government in Ottawa-Carleton, one-tier government was never, never considered. When Mr Bartlett was first appointed back in 1987, and also Katherine Graham a few years after, to look at the possible boundaries of new regional wards in Ottawa-Carleton, one-tier government was never asked for, except for one municipality and that was the city of Ottawa.

I was very surprised in the days of Mr Cooke when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, that one-tier government wasn't even on his agenda. I was told by the minister at the time, "No, what you see is what you're going to get," meaning that no additional surprises would come our way.

Well, on a fine morning, after a very short breakfast, the member for Ottawa Centre asked me to consider the possibility of looking at one-tier government. Naturally, I was never interested in one-tier government and I don't think my party is interested in one-tier government. Then there was a change of minister. Mr Philip became the Minister of Municipal Affairs and shortly before taking over Municipal Affairs Graeme Kirby was given a mandate to look at one-tier government. I thought that was a waste of money. It cost the taxpayers of Ontario close to half a million dollars to look at something that was decided a long time ago: that one-tier government wasn't acceptable to Ottawa-Carleton.

Here we are today, after Bill 32, Bill 77 and now Bill 143, and the government is putting an end to the consultation process. When you look at Bill 32, Bill 77 and Bill 143, these bills don't really coincide. They've added to Bill 32, which became Bill 77, and then we were criticized by the minister for stalling Bill 77. We lost a lot of time and spent money advertising trying to convince the taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton that the opposition was stalling or putting a kibosh to the government, a majority government, and that they would introduce another bill, maybe the first item in the new session or the spring session. It came along as Bill 143, which adds amendments to the Education Act in respect of French-language school boards.

I realize this was not the mandate of Mr Graeme Kirby. This was commissioned by the Minister of Education and Mr Bourns submitted a report which was mostly well accepted in Ottawa-Carleton. Now the government is offering less consultation to our school boards. As pointed out by the previous speaker, not everybody was given an opportunity in Ottawa-Carleton to even consider the new amendments to the Education Act and also the creation of two new school boards in Ottawa-Carleton -- two independent school boards, I should say.

I could go on and on, but I think enough has been said. The government should realize that what we are about to do is unacceptable in Ottawa-Carleton. I would ask the members of this committee, especially the government members of this committee, to seriously consider our amendments, because our amendments will reflect the real needs of changes to the Ottawa-Carleton regional act. I hope they will seriously take into consideration our amendments and support them, and then, who knows, I might be able to support Bill 143 in its present form. At the present time I'm forced -- not forced, because nobody should be forced to do anything, but I am compelled to vote against Bill 143.

Mr Daigeler: Further in terms of some opening questions, could I have some clarification? I think there were written submissions still received with regard to the public hearings. Are we still going to get these today, as soon as possible? When are we going to get these?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tannis Manikel): You mean the one you handed me today?

Mr Daigeler: No, material that was given to the clerk and to the committee as part of the requested written submissions of those who couldn't be accommodated due to the fact that there was only one day and a half of public hearings.

Clerk of the Committee: All of the submissions that were either handed to me and hadn't been copied for the committee when we were in Ottawa or any of the ones that I've received up to this morning have been distributed to all the committee members.

Mr Daigeler: I must have either overlooked something, or I don't know. Perhaps you can verify for me --

Clerk of the Committee: I can verify that with my office.

Mr Daigeler: -- whether you've received, and whether it was distributed, a communication from Mr Donald Wigfield.

Clerk of the Committee: The name is familiar. I believe it came in this morning and it's being copied.

Mr Daigeler: Then that has not been distributed yet.

Clerk of the Committee: No, I'm sorry. That one will be coming later this morning.

Mr Daigeler: Okay, because I think it's a very good brief and certainly the committee should be aware of this.

Secondly, I have just asked the clerk to distribute a communication that my staff has received from the minister's staff. I think it's of interest to the committee because I had asked the minister and the minister's office quite some time ago, and then I finally had to put it in writing on March 22 and finally got an answer yesterday, how many letters were received by the minister and what was the tenor of these letters.

I'm distributing the response to the committee, but just so that you know in the meantime, it says here: "Since Bill 77 was introduced, on July 22, 1993, the minister has received over 1,000 letters in response to the bill. More than half of the correspondence" -- surprise, surprise -- "was from the city of Nepean" -- because we feel very strongly about the local government in Nepean. Then it says: "Form letters and coupons composed much of the correspondence received from Nepean. As is the nature of write-in campaigns, most of these letters were opposed to the proposals contained in the bill."

This is from the chief of staff of the minister, if he's here, or perhaps the parliamentary assistant can clarify for me what is meant by "as is the nature of write-in campaigns." Does this mean that the people who have written are discarded simply because they're against this bill? Is that the normal practice of the government, that if people are opposed and they're getting lots of letters, they're simply being written off? What is the meaning of "as is the nature of write-in campaigns"?

Mr Grandmaître: File 13.

Mr White: Good question. May I make some opening comments as well as respond to Mr Daigeler? Mr Daigeler, are you finished?

The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): You might want to respond to Mr Daigeler's question. Are you going to conclude your remarks or do you have more to say?

Mr White: Do you have further remarks you want to make?

Mr Daigeler: Further remarks, but that's just the question right now.

The Chair: Would it be acceptable then that Mr White addresses that issue after you speak, because he also has remarks?

Mr Daigeler: Oh, I see. Okay, we can wait for these specific questions.

The Chair: He's made note of your question and will address that in his remarks. He's the next scheduled speaker.

Mr Daigeler: Okay, I'll let him speak.

The Chair: You're finished?

Mr Daigeler: At this point, yes.

1050

Mr White: I'm very pleased that we're at the point now of finally addressing, after so many years, the issue of the reform of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. As we know from our submissions and from the lengthy debate in the House, this has been an issue that has been outstanding in the region of Ottawa-Carleton for almost 20 years, almost a full generation.

Since 1976 we've had the Mayo report, the Bartlett report, the Kirby report, the Graham report and the Bourns report. All of these extensive consultations and extensive workups for a number of different governments of all three major political stripes have indicated a need for reform for the region.

This bill in fact does address most of those issues. I'm actually struck, as we examined the number of services and the various reforms that are involved in terms of services offered in Ottawa-Carleton, that in many ways the structure and the powers of that regional municipality are still only half of the way to what they are in other areas of the province.

For my friends from the Ottawa-Carleton area, I would certainly apprise them of my own situation in Durham region where the powers, somewhat like in Metro Toronto, where the police have been regionally administered for some 20, 21 years and where day care, social services and a whole range of other services, sewers etc, which have been brought close to that structure in Ottawa-Carleton, have been regionally administered in most of the rest of the province where there is regional government, by that regional municipality for some time. Those reforms, while they are somewhat significant for the people and for the services in that region, really only reflect what has been the custom, what has been the practice in the rest of the province for the last 20 years or so.

There is one obvious issue, which is the issue of representation by population, and it was thought after careful study that the best way in which to effect that would be to have approximately one vote on regional council for every 35,000 citizens in the Ottawa-Carleton region in order to effect some adequate level of representation by population and to use the same basic guidelines as dictate the representation that we have here in the provincial assembly, the same criterion as we have here in designating ridings.

Basically that meant a change in the representation, and it meant that people who are elected locally serve locally and people who are elected regionally serve regionally. That meant that the local councillors did not sit on regional council, so be it they don't now, and that the mayors who were elected locally did not serve regionally as well. That has been a major source of controversy, certainly something we've heard about at some length. The principle of privilege for some and the principle of representation by population seem to be in some level of contest.

In terms of the differences between Bill 143, the present bill which is before us, and Bill 77, the major changes are ones a couple of which could have been reflected by amendment and some of which could only have been effected through a new bill. Those changes are the implementation of the new date or giving greater flexibility for the institution of region-wide policing and the administration of that service at a regional level. That was something that was important and it reflects the information we have more recently and currently in terms of the setup of a police force.

There were amendments which basically were changes which reflect the need to have these things in place for the 1994 municipal election anticipated in November, and so some of the amendments reflect those specific needs, and of course and very significantly, the very popularly supported amendments to the French-language school board act, so that a situation which was not working effectively in the Ottawa-Carleton region could be addressed.

It seems from our presentations on Monday that those issues are very well received. Certainly the experience we had in Ottawa as well reflected the popularity of these amendments. So the change from 77 to 143, in terms of the substance of the bill, seems to have addressed important issues and to be fairly well received.

The importance of this bill should not be underestimated. We have had lengthy, lengthy consultations, as we know. While we were not able to spend the time in Ottawa-Carleton that we might have liked to because the House is in session, still we have had extensive consultations on the nature of this bill and the reform, as we know from the Bartlett, the Kirby, the Graham reports. We are talking about, with one of those alone, some 1,600 people being involved, hundreds and hundreds of written submissions, and we certainly have ourselves heard innumerable accountings.

On the issue about the ministers being involved, I would like to emphasize that all of the stakeholders were all briefed on many occasions. Both the present Minister of Municipal Affairs and his predecessor, when there were any changes or any new announcements, went to Ottawa to make those announcements, and the present minister, the Honourable Ed Philip, met with the mayors on a number of occasions in regard to this bill.

The minister's presence was spoken about at the outset by Mr Daigeler. I certainly can't attempt to represent him or to fill in for him in a total way; however, my role on this committee and with this bill is to do so. I appreciate that Mr Daigeler would love to have Mr Philip here and no doubt wishes to debate the bill with Mr Philip and would appreciate, I'm sure, Mr Philip's advice. However, he does have another engagement this morning, the executive council of the province, which commands his attention.

During the weekend the comment was made that Mr Philip was not in Ottawa. However, we also had the unusual circumstance, as I'm sure the members opposite noted, that we had a minister who is sitting on the committee. That's a very unusual circumstance. I believe it's very rare that you have ministers sitting in on government committees, and that shows the level of attention that both Mr Philip, through his careful working through of this bill, and other ministers and the Premier have given to a substantive and fair reform of the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality.

While we're at the end of this process, I think the issue of consultation is an interesting one. We have had not just those meetings but also special meetings for opposition members to make them aware of and current with those issues.

The hearings, I thought, were very interesting and very informative. We have government amendments which address some of the concerns that were outlined and which we will be getting into at a later time. The minister has responded to, I believe, all of the letters he has received on this issue. There was a letter that Mr Daigeler read into the record to his executive assistant, and I believe the issue was that these were a write-in campaign, the majority of the 500 letters from the riding of Nepean being form letters or coupons.

Of course, we know this is an important issue. We know this is something where the citizens of Nepean have been interested and involved through the good actions of their representative, who has ensured that they participated fully, and we knew certainly on the weekend how well Nepean has been represented and how many people from the city of Nepean and from Mr Daigeler's riding were able to show up at the committee hearings and to make presentations. Both they and their member have had their views extremely well articulated.

We also know that the taxpayers of Nepean, through the extensive expense that was spent on newspaper ads and other issues, have been fully informed of the issue and certainly have been informed of the views of the mayor of Nepean and other of the council members who are in support of the mayor and of the member.

1100

The fact that we have a form letter does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that those letters are not responded to. My understanding is that all of the letters were responded to fully and the issues that were brought up were addressed in writing by the minister, so that even though a letter may be a coupon or a form letter, our response as a government is sensitive to the views that are reflected.

I'd like to thank the members of the committee from all sides for their active participation in the bill and look forward to hearing views on the amendments and the clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 143. Thank you.

Mr David Johnson: Just a question or two to the parliamentary assistant. You indicated in your remarks that this is an important issue. I think those are the words that you used. Indeed, this affects the local government of about three quarters of a million people, which I guess is getting pretty close to 10% of our population -- it must be about 8% of our population in Ontario -- so it is a most important issue, and you must obviously recognize that some people are opposed to it.

You've indicated that there have been extensive consultations, that sort of thing. But in terms of the Legislature dealing with this issue, do you know how much time the Legislature has had to deal with this issue?

I can recall three days in terms of second reading debate on Bill 143. I don't think Bill 77 actually came forward for any debate, either committee time or Legislature time; correct me if I'm wrong. Then in terms of the committee work for Bill 143, we had the day and a half in Ottawa and I guess today. Have I missed anything there? Has there been any other time that the Legislature has spent on this issue?

Mr White: I believe when I spoke of consultation, I spoke of the 20-year-long process that was initiated with Mr Mayo that came about in the 1970s and the level of debate that has occurred in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I think there's been a lengthy and extensive debate in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I'm sorry, Mr Johnson. I don't have an accounting of the number of minutes that were spent in the Legislature on Bill 77 or on Bill 143. I'm certainly aware of the time that was spent on Bill 143, having been there, but I'm not sure that I kept a stopwatch on that discussion, nor was I involved with the House leader in terms of the positioning or timing of when that bill was to be discussed.

Mr David Johnson: We're not blaming this on you as an individual. Don't get me wrong there. But the former Minister of Municipal Affairs is indicating that in terms of Bill 77, there was no Legislature time whatsoever, committee or Legislature time. That's my recollection, although I came in partway through this issue, I guess.

In terms of Bill 143, we have to have three days of debate before you effect closure, so there must have been the three days of debate there, and we did have the day and a half in Ottawa where we shoehorned in a fraction of the citizens who wished to speak, and then we have today. That boils down to three days of Legislature time -- three afternoons, as it turns out -- and a day and a half of public hearings. I take it the government considers that sufficient time to debate a bill of this magnitude. That's the only conclusion I can come to.

Mr White: In terms of Bill 77, there must have been some legislative time, or it wouldn't have been a bill. It must have been introduced at least.

Mr David Johnson: It was introduced but there's no debate on first reading. We'll give you another 10 seconds there then, to be fair. I gather from your comments that you consider that amount of time to be sufficient for a bill of this magnitude that affects almost 10% of our population.

It was noted partway through the hearings in Ottawa that just about all of those who favoured the bill, and there weren't that many -- my estimate is that they were four to one opposed, but maybe you have a different estimate, I don't know. Those who did come forward almost invariably supported one-tier government.

I think the mayor of Ottawa, for example, was the first one and the former mayor of Ottawa was another one who came along at some point during the hearings. They all seemed to say, "Yes, do this. We support one-tier government," and they almost took it for granted that this was going to lead to one-tier government. That was noted by somebody, I forget who it was, that it was very obvious.

What commitment can you give to us? Is that your view, is that the government's view, that this is the automatic first step to one-tier government, as many of the deputants surmised, or what will you tell us in terms of the government's position on that question?

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Johnson. I think it's a very good question. The issue about one-tier government was brought up earlier, and I apologize for not having addressed that particular issue. This of course should be clarified. This is, as I said earlier, a long way short of one-tier government. The level of structure that's involved here, the number of services that are involved here are again far short of those in any other regional municipality that I'm aware of.

In effect, obviously, if one were to want to instigate, to put into place, one-tier government, we would have had the opportunity, if that was our intent, to have done so. We did not. We simply reformed the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in a way which brings it most of the way towards the other regional municipalities' structure and services in the province of Ontario.

Mr Johnson, you're familiar with the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Certainly day care, social services, police etc, all of those issues that are brought in this bill, that are addressed here, have long been the case in Metro Toronto and in Durham and in Hamilton or Niagara.

While many people who addressed the committee may wish to have one-tier government, it was not, as I recall, their opinion that this was the intent of our government, nor were any of them sharing with us some previous consultation which they had had with any of our officials or of our political staff that this was our intent as a government to do. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has gone on record on many occasions to say very clearly that what we are doing is what we are doing, period.

There is no intent to mimic the issue of the removal of mayors from the regional council into other areas. This does not set a precedent for Durham, for Metro or for other municipalities, but rather addresses the specific issues and concerns of the Ottawa area with the number of municipalities involved and with the wide divergence in size of those municipalities. In order to effect representation by population, it was necessary to have a direct election of a regional chair, which was already instigated, and also of regional councillors.

It also, as I recall, was the opinion of most people that a direct election of regional councillors was widely supported.

Mr David Johnson: Just to speak to the credibility, if I was a councillor from another region and I heard those reassuring words that this is not intended to apply anywhere else, I would say to myself, let's examine the credibility of that statement and I would say the government has had some consultations in the region, I gather, after Bill 77 was implemented, to the extent that they involved the Kirby commission primarily, I think.

1110

I don't know how extensive those consultations were, but whenever this concept, for example, of the linkage being lost between the local and the regional government comes up, the information I have indicates that there's overwhelming opposition. During the sessions in Ottawa last weekend, it was brought to my attention that there were meetings in Nepean, I believe, where the vast majority were opposed -- I beg your pardon?

Interjection: Gloucester.

Mr David Johnson: Gloucester -- a huge meeting in Gloucester where the residents were opposed. We have the letter today from Ian Fawcett, chief of staff, who indicates that there are 1,000 letters in response and more than half from Nepean. Apparently these people don't count because they're opposed, but at any rate it's obvious that the vast majority are opposed to this.

If I'm from some other region and examining the credibility, I'm saying to myself 10 out of the 11 municipalities are opposed to this, 10 of the 11 mayors are opposed to this, the majority of the people who have been consulted are opposed to this, and if the government is prepared to ignore all of those municipalities and all of those people who are opposed, I don't know where the support is coming from.

I guess the Ottawa Citizen supports it and we've been told over and over again that Claude Bennett does -- I must talk to Claude Bennett about this. So there's one newspaper and one person and there were one or two NDP councillors.

Mr Daigeler: The mayor of Ottawa.

Mr David Johnson: The mayor of Ottawa, that's right and, of course, the minister. You can sort of go down them person by person in terms of the people that we're aware of. I think one gentleman actually did that in terms of his presentation. It's probably in this pile here somewhere. He listed the people who were in support.

Mr Grandmaître: They're all paid positions.

Mr David Johnson: They're all paid people, are they? I don't know. At any rate, you can almost go down them and count them on your fingers and toes and the people who are opposed are in great numbers. I would say if the government can ignore the majority of the people in Ottawa-Carleton and impose a structure over the will of the vast majority of the councils and over the vast majority of the people, why couldn't they do it anywhere else? Why couldn't they do it in Niagara or Metro or Muskoka? What credibility would your statement have?

Mr White: I believe again, if we can review that, we've had a lengthy process of consultation, we've had innumerable people who have been consulted in one form or another. I believe, as we had heard from one of our deputations, although it was several years ago, there was a referendum in the city of Ottawa which indicated a substantive level of support for reform of the regional municipality. I understand that in the city of Nepean and other areas, where there has been extensive paid advertisement in opposition to the removal of mayors from regional council, there have been a number of people putting forth their views and I think they have a right to do so.

Again, as I was saying earlier, the minister and I and of course all of us are sensitive to the views of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and the minister has responded to all of the letters. The comments you refer to in this letter are descriptive and I think the issue is that some people may infer that, because they were form letters and coupons, the chief of staff here -- we saw in this letter -- is dismissive of those. I'm saying to you, sir, that's not all the case.

I receive form letters and coupons as well. Just this week in provincial Parliament -- you may recall that in one day's mailing I received several thousand coupons, letters from people in my constituency about a local issue.

Mr David Johnson: Don't they count? Don't they have a message to convey?

Mr White: They certainly count. Not only do they count --

Mr David Johnson: Do you write them off? Do you say, "If you write a coupon, I don't care what you have to say," or, "I only care if you have to support it"?

Mr Daigeler: Only if it's from your riding.

Mr David Johnson: Oh, only if it's from your riding, I see.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr David Johnson: I'm still learning the rules, Mr Chair.

Mr White: Mr Johnson, not only do they count, but I've brought them to the attention of the affected minister and ministry to ensure that the ministry is aware of those issues. I intend to forward those, but those were thousands in one morning's mailing alone. That minister, I'm sure, will respond just as well as Mr Philip has to every single one.

As a matter of fact, in provincial Parliament that minister said, "I want to say to those people" -- and he read several of those right there -- "that if this demand is real, I want to be sure that service is available."

Just in the same way, we have listened as a government under three different political stripes over the last 20 years to different submissions and feelings, not just from the people of Ottawa but also from the people of Nepean and Gloucester, and of course we have to find means of resolving those issues.

The issue we heard time and again on the weekend was two things: (1) "This has been going on far too long," and then (2) of course is "You're not consulting enough." Well, 20 years, a full generation of life, is usually considered to be a sufficient time for consultation.

Mr David Johnson: Through you, Mr Chair, the member is acknowledging, then, that the chief of staff's comments were inappropriate in saying that using the words "as is the nature of write-in campaigns" and implying second-class status, I suspect, for those with coupons --

Mr White: No, let me clarify that, Mr Johnson.

Mr David Johnson: I haven't quite finished. I agree with the parliamentary assistant in that assessment. I would assume he would acknowledge, then, that all these letters convey a message, and the message is overwhelmingly in opposition.

It's possible to say that the government has responded, but obviously the response is not being accepted. Sure, we would assume any government would respond to every letter that's come in; that's not the point. The point is, are you hearing the message? Certainly from my observations, the message is not getting through. Yes, the letters are going back, but they might as well contain my grocery list for all the relevance they're having in terms of what people are expecting. People are expressing their concerns and the government is not identifying with those concerns. The government is not recognizing those concerns. The government is not taking any action.

I don't see any amendments here today to address the concerns that have been put forward. One of the concerns that's put forward, beyond the lack of linkage between the local council and the regional council, beyond the policing problems -- and I heard a great deal of pride with regard to community policing in Nepean, community policing in Gloucester, and concern that that community policing is going to be lost in the new police force that's going to come into effect, and not only is it going to be lost but the cost is going to go up to municipalities such as Gloucester and Nepean and Kanata and a number of the other municipalities. So the cost is going to go up, the service is going to go down: They're going to lose their community policing. I don't see that addressed in here.

Another concern that's come forward by a number of not only municipalities but individuals is the total cost of this whole thing. The policing would be the main component of that, but also the cost of the directly elected representatives, for example. There was no analysis made. Some of the speakers said: "We're just implementing this and then we're going to find out after the fact what the cost is. There should be an upfront analysis of this."

One of the questions I'd like you to address is, have you not really done any cost estimates of what this new government is going to cost the people of Ottawa-Carleton? It's hard for me to believe that somewhere in the bureaucracy somebody hasn't sat down and said: "People are really upset about the cost of government today at all levels. It's time we did a little estimate here. Is this going to reduce costs? Is it going increase costs?"

The deputations I heard certainly said it's going to increase costs because at the regional level, for example, they pay a higher administrative cost per person. A couple of the deputants and the Price Waterhouse study mentioned that. The cost of regional government is higher, plus paying the councillors themselves, plus the police etc. I don't think there's any way that this isn't going to cost a great deal more money, and most of the deputations agreed with that. Hasn't anybody done that kind of analysis? Perhaps you can tell us, maybe comment on that, on the community policing.

There are a lot of concerns. Sure, you're writing letters back, but they're not answering the questions. People are being consulted, but they're not being listened to or responded to in a meaningful way.

1120

Mr White: First of all, let me repeat what I was saying earlier. It's regrettable that anyone would assign to this letter a valuation on the part of the minister's chief of staff. The point is that you talked about form letters and coupons, and I assure you again that every letter, every form of correspondence, is going to be addressed. None of them is considered to be of any more or less value than another.

The issue you mentioned in terms of costing was brought forth, as you know, in the hearings. There were many deputants who suggested that the Price Waterhouse survey was inaccurate because it was founded upon the idea that all services would be brought up to the same level as the city of Ottawa's.

Mr David Johnson: It sure will. It'll happen.

Mr White: On the issue of policing, the city of Ottawa's policing was some $40 per household more expensive than in other regions in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr David Johnson: Other estimates showed a bigger variance.

Mr White: I would bring to your attention the fact that in our area here the cost of policing in Metro Toronto is in fact almost twice what it is in surrounding municipalities.

Mr David Johnson: So it makes Ottawa and Metro the same.

Mr White: So the difference between the city of Ottawa and the outlying areas of the region is in fact much less than it is between Metro and your area or Metro and Peel. The fact that you have a more expensive cost of policing in a larger municipality --

Mr David Johnson: That's the point. That's exactly the point.

Mr White: -- where the people in that region work, just as they do here, is a pretty natural phenomenon. I think that's pretty well addressed that.

Mr David Johnson: I'll let somebody else have a go here. I'm not getting anywhere.

Mr Grandmaître: The parliamentary assistant did tell us about 15 or 20 minutes ago that Bill 143 differs a great deal from Bill 77. I want to point out to you that to me the only major change in Bill 77, now Bill 143, is the additional amendments to the Education Act concerning the French-language school board.

Let's take the five main components of Bill 77 and the five components of Bill 143. The ward boundaries: The ward boundaries were included in Bill 77, they're included in Bill 143. The economic development policy was in Bill 77, and it is in Bill 143. The composition of council was in Bill 77, and it's in Bill 143. Also, the exclusion or inclusion of the mayors was, to me, settled by the government in Bill 77, saying, "No, the mayors will be excluded." The mayors are still excluded in Bill 143.

What I am trying to tell you, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, is that there are no major differences between Bill 77 and Bill 143 except that the regional police starting date has been extended to 1997.

Mr White: And the French-language services, and the French-language school board.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, but that's new. That's the difference between Bill 77 and Bill 143. We could have acted on Bill 77 months ago, six, seven, eight months ago, because we had all those facts. We have no additional new facts concerning the municipal government issues that we didn't have in Bill 77. They are the very same. There are no new studies or costs on these services. A temporary police commission was put in place to look at the policing services needed in Ottawa-Carleton.

Let's talk about the opposition not only to Bill 143 but to Bill 77. It doesn't matter in what shape or form the opposition takes place. It could be coupons, it could be letters, it could be facts; in 1994 there are all kinds of new technologies and new ways to oppose a bill. And this is the message the population of Ottawa-Carleton is trying to deliver today, that this is going beyond the original intention of the Ottawa-Carleton regional government review.

You say you talked about the 1987 referendum that was held in Ottawa by the city of Ottawa, and you're absolutely right: They were overwhelmed. The population responded, "Yes, we want one-tier government." But the other day in Ottawa, I asked you to consider a referendum and you were asked by the former mayor of Kanata, and your answer to these people was, "We can't govern by referendum." Well, why would you use the results of a 1987 referendum from the city of Ottawa? Today we have an amendment which will be asking for the very same thing: to have a referendum in Ottawa-Carleton to consider the presence of the mayors on regional council.

And I want to go back to local government. This is unique not only in Ontario but right across Canada. This will be the first time in Canada that mayors are excluded on the upper-tier level of government. This is a first in Canada, so when you say there are no major changes to local government in Ottawa-Carleton, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The new composition of our regional government will be very different. I asked ministry staff if there was any other example: "Give me an example. Where does it exist in Ontario or in Canada that mayors are excluded?" The answer was, "We don't know."

We are heading towards a one-tier government. Like it or not, I think this is what the new model of government in Ottawa-Carleton will look like in a very short period of time.

We will start negotiating, and I call it negotiations when we start going through the clause-by-clause, but I want to assure you that Bill 77 and Bill 143 are the very same bill as far as the municipal government changes are concerned, and this could have been introduced a long time ago.

On the mayors, I want to remind you that regional council did go through the Kirby recommendations one by one, and regional council accepted and voted to include the mayors on this new council. Also, in the economic development part of the bill, regional council voted in favour of a shared accommodation between the local and the regional levels of government. And yet in Bill 143, not only are you going against the will of regional council but you are going against the will of 750,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton, believe me. I don't think it's right for you today to say that the 1987 referendum in the city of Ottawa really reflects the disposition of our constituents in Ottawa-Carleton.

1130

There is no excuse for the government to say Bill 143 is different. I'm sorry, Bill 143 is no different except for the school boards education amendments. Bill 77 is the very same as Bill 143 and should have been dealt with a long time ago. The one-tier idea from the member for Ottawa Centre really put the kibosh on Bill 77 and really strapped the ministry, because I don't think your ministry was given any special instructions, "Let's look at one-tier government," until it was decided by and recommended by the member for Ottawa Centre that we should look at one-tier government. I'm sure your ministry was very surprised, because since 1987 one-tier government was never, never a concern to your ministry.

Mr White: I look forward to the debate on this issue of the referendum when we get to that point in the proceedings of clause-by-clause. I understand there is an amendment to that effect, and I look forward to the discussion at that point.

In terms of the other issues, let me repeat that what we have here is a structure of local and regional government, not of one-tier government, and it is not the intent of this government to move to one-tier government in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Mr Daigeler: First of all, let me say something positive about the government. I did appreciate the Minister of Housing being there on Friday. I am aware that it is difficult for the ministers to free themselves, and I did welcome her presence all day on Friday, and she tried to come on Saturday. I appreciate that and I think the people who appeared appreciated that, although they had some difficulty with her body language and were not overly impressed in that regard. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the fact that the Minister of Housing was there.

Earlier on, Parliamentary Assistant, you quite blatantly implied in your remarks about the responses that were coming from Nepean -- and I presume if the member for Carleton were here he would say the same thing about the responses from his area -- that they were organized either by the city or by myself and that therefore we ought to take those responses with a big grain of salt.

Well, I can tell you, and through you to the minister and to staff and everyone else, that I've been quite careful to try and consult with the people and get a feel for where they are and to some extent be non-directive. Obviously, there's a certain amount of leadership that I have to provide and that the city council of Nepean has to provide. There's a responsibility of the mayor to do that, and that's what they've done with their advertisements. There's nothing wrong with doing that, but at the same time, yes, there is the possibility of some, as it were, perhaps self-interest directing the public opinion.

I can assure you, however, that I've done two other surveys. In fact, in my most recent householder that was distributed to all my riding, I put in a question about the mayors on council and I tried to formulate the question in as neutral a manner as possible. I simply said: "Under Bill 77" -- that was the number of the bill at the time -- "the mayors are going to be dropped from council. How do you feel about this? Do you agree very much, agree somewhat, disagree, or disagree very much?"

I haven't received all the responses yet, they're still coming in, but from what has come in so far, about one third are in favour, but two thirds of the responses -- and these are certainly non-controlled responses: These are these tear-off things at the end of my householders. You fill that out and you send it in, so I have no control whatsoever over who fills that out. The way they're coming in is that two thirds are very much opposed. They're not just opposed, they're very much opposed, and that should tell you something about the feeling that is out there.

You see today those two documents that were distributed. If you get a chance, and I hope you do, read this today, because I'm very impressed with the quality of these presentations on such short notice. The people have put down in a very well-argued, forceful and very detailed manner the opinions. I had nothing whatsoever to do with these two exhibits that are in front of us, but they certainly, and I'm just using these as an example, speak to the feeling that in my community and in other communities -- as I said, if the member for Carleton were here, I'm sure he would say the same thing about the people in his area. We are proud of the accomplishments of our local government and we're extremely concerned that we are going to lose the quality of the government that we have had. That's what we're concerned about.

I was referring to the surveys I have been doing in my riding, the most recent survey. I also did one last year. Yes, again people said, "We are prepared to look at regional reform." They didn't say, "No, we don't even want to touch it." They said, "Yes, we're prepared to look at it, as long as it saves us something; as long as, from a financial perspective and from a cost perspective, it can be shown to us that it's going to be of benefit to us."

The government certainly hasn't shown that it's going to save us money. In fact, all the evidence that is there and that was clearly put forward on the record last weekend shows that it's just the opposite. It's going to cost us more, certainly in Nepean, and it's not only going to cost us more, it's going to cost us a lot more. So why in the world would you push that on us? That's really the point.

I just want to say to the parliamentary assistant, if he is trying to colour the responses that are coming from Nepean -- I mean, he congratulated me as well on Saturday, saying I did a very good job. Of course, what he meant is that I organized the presenters who came to the hearings. Well, I can tell you I didn't organize that. The people who came spoke from the heart and spoke for the people of Nepean, and that's the true feeling out there. As I said, there are some people who are in favour; about one third of the responses so far are in favour. But two thirds, and that's more than the majority, are opposed, and they're very much opposed.

Mr White: Mr Daigeler, I think you're being overly modest again. Very clearly, from the number of letters and coupons that were sent to the ministry, your constituents have written much more frequently than anyone else's. The member for Carleton is a very able, long-term member of this assembly and has done a very competent job on this area as well, but I think you have done a far better job in terms of actually producing the number of educated constituents who have taken an interest in this issue under your leadership and that of the mayor and councillors of the city of Nepean. I think you should be commended for being involved and articulate on such an important issue to your council.

1140

Mr David Johnson: This is about as thick as it can get.

Mr Daigeler: Clearly I've worked hard on this, as I think you all know. I mean, I've spoken enough in the House of this. I've worked hard on this because of the people in my riding, and I don't think the parliamentary assistant has got the message. Certainly the minister hasn't, because whenever he spoke in the House, he was talking about the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, he was talking to people who are from Ottawa as the people who are in favour.

But I think it's obvious still that the parliamentary assistant feels it's all orchestrated by myself. I just want to put on the record very clearly that what I'm conveying here is the strongly held view of my constituents, and you're in error if you think that is simply due to the work that I did on this matter and that if I hadn't done that work, the people wouldn't feel as strongly. I can tell you what I am doing is I simply am a mouthpiece for my constituents on the matter.

The Vice-Chair: No further discussion on section 1?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Section 1? I didn't think we had gotten to any clauses yet. The bill we want to discuss is so important, we still haven't gotten to clause-by-clause, and it's quarter to 12. I just thought I'd make that point for the record.

The Vice-Chair: Seeing no amendments on section 1, shall section 1 carry? Carried.

On section 2, we have several amendments.

Mr Grandmaître: I move that subsection 5(1) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "and" after clause (a), adding "and" after clause (b) and adding the following clause:

"(c) the mayors of each area municipality."

We would like to see the mayors included in the new regional council. As pointed out in our opening remarks, we feel the presence of the mayors on this new regional council is important. They are the link between our local municipality and regional government.

I realize that we will have regional representation from regional councillors, but again I want to point out, Mr Chair, that the presence of the mayors of Ottawa-Carleton should be included in this section for the simple reason that 10 municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton are asking the minister to include the mayors on regional council so that they could feel much more at ease that they will be represented by a person with the authority to make changes and also to deliver the local message to the upper-tier level.

Mr David Johnson: I have not ever opposed direct election. When direct election was being discussed in Metropolitan Toronto, I was one of the people who did support that, because I felt that there certainly is a need for the people to have representatives who are directly accountable to them in an election if those representatives are having responsibility for services or tax dollars, particularly when we look at the services and tax dollars that do come from a regional government.

In the case of Ottawa-Carleton, I think we're talking in the neighbourhood of $1 billion, and in the case of Metropolitan Toronto, it's about $3.5 billion in services such as public transit, policing, water supply, major roads etc.

What I find confusing is why the model that is here in Toronto and in all other municipalities, all other regions, where the mayors, in addition to directly elected councillors, do serve on the regional council, is considered so inappropriate for Ottawa-Carleton. Some people seem to have the view firmly embedded in their brains that if you have directly elected councillors, then you cannot have the mayors, that that sort of throws the whole equation out the window.

I don't even know what the rationale is behind that. I wish somebody could tell me what the rationale is, why it is that the mayors sort of pollute the political environment with their involvement. It has something to do with rep by pop, I gather, although when we talk of rep by pop in terms of ridings in the province of Ontario, nobody has any concern at all that we have provincial ridings with 20,000 or 30,000 people and we have other provincial ridings with 150,000 people.

Nobody is the least bit concerned about that, yet if rep by pop is out a little bit in the Ottawa-Carleton area, that is a horrendous situation which could not be allowed to carry on. At the federal level we have Prince Edward Island with four representatives, I think, which is way out of whack, yet I don't hear a great clamour about Prince Edward Island having too many representatives. They don't seem to be concerned about rep by pop anywhere except in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Indeed, we had one of the mayors before us; I'm just trying to think of his name now. At any rate, he made a presentation on behalf of the mayors indicating that in many regions through the province of Ontario, the rep by pop situation is out a great deal more than it would be here in Ottawa-Carleton. Al Bouwers it was. He made the presentation indicating that situation right across Ontario.

To put the full weight of not having the mayors on the regional council because of this issue of representation by population is just astounding. It doesn't line up with what's happening in the rest of Ontario; it doesn't line up with what's happening with provincial boundaries; it doesn't line up with what's happening with federal boundaries. It's certainly one of the ingredients that has to be considered, but everywhere else you look there are exceptions.

For some reason or another, this region absolutely cannot be an exception. I don't quite understand that, given the history and the good government that has existed in this region in the past. I just totally fail to understand why the government is so opposed to having the mayors on the regional council. Maybe the parliamentary assistant can try one more time to enlighten me on that.

I can tell you some of the benefits of having the mayors on the regional council, having been one of those mayors myself on the regional council in this municipality. There are issues that involve both levels of government: planning issues, transportation issues during negotiations, for example.

It's necessary for the municipalities to understand the issues, and the mayors get involved with that, I can tell you. It's necessary for the regions to understand so they don't put things on the table, the various municipalities, that impact on one another. Waste management is another issue that involves a tremendous amount of cooperation between local municipalities and regional municipalities. There are just all sorts of issues that crop up.

What we have is not two distinct levels of government. We have two governments in the same area. They're both municipal governments. They have to work together very closely. When people in a questionnaire are saying they want one-tier government, I firmly believe what they're really saying is they want less expensive government, because our government today is too expensive, and that's all levels of government.

1150

If you're not going to go to a one-tier government -- and certainly, at this point I'd say it's an excellent choice, because the Price Waterhouse study outlining the costs of one-tier government I would suspect is bang on, that the one-tier government would be more expensive -- but if you're not going to go to that, then you have to set up a mechanism with the local government and the regional government, which are both municipal governments, so they'll work closely together in an efficient and effective manner for the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region.

By destroying any linkage between the two, and that linkage is the mayors, in one swoop you've guaranteed that these governments will not work together to maximum advantage. You've set them apart. You've ensured that there will be conflicts. As many of the deputants said on Friday and Saturday, there will be more of a parochial type of approach rather than working together in a cooperating kind of approach.

That happened in Winnipeg. We had an example of this in the city of Winnipeg many years ago, albeit in the 1970s, but that's exactly what happened. There was a structure set up where there was no representation, no linkage between the two councils, and what happened? Warfare broke out and the provincial government had to step in and institute one-tier government. Now there's an example of what happens. You have no successful model to point to. This is a shot in the dark. The only model to point to is the Winnipeg example in Canada, and it failed.

It's hard to understand how the government really wants anything else other than the one-tier government. What inevitably will happen is that this will fail because there will be the conflicts between the local council and the regional council. The only solution out of that will be to do away with one or the other and come up with a one-tier government. But if you sincerely want this to work, and you've said you do, then you need to put in place a structure whereby it will work and you need that linkage, and the mayors will provide that linkage.

I'll be supporting any motion here today which -- and we'll have some ourselves; some are being duplicated, I think, at the present time -- will establish that linkage. I think, given the two levels of government that we have, that will provide the most effective and efficient government at the least cost with the setup we have today. That's what the people of Ottawa-Carleton, when they were answering your polls several years ago, were really asking for. They're really asking for a government with the least cost.

Mr Daigeler: Obviously this particular provision is the most important one, I would say, and as was seen from the responses from Nepean, this is really the issue around which attention has been focused.

Frankly, I was very surprised that the current Minister of Municipal Affairs introduced this. I didn't expect him to do that because this wasn't in the air at all. It came really out of the blue, and I don't know where it came from. I can only surmise that the member for Ottawa Centre has something against the mayors, because really I don't think it's needed. Why the government would put this forward to just almost deliberately alienate the suburban municipalities is beyond me, because this wasn't really necessary and it's seen as a slap in the face towards the municipalities.

I think there was a willingness to have direct elections of the regional councillors, and even though in Nepean we've had direct elections, perhaps there would have been some willingness to accommodate the ward changes that go with it, but as long as there was at least some clear link between the municipality and regional council.

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why the current minister -- I'm saying the "current minister" because I just don't think that Dave Cooke would have been as pushy on this and as aggressive on it as the current minister. Perhaps Mr Cooke knew more about the views in Ottawa-Carleton. I didn't get the sense from Mr Cooke, when he had that project, that he wanted to impose his own will on the area, but that's certainly what's happening here.

I'm very disappointed that the government is not moving an amendment along those lines, and I'm under no illusions. Our amendment won't carry, but I think it's very important that at least the amendment is there, because we have heard very, very clearly from all the area municipalities that this is very important to them.

You know, this question about rep by pop really is more than a red herring. I've never heard that being advocated and pushed since I've been around in Ottawa-Carleton, and it's a while ago. I was the provincial candidate as early as 1981. Rep by pop is all of a sudden coming to the fore as the greatest desire of the people in Ottawa-Carleton.

Well, it isn't. What is the greatest desire of the people in Ottawa-Carleton is a cost-effective and cost-efficient, responsible government. That's what they want and they feel that with the exclusion of the mayors they're going to lose some of that cost-efficiency that they've currently had and they're going to be stuck with some of the cost-inefficiency of the city of Ottawa. Dropping the mayors from that council is very clear evidence for that.

That's what they're worried about, and that's why they insist so much that the mayor be put back in Bill 143 on regional council, and that's why I hope there's a last-minute repentance. Perhaps the government will reconsider this by 4 o'clock. Who knows? There are still a few hours left.

Mr David Johnson: The other observation I'll make is that with government becoming very expensive, and certainly we're hearing this all over the place. There is a great deal of concern about the cost of regional government. I think those members who were present saw the results of a poll.

Somewhere in this pile one of the citizens came forward and said that they tested the popularity of government in the Ottawa-Carleton area and they found that 76% of the people thought the local government was doing well. They were satisfied. Only 57% could say the same thing about the regional government. Those numbers would be reflected here in Metropolitan Toronto, and I suspect, if anything, the regional satisfaction rate may be a little bit less and the local satisfaction rate may be a little bit higher.

While the issue of accountability and the direct election is an important one and, as I say, it's always been an important one with me, you start to weigh off that if indeed the regional governments are becoming expensive to the degree that people are unhappy -- you know, they're happy that they can elect their representatives directly, but they're unhappy with the cost -- then something is going to have to be done.

I don't think we should just simply dismiss the Price Waterhouse study, because I think there's a lot of merit in there that when you get into a bigger and bigger government -- perhaps the federal government is the best example of that -- there tends to be less control and the rates, for example, that are paid, the administration rates, where they estimated in the region that they paid $65,000, I think, for administration.

The city of Ottawa was actually higher. It was I think closer to $70,000 average salary for people involved in administration, whereas in the area councils it was about $42,000 or $43,000, I think, if my memory is correct. Now, obviously in some of the area councils they're performing perhaps less onerous duties, but it does show that bigger government tends to have a tough time controlling its cost. Certainly if you ask people to point their finger at a level of government that they may not be getting the best value out of, they will put their finger on the regional government.

I don't know what the answer to that is. Certainly there have been a number of suggestions, more and more, that we should eliminate regional governments, which is easy to say, not quite as easy to do, I think. I firmly believe we're coming to a point where we have to look at new models of local governments, because the ones we have in place right now are just becoming too expensive, not only in Ottawa-Carleton, not only in Metropolitan Toronto, but everywhere.

I think to some degree this may be a watershed case in that obviously you're going to push this through, but my suspicion is that this may be one of the last cases where we look at strengthening regional governments. In the future, we may be looking at putting more of the services and duties down to the lowest level of government that can perform it, which is the local councils, because certainly in the eyes of the people, and I think when you look at the budgets, those local councils perform those duties in a less costly way than do the regional councils.

The Vice-Chair: If I may, Mr Johnson, it's 12 o'clock. You can have the floor when we come back.

Mr Daigeler: Time really flies.

Ms Murdock: Time flies when you're having fun.

The Vice-Chair: Just a note to the members --

Ms Murdock: You didn't have time to get to clause-by-clause.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock. A note to the committee members: The clerk will have a full package in order of the amendments when we resume immediately following routine proceedings. This committee stands recessed.

The committee recessed from 1202 to 1539.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We were in the process of debating Mr Grandmaître's motion.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Why don't we just start voting on everything?

Mr David Johnson: Mr Chair, given the limited period of time we have to deal with this today, I would go along with the suggestion of Mr Chiarelli that we essentially get into the voting, and let's get through all the amendments we can. Hopefully, we can deal with all these amendments today. There are some excellent amendments in here and I know the government is anxious to support a number of these, so perhaps we can now just proceed through as quickly as possible.

The Chair: Okay, Mr Johnson. No further discussion on Mr Grandmaître's motion? All those in favour?

Mr Grandmaître: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, all recorded votes.

The Chair: All recorded votes. The procedure under the motion as it was before the House and which we have to operate under is that we can do recorded votes until 4 o'clock, and then we have to defer recorded votes. Okay?

Mr Chiarelli: We can get all the votes in by 4 o'clock.

The Chair: Up until 4 we can proceed as we normally do.

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: All in favour.

The Chair: Yes, I've asked that already. All in favour of Mr Grandmaître's motion?

Ayes

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

The Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. We then move to PC motions and Mr Johnson.

Mr David Johnson: I move that clause 5(1)(b) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) one regional councillor for each regional ward established by the regional council, elected for each regional ward by the electors of the ward; and

"(c) the mayor of each area municipality other than the village of Rockcliffe Park."

I think it's self-explanatory. This is in fact the motion that was supported by the regional council itself and by all the municipalities, as I understand it, except the city of Ottawa. Even the village of Rockcliffe Park agrees with this resolution.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of Mr Johnson's motion, please indicate.

Ayes

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

The Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Mr David Johnson: I move that clause 5(1)(b) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) one regional councillor for each regional ward established by the regional council, elected for each regional ward by the electors of the ward; and

"(c) the mayor of each area municipality other than the village of Rockcliffe Park who shall, despite subsection 8(2), have one-half vote."

This I call the minister's motion because, as you recall, this is precisely what the minister, Mr Philip -- and it's too bad he's not here today. I'm sure he would support this, because this is what he put forward last November as the compromise solution to include the mayors. It says the mayors will be on the regional council, other than the mayor of the village of Rockcliffe Park, but the mayors will only have half a vote on the council. The minister put this forward, I believe, in good faith in November on the basis that this would be a compromise. It would keep the mayors on as a linkage, but they wouldn't have the same number of votes as the directly elected councillors. As the minister isn't here today, hasn't been able to join us, is involved in other key activities, I've taken the -- what's the word? -- privilege of putting this forward on his behalf.

Mr Grandmaître: As the minister is absent today, I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant, why did the minister or the ministry change its mind?

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Grandmaître, for that excellent question. As Mr Johnson noted, this was a compromise endeavour that was to be in place only for a very short while and was a matter of negotiation in regard to the previous Bill 77. As a government, of course we're always open to negotiation, to meeting with folks and to working things through. However, a compromise or negotiation requires two sides. The mayors were not willing to accommodate the passage of Bill 77 and I understand were not willing to speak to their members to assure fast passage last fall. So that offer was withdrawn, and it was, as Mr Johnson said, only a matter of compromise and negotiation in the fall.

Mr Grandmaître: What you're telling me is that the mayors turned down the minister. Is that what you're really telling me?

Mr White: Excuse me a second.

Mr Chiarelli: That's a tough one.

Mr David Johnson: Don't say anything incriminating.

Mr White: I understood that your own House leader and your own members were in opposition to this, Mr Grandmaître. This issue was part of the compromise. It's not simply a matter of the mayors alone but also your own colleagues in the House.

Mr Grandmaître: As the parliamentary assistant knows, my House leader has no control over the government's House leader. It's your agenda. We don't control your agenda. My question is a very simple one: This offer was made to the mayors and the mayors turned down the minister?

Mr White: We're not talking about our House leader but also yours.

Mr Grandmaître: Never mind your House leader. I'm asking about the minister and the ministry. Why was it turned down? The minister made them, I suppose, a legal offer. Why was it turned down? I'm asking you, was it the mayors? Did the mayors turn down the minister?

Mr White: I wasn't a party to those negotiations. My understanding is that this is part of the compromise that wasn't fully negotiated and that this offer was not accepted. An offer was put forth that said, "We can do this for a short while if we can get secure passage of the bill," to the opposition, to the local municipalities, "and if there is not an agreement when this offer is made that this passage is guaranteed or at least spoken to, that offer is withdrawn." That was part of the agreement. But that offer is not on the table at the moment. I appreciate that Mr Johnson's really only wishes to help the minister, but unfortunately, at the moment that help's unnecessary.

1550

Mr Grandmaître: He is the best critic, after all, the minister told him. My question is a very simple one. The minister made this offer prior to consulting with the House leaders. Now you're telling me that because the House leaders didn't agree, that's why he pulled this offer. This is what you're telling me?

Mr White: What I'm telling you is that we had an offer that was available for one term only, the 1994 to 1997 term, and the offer was not accepted. The issue is that Mr Johnson is attempting to assist us in this regard and I'm sure we'll inform the minister. In any case, we certainly very much appreciate his assistance, but it's no longer necessary, seeing as that offer is not on the table. Thank you, Mr Johnson.

Mr Grandmaître: I'm sure my colleagues will want to follow up on this one.

Mr Chiarelli: I guess the final result of this bill is going to be that it represents the snit of the minister. He was prepared to consider the mayors on in some form, and now that we've had significant public hearings dealing with that very issue and we likely have agreement on the part of the opposition to have the mayors on in some form, because the minister didn't get his way in November or December, he's simply saying to the people of Ottawa-Carleton, "You didn't accept my offer then, so it's not on the table any more." That's a hell of a way to run a government and run a ministry, and it's a hell of a way to run roughshod over an area.

Quite frankly, if the minister was prepared to discuss the mayors on in some form, presumably there's some rational reason for the mayors to be on. Notwithstanding that, I guess we should just get on with the vote and let things fall into their normal place.

Mr Daigeler: I don't think the PC motion here is at all the same as what you are saying the minister offered in a grand gesture to the mayors. You said yourself that he said for one term. This is not in this motion; it's something very different.

Second, I'm not aware that there was any kind of formal offer or anything like that to the mayors. The minister never even came to Nepean and made any kind of presentation whatsoever. You're saying an offer was made. First of all, even if it was made, it was for one term, which is clearly not acceptable, and nobody argued for that position at the public hearings and nobody in the numerous written submission we've received argued for that position. Clearly that's not an option that was proposed by the Ottawa-Carleton area. But again, this is not the motion we have in front of us anyway.

Mr David Johnson: I'll be supporting this motion because I wouldn't want the people in Ottawa-Carleton or the mayors to think the minister's suggestion in November was insincere. It was put forward in good faith, so I will be supporting the minister's motion here today.

The Chair: All in favour of Mr Johnson's motion?

Ayes

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

The Chair: Those opposed?

Nays

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

The next motion stands in the name of Mr Chiarelli. I've been advised that it's out of order as it is exactly the same as the first motion from the Liberal Party, which was defeated, that stood in the name of Mr Grandmaître.

The next Liberal motion?

Mr Grandmaître: I move that section 5 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Referendum

"(3) The regional council shall in the 1994 regular election place on the ballot the question as to whether the mayors of the area municipalities should be members of regional council and if so, whether they should have one vote per mayor or one-half vote per mayor.

"Result

"(4) If the response to the question is in the affirmative, the mayors shall continue to be members of the regional council and despite subsection 8(2) the votes of the mayors on regional council shall be as determined by the referendum.

"Same

"(5) If the response to the question is negative, despite subsection (1), the mayors shall not be members of the regional council."

What this motion says is very simple: In 1994, a referendum should be held in Ottawa-Carleton at the same time as the regular election to determine the fate of the 11 mayors: Should they sit on council? Subsections (4) and (5) simply give them the power to vote because of the affirmative or negative result of the referendum. What I'm saying is very simple: I would like to have a referendum to decide the fate of the mayors in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr David Johnson: There's something familiar about this motion, Mr Chairman. At any rate, without getting into that, this concept was raised by Councillor Wilkinson of the city of Kanata. In her presentation, those who were in the Ottawa-Carleton region in Ottawa for the deputations will recall, Councillor Wilkinson, an excellent councillor, put this suggestion forward, this very suggestion. I had originally anticipated putting it forward myself. The next motion we have delays until the year 1997 in terms of the referendum; we did have a little feedback on Monday that it may be a bit of a problem to do this referendum in 1994. However, it's an interesting concept and I think a good idea, and notwithstanding there's a little concern about whether it may work this year, it's possibly a good way to look at dealing with this issue of the mayors and I'm going to support it.

Mr Daigeler: We have heard even from those who are very opposed to this initiative that they would certainly support the idea of a referendum on the mayors, whether they should be on or off. I thought the proposal by Marianne Wilkinson was a very good one in the way she phrased it, and I think that's reflected in this motion. This motion reflects the desire of a lot of people. If you look at the written submissions we've received, they do argue that in case the government does not accept the motions we put forward earlier, they hope they will at least accept the idea of a referendum and let the people decide. That's what this motion is all about. Given the democratic intentions of the New Democratic Party, I would hope they will support it.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour of Mr Grandmaître's motion, please indicate?

Ayes

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

The Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

1600

It is 4 pm. I will refer to the motion in the House and I'll read from it: "At 4 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a)."

Is it the committee's wish that they would like a 20-minute recess now or shall I wait until you request one?

Mr David Johnson: I hear the words but I'm not sure I understand precisely what they mean. Does that mean you're going to put --

The Chair: Every question, every amendment, every section of the bill without debate.

Mr David Johnson: Without debate. And that includes explanation?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr David Johnson: I'd suggest, if somebody asks for a recess, then we have it, but otherwise we just do it.

The Chair: If the committee wishes to request one now, they can request one. You're entitled to one. It's up to you whether you want to use it now or later on. You're going to be here for a while.

Mr David Johnson: Well, we're just going to go through and vote on these. I don't think it'll take that long.

The Chair: That's fine with me. I've advised you. I await your guidance.

Mr David Johnson: These votes are not recorded, or are they? Okay, they can be recorded.

The Chair: You've asked for all recorded votes.

Mr David Johnson: Good. Carry on. So we've got PC 6, an excellent motion. Oops, that was debate. I got some debate in there.

The Chair: We are on PC motion number 6. All those in favour, please indicate.

Ayes

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

The Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

We are on Liberal motion number 7. All those in favour, please indicate.

Ayes

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

The Chair: All those opposed, please indicate.

Nays

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

We are on Liberal motion alternative to 2(a). Technically, it's out of order. Liberal motion number 8 is out of order.

We're on PC motion number 9. All those in favour, please indicate.

Ayes

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

The Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

We're on PC motion number 10.

Mr David Johnson: It relates to number 9, I believe, so I guess it's out of order. I look for advice from staff, but 10 goes with 9, and as 9 didn't go, 10 doesn't make any sense.

The Chair: That motion is withdrawn.

Shall section 2 of the bill carry? All those in favour?

Ayes

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: All those opposed?

Nays

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

The Chair: The section carries.

We move to section 3 of the bill. Government motion number 11: All those in favour of the motion, please indicate.

Interjection: How about, "Same vote as before"?

Clerk of the Committee: It's better to have the names.

Ayes

Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Chair: All those opposed?

Mr Grandmaître: Same vote.

Ms Murdock: You don't want this recorded? Same vote recorded?

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, recorded.

The Chair: The motion is carried.

Shall section 3 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? The section is carried.

We move to section 4 of the bill. Shall section 4 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Section 5 of the bill, PC motion 12: All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

PC motion number 13: All those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Liberal motion number 14: All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

PC motion 15: All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion's defeated.

PC motion number 16: All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion's defeated.

PC motion number 17: All those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Government motion 18: All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is carried.

Shall section 5 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? The section carries.

Shall section 6 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? Section 6 of the bill carries.

Section 7, Liberal motion 19: All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

PC motion number 20: All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 7 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The section carries.

Shall section 8 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? Section 8 carries.

Section 8.1, Mr Chiarelli's motion number 21: Shall Mr Chiarelli's motion carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

PC motion number 22: The PC motion has been defeated; it's the same as Mr Chiarelli's motion.

Shall section 9 of the bill carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? The section is carried.

Shall section 10 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The section carries.

Shall section 11 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Shall section 12 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Shall section 13 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The section carries.

Shall section 14 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The section carries.

Section 15 of the bill, PC motion number 23: Those in favour, please indicate.

Mr White: What we have is an amendment to section 14, number 23.

The Chair: It's called a typo; it should be 15, not 14.

PC motion number 23, section 15 of the bill: Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

PC motion number 24: Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 15 of the bill carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? The section is carried.

Section 16, Liberal amendment number 25: Those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall 16 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Section 17, PC motion number 26: Those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 17 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Shall sections 18 to 29 of the bill carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? Sections 18 to 29 carry.

Shall the title carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The title is carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The bill, as amended, carries.

Shall I report the bill? Those in favour? Those opposed? Report the bill.

Thank you very much. That having been done, the committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1614.