CONTENTS
Monday 5 May 1997
Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act, 1997, Bill 107, Mr Sterling / Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration des services d'eau et d'égout, projet de loi 107, M. Sterling
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente: Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr DominicAgostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr TedChudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Ms MarilynChurley (Riverdale ND)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew N / -Nord L)
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)
Mr DougGalt (Northumberland PC)
Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr JosephSpina (Brampton North -Nord PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)
Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1534 in committee room 1.
WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT
Consideration of Bill 107, An Act to enact the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997 and to amend other acts with respect to water and sewage / Projet de loi 107, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 1997 sur le transfert des installations d'eau et d'égout aux municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui a trait à l'eau et aux eaux d'égout.
The Chair (Mrs Brenda Elliott): Colleagues, good afternoon. We resume today clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 107. When last we met we were on page 4 of the proposed amendments, subsection 2(2) of the bill, subsections 56.2(1) and 56.2(2) of the Capital Investment Plan Act. This amendment had been read into the record by Mr Agostino, and Mr Laughren was about to make comment.
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): The thrust of this would be, in words that only legal pointy heads can dream up to say something simple, to require that there be a referendum in the community before the facility is sold. Of course, they don't quite say that; they say that a municipality shall not transfer a waterworks to another person unless the municipality has passed a bylaw setting out the terms of the transfer and the municipal electors have given their assent to the bylaw in accordance with the Municipal Act, which is, I would think, the same as saying you have to have a referendum before you do that. Of course, that would be too simple for the legal pointy heads to put on paper.
The second part of it deals with the transfer of sewage works. The first half is the water works and the second part is the sewage works.
I support this Liberal amendment moved by Mr Agostino. I don't know why he's doing such a favour for the government members, but he's trying, I think -- I don't want to put words in his mouth --
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm a charitable person.
Mr Laughren: He's trying to reflect government policy about referenda when he moves this motion and doesn't want the government members to be caught up in their own contradictions. A famous economist said that capitalism would destroy itself because of its own contradictions. I would hate to see this Tory party destroy itself because of its inner contradictions. That's what I see in this amendment: It's to allow you to bail out of an oversight in the bill, which doesn't allow for a referendum even though you are big fans of holding a referendum to give decision-making power back to the grassroots, which is, by definition, it seems to me, the local level.
If you vote against this, which of course you have every right to do, it's going to be increasingly hard for the government to proceed with any referendum. You ridiculed the referendum that was held in Toronto on amalgamation. You will, I suspect, vote against this call for a referendum, even though you're the honchos who like referenda. It's going to be very interesting to see, if in the future you should decide there's some issue that should go to a referendum, how you are going to sustain an argument that such should be the case. You're going to be laughed out of town, when you keep voting against referenda or ignoring them. It's going to be interesting to see how you pull that off. But, of course, that's what makes politics interesting: to see how you will do that.
In conclusion, I support this amendment because I'm in a charitable frame of mind and want to be kind to the Tories today.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
Mr Agostino: Recorded vote, please.
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): Excuse me, Madam Chair, could I have clarification of the motion number, which page?
The Chair: It's page 4, the top right-hand corner.
Ayes
Agostino, Hoy, Laughren.
Nays
Barrett, Boushy, Chudleigh, Fisher, Galt, Ouellette.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Moving to the next amendment, the top right-hand corner, page 6, a Liberal amendment, Mr Agostino.
Mr Agostino: I have to read the whole thing out, right?
The Chair: Yes, you do.
1540
Mr Agostino: I move that subsections 56.2(1) and (2) of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Conditions for transfer of waterworks
"(1) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a water works to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other waterworks that have been used to provide water service to the municipality; and
"(b) the municipality has had a public accountant licensed under the Public Accountancy Act do a full cost accounting of the transfer and has made copies of the accounting available for inspection by the public.
"Conditions for transfer of sewage works
"(2) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a sewage works to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other sewage works that have been used to provide sewage service to the municipality; and
"(b) the municipality has had a public accountant licensed under the Public Accountancy Act do a full cost accounting of the transfer and has made copies of the accounting available for inspection by the public."
The Chair: Do you wish to explain this?
Mr Agostino: Yes, I do. Basically what this does is force a municipality to ensure that there's a full public accounting done before the transfer is made and that the report be available to the public. What we've seen so far is that this committee, the government members obviously on this committee, have chosen, in the first step, to allow municipalities now to be able to sell water and sewer works. You had an opportunity to make that provision in the legislation and you refused to do so.
We in the opposition then gave you an opportunity to hold a referendum before this is done, and we believed, as Mr Laughren said clearly, that, consistent with government policy and consistent with the Common Sense Revolution, you would have liked that idea of referendums. For some bizarre reason, you chose not to like that idea of referendums either.
You've allowed the municipalities to do it. You have now said there will not be a referendum. We're asking for a third phase to at least ensure there is an open, public accounting process to any move before it's made. You would think there would be a cost analysis; you would think there would be an opportunity for the residents of that particular community to understand very clearly what the impact would be. That impact obviously would include how it's going to impact their water rates, how it's going to impact their sewer rates, what this transfer of ownership would mean to them.
I would think my friends on the government side of the House, who obviously adhere to the business approach to governing at every level and every step of governing, would see this as a good thing, that very clearly you would not in your own private business undertake such a venture without having this done and without this type of analysis being available, and that the full accounting of the transfer and the impact that would have would be done.
That being said, we have seen that not happen in many other areas where you have changed legislation in Ontario, right from the impact of the downloading to the municipalities that was done without that sort of analysis, to many other pieces of legislation that really are not relevant to this committee and so I won't bore you with them. But very clearly there has been a consistent pattern of failing to do that type of analysis that normally you would advocate in your own private business and that you normally would advocate as a way of doing business, that you would have this available to the public.
We're hoping you will see this very much fitting in with your philosophy, fitting in with your approach to governing and ensuring that the public would have the right to see a full public accounting before a transfer is made.
Most importantly, I think, in all of this would be the projections. If you transfer the ownership and ability to set the rates to a private sector company, what will the impact be on the consumer? What does the average homeowner or the average tenant in a municipality affected pay in increased water or sewer rates, or decreased rates if you think that will happen? But that information should certainly be there and made available.
That's really what this amendment does. It's pretty basic and straightforward. I think it's really something the government members would feel very comfortable with, because it is keeping with your philosophy of the way the public should be made aware when such changes occur.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm going to make a few comments. Thanks very much for the consideration of the amendment, but we believe this particular amendment is unnecessary. We believe the grant repayment provision will provide a very strong deterrent to the sale of water and sewage infrastructure to the private sector. We do, however, support the use of full-cost accounting for pricing the delivery of water and sewage services.
I'd also draw to your attention that as far as a deterrent to the transfer or sale, we must give recognition and credit to those who were elected locally. They certainly are closest to the people. I think as we debate this and put all kinds of barriers in their way, we're really saying they're really not a competent group of people who were elected. I, for one, hold municipal elected people in very high regard. With the deterrent that they have to repay the grants, this should be well covered.
Mr Laughren: I wasn't going to support this motion until I heard the parliamentary assistant speak. Now I think I will.
I'll tell you why I was having second thoughts. There could have been millions of dollars in grants back in 1978 and there's no allowance for any kind of interest on that grant, that it be paid back. That's a very big subsidy if the grant is substantial and if it goes back far enough. One year wouldn't make that big a difference, but that's a huge subsidy to the private sector if you do that.
Secondly, and the reason the parliamentary assistant convinced me I should support it, was that it seems to me that this is, if anything, protecting the municipal folks by saying, "Look, we've got no choice; we have to do a full accounting of this transaction." It's a form of great protection at the municipal level.
We all know there have been games played from time to time on these kinds of matters and it seems to me that it's an automatic protection. It removes any possibility of games being played or anybody making an undue bonus on this, if I could put it delicately. It seems to me, for those reasons, I fully intend to support this.
Mr Agostino: Just one point, to respond to what the parliamentary assistant said. The argument keeps coming back, whether it's a referendum, whether it's prohibiting municipalities from selling their services or whether it's the issue of a full public accounting. In analysis of this, the argument comes back that there's a deterrent provided by the fact that the grants are to be repaid, but no one has really addressed what happens if that deterrent is not enough. That is not a fail-safe mechanism. It's one that the government hopes will be enough to stop this from happening, but you're also refusing to put in protections in case that doesn't happen.
There's no guarantee it will not happen. No one on the government side will sit there and guarantee that municipalities will not consider at any time in the future the possibility of selling their assets. The deterrent is there and you feel it may be enough. What we're asking for here is a little more protection in case that deterrent, for whatever reason, is not enough.
What the parliamentary assistant refers to as barriers I refer to as checks and balances in the system, frankly, to ensure that there is at least a full public process from the point of view of accounting if you're not going to allow a referendum to occur. But you're giving yourself no protection and giving municipalities no protection if that provision that you believe will be the key provision fails.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Agostino: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Okay. Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Agostino, Hoy, Laughren.
Nays
Boushy, Chudleigh, Fisher, Galt, Ouellette.
The Chair: The motion is lost.
Mr Laughren: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I stand to be corrected on this, I don't want to be mischievous in this whole thing, but I don't think that Mr Boushy voted on the last vote.
Interjection.
Mr Laughren: He did. He voted against the motion. Was that in the recorded motion?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Yes.
Mr Laughren: Okay. Thank you for that.
The Chair: I draw the committee's attention to the next amendment, an NDP amendment. It's on page 8, a further NDP amendment on pages 9 and 10, and a further NDP motion on pages 11 and 12. Those are identical amendments to some that have been presented before and are therefore out of order.
We move then to an NDP amendment, number 13 in the top right-hand corner.
1550
Mr Laughren: I move that subsections 56.2(1) and (2) of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Conditions for transfer of waterworks
"(1) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a waterworks to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other waterworks that have been used to provide water service to the municipality; and
"(b) the Minister of the Environment and Energy or the Environmental Assessment Board has given the approval to proceed under section 9 or 9.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act respectively as if the transfer were an undertaking within the meaning of that act.
"Conditions for transfer of sewage works
"(2) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a sewage works to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other sewage works that have been used to provide sewage service to the municipality; and
"(b) the Minister of the Environment and Energy or the Environmental Assessment Board has given the approval to proceed under section 9 or 9.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act respectively as if the transfer were an undertaking within the meaning of that act."
The Chair: Thank you. Do you wish to comment?
Mr Laughren: Very briefly, this is simply another provision to discourage the transfer of ownership from municipalities to the private sector. Rather than simply decreeing it, it brings into play the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Environmental Assessment Board.
The Chair: Further debate?
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): The notion that municipalities will not undertake to sell these plants has been discarded by the government over and over again. However, with downloading to municipalities in the range of two thirds of a billion dollars, we'll put them in a situation that they've never undertaken before. We have a new era and new hardships for municipalities to deal with.
I happen to know of a transition team that is at work in Chatham-Kent. They are to meet on May 9, and part of their mandate as they look at former municipalities under a newly restructured Chatham-Kent is to review and approve all financial expenditures of the former municipalities in excess of $10,000 that are not included in the approved municipalities' operating capital budgets of 1997. So clearly the government, through their commissioner, has seen that there may be deep concerns that municipalities will take certain actions in light of restructuring, downloading and massive changes within Ontario.
It seems to me the government members would look at this resolution as they did with some previously in providing safeguards to the public as it pertains to the sale of water and sewage plants. If the government has this notion that municipalities will take certain actions under a restructuring model, both here in Toronto and in Chatham-Kent, I don't see why they wouldn't see the rationale for an amendment such as this and previous ones.
Clearly, the government has said, "Maybe the municipalities are going to be under some condition that will cause them to do things they wouldn't normally have done," and I think that same argument pertains as well to this motion. How can the government have a commissioner put in place who says we're going to safeguard the purses of municipalities in a certain way, but then when it comes to this particular bill, the government says that because of the fact that grants were given, the municipalities certainly wouldn't act in such a way?
I find the government's situation to be inconsistent and I agree with this motion.
Mr Galt: If I may, Madam Chair, just a few comments in connection with this particular motion. Certainly we do not see it as being a necessary motion. I have mentioned many times that the grant as a repayment will provide a provision that will be a deterrent for the sale of water or sewage infrastructure to the private sector, and if anything does move, or should that happen, it really would be inappropriate to expand the scope of the Environmental Assessment Act in this context.
This is a business transaction that we're really talking about. The opposition keeps harping on this word "downloading," but maybe they should note that we have just agreed with AMO and their proposal, and it's all about being revenue-neutral and disentangling, which the previous governments had talked about. Maybe better terminology, because we could talk about uploading to the province on the educational side, might be "proper loading" or "right loading." If you want to use "proper loading" or "right loading," it might be in order.
Mr Laughren: The parliamentary assistant keeps making comments that it's not necessary. I wonder, is he sure that the bill is necessary? I'm not sure at all that this bill is necessary. Maybe we should rethink this whole process. Maybe we should just jettison the bill.
Mr Agostino: Upload the whole thing to the provincial level.
Mr Laughren: Yes. I'm starting to think about it. If the parliamentary assistant got to thinking about what's necessary and what's not necessary, that's a good thing.
The Chair: Seeing no further debate then, I'll put the question. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.
Moving to the next amendment, an NDP amendment also, in the top right-hand corner 15 and 16. Mr Laughren.
Mr Laughren: I move that subsections 56.2 (1) and (2) of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Conditions for transfer of waterworks
"(1) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a waterworks to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other waterworks that have been used to provide water service to the municipality; and
"(b) the person obtaining the transfer" -- and this is an important section -- "has paid the municipality the fair market value of the land that is the subject of the transfer.
"Conditions for transfer of sewage works
"(2) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a sewage works to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other sewage works that have been used to provide sewage service to the municipality; and
"(b) the person obtaining the transfer has paid the municipality the fair market value of the land that is the subject of the transfer."
What's different about this one, of course, is the issue of the land, the market value of the land. Since the government's big on market value, it would seem to me that this would strike a responsive chord deep in their souls, that you'd want to get market value for the land, because other references to sewage works and waterworks do not necessarily include the land that might be surrounding those facilities.
I don't know of an example. In some cases I suspect it could be substantial, but I don't know that. If that's the case, then there should be an assurance here that there's a fair market value paid for that land. You know and I know -- I don't care if you use the term "actual value assessment" or "current value assessment." I couldn't care less what language you want to put in here. If you want to amend it to include one of those other Orwellian words, I've got no problem with that. But it seems to me that it's not enough just to transfer the ownership of the sewage or water works, but you must also include any land that's attached to those works and belongs to the municipality.
Mr Galt: I am a little hesitant to comment because as soon as I do, I kind of irritate the member for Nickel Belt and he doesn't support me any more. I might have gotten support if I hadn't spoken. However, the member for Nickel Belt might be interested to realize the land is included in the grant structure and, as mentioned earlier, we believe the grant structure will be a deterrent to prevent the transfer. We also give an awful lot of credit and accountability to the locally elected people who will look after those structures. Therefore I cannot support this particular amendment.
1600
Mr Hoy: Mr Laughren has mentioned the possible amending of this because he has used fair market value. In a question today to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, it wasn't clear to me what the differences were between market value, actual value or current value, except for the comment made by the minister that it was the delivery of same. So perhaps if the government wished, and with the agreement of Mr Laughren, all three of those should be incorporated into this amendment, because I'm not clear from what the minister stated today whether there is any difference between market value, actual value and current value.
Mr Laughren: I see that as a friendly amendment.
The Chair: I've been advised to indicate that there's no such thing as a friendly amendment in committee, that in fact the procedure would require that amendment to be withdrawn and redone and then moved with the appropriate changes.
Mr Hoy: I think they're all the same, but if the government was curious about it, we could have them all.
The Chair: Leave it as it is? Okay. Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
We move next to a Liberal amendment, page 17.
Mr Agostino: Well, on 17 and 18, it would have been basically useful had the government accepted the amendment in regard to prohibiting the sale or the privatization. Since that didn't happen, then 17 and 18 would be redundant, and I'll withdraw.
The Chair: Numbers 17 and 18 are withdrawn. We move then to another NDP motion, and I note that this is an identical amendment to one that has been before us. Actually, I am in error; because the first two were withdrawn, this is in order if you wish to proceed, Mr Laughren, page 19.
Mr Laughren: I move that section 56.2 of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out subsections (5), (6) and (7). I think it's self-explanatory.
The Chair: Any further debate? Seeing none, I put the question: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.
I draw your attention to the amendment to subsection 2(2), subsection 56.2(6). It's an NDP amendment, page 20. This amendment is out of order because it's consequential to another amendment earlier in the amendments.
We move then to another NDP motion, top right-hand corner page 21.
Mr Laughren: I move that section 56.2 of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Directives
"(8) If a municipality has transferred the ownership of all or part of a waterworks or sewage works under subsection (1) or (2) respectively to a person, the Environmental Assessment Board may give directives to the person with respect to the operation of the works and the person shall comply with the directives."
If I could speak to that, this makes the unhappy assumption that a sale occurs to another person, to the private sector, basically, and that if that's the case, then in order to maintain quality, level of service and presumably even price at reasonable levels, the Environmental Assessment Board may give directives to whoever takes on ownership of the service.
This is the kind of thing they didn't do, I gather, in Great Britain, and there weren't the controls over it. It says, "may give directives," so it's not unduly heavy-handed. If there's no problem and the level of service is appropriate and price is as well, then the Environmental Assessment Board would not have to intervene. But if it's apparent that there are problems, the assessment board may give directives to the operation of the works etc, and that person, that owner, would have to comply with those directives. So I don't think it's unreasonable, and it would allay some of the fears that you heard in the committee hearings when people waved around the examples from Great Britain and expressed a great deal of concern about that in terms of price and quality and, quite frankly, availability of service in some cases.
I think this is not at all an unreasonable amendment. If government members want to at least feel somewhat justified in their independence as backbenchers, they could support an opposition amendment such as this without, I would think, getting in too much trouble from your boss. It would be reasonable and I think people would applaud the fact that you'd actually broken out and indicated that indeed there does beat within your pinstripe corporate souls some independence and that you do recognize a reasonable amendment when you see it and one that, quite frankly, would improve the bill. I don't know why I'm trying to help you out again, but this actually would improve the bill and I would encourage you to support it.
Mr Hoy: I appreciate Mr Laughren wanting to help the government. I think we all want to make any type of legislation better legislation.
In a conversation with someone who recently visited England, they must have had a flaw in their legislation, a grievous error, whereby now those people in the rural communities are being challenged as to whether they have water rights for those below-ground wells. The corporations or persons, I guess is the correct terminology in legal terms, that own water rights in Great Britain now have extended that to the fact that they own the groundwater rights, and there is some vigorous discussion as to whether the people in rural areas actually can drill a well on their own properties and access water on their own property.
We in the opposition are trying to make bills better bills, and I think that's what Mr Laughren is trying to do with respect to this motion.
Mr Galt: It's almost scary when the member for Nickel Belt starts. He's so persuasive, how he can convince us. He was very effective there.
Mr Laughren: I haven't convinced anybody of anything.
Mr Galt: Certainly we're unable to support this particular amendment. We've mentioned the grant repayment several times, which will be a deterrent. This act is not about creating horrible things like monopolies, which the opposition is quite concerned about, and it's certainly very inappropriate that the Environmental Assessment Board would be involved with this kind of activity. Municipalities will continue to set rates, and directives certainly are not necessary for those kinds of things. So I am unable to support this particular amendment.
1610
The Chair: Further discussion or debate? I then put the question: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.
The next motion is also an NDP motion.
Mr Laughren: It's going to be very difficult for the government to oppose this one.
I move that section 56.2 of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Standards and reporting for water
"(8) A person to whom a municipality has transferred the ownership of all or part of a waterworks under subsection (1) shall, with respect to the drinking water that the waterworks produces,
"(a) comply with the standards that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish by regulation under subsection (10) to ensure the right of the public to clean drinking water; and
"(b) report to the Minister of the Environment and Energy at the times and with the information, including the results of sampling, that the minister may require with respect to the quality of the drinking water.
"Offence
"(9) A person who contravenes subsection (8) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $1,000,000.
"Regulations
"(10) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations establishing standards limiting the amounts of contaminants in drinking water that may adversely affect human health or the quality of the water or that may cause odours or problems with the appearance of the water."
If I could speak to it, I think this is quite straightforward. It's hard to imagine that the pointy-headed lawyers even got their hands on this one, it's so straightforward and clear. It talks about standards, and it's important that if we're going to turn these systems over to the private sector, there be some kind of safeguards here. This isn't an anti-private-sector diatribe, but if you're going to turn it over to the private sector, it seems to me you need to have some sense in the community at large that there's protection there. It may never be necessary. Heaven help us, that would be great. But once again, we read what happened in Great Britain. You know that it may be necessary, and you will be as vulnerable as the private sector if that's the case.
All it's asking is that whoever operates the service -- this is assuming it's been privatized -- the Lieutenant Governor, the cabinet, can establish regulations to make sure the public has the right to clean drinking water and also that there be reports to the Ministry of Environment etc. It allows for a fine to be imposed and also that the Lieutenant Governor may make regulations concerning the amount of contaminants in drinking water that may affect health, or odour for that matter. I've had constituents who had their water tested -- this has nothing to do with the private sector or public sector -- and it was healthy, but the odour in the water was incredible. So it can happen, whether it's privately owned or publicly owned.
I think there needs to be the permission for government to bring in regulations that look after those problems. Once again, I don't think it's expecting too much, when you consider the importance of water to our public health, to ask for support for this amendment.
Mr Agostino: I'm going to be supporting the amendment. I'm going to be quite interested in hearing the government members justify how they're going to vote against clean drinking water.
Very clearly what this is saying is to set up some clear standards and not to give some outside group but to give the cabinet and the government the power to do that. Really what we're talking about is ensuring there's a standard that is met, that people can be assured that once you've privatized it and once you have turned it over the private sector, at least there will be some protection from the point of view that the public knows that government has a role to play in ensuring that there are standards there. I don't think anybody on the government side of the House would disagree with the fact that you have that responsibility and you have that power to act in such a manner.
You, through accepting this motion, would at least give some assurance that you will take a role and responsibility in ensuring there's clean drinking water and safe drinking water. I would think whether it's private sector, public sector ownership or anyone else, that's something that is motherhood and apple pie here. I don't think anybody could disagree with this, and I would urge for a case of democracy to break out within that caucus on that side and to vote in favour of this.
Mr Laughren: Careful.
The Chair: Further debate?
Mr Galt: Just a few comments into the record to indicate the non-support for this particular amendment. The Minister of Environment and Energy uses certificates of approval to implement existing Ontario drinking water objectives in the provincial water quality objectives for water and sewage treatment facilities. These objectives are incorporated as conditions and the certificates of approval have the force of law. This method of implementing standards has been in place for many years and will continue.
Bill 107 does not weaken environmental standards. The above amendments duplicate the authority provided by the Ontario Water Resources Act. Furthermore, existing Ontario drinking water objectives provide criteria to ensure safe, aesthetically pleasing drinking water.
The Ontario Water Resources Act, section 75(1)(i), provides the authority for the establishment of standards for water quality, including health and aesthetic criteria. The Ontario Water Resources Act, sections 52(4)(b), (c), (d), 52(5), 52(6) and 75(1)(k), provides the Minister of Environment and Energy with the authority to require reporting and drinking water quality.
Also the Ontario Water Resources Act, section 108(1), provides for maximum fines of $10,000 on a first conviction and some $25,000 on subsequent convictions for people convicted of an offence under the Ontario Water Resources Act for each day or part of a day in which an offence occurs or continues.
Further, the Ontario Water Resources Act, section 108(2), provides for maximum fines of $50,000 on a first conviction and $100,000 on subsequent convictions for people convicted of an offence under the Ontario Water Resources Act for each day or part of a day in which an offence occurs or continues.
It's also interesting that the Honourable Ruth Grier, when the previous government first started, had on the books a clean drinking water bill. For some reason or other, that got dropped. I really don't know why, if the opposition today is so interested in it, Mrs Grier wouldn't have carried through, or at least after the cabinet shuffle, the subsequent Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Bud Wildman, wouldn't have carried through with this particular bill. I gather they must have similarly seen some problems -- I say "similarly" -- but they must have seen some problems with a clean drinking water act. For the above reasons, we will not be supporting this bill at this time.
Mr Laughren: Just for the record, I want it noted that Mr Agostino, since we started debating this bill, has switched to bottled water.
Mr Agostino: Well, the parliamentary assistant certainly didn't help.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, I put the question, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Seeing no further amendments to section 2, shall section 2, as amended, carry?
Mr Agostino: A recorded vote on that, please.
Ayes
Barrett, Boushy, Chudleigh, Fisher, Galt, Hastings, Ouellette, Spina.
Nays
Agostino, Hoy, Laughren.
The Chair: Section 2 carries.
Section 3, please. A government amendment.
Mr Galt: I move that section 75.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 3(4) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Joint jurisdiction
"(5.1) If an agreement under subsection (4) or (5) is in effect, the local municipalities or the upper-tier municipalities, as the case may be, have joint jurisdiction in accordance with the agreement in the area comprising the municipalities."
This new subsection (5.1) clarifies and makes explicit the implied authority for a municipality to act outside its boundaries when assigned to a joint administration agreement. This removes all doubt if there's any question. There was some concern that there might be some question there.
1620
Mr Laughren: When I first read it I supported it, but hearing the explanation I now don't.
The Chair: Any further questions? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
The next is also a government amendment.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 75.2(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 3(4) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Agreements
"(2) The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and a person or body prescribed by the regulations or a municipality may enter into an agreement providing for the performance of the minister's responsibilities under this section by the person or body or the municipality, as the case may be, in the area of territory without municipal organization designated by the agreement, including the designation of approving authorities and inspectors under sections 75.4 and 75.5 respectively."
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be administering part VIII in the unorganized areas. This amendment broadens the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing's authority to enter into administrative agreements with boards of health and municipalities in general. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be able to enter into an agreement with a municipality close by to a portion of the unorganized area and not just with the board of health.
Mr Laughren: I'm a little concerned about it. My own constituency has a lot of areas without municipal organization and I'm puzzled by it. I don't know whether to support it or oppose it, and I know that doesn't matter much to you. But at the same time I really don't know whether to oppose this or support it, because I don't know what it means when it comes to those vast areas with very small communities within them that need service. I'd appreciate further explanation. Maybe it's because it's written by pointy-headed lawyers that I don't understand it.
Mr Galt: We'll try and be gentle on the lawyers today. Several of our amendments relate to clarification. My understanding is, the way it was written before, there might be some doubt as to whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing really could enter into these kinds of agreements or not. This is here to clarify and ensure that they can enter into those kinds of agreements on behalf of the unorganized area.
Mr Laughren: Was there a reason why municipal affairs was selected rather than northern development as the ministry responsible for that?
Mr Galt: My understanding is they are already involved in other activities in the unorganized territories, like building permits and that kind of thing, and this is just an extension. The intent here was to make this a one-window inspection activity, if possible, if that's what the local municipality wanted, so consequently it carried through. There was certainly some consideration whether there should be other groups such as the Minister of Environment continuing, and we felt no, to obtain that one-window-shopping type of thing, it should be MMAH that would take it over. This just clarifies and makes sure that there's no confusion down the road by the courts.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I just want to comment on Mr Laughren's concern about why it wouldn't have gone through northern development. There are unorganized territories, as you know, as well in southern Ontario in some areas. By the Minister of Municipal Affairs handling it, obviously it covers the entire province.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Another government amendment.
Mr Galt: I move that section 75.2 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 3(4) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Jurisdiction
"(3) A municipality or person or body that has entered into an agreement under subsection (2) has the jurisdiction to enforce sections 76 to 79 in accordance with the agreement in the area of territory without municipal organization designated by the agreement."
This makes explicit the contracted municipality's authority to act outside its boundaries.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Another government amendment.
Mr Galt: I move that clause 136.1(b) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 3(14) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) a reference in this part to the crown in right of Ontario shall be deemed,
"(i) in the case of an approval or order of an approving authority designated by the council of a municipality, to be a reference to the municipality, and
"(ii) in the case of an approval or order of an approving authority designated by the council of a municipality or a person or body that has entered into an agreement with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing under subsection 75.2(2), to be a reference to the municipality or the person or body, as the case may be."
This amendment is complementary to the extension of the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to enter into agreements from boards of health to municipalities.
The Chair: Further discussion or comment? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
The next is also a government amendment.
Mr Galt: I move that clause 176(6)(j.5) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 3(16) of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "or inspectors."
This amendment ensures that the powers and duties of the inspectors as well as of the approving authorities can be regulated. For example, inspectors can be required to keep personal information confidential even if they are not subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The Chair: Further discussion or comment? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment carries.
Government amendment, page 28.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 176(6) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 3(16) of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(j.6) requiring persons to be certified if they do any work described in clause 80(1)(a) or (b), whether or not they are engaged in the business of doing the work;"
The present legislation enables the licensing of persons in the business of installing sewage systems. This amendment will enable regulations ensuring that persons who work on sewage systems are qualified to do so, including a crew engaged by the person in the business. In other words, we want to ensure that someone who is on the site is actually certified, not just somebody back in the office who has sent out a crew.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Seeing no further amendments to section 3, shall section 3, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 3 carries.
Section 4: Any amendments or comments? Shall section 4 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Seeing no amendments to section 5, shall section 5 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 5 carries.
Section 6: A government amendment, please.
1630
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) Sections 3, 4 and 5 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."
This amendment is responding to the concerns from municipalities which have requested that the effective date of the transfer of authority under part VIII of the Environmental Protection Act to municipalities not occur sooner than other Who Does What initiatives. It will also ensure that they have sufficient time to prepare themselves for the transfer.
We certainly heard a lot about this on the road and indicated earlier that it definitely would not occur before January 1, and this does leave some flexibility that it can be established at a time even a little later than that if necessary.
Mr Agostino: I understand the need. However, I don't think this amendment goes far enough. It really leaves it open. It could be January 1. The municipalities have made it very clear that the time is not there, and I certainly hope the government members can tell us here today what day they expect these regulations to go into effect and what date they would expect the municipalities -- whether it's January, March, July, September, 1999 or 2000.
I would think, from the point of view of some flexibility, they should look at a date. The municipalities have made it very clear that your initial date was not good enough. I don't think January 1 is good enough either, so I wonder if Mr Galt can point out to us today at the committee level what day they expect this regulation to go into effect.
Mr Galt: Certainly we would like to see it January 1 if at all possible. That is the intent. However, as we get a little closer, if that's not practical or realistic, then we can move it down a month or two. What we don't want to happen is to have it transferred in April or May when it is a busy time for septic installers or in the fall, another busy time. This does give some flexibility, but very seriously we would like to see it happen come January 1, if it's practical as we get closer to that date.
Mr Laughren: I found it interesting that the government is moving this amendment, because the way it was written previously was an indication of what a simple-minded process the government thought this was. You simply pass a bill that says, "It's all yours," and get on with it. It wasn't until people came before the committee and said, "You're nuts if you think you can have this all done by January 1, 1998." But the people around the minister, I guess, and the minister himself and all those other important and very "smart" advisers all thought it could be done. You know, snap your fingers and something like this is done. It's all so easy. Don't worry about it. Just do it and make them take ownership as of that date.
It took some doing by people out there to say, "You people don't know what you're doing. If you think you can get this done by January 1, 1998, you're nuts." The government has had to back down and say, "All right then, we'll leave it completely open-ended." The way it is now, not only is it not January 1, it's no date at all. It's open-ended completely and that's an indication that they are still floundering as to what they're going to do with this whole thing.
It's not February 1, March 1, April 1, May, June, July, August. No, it's open-ended completely. We'll see what happens as time goes on, but I think it was an example, an indication that this was something that, like a lot of things the government does, they think is so easy. Whether it's transferring welfare down to the municipal level or transferring sewer and water down to the municipal level, it's not as easy as these folks seem to think it is, or thought it was. Now it seems to be sinking in that it's just a little more complicated than they thought it was. Anyway, I'll support this motion because of the speech I just made.
The Chair: Further debate or comment? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
The next is a Liberal amendment, please. Mr Agostino.
Mr Agostino: I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) Sections 3, 4, and 5 come into force on July 1, 1998."
By means of explanation, it's really a natural follow-up to the previous amendment introduced by the government, but it would make it more specific in that it gives to the municipalities some pretty clear guidelines as to when this will take effect. The parliamentary assistant mentioned that April or May probably is not a good time and that the fall is not a good time, so July seems to be a perfect time -- between April and May and the fall -- to make it go into effect.
That would give the municipalities clearly more time than the initial October date, more time than the January 1 date that you made reference to, which I don't think is an unreasonable amount of time. We're talking July here. We're talking about a six-month period. I think it's fair and I think it makes it pretty clear to municipalities when this would take effect. I certainly would hope that the government would have listened to the municipalities, the people who came forward. I think you ignored 99% of the people who came to the end of the table. The 1% that you're trying to address, I would hope you'd do it right, and you could do that by supporting this amendment.
Mr Laughren: I have problems with this one. My friend Mr Agostino, I think his intentions are indeed honourable, as always, of course. But I am concerned about putting a date in, which is why I supported the government amendment. What if, for example, you have a municipality, or several of them, that have enormous difficulties because of restructuring and July 1 is simply not good enough for them, not appropriate? Or what if -- and God forbid, I don't want to give the pointy-headed lawyers any more work than they've got -- there's a lawsuit dealing with this and things drag on?
I'm nervous about attaching any date to this and, quite frankly, I prefer the government amendment to this one, which is completely open-ended and allows that flexibility if there are serious problems in one or more municipalities. I regret that, Mr Agostino.
Mr Galt: I'm thrilled that the member for Nickel Belt is actually supporting something. It is very honourable and patriotic that the member for Hamilton East would consider having this come into force on July 1, but we reject this proposed amendment in favour of the government motion proposing that sections 3, 4 and 5 come into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor.
During a speech to the standing committee on March 14, 1997, the Minister of Environment and Energy, the Honourable Norman W. Sterling, indicated that we have heard the municipal concerns surrounding the previously proposed date for the transfer of these responsibilities. We are now proposing the transfer not take place earlier than July 1, 1998.
Mr Laughren: Does the minister not know his name?
Mr Galt: That was right at the beginning of the hearings. You indicated we heard from a lot of these people before we changed our minds. This had actually been developed prior to the hearings. The effective date should occur within -- actually, I didn't know his middle initial was "W," to be quite honest. The effective date should occur within the slow period of program delivery. I wonder what the "W" stands for.
Mr Laughren: He may not want us to know.
Mr Agostino: Wastewater.
Mr Galt: -- preferably some time in the fall, winter or early spring. To have this portion of the bill come into effect on the date proposed by this amendment would impose a change in program delivery at the very peak of summer construction activities, risking significant disruption in the continuity of program delivery.
Mr Agostino: I think on July 1 instead of giving flags away on that day as part of Canada Day, we can just give water and sewer services away. It would work.
1640
Interjection: Are you supporting the motion?
Mr Laughren: I prefer to support Norman "Wastewater" Sterling.
The Chair: Further debate and comment? I put the question then. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 6 shall carry.
Section 7, NDP motion.
Mr Laughren: This inspired amendment came as a result of the appearance before this committee of Mr John Sewell, you may recall, the gentleman who did so much to preserve the traditions of Toronto during the debate on amalgamation. I move that section 7 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Short title
"7. The short title of this act is the Dirty Water and Unsafe Sewage Act, 1997."
It's obviously a tongue-in-cheek amendment, but behind it lies the concern by people that this is what it can lead to, and it certainly did. I know you don't like Great Britain being raised, the UK being raised all the time, but it's true, that was the result of what happened in the UK and that's why this amendment is worded the way it is.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Laughren, but I do believe this amendment is out of order.
Mr Laughren: Now you're telling me. I went through all that work.
Mr Agostino: Certainly, the intent of this is clearly to point out the flaws in the legislation. You had a great opportunity to enact some very reasonable suggestions made by the public when they came to the end of the table in the three days of public hearings. With the exception of some minor tinkering, you failed to do that, which I think was a great lost opportunity for this government to come out of this with a big winner, to come out of this in a very positive light.
Instead, what you're going to leave now, very clearly, is an accurate reflection to the public that their water and sewer services are up for sale, that municipalities may be forced to sell the assets. Municipalities may be forced to turn this thing over to the private sector, which will mean higher rates and dirty water and unsafe water for Ontarians and higher rates, which maybe should have been added to the bill. We should have added the line in there about higher rates as well, because I think it would have been the end result.
In all seriousness, I'm disappointed because I think there was a great opportunity here with some pretty straightforward, non-political ways -- this was not a big partisan issue from the point of view of the amendments made by people at the end of the table throughout the three days of public hearings -- to accept two or three of the amendments here today that would have very clearly eased the public's concern. I think it's unfortunate that you failed to do that and that you're going to leave that door open. I certainly hope the time never comes when we're going to be able to say, "We told you so," because if that happens, I think it's going to be disastrous for people in Ontario, particularly when municipalities start looking at privatizing this.
I think it's unfortunate. I think you had a great opportunity here to put the partisan politics of amendments aside and act in a way that would have put people's minds at ease, and I think you failed to do that.
The Chair: Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 7 carries.
We move now to the schedules of the bill. Seeing no amendments to section 1 of schedule A, section 2 of schedule A, section 3 and section 4, shall sections 1 through 4 of schedule A carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 5 of the schedule, a Liberal amendment.
Mr Agostino: I move that section 5 of the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Transfer to two or more municipalities
"5. The minister shall not make a transfer order transferring ownership of a waterworks or sewage works, or a group of waterworks or sewage works, to two or more municipalities unless the municipalities consent to the order."
This would very clearly cover off the areas where there is jurisdiction in more than one municipality. You've talked about the 60 out of the 200 that have asked; we don't know if the other 140 want this or whether you're choosing to impose this upon them. Where you have situations where there are two or more municipalities, this forces you to consult and talk to them and gives you an opportunity to obviously back away from it if the municipalities do not believe this wonderful thing you're doing is in their best interests.
We hope the government, in your spirit of consultation and with the great track record that you have in consulting with municipalities that we've seen right along with all the changes you've made, will buy into this as well and see it basically as a housekeeping item that would allow municipalities a guarantee there would be some input before you transfer it.
Mr Galt: A thoughtful motion has been put forward, one that we are unable to support. The bill makes special provisions to deal fairly with joint users of area systems and provide adequate time for development of joint ownership and management arrangements. It is important for all involved, especially municipalities, that the transfer process does not drag on and create uncertainty. This activity is about disentanglement, and currently all costs are attributed to the usage. Whether we look in the London area or York-Durham, it is similar, and certainly we've had no municipalities complaining about this. The only thing they're really concerned about is how it is going to work. This should work just fine and we are not supportive of this amendment.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, then I put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.
Moving through sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, I see no amendments. Are there any questions or comments on those sections of the schedule?
Seeing none, I put the question: Shall sections 6 through 16 of the schedule carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Sections 6 through 16 carry.
Section 17 of the schedule, an NDP amendment.
Mr Laughren: I move that section 17 of the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997, as set out in schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Short title
"17. The short title of this act is the Dirty Water and Unsafe Sewage Transfer Act, 1997."
In the interest of not being repetitive, I won't make the same arguments I made in the previous amendment, because this is attached to the schedule, not the bill itself, but simply to indicate to you that we are unhappy with this bill.
The Chair: For the same reason, it is also out of order.
Shall section 17 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 17 carries.
Shall the schedule carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The schedule carries.
NDP amendment under the long title.
Mr Laughren: I move that the long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"An act to promote private profit at the expense of clean water and safe sewage treatment."
I just wanted to note that -- this obviously isn't going to carry -- I don't think the government accepted a single opposition amendment. They were not all designed to prevent the government from getting its way in terms of transferring the remaining sewer and water projects to municipalities. They weren't all designed to prevent the transfer or the sale of sewer and water services to th private sector. There were many amendments there that were simply built in to protect the quality of water and the whole issue of the safe treatment of sewage as a result of a transfer to the private sector, because this is something that is new territory for this province. I would have preferred that we erred on the side of caution, and many of the amendments were designed simply to do that.
I would simply remind the government that we as opposition voted for some government amendments; the government didn't vote for a single opposition amendment. With some of them I'm not surprised, but there were other opposition amendments that I think the government could have voted for and still maintained its agenda. I just think that needs to be said.
The Chair: Thank you, but again I believe that this amendment is out of order.
Moving then to the long title of the bill, shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The long title carries.
Shall Bill 107, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Bill 107, as amended, carries.
Shall I report Bill 107, as amended, to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? I shall report it.
That concludes our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 107. Thank you very much, everyone. This committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1652.