SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS' COUNCIL
CHILD CARE ACTION NETWORK OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
ONTARIO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
EASTERN ONTARIO WARDENS' CONFERENCE
NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
OTTAWA PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
OTTAWA-CARLETON HEADSTART ASSOCIATION FOR PRESCHOOLS
CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
CONTENTS
Thursday 18 January 1996
Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, Bill 26, Mr Eves / Loi de 1995 sur les économies
et la restructuration, projet de loi 26, M. Eves
Social Assistance Recipients' Council
Linda Lalonde, policy consultant
Deborah Andrews, advocacy counsellor
Child Care Action Network of Ottawa-Carleton
Anne-Marie René de Cotret, spokesperson
Mary-Lou James, spokesperson
Nancy Campbell, member, CUPE Local 2204, member organization
Cynthia Magloughlin, member, steering committee
Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade
Howard Williamson, chairman
Willy Bagnell, president
Ontario Restaurant Association
Paul Oliver, president
Phil Waserman, immediate past chair
Ken Rubin
Craig McNaughton
Eastern Ontario Wardens' Conference
Frances Smith, representative
Older Women's Network
Connie Delahanty, representative
National Action Committee on the Status of Women
Anne Marie Delorey, eastern Ontario regional representative on executive committee
Susan Genge, vice-president
Graham Corke
Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association
Bill Cole, president
City of Ottawa; City of Nepean
Jacquelin Holzman, mayor of Ottawa
Ben Franklin, mayor of Nepean
Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association for Preschools; Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton
Cathy Murphy, president, Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association for Preschools
Laurie Brunet, community liaison, Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association for Preschools
Frank Martin, president, CAS of Ottawa-Carleton
Mel Gill, CEO, CAS of Ottawa-Carleton
Caroline Andrew
Big Rideau Lake Association
Julia Sneyd, past director
Robert Sneyd, director
John Peart, director
Regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
Peter Clark, regional chair
Wendy Stewart, regional councillor
EVIDENCE SUBCOMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)
*Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)
*Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L) for Mrs Pupatello
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Grandmaître
Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND) for Mr Wood
Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC) for Mr Tascona
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)
Lalonde, Jean-Marc (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South / -Sud L)
Morin, Gilles E. (Carleton East / -Est L)
Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0900 in the Delta Hotel, Ottawa.
SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.
The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Ottawa. Before we begin this morning, I believe Mr Sampson has a point of order.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I would like to table to the committee six amendments that the government side is proposing which reflect some interest we've seen, some consistent views we've seen so far from the committee process. Unfortunately, I have only one copy. I understand copies will be made for the various caucuses. I'd like to table these now, if I can.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): But how does this jibe with your earlier statement --
The Chair: Order, please. We have a motion from Mr Silipo.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Thank you, Mr Chair. You put me so far away from you today.
Mr Sampson: You're still on the left, Tony.
Mr Silipo: I miss one day of meetings and all sorts of exciting things happen. I should know better, I guess. In any event, I would like to move:
Whereas there has been overwhelming public interest in Bill 26 and that 77 groups and individuals have requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Ottawa which far exceed the 15 spaces available today for hearings;
I move that this committee recommends to the government House leader that when the House returns on January 29, 1996, that the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended and that the bill be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further public hearings can be arranged for the community of Ottawa;
Further, that this committee recommends that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss the issue.
I'll speak briefly to it. I'm happy that we are seeing some amendments today. I gather that amendments were tabled yesterday in Kitchener on the health part, but the government, for whatever reasons, chose to wait until today to table its amendments on that. While my motion doesn't speak directly to amendments, the connection is that in each of the communities we have been in, we have heard -- not only do we know that there are far, far more people and groups that are interested in speaking than the time allows for them to be heard, but in each of those communities we have heard continuously calls for changes at the very least to the bill. We've heard a lot of concerns expressed about the bill, and I'm sure that will be the case as well today.
There certainly has been some support for the general direction of the bill, but overwhelmingly people have spoken against the bill and have raised a number of significant concerns: in terms of the wide-sweeping powers that are given to ministers; in terms of the shift of powers to municipalities to tax; in terms of the taking away by the government of rights to people's pensions, as they are doing in the case of the people who work for the government; in terms of taking people's rights away like the pay equity provisions for 100,000 least-paid women in the province. Those and many, many other provisions are things that we've heard about and those are all issues that warrant further discussion and further examination.
I don't know whether the amendments from the government this morning address any of those issues. I guess we'll see. But it seems to me, certainly given what we've heard so far and given the interest that I know exists here in Ottawa, that it would be incumbent upon the government to follow the order that we have, which is to return the bill on January 29 to the House, but at that time to acknowledge publicly by way of having further hearings here in Ottawa that all of the views that we know the good people of Ottawa-Carleton have on this bill will not have been heard, even with all of our best efforts, by the day's end and that further hearings would assist greatly in ensuring that the piece of legislation that comes out at the end of this process is one that is worthy of the name.
Mr Sampson: Welcome back, Mr Silipo. In speaking to this particular motion, I want to make sure that we have some facts on the table. I think it's important for the people in the Ottawa area to understand that the committee time that has been allocated -- and I'm sorry that some of the people are behind me here, but I can't turn around and speak to you -- to this particular bill, the total cumulative committee time, is more than any other piece of legislation over the past 10 years, which I think certainly reflects --
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): The size of the legislation --
Mr Sampson: Yes, it does reflect the size of the piece of legislation. There's no question about that.
We are prepared to receive written submissions from those who have not had the opportunity to come to us and present their issues and concerns to us at the committee table.
I think also on that topic, it's important for the people of Ottawa to understand how it is that one gets selected to fill one of the spots on the agenda today. There was an arrangement established by all three parties, agreed to by all three parties, and it is not the government table that makes the determination as to who is on or off the schedule. I think it's important to have that fact on the table.
We are listening, as is reflected by the fact that we have tabled six amendments today. We do not want to prejudice those who are yet to speak to us, although those amendments reflect the theme that we've seen in, I would say, the lion's share of the presentations that we've seen in front of us so far. But I would encourage those who are unable to speak to us today in person to provide written submissions, which we will review and give full consideration to.
Mr Chair, we will be voting against this particular motion.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I think that the people of Ottawa should know that the way the government's dealing with this bill is exactly the way the government wants to govern. They say they know best, nobody else has an input and the nerve of the government to try and force -- this is the bill, Bill 26. It amends 43 major acts in the province of Ontario. It impacts everyone in this room in a very major way, whether you're involved with health care, with fire, police, hospitals, municipalities, everything, and they tried to ram this thing through in two weeks -- absolutely unheard of. Introduced on November 29 -- and I would add that most of us were in a lockup, and the government knew that. This bill is a finance bill and at the very moment it was being tabled in the House, I and most of my colleagues here were locked up reviewing the fiscal statement of the government. It was a deliberate, blatant attempt to stifle debate, and I'm very angry about that. The government tried to force it through in two weeks, said it would be law by December 14. None of you would have had an opportunity to comment on the bill. It's a total insult. It really is. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Then under pressure, they said: "Well, well, well. We'll extend it one week and we'll have hearings from 9 in the morning till midnight before Christmas in Toronto." Not in Ottawa or Thunder Bay or anywhere else in the province but in Toronto. I guarantee you, virtually no one would have had a chance to review this bill. Why? Because they don't want the bill reviewed. They wanted to force it through, force it through in two weeks. They should be embarrassing themselves. They're thumbing their nose at the public.
Then finally we got agreement to extend the hearings around the province till the end of January and the government put a gun to our head and said, "That's all you'll get."
I think the people of Ontario should be outraged by this, but it's typical, I think, of how this government plans to govern. You know what they say to us in the Legislature? "We did our consultation. We did our consultation and the people made their decision on June 8." They say, "We won." That's what the government says, "You lost, so keep quiet." Well, we won't keep quiet.
Then I will just say, yesterday the government member said, "We're not tabling any amendments until clause-by-clause begins." Fifteen minutes later, at the other half of this hearing, the government tabled amendments. They think we're fools. They tell us one thing yesterday in Thunder Bay at 9 in the morning, and at 9:15 in Kitchener they table amendments. It's an outrage; it truly is.
0910
So they have the majority, they will force their way and what you'll find today is there will be people in here supporting this bill, knowing nothing about the sections other than the areas that impact them. They're being held hostage to this. They're being told, "Come on down and support this bill," without knowing they are supporting provisions elsewhere in the bill that are an embarrassment.
I would say to people who come in and say, "I support this bill," in a few weeks, in a few months, people are going to come and say: "Why did you support the bill? Did you know it took away pension rights for public servants? Did you know that? Did you know it took away bargaining rights for police and fire? Did you know that? Did you know that it changed fundamentally the environmental rights for mining? Did you know that? Did you know that it made medical records publicly available? Did you know that?"
They'll say, "No, I just knew this section that we were dealing with and I could only say I support my section." So it truly is an outrage that you tried to force this thing through. You should be embarrassed. I'll support the motion, I'll say our caucus would welcome additional hearings. Because I don't think even the government members understand this bill.
The Chair: Before I put the motion this morning, I'd like to welcome Mr Lalonde from Prescott-Russell, Mr Chiarelli from Ottawa West, Mr Grandmaître from Ottawa East, Mr Patten from Ottawa Centre, Mr Morin from Carleton East and Mr McGuinty from Ottawa South to the committee this morning.
Eligible voters this morning are Mr Gerretsen, Mr Phillips, Mr Silipo, Mr Stewart, Mr Sampson, Mr Hardeman and Mr Young. All those in favour of the motion, on a recorded vote?
Ayes
Gerretsen, Phillips, Silipo.
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Stewart, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
Mr Phillips has a motion.
Mr Phillips: I move that whereas the government indicated as early as December 18, 1995, that it had prepared amendments to Bill 26;
And whereas the government plans substantial amendments;
And whereas presenters should be aware of the substantive amendments being proposed;
I move that this committee insist that the government immediately table its proposed amendments so the amendments can be part of the considerations during the presentations in Ottawa and other communities.
The Chair: Would you like to speak to the motion?
Mr Phillips: Yes, thank you. I think firstly the public should be aware that five minutes into these hearings, on December 18, Al Leach came to the committee -- he's the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- and said, "We are planning to amend," he said on December 18, and he outlined two amendments. We said that day, "All right, table the amendments." They refused to do that.
We have tried throughout these hearings to get the government to table the amendments. We heard from them, "No, we're not going to table any amendments until we've heard from everyone." The government member yesterday said: "No, no, that would be undemocratic. We won't do that." Then we had the absolute insult of 15 minutes yesterday after the government told us that, we find out, fortunately, that at that very moment that he was saying that, amendments had been tabled in Kitchener -- this committee is split in two, as I think most people here in Ottawa appreciate -- and substantive amendments were tabled.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs has outlined some proposals in here around taxes. We have had at least three mayors come before us. The mayor of Mississauga came before us and indicated -- this is on the gas tax. "Does this permit a gas tax, Mayor McCallion?" "Yes." Then she goes on to say: "We were going to ask the government to pass legislation to permit a gas tax. Now we have the opportunity to put it in."
So we have this spectacle of people coming to support the bill, thinking it allowed certain things and therefore they weigh in supporting it, only to find it doesn't allow that at all. I used to think the government was simply mean-spirited. This bill shows to me that you're not only mean-spirited; frankly, I think you're incompetent. The reason I say that is that no competent government would have allowed this bill to come forward with as many mistakes in it as we see. I suspect we will see dozens of amendments proposed to correct this sloppy bill. I suspect that on Monday the ministers will come and lay out literally dozens of amendments, because it's a sloppy, poorly prepared bill.
As I say, I used to think you were simply mean-spirited, and now I think you're incompetent. Nothing could have demonstrated it more than yesterday, when the government members were telling us they weren't going to table amendments and at that very moment somewhere else the government was tabling amendments.
Even this morning, we have these amendments; we don't have a copy of them yet. The people who are presenting don't have a copy of them yet. I suspect it impacts on some presentations today. But we had one copy dumped on our -- and I guarantee you that the member had those amendments at least yesterday, could have gotten copies for us prepared for today and didn't. Why? Because it's part of an attempt to stop us and the public from having input into this bill. It started the day you were elected, when you said to us: "Tough luck. You lost, we won, and we're going to implement whatever we want to."
I would just say to all the people in Ontario that it's dangerous. This is a very dangerous bill. Someone coined the expression "the bully bill," and that's a good expression, the bully bill. Now the bully bill has no friends, because I think when people see the bill, they realize it's a true bully. Even the people who come here to support it today I think six months from now will wonder: "How did we get duped into that without knowing all the other sections of that bill? How did we support a bully bill that gave Mike Harris and the gang the right to run roughshod over the people of Ontario?" Among the biggest insults is the fact that the government prepared amendments a month ago and refused to table them here.
Just to summarize, I think the government should be embarrassed; I think the government members should be embarrassed. I would hope that you would table today the other amendments you've got. You've got them in your briefcases.
Mr Silipo: I want to speak in support of this motion for many of the reasons that Mr Phillips has outlined, although I have to say I am not sure that it's a question of incompetence on the part of the government to have the audacity to wait until now to give us some inkling of amendments that they clearly passed in cabinet, some of these we know at least a week ago, and as Mr Phillips has pointed out, some of these go back as early as December 18.
I think it really is because this government thinks that when it got elected on June 8 it also won the right to run roughshod over the democratic processes in this province. I think that's an affront to the people of the province, because it says to the people of the province that this government really doesn't give a damn about what it is that people think; it says to the people of this province that they know best, they're going to do what they want no matter what anybody thinks or no matter what anybody else says. That, above anything else, shows the arrogance and it shows the complete ignorance or the complete distrust of the democratic process that we've built up in this province for years and years.
Surely the government has the right to govern; no one has questioned that. But it also has a responsibility to follow a process. When you're dealing particularly with a bill that has the kind of far-reaching implications that this bill has, as we have been able to point out, as speaker after speaker coming before us has pointed out and as government members themselves, had they the courage to admit it, would be able to also say is the case; when you have such a bill, it is incumbent even more so than in a normal situation that you try to come clean with the committee and, most importantly, with the people of the province, and that where significant problems are pointed out, as they have been in this bill, you take the first available opportunity to say, "That's not what we meant, that's not what we want to do, and here's an amendment to prove that that's not what we want to do," rather than continuing the fears among people that we've seen expressed through the presentations and rather than allowing those fears to continue to grow and to continue to fester. That shows a complete disrespect for the people of the province and for the process of this Parliament.
0920
The amendments that we've seen tabled this morning, I still don't know what issues they address. I can surmise from the media coverage what areas they cover. I hope Mr Sampson is going to at least give us some inkling of what those are. I hope we get a copy of those distributed as soon as possible. I know the clerk has copies for us, and that's good, but I think Mr Sampson said he had six amendments, if I heard him correctly earlier on.
Well, six amendments, in light of what we've been hearing are the major concerns of people of this province, unless the six amendments remove six schedules, I think don't go anywhere near the kinds of things that we need to do to be able to deal with the concerns that we've heard expressed.
So we believe that there are going to have to be further amendments. We also believe that there will be further amendments coming from the government, and if not, I think that, again, what the government members have been saying, which is, "We were listening and we're listening to what people are saying and we will respond" -- well, we'll wait and see, Mr Chair. We'll wait and see, and we'll wait and see in the hope that in effect people really have been listening, that the government members have really been listening and that the government, through them, is going to be willing to respond to the things that have been said in this committee in other communities and no doubt will be said here today in Ottawa.
Mr Sampson: I think it's important to establish the fact that two committees were set up to review this particular piece of legislation: one to review the non-health -- that's this one -- and one to review the health aspect, and that committee has already been through the Ottawa area and is doing another circuit this week. The purpose of setting up those two committees is so they could operate independently in the review of this particular legislation. That is indeed what has happened. That's why there were amendments released yesterday in that committee when they felt it was appropriate and we did so today when we felt it was appropriate. This was clearly --
Mr Silipo: You said you wouldn't.
Mr Sampson: I want to speak to this point that I keep hearing from the other side of the table. They want to have it both ways, which I suppose is not terribly uncustomary of what we've been hearing so far. They want to be able to say --
Interjections.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Do you want the amendments or don't you?
Mr Phillips: Yes, but you wouldn't provide them all, you said.
The Chair: Mr Sampson has the floor.
Mr Sampson: They want to be able to say: "All right, on one hand we want you to have extensive consultation. Our preference is you not prepare the legislation. Don't put anything down in writing. Have these consultations." They're alleging that we never had any consultations. But out of the other side of their mouth they're saying: "No, hold it. We want to see your amendments before you finish your consultation process or before you have a sense as to what the theme of the consultation process is."
Gentlemen, you can't have it both ways. We are prepared to listen. We have listened. The amendments that are on the table today have reflected that. There will be other amendments that will come forward that will reflect a general theme that we see developing. This is a process that develops as it goes, and as I said, we will be coming forward with other changes that we think are appropriate, based upon the consultations and the discussions we hear from the people who come forward and the people who write to us in written submissions.
We will be voting against this particular motion.
The Chair: I'd like to put the motion.
Mr Silipo: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Gerretsen, Phillips, Silipo.
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Stewart, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
I'd like to start this morning --
Mr Gerretsen: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In dealing with the last point, we've heard from the government member, not just yesterday but every day this week, that the reason why amendments couldn't be brought to this committee is that it would be unfair to those people who have already made presentations to the committee because they couldn't comment on it.
Will you, as the fairminded individual that you are, now rule that we will have to go back to those communities to give those people and organizations an opportunity to respond to the amendments that we haven't seen as yet? That's the fair way to proceed, and I know you're fair and I know you'll do the right thing. I'd like you to rule right now that they'll have to go back to those communities to have further input from the general public.
The Chair: We voted on those motions continuously, as you know, Mr Gerretsen, each morning --
Mr Gerretsen: No, this is a different point.
The Chair: -- and the committee has voted against that, so it's not in my purview to order that.
I'd like to call on the --
Mr Phillips: Can we get copies for each of the committee members?
The Chair: The clerk provided one per caucus. Would you like one per --
Interjection: Can we get a copy for each member?
The Chair: Okay, we'll have the clerk do that.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS' COUNCIL
The Chair: I'd like to call on the first deputant this morning. Can I have representatives from the Social Assistance Recipients' Council please come forward. Good morning, ladies, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. I apologize for the delay this morning. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if, for the benefit of Hansard and committee members, you'd both take some time at the beginning of your presentation to introduce yourselves.
Ms Linda Lalonde: My name is Linda Lalonde. I'm the policy consultant for the Social Assistance Recipients' Council. This is Deborah Andrews, and she's the advocacy counsellor at the council.
Nous regrettons qu'on n'ait pas eu le temps de traduire notre présentation en français ; on était pressées un peu, mais on est prêtes à répondre à des questions en français, si nécessaire.
The Social Assistance Recipients' Council, the SAR Council, is an organization representing the interests of beneficiaries of municipal and provincial welfare programs in the Ottawa-Carleton region. We have three means of accomplishing this.
Primarily we're a non-profit, membership-based organization run by an elected board of directors, all of whom are in receipt of social assistance or were at the time of their election. We provide information sessions and workshops as well as social and other activities to our members.
We also provide two types of advocacy services, case work and policy, to both our members and non-members. Many of the problems faced by our community are systemic in nature and it's necessary to work on two levels, both to help the individual and to cure the systemic problems. Case work services are provided on an individual or group basis on issues affecting people living on low incomes. This includes intervention up to and including the level of appeals to boards or tribunals. On the policy advocacy side, we analyse and respond to new and existing policies, regulations and legislation which affect or will potentially affect the population we represent. Hence our appearance here today. You will find a more extensive description of our organization, including our goals and objectives, attached to our brief.
We will not, to I'm sure your great relief, be addressing all the sections of Bill 26 today. We would like to specifically address schedules G, K, part I of M and to help you with your P and Q. Although we enjoy digging around, we'll leave the Mining Act to others for comment. Consistent with many previous speakers, we will also comment on process or lack thereof.
We have some strong concerns about the parts of the bill which make changes to health services, health insurance and accessibility to health care. Unfortunately, the structure of these subcommittee hearings meant that we had to turn down an opportunity to address that half of the committee if we wanted to speak to non-health issues. From the perspective of the community we represent, we see schedule G as income-related more than health-related and so have chosen to deal with it here.
Schedule G, which is the prescription drug section: We believe it's wrong to charge user fees, referred to here as copayments, for items as essential as prescription medication. People on restricted incomes should not have to choose between maintaining their health through eating and maintaining their health through obtaining medications which have been determined by a properly qualified physician as necessary. A single person in Ontario on social assistance receives $195 per month to cover food, clothing, transportation, job search etc, as well as any shelter costs over $325. Should that individual become ill, they will be hard pressed to find extra money to cover medical needs not covered by the Ontario drug benefit, let alone to pay $2 per prescription for those medications which remain covered. The longer that person remains ill, the longer it is until they're able to take employment and leave the welfare rolls.
The Ministry of Health has issued a news release in which it claims, "Half of all low-income seniors will pay $32 or less each year and half of those on social assistance only $8 (single) and $24 (family) towards their drug benefits." That's all very nice, but what about the other half? I think it's reasonable to assume that it's the half who will pay the least they have chosen to highlight. Presumably if they have those figures, they also have the other figures.
Picture a woman with three children under five who is on social assistance because the father of her children refuses to pay adequate child support in spite of his financial ability to do so. All three children become ill and, in one month, require between them seven prescriptions, two of which are not covered by the drug plan at all. She also needs cough medicine, vitamins and allergy medication, none of which is covered. The doctor tells her to make sure they eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and drink their milk. If she has been able to find housing, including utilities, for $602, she has $631 to pay all the other expenses for the four of them. If her housing costs are higher than $602, the balance comes out of the $631.
0930
It is wrong for the minister to have the ability to take price into account when determining which drugs will be covered by the Ontario drug benefit. The drugs which are listed should be there because they are the best or most effective at curing disease, not because they are the cheapest. By all means, if there is a less expensive alternative which does the same job, it should be used, but drugs should not be listed or delisted based on price alone.
It is wrong to deregulate the cost of prescription drugs. Many people assume that "those welfare people" get all their drugs for free. This is not true. Many drugs are not covered or are only covered in certain dosages or strengths.
I can remember getting a prescription for my own daughter when the Ontario drug benefit would only cover the 10 milligram size of a drug, which was normally only prescribed for adults. She was to have only 2.5 milligrams. Visualize yourself trying to break a small, round pill into four equal parts. The alternative was to pay for the smaller pills myself, which I could not afford.
In other instances, the drugs are not covered at all and there is no alternative drug covered. This means people have to find the money or do without the medication. If the controls on prices are removed, the choice will be much simpler. It will also more often be to do without the medication.
It is not a saving to the government in the long run to restrict people's access to medication. The costs of further illness, hospitalization and longer stays on social assistance will more than offset any savings to be had by charging user fees for the Ontario drug benefit. They will of course be difficult to measure and even more difficult to attribute to the reduced access to the Ontario drug benefit and so will never appear anywhere on a government balance sheet. They will, however, appear on human balance sheets and on hospital sheets across Ontario.
Now going to schedule K, which is the access to information piece, in a case where a person's request is refused as frivolous or vexatious by the head of an institution and that decision is later overturned on appeal, the cost of the appeal should then be deducted from the fees payable for access to the record, we believe. This would provide a disincentive to the capricious exercise of the right of the head of the institution to refuse access. There's a great potential for this to be used as both a delaying tactic and a way of driving up the cost of accessing a record, thereby making access to information the purview of those with the financial means to pursue it.
There should also be a requirement that the institution disclose to the individual in advance what the cost of accessing the record will be and then obtain consent to proceed with a further consent required should the costs be greater than expected. This would be similar to the process you go through when you take your car in for repairs. Otherwise, the individual, who may not know the size of the record or the time required to prepare it, has no way of knowing what the bill will be. If the individual cannot or will not pay those costs after the fact, the government may lose more money than it stands to gain by blocking frivolous and vexatious requests.
I'm now going into the Municipal Act section. The Municipal Act is of course one of my favourite pieces of legislation. Starting with section 1, in subsection 25.2(1), the definition of "locality" should end "or the county of Oxford," as does the French version and the same list in the definition of "municipality." This is to prove to you that I actually did read the bill, you see.
There is no requirement anywhere in this section that the citizens of a municipality be consulted in any way before they are restructured. We've gone through a process of "restructuring" recently in Ottawa-Carleton, and I can certainly tell you that had that restructuring been imposed entirely by the province without consultation with the citizens, you would have a very unhappy populous here to talk with you today.
Section 10, which refers to section 220 of the Municipal Act: We're opposed to user fees or charges since they have historically impacted more seriously on low-income people than on those in a higher income bracket. They do not take into account ability to pay or access to any alternative or equivalent service. For example, fees to access public swimming pools in the summer do not equally impact people with private pools or cottages and poor families living in the inner city with no transportation. It has also been the case that fee subsidies or exemptions are either not accessible or known or the application process is so humiliating and complicated that people do not use them.
Again, there is no requirement that the citizens of a municipality consent to such fees or to direct taxation. Unless and until a direct tax has been put before its citizens, the municipality or board should not be able to levy it.
Section 257.5: It is unreasonable for the minister to have the power to retroactively make regulations which require a municipality to either return revenue that it has raised or to use that revenue in a particular way. It will be extremely difficult to budget responsibly at the municipal level if, one year later, the minister can change your revenues without notice or, apparently, appeal.
Schedule P, which is the section that refers to the parole board: We question the efficiency and cost-saving possibilities of this proposal, since every time you fail to reach agreement with two people you will have to do the whole thing over again. This would mean four people, instead of the current three, hearing the matter and potentially the delay of parole being granted. This will result in the individual concerned being lodged at taxpayers' expense for an extended and unnecessary period of time. Also to be considered here is the effect on the individual's rehabilitation of such a discouraging delay.
Schedule Q, which is the arbitration section: We're seriously concerned by some of the criteria being proposed as measures to be considered by an arbitrator. If an arbitrator is to consider the employer's "ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation," will the arbitrator also look at the decisions which placed the employer in that particular situation?
For example, if the employer rolls back taxes -- I understand that may happen somewhere near us -- thereby reducing its revenues and "ability to pay" and then cries poor, should the employees have to bear the brunt of that action? If the employer has taken some imprudent action which has reduced its ability to pay, should the employees have to pay the price? Why is there no reference here to the economic situation of the employee or to the employee's need for employment?
The quality of our public services in Ontario should be a concern of every citizen but are a particular concern to those who do not have access to the alternatives, that is, private schools, private security forces and that type of thing.
We're going to address the process issue now. We've been disturbed by some of the actions of the government surrounding Bill 26. We're also disturbed by some of the provisions found therein. Although it does not always work to the benefit of the poor, we are committed to democracy and the concept of open, accountable government.
It is disconcerting to see a government introducing the largest, most comprehensive legislation we've seen in many years at a time when the official opposition party was not in the House and the governing party was well aware in advance that it would be absent. They then proposed to hold hearings immediately before Christmas, a time at which many organizations and individual Ontarians were unavailable or previously committed. These hearings were to be held in Toronto at a time when travel arrangements are difficult, if not impossible, to make. The government needs to understand that even if their intentions were not questionable, perception is often as important as reality.
Ms Deborah Andrews: We are very glad to have the opportunity to address our concerns with you directly today, but we are very aware that in doing so we are part of a very select group. You may remind us that most pieces of legislation don't get 20 days of hearings all across Ontario plus the Toronto sessions. I will remind you that most pieces of legislation do not amend almost four dozen unrelated pieces of legislation and enact three new ones, all of which in total represent the areas of responsibility of 10 different ministries. Had each minister presented his or her ministry's amendments as standalone legislation and gone through the normal committee hearings, I suggest there would have been more opportunity for Ontarians to respond appropriately to these massive changes.
We are also seriously concerned about the number of times either the minister or the Lieutenant Governor in Council is being given extra powers throughout the bill. While it may be appropriate for certain powers to rest with either the minister or cabinet, most decisions made by government should remain the responsibility of the Legislative Assembly. It is for that purpose that we elect our representatives to the Legislature and it is an important part of the system of checks and balances we have built into our parliamentary method of governance.
0940
Although this government may not have any intention of abusing it, this concentration of power in the hands of a few poses a potential danger for the future. In many cases, decisions are left to the minister or cabinet which would be more appropriately put in the hands of the citizens of the province or the municipality.
As we mentioned earlier, it was difficult for us to abandon those issues in the bill which were strictly health-related. As you know, poor people tend to require health services more often than those in higher income brackets. Any changes to that system are therefore bound to concern us more than the average person. By making it possible for groups to only address half of the bill, you have cut yourselves off from valuable input.
We would like to thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today and wish that more of our fellow citizens had been so honoured. Good luck with your deliberations, and we look forward to seeing substantive changes in the final product.
The Chair: We have a little less than four minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with the opposition caucus.
Mr Patten: First of all, let me congratulate you on your presentation. Not only have you demonstrated a knowledge in your own area, but an astute observation of the process by which this bill has been introduced. The undercutting of responsible government is really what it is.
You may be aware that yesterday the other half of the committee tabled some amendments that said, "We'll remove your rights for four years, until we get it straight, and then we will abandon that idea," which sounds like a smack in the face to the intelligence of people in Ontario, it seems to me.
I would like to ask you if you would elaborate a little bit on what I gather is your essential thesis, and that is that user fees essentially hurt the lowest-income or welfare recipients at best. And if I understand you correctly, you're saying we are further penalizing, with user fees, people who happen to require medication by virtue of being ill. This is your thesis. Can you describe in human terms some of that impact that you think will take place as a result of the application of these kinds of user fees?
Ms Lalonde: I think one of the first things that people need to recognize is that user fees are paid out of disposable income, and when you're talking about somebody who's living on $195 a month, there isn't a lot of disposable at the end of the income.
What will happen is you will have people who will make choices to not eat in order to get their medication. They will make choices to let their rent fall into arrears. Those are the kinds of things that people are going to end up doing in order to have their medication. Or they will choose not to have the medication and they will then be in a situation where they can't go back to the doctor when they get sicker because the first thing the doctor's going to say is, "Didn't that stuff I gave you last week work?" You're too embarrassed to say to the doctor, "I can't afford the $13.28 it would cost me to fill that prescription."
Mr Patten: Then we take user fees, from the medical area to libraries or to pools or other services. Then, by definition, those who have the least are whacked the most.
Ms Lalonde: To give you a perfect example, children from upper-class families often have encyclopaedias in the home. Children in welfare families do not have $1,200 or $1,500 encyclopaedias in their home. Their access to those things is in the public library, and if the public library is closing at 4:30 every night, guess where they ain't going to be.
The Chair: I'm sorry, we're out of time for the opposition caucus. We're in the third party's time.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. We know that one of the main directions this government wants to take and indeed one of the main thrusts of bringing about this bill is because it wants to provide the people of Ontario with a 30% tax cut, while at the same time it's moving to give municipalities broad powers to provide a number of user fees, and originally, as we read the bill, a number of other taxing powers which I think are being now limited by the amendments they are presenting.
But I guess my question to you is this: When you look at the 30% tax cut, do you have any sense of how that's going to benefit the people you serve?
Ms Lalonde: For those people who are in fact paying taxes, it doesn't really matter whether you take it out of the left pocket or the right pocket. A tax is a tax is a tax. There is only one taxpayer. Certainly, the people we serve mostly will not have any benefit from that, because many of them are working at low-wage jobs where they're paying minimal taxes anyway.
Mr Silipo: In fact, some of the figures we've seen indicate that when you look at the income spread among the citizens of the province, something like 15% of Ontarians earn over $85,000 in terms of family income. That 15% of Ontario taxpayers will reap the benefits of over 40% of the value of the tax cut. So we see a situation in which what is happening very clearly is that those who are well off are going to be even more well off, and those who are not are going to be worse off than they are now, because any benefit they get -- the lower your income, the less is the benefit you will see from the tax cut.
At the same time, as you've pointed out, the user fees that are going to be imposed, because they're not tied to one's ability to pay and can never be really tied to one's ability to pay as user fees, are going to mean those who are least well off are going to be paying more, and likely beyond the value of whatever break they're going to get on the tax cut. Is that a fair characterization, in your view?
Ms Lalonde: Yes, I think it is. What's going to happen is the people who can afford to pay for the services themselves or have the services provided to them in other ways will not be affected by the user fees, and they are the people who will be getting the money back from the government to "pay those user fees."
Mr Young: I would like to point out that there are a number of good things for your clients in Bill 26. Actually, 87% of the people of Ontario make under $50,000 a year. Every one of them will get a tax cut. If somebody made $25,000 a year, they would get back around $2,000 over three years.
Mr Gerretsen: No, they do not. In the Common Sense Revolution it's $400.
Mr Young: Mr Chair, can I have my own time? That's one year. Over three years, in the Common Sense Revolution -- I'll get you a copy, Mr Gerretsen -- it's $2,000. That $2,000 to that family or to that individual is a heck of a lot more important than to people in the higher end of the income. So I'm very, very pleased that's going to happen. We view it as the largest job creation program in the history of Ontario. About $4 billion or $5 billion will stay in our economy. It'll stay in Ontario, but it will be spent by people the way they deem fit.
I don't know if you know, but 140,000 new low-income people are put on the Ontario drug benefit plan in Bill 26. Did you know that?
Ms Lalonde: I do.
Mr Young: I assume that you would approve of that.
Ms Lalonde: You assume we would approve of that? Well, when you look at the overall effect, which is to take money out of the Ontario drug plan and out of the Trillium plan and put more people into it, that tells me that everybody's getting a smaller piece of that pie. You're making the pie smaller and giving pieces of it to more people. Can you tell me how that's fair?
To reply to your $25,000, I don't know anyone on social assistance even under Mr Silipo's reign who's getting $25,000.
Mr Young: No, you said some of your clients work part time or have some income that they earn. So I wanted to make sure that you knew that.
Ms Lalonde: In part-time, minimum-wage jobs, predominantly.
Mr Young: You expressed your concern about ministerial power. One of the amendments that was put on the table this morning, tabled, is that the power would disappear December 31, 1999, so a little under three years. Does that address your concern?
Ms Lalonde: I am hoping we'll be able to get those amendments. By the way, I'm also hoping they'll cost less than the $18.20 we had to pay for this thing, plus the money we would have had to pay for all the acts that we would have to look up --
Mr Young: Sorry. With regard to the ministerial power, if the ministerial power disappears in three years, would that address your concern?
Ms Lalonde: Why do you need it?
Mr Young: We need it to make change happen, but that's a big long answer, so I don't have that much time to talk about that right now.
We were told, and I'd be interested in your view, that in every other province they have small copayments for drugs for people on social assistance and it doesn't create undue hardship and they have access to drugs. Do you have any experience talking to your colleagues in other provinces, or have you ever been in the other provinces?
Ms Lalonde: I've been in most of the other provinces, not about this specific issue, but I can certainly tell you that just because the social assistance programs that are provided in other provinces are inadequate, I don't think that's an excuse for us to have inadequate programs in Ontario.
Mr Young: You know that we have a $100-billion debt. We're spending $9 billion a year more than we take in, $1 million an hour in interest, and it's growing. Do you have any ideas where we can cut spending?
Ms Andrews: MPP pensions.
Ms Lalonde: My associate is suggesting MPP pensions.
Mr Young: We are doing that, by the way.
Ms Lalonde: That would have been my suggestion.
Mr Young: I agree and we are doing that.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies, for coming forward this morning. I appreciate your making a presentation to the committee.
0950
CHILD CARE ACTION NETWORK OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Child Care Action Network of Ottawa-Carleton come forward? Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain responses and questions from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you would take some time to introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Ms Anne-Marie René de Cotret: Hello. My name is Anne-Marie René de Cotret and I'm the spokesperson for CCAN. I'm a coordinator of a group care centre that has a toddler/pre-school program and I've been working in the child care field for over 20 years.
Ms Mary-Lou James: My name is Mary-Lou James and I'm also a spokesperson for CCAN. I'm involved in licensed home child care and am the director of a licensed home child care program. I've been involved in day care since the early 1970s as a municipal employee, when the Conservative government was in power. So I've seen a great many changes over the last 20 years.
Ms Nancy Campbell: I'm Nancy Campbell. I'm a member of CUPE, Local 2204, union of child care workers of eastern Ontario, and a member organization of the Child Care Action Network.
Ms Cynthia Magloughlin: My name is Cynthia Magloughlin. I'm a member of the steering committee of the Child Care Action Network. I'm a representative from the Ottawa-Carleton Child Care Association. I've also been involved in child care, both in group care and in parent resource centres, since the early 1970s.
Ms René de Cotret: CCAN encompasses the entire child care community here in Ottawa-Carleton. It includes representatives from nursery schools, Headstart programs, group care for infant, toddler and pre-school, before- and after-school care, both community- and school-based, licensed home child care, support service to both informal and formal child care providers and parents, as well as services which support the integration of children with special needs.
CCAN was formed to coordinate a lobby campaign and mobilize staff and parents to stop or minimize the proposed cuts and program changes that will weaken or destroy the child care system. We want to raise awareness in our community of the importance and economic viability of these child care services.
On behalf of our member organizations, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. We would like to especially thank the members of the opposition parties in ensuring that these public hearings took place. As representatives of a large and diverse group of people in Ottawa-Carleton, we are appalled that the provincial government could present a bill of this magnitude and power with little public consultation. We strongly object to the way the government has chosen to present and deliver this bill. Symptomatic of this approach is the government's approach to the review of the child care system in Ontario.
Our organization represents a community with a great deal of expertise in delivering child care services to the families of Ottawa-Carleton. CCAN wants to be consulted in the review process of child care that is headed by Ms Ecker. We believe it only makes common sense to use our organization as a resource in shaping and directing the child care policy.
The Ottawa-Carleton child care community has written hundreds of letters requesting that the government consult with the entire sector on child care, and to date we have not had one formal opportunity to meet or even to talk to Minister Tsubouchi or Ms Ecker on the review process. The non-profit sector that represents the vast majority of parents' preferences and experiences has not been given any opportunity to be heard.
A government should be a reflection of its people and the society that they live in. A cornerstone of a strong representative government should be the links that exist between those who govern and those who are governed. We believe that strong communication between these two groups will lead to a government that truly reflects the needs of its people.
Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, is a very confusing, complex and generally overwhelming piece of legislation. We will therefore only address certain sections of the bill that we believe apply to us and the effects that these changes will have on our various programs. The schedules that we are concerned with are the following.
Ms Campbell: I'll start with schedule J, the amendments to the Pay Equity Act. The Pay Equity Act proclaimed on January 1, 1988, recognized that wage discrimination for women would not be eliminated without direct government intervention. Although the original Pay Equity Act failed to provide a remedy for the all-female workplace, amendments were made in 1993 to provide two additional comparisons. The addition of the proxy provisions finally allowed us to feel that we were included in the right to fair and decent wages that were not based on our gender.
Bill 26 will eliminate these important pay equity provisions for child care staff and other low-paid women workers. The government, through legislation, forced employers to look at the wage gap. Once recognized, it is their responsibility to deal with it.
We would like to examine the issue of pay equity and to use some examples from CUPE 2204, one of the member organizations of CCAN, the union of child care workers of eastern Ontario. We represent over 200 staff employed in 12 different community-based child care programs. We are early childhood educators, cooks, cleaners, clerical and administrative staff, coordinators, home visitors, integration advisers, teachers and supervisors working in specialized pre-school settings.
To examine what the repeal of the proxy amendment means, we would like to take an example of the impact on child care staff working for community-based child care centres. These examples from our own local represent similar situations in our community and across the province, both unionized and non-unionized.
In one of our centres, unionized since 1991, the total pay equity adjustment for the teacher position was found to be $9.77 an hour. This means that the teachers would need an increase of $9.77 an hour to reach pay equity. In 1994 they received the first adjustment of 22 cents per hour. This amount represented 3% of that centre's payroll. A wage gap of $9.55 remains.
The Chair: Excuse me. Ladies and gentlemen in the room, I know it's a large room, but side conversations, when they get added together, become a dull roar. It's a little distracting for the presenters, so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep them down or maybe outside of the room just in deference to the presenter. Thank you. Sorry for the interruption.
Ms Campbell: In another recently organized centre, the total pay equity adjustment for an assistant teacher position was $10.97. Three per cent of payroll at that centre represents an increase of 29 cents per hour. A wage gap of $10.68 remains.
In yet another centre, unionized since 1978, the total pay equity adjustment for a teacher position was $3.48. Based on 3% of the 1993 payroll, 41 cents per hour was paid. A wage gap of $3.07 remains.
The repeal of the proxy value provisions of the Pay Equity Act eliminates any further obligation to close the wage gap. Pay equity will never be realized for child care staff. There is further confusion over whether we will even continue to receive the 3% after January 1, 1997, when the entire proxy amendment is gone. What does this say about the value of these jobs? This process was a long one for staff and for boards of directors, and took a major commitment from all involved to look at and evaluate jobs based on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
If the legislation were to remain in place, it would take years to achieve equity, but it is not just about getting more money; it's also about raising awareness concerning the importance and value of work performed by women. This is quite evident if one talks about child care and women's work. Society undervalues work performed by women; hence the wage gap.
We would also like to note that the latest StatsCan figures reported in December 1995 show that for every dollar earned by men last year, women earned only 70 cents.
1000
Another major concern for us is that not only will we be losing pay equity, but our wage grants are also threatened. In 1987, the provincial government, in recognition of our low wages, introduced a direct operating grant. This was a first step in enabling programs to attract and retain qualified staff while reducing the pressure on parent fees. In 1991, a wage enhancement grant of $2,000, later increased by $500, was added to the direct operating grant. This additional $2,500 was considered to be a down payment on pay equity. With the repeal of the proxy provision and the impending threat of losing the wage subsidy, a significant portion of our salaries is now threatened. With proxy pay equity gone, the province is now free to cut the wage subsidy grant. This represents over 20% of the salaries of child care staff.
We want to emphasize that all studies indicate that child care providers are the single most important determinant of quality child care. Wages and benefits for these workers must also be commensurate with the value of their work. Premier Harris and Minister Tsubouchi have stated their commitment to quality care in Ontario. What does quality care mean to this government?
Ms René de Cotret: To our member organizations, all children have a right to safe, stimulating and nurturing environments, whether at home, in child care centres or with home child care providers. Quality care matters very much and is especially important for children living in conditions of risk. What are the key components of good child care?
(1) The quality of the staff. They are trained and they are experienced.
(2) The stability of the staffing. We have low turnover.
(3) The group's size and child-staff ratio allow for individual attention as needed.
(4) The physical environment. It is safe, well lit, well ventilated. We have child-sized equipment, adequate space for all types of activities, significant equipment and supplies.
(5) We have nutritious food prepared by knowledgeable and experienced cooks.
(6) We are accountable both to our parents, financially, and to the public.
We are being told that Ontario cannot afford to provide this level of quality. However, professionals from many related fields have repeatedly supported our position that quality child care is vital to the health of our society and our economy. In the federal government's recent announcement of new public funding, Minister Axworthy stated, "Helping make sure children receive the quality care they need also promotes child development and contributes to the employability of the next generation."
The second schedule we want to address today is schedule M, the amendments to the Municipal Act. The child care community is already experiencing cuts from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The provincial government was elected on the platform that there would not be any downloading of the financial burden on to other levels of government. Already, 20% of the cost of the Jobs Ontario child care spaces has been downloaded to the individual municipalities. We have been directed to cut 2.1% from our child care budgets for 1996.
In addition, low-income working families are also facing a 20% to 100% increase on their minimum fees. These are the families in our community who qualify for a full subsidy. We also fear that the introduction of user fees will further impact on all of all budgets. Libraries, parks, skating rinks are just a few of the facilities our organizations utilize in our community.
New or higher fees for fire and health inspections as well as police reference checks are being implemented. Any additional pressures on our budgets will be required to be taken directly from the supplies and services we provide to the children.
This legislation is about saving money and restructuring. We are not afraid of restructuring and reforming services. We in the child care community have been working for the past 10 years to reform the delivery of child care. This legislation is not about that. It is about cutting government spending by over $6 billion and the downsizing of the public sector, it is about introducing user fees and other charges for numerous services previously supported out of local or provincial taxes, and it is about giving regulatory powers to provincial ministers. Bill 26 will have an enormous impact on the children and families and the staff who deliver this service.
We urge that this government listen to the people in the community who have knowledge and experience. It is irresponsible not to use the resources that have been offered and to recognize the value of our community institutions in improving people's lives.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. I want to pursue your comments on proxy pay equity. You'd be interested to know that the only mention we've had from government ministers to this committee on this issue was two lines in the statement by David Johnson, the Chair of Management Board, who said, "The Pay Equity Amendment Act, 1995, will put pay equity for public sector employers more in line with those in the private sector and return pay equity" -- this is the key thing -- "to its original principles."
One of the points the government members have continued to argue on this is that pay equity was never intended to cover and should never have been intended to cover women covered by the proxy pay equity. I continue to find this completely absurd, that the government would think it right that just because it isn't possible to do a direct comparison within the same workforce -- which is why we brought in proxy pay equity, and I know something about that, having been the minister responsible for pulling the government's actions together at the time. We knew that were about 100,000 women who were not covered by the original pay equity provisions who also happened to be, as you pointed out, among the lowest-paid women in the province. The gap that exists is still wide, and we know that even under the proxy pay equity provisions it would take a long time for people to reach equity, would take a number of years at the rate we were going.
But now what is happening is that they're just eliminating that completely. They're saying that even for the 3% they are putting in place as what will be there, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that even that 3% is going to be paid. If an employer wants to pay it, fine; if they don't want to pay it, there's precious little anybody can do about it.
I continue to be flabbergasted at the government's position on this. We've had amendments tabled this morning, as you know, on a number of areas relating mainly to municipalities and their powers to tax. I had hoped we would have seen some amendment dealing with this. Can you shed any more light on why it is that this government would find it logical to take out pay equity for those women who, one could argue, need it the most, who happen to be the lowest-paid women in the province? What's the sense in doing that?
Ms Campbell: I'm certainly not entirely sure, although obviously it's public money. I know public funding is absolutely critical to achieving equity for these women workers. The concern of the child care community is that because in some ways part of that wage enhancement grant was tied to pay equity, in order for them to eliminate that wage subsidy which is now given to child care staff, they needed to eliminate the proxy amendments. That is the concern we have, that there's some attachment to that, that it may be the reason.
Ms Magloughlin: In other words, not only the 3% is at risk but a far larger portion of staff salaries, which, remember, are in the range of $16,000 to $30,000 at the upper end. These are not high salaries by any means.
Mr Silipo: So you see very clearly the wage enhancement disappearing after the proxy pay equity provisions are rolled back?
Ms Magloughlin: That's one of our fears, and there's no indication otherwise.
Mr Silipo: Here in the Ottawa-Carleton area, as in the Metropolitan Toronto area, proposals have been made to the federal government or are being discussed with respect to changing the funding structure for child care. My understanding is that part of that obviously will require the provincial government, through the Minister of Community and Social Services, to agree to allow that flow-through of funds. Can you update us on where things are? Has Minister Tsubouchi given any indication that he's willing to let that happen?
Ms Campbell: We have no indication that anything is in the works. I should say that although Metro Toronto, I believe, does have a pilot project and is looking very seriously at accessing federal dollars, we're not quite at that place in Ottawa-Carleton yet.
1010
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Can you tell me, do you have a cap for assistance for child care in Ottawa-Carleton? Is there a cap on the amount of money you can make and still get assistance?
Ms Magloughlin: There's an upper limit, but the way the assistance is delivered at this point is that a lengthy review process is done looking at a person's income and expenses. When you reach a certain income level, no matter what your expenses, you would no longer be eligible for subsidy. It's based on what the family --
Mr Stewart: Can you tell me what that would be in Ottawa-Carleton?
Ms Magloughlin: No, I don't know offhand. I'd say maybe $60,000, but remember that assistance varies, so someone at the upper end might receive a very small amount of assistance.
Mr Stewart: The reason I ask is that in the area where I'm from I have a family with one child and their gross income is $62,500. They get an 80% subsidy. Do you people feel that is fair?
Ms Magloughlin: One of the elements we've looked at in child care reform is to move from this cumbersome process of assessment to an income basis so that there'd be fees set depending on what your family income is. Then, if you choose to spend that income frugally and save, that's your business; if you spend it by having a higher mortgage and car payments and that sort of thing, that's also your business. Regardless of what your income is, you would have a certain fee.
Mr Stewart: I guess that's my concern. We've got to go back to what we're talking about on Bill 26: the ability to pay. That is probably the greatest factor there is. It is my understanding that day care originally was for those low-income people, and the unfortunate thing now is that there are so many high-income people getting day care subsidies, there are not spaces available for the low. Would you agree with that?
Ms Magloughlin: No, I wouldn't. In fact, 50% of families using licensed child care spaces in Ontario are full-fee-paying families. I feel that mostly the high-income families are paying the full fees.
Mr Stewart: But they're getting subsidized as well because of the wage enhancement. Everybody using day care today is getting a type of subsidy because of the government. That's where some of us are coming from, that you just can't continually pay; we've got to start looking at the ability.
The other thing I'm concerned about in your presentation is that it tends to be zeroed in very heavily on the wage factor. If we're dealing with children and day care, our primary concern should be the children themselves, whether they be in a public facility or a private facility. As you know, under the plan the Conservative government presented in the election, we were going to look at private day care. For many of us around this table, long before day care as we know it now arose, we used private and it worked very well. The problem we have is that I hear people say no, it's no good at all. I'll give you a story, for instance --
The Chair: Mr Stewart, I'm sorry, I'm unable to let you tell your story. We have to move to the opposition's time.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate your presentation. As we look ahead at the kind of Ontario this government wants, I gather the "Save Al Leach" amendments we saw today are going to, though it's not clear, restrict the gas taxes that may be put on municipalities. Make no mistake about it, many municipalities expected that. Now they're going to have to put more on to fees, no question of that. Municipalities were promised, in return for a dramatic cut in their money from the province, that they would be able to make up, through fees, the lost revenue.
And make no mistake about where the fees will be. In fact, the famous Al Leach, when he was before the committee, said -- and I want you to listen carefully to this because it indicates the government's approach -- "I was very encouraged to hear that the mayor plans to seek corporate donors to sponsor such activities as library use, swimming in public pools for underprivileged children. Statements like this convince me that our trust is not misplaced." That's the kind of Ontario the government obviously is looking forward to, where young people who do not have the financial resources somehow or other have to get what amounts to charity; they have to find a corporate sponsor to use the library. I wonder if your organization would care to comment on that as the model of the future caring, compassionate Ontario we're going to see.
Ms Magloughlin: I am personally very frightened for the children of Ontario, for my own children and for low-income families. I was explaining to my daughter this morning on the way to school that she may have to pay a fee to use the library. We are a low-income family -- I'm a single parent -- and I know she feels extremely reluctant to have me ask for subsidies in any way so she can participate as her classmates do. The thought of her having to get a subsidy to use the library and swimming pools and that sort of thing is just horrifying to me, humiliating to her. I don't know if that answers your question.
Mr Phillips: Yes. The purpose of this bill is to allow the government to implement its Common Sense Revolution. A cornerstone of that is that they are going to cut $8 billion out of the spending, 25% of the spending. They say it's to fight the deficit, but $5 billion of that $8 billion goes to a personal income tax break, and $2 billion of that $5 billion goes to people earning $85,000 or more. I wonder how your organization feels about this "deficit fight" we're all in when you know that for every $8 they cut from you, $5 of that goes to fund a tax break, where the more you make the bigger it is, and the ones who really benefit -- if you're making $85,000 or more, you're going to get a large chunk of that. Is that something you are able to easily explain to people when you're being cut?
Ms Magloughlin: My understanding is that fuller employment in this province is one of the things that will ease the recession we seem to have been perpetually in for quite a long time. Our feeling is that an enhanced child care system, an expansion of the child care system, will support people working or receiving training so that they're able to work. I don't see at all the logic behind threatening the child care system and therefore allowing fewer people to find work.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this morning.
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
The Chair: Will the representatives from the Ottawa board of trade come forward. Welcome, gentlemen. You have half an hour to make your presentation which you may use as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time to entertain response and questions from the three caucuses. Please introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Howard Williamson: My name is Howard Williamson. I'm the chairman, of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade. With me is Willy Bagnell, who is the president. Our organization has more than 650 business groups in the region and more than 1,100 individual members of the board of trade.
We're very pleased to be here this morning to spend a few minutes with you. I don't think we'll be taking up a great deal of your time. A lot of what you will hear from us is what you've heard from other boards of trade across the province. What I'd like to do is go through a couple of key points and then turn it over to Willy Bagnell, who's had some more time to go through the actual bill itself.
In general, the board of trade supports the initiatives set out in the bill; for example, public sector salary disclosures, the innovative tax credit of 10% concerning scientific research and experimentation done in Ontario. However, it's probably no surprise to you that we have some concern about giving municipalities and local boards broad powers to impose fees or charges in services or activities. I understand there has been something tabled this morning which deals with that. That being said, I'd like to turn it over to Willy just again to reinforce to you the position of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade.
1020
Mr Willy Bagnell: There's no question in our mind that the introduction of an omnibus bill to the Legislature at Queen's Park is not new to governments. We've all seen the media coverage of this outlining what the previous two governments have introduced, and I'm sure many governments before that.
Bill 26 puts forward many different changes which will streamline government operations in the province and assist Ontario in returning to the role it played for many years as Canada's economic engine. We know that fiscal prudence is fundamental to achieving this goal. The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade has been a vocal proponent of balanced budgets for the public sector for many years. We have been calling on Queen's Park to balance the budget and eliminate deficits for too long. We believe, like any business, managing public finances to break even, or profitability, is long overdue.
We are concerned about one aspect of Bill 26 which we understand has been for the most part tabled this morning, but I would like to review a couple of our notes. We do not believe that giving potential taxing and levying authority to municipal governments is a good idea. We do not want an escape. We want taxes maintained or lowered in the province so that business can compete, hire more people and add to the wealth of the province. I believe the amendment this morning covers a great deal of that, and we thank the government and the members of the committee for listening to the public.
Just as an example here, what has been going on while you have been travelling around the province listening to the input, the bureaucracy at regional government headquarters has been investigating ways to find a way to levy a gasoline tax and a special licence fee on automobile users in Ottawa-Carleton, which should substantially make our business community less competitive than anywhere else in the province. So we're happy to hear that can't happen, and I'm sure most of you are too.
If there's any indication that this principle of pay-as-you-go is going to work forward, then we're going to support it as a board of trade or the chamber of commerce or metropolitan Ottawa. We believe that this clarification this morning is a positive step and we support the government's move to balance the budget and eliminate Ontario's $99-billion debt. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. That leaves plenty of time for questions. We have about seven minutes per caucus for questions, maybe eight. We'll start off with the government caucus.
Mr Sampson: Thank you for coming this morning. I find your comment about the gas tax rather interesting. I don't see the date here, but I think it's this morning's paper. Did you have a chance to read what the federal finance committee is recommending to the Minister of Finance here in Ottawa with respect to gas taxes?
Mr Bagnell: I think both Howard and I were still reeling from the opening of the Palladium last night, which was a monumental economic event in our community.
Mr Sampson: I'm happy to hear the Palladium opened. I'm sorry that you didn't have a goal last night but I'm sure they'll be working on that in future nights.
Mr Bagnell: We tried everything we could.
Mr Sampson: I'm going to suggest to my colleagues across the floor that they might want to take a few minutes in our break to tippy-toe across the street and ask the Minister of Finance whether he's prepared to accept the recommendation that they jack the gasoline tax up in this country by half a billion dollars.
Interjection: There's only one taxpayer.
Mr Sampson: This is of course coming from a party that for the last two weeks has been telling us that gas tax is a no-no. We'll have to see whether or not they're prepared to support their kissing cousins up here in Ottawa.
I want to ask you, though -- the thrust of the bill that we've laid in front of the people of Ontario is basically an attempt to try to move governance responsibility and authority for the spending and the raising of money as much as possible to the local level, because it's our view that's the level that is better able to respond to the local needs and concerns and issues of the citizens in the area. Do you have any problem with that thrust? Does it sort of fit with the chamber of commerce's view of life?
Mr Bagnell: I think the concept of local people in local businesses and taxpayers controlling their destiny is a good one. But until we straighten out the fact that we have more elected representatives in Ottawa-Carleton than you do at Queen's Park to govern the province, I think we would be a little wary of dealing with that. We have two tiers of government here that we've been dealing with for a long time and the board of trade has long been a proponent of streamlining inefficiencies. So in principle, obviously local control of government is a good thing, but we have a number of other pieces of baggage on our cart right now that need to be straightened out before we divest ourselves.
Mr Sampson: With respect to the delivery of services, for instance, do you not agree that it would be better and far more efficient to have the person responsible for the delivery of services also be the person or the body responsible collecting the money to pay for that service? Does that not make sense to you? Is that something you would buy off on?
Mr Williamson: I refer back to the principle the board of trade has, which is that we're concerned about the cost of doing business. If what it takes to reduce that cost is for transfers to be cut and that forces local municipalities and the governments to streamline their business and what they're into and define what their core business is, we're in favour of that. At the end of the day, what the board of trade wants to see is less government, less government intrusion into the business community and a lower cost of doing business. I guess when we look at it from our side, and from my experience, I have found that if you give government organizations the ability to tax and to impose user fees, they will do that. That is our great concern, because if the whole principle now in the province of Ontario is to cut the cost of government, then we feel this is an appropriate way to do that.
Mr Sampson: We've heard in one of the locations we were at -- I may have lost track of time here but I think it was last week -- "You know, right now we can only charge $20 to license a restaurant but it costs me" -- I think the number was $250.
Mr Phillips: Five hundred.
Mr Sampson: Well, $250, $500. He'll --
Mr Gerretsen: No, he said $500.
Mr Sampson: Whatever the number was, $250 to $500. I'm not too sure he really knew what the total cost was to license a restaurant, which might be another problem.
But if it does cost $500 to license a restaurant, what would be the chamber's view of giving the municipality authority to charge the $500 to pay for the cost? Otherwise, presumably somebody else is paying for that cost: the local hardware store or the local grocery store or the local taxpayer who never goes in the restaurant. Does it not make sense to be able to say to the restaurant: "Well, you're using $250 or $500 of municipal services. That's what it costs. That's what you're going to pay"?
Mr Williamson: I think there are two issues here. The first position the board would take would be to ask why it's costing that much to do the job in the first place. That's a legitimate issue, and I think we would have to take a look and see why it costs that much, and if it does cost that much, then they have to find out why it's costing so much and reduce the cost.
Mr Sampson: Right, but the neat feature of this is that the restaurateur is going to say: "What do you mean, it costs $250 or $500 to issue a licence? What's going on here?" In fact, that may encourage the municipality to say, "Well, we have seven people who have to sign off on this one document," and of course the dialogue may encourage that seven to go to a much more reasonable number. But if you don't focus on the C in the class you'll never solve the problem, and the problem, we've all realized, is that governments have been spending with not a terribly strong recognition of where the money's coming from and whom they should be accountable to.
Mr Bagnell: I don't think we can speak on behalf of other jurisdictions, but in Ottawa-Carleton the fear that the business community has is very much that if that type of authority is given, the accountability for balancing the budget will be circumspect, because they won't ever lower anything, they won't ever look for efficiencies; they'll just keep raising and coming up with new ways of charging more levies, more fees and higher taxes.
Presently, we in Ontario have lost our position as Canada's number one economic engine and we want it back. We think the way to do that is to balance the budget and lower taxes and get the economy moving again by letting the private sector create employment. When you start talking about the real cost, it's just like the real cost of delivering public transportation. In the private sector we've proven time and time again, in many models in the United States and Europe, that the private sector can deliver the same service at much-reduced rates and a higher quality. We hope some day that message will get through.
1030
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I assume that the board of trade agrees with the way the bill was introduced in the House, with no consultation and also preventing you people from having a say in this bill. Now, today you're saying that you do approve of Bill 26 but your biggest concerns are user fees, licence fees and levies, and you trust that the local governments, if they're given this power -- and they will be given this power to raise licence fees and levies and use all kinds of user fees. On page 2 of your brief you say that you're a little concerned about this power given to municipal governments. You trust them, but you don't trust them. They will use these user fees as a tax.
As a follow-up, I don't know if you're aware of subclause 257.2(2)(f)(i) of the act, which says, "requiring the payment of licence fees, which may be in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred by the licence or for the purpose of raising revenue." Are you in favour of this?
Mr Williamson: Let me just take a step back. I'm not sure, on the second point of your question. The first issue, on how the bill was introduced, we're here to discuss business issues, not political issues. All I can say is that I think the fact that we're here today is due to the fact that the opposition responded the way they did and we now have hearings across the province. I think that's excellent, but to me it also proves that democracy does work.
The second part --
Mr Phillips: They just said it wasn't democratic.
Mr Williamson: We're here saying that we do not favour those powers being given to local municipalities. I wasn't clear on what your point was there, Ben. Sorry.
Mr Grandmaître: As you know, this bill will allow municipalities to raise levies and licence fees and so on and so forth. You're saying that the municipal government shouldn't have this power and that it should be taken out of this bill. Is this the message?
Mr Williamson: Yes, that's correct. It was our assumption this morning that there's been an amendment made that this is taking place.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, no. This amendment that was tabled this morning doesn't prove anything. It could be challenged. Have you spoken to Peter Clarke about your difference with Peter Clarke about imposing a one-cent tax per litre and also a dollar on rooms? What are your thoughts about that? Have you spoken to Peter Clarke about this?
Mr Bagnell: No, but we did speak to a great deal of our membership, who pay our fees. As you're aware, Ben, we're not funded by regional government; we are completely funded by our membership.
Mr Grandmaître: I realize that.
Mr Bagnell: We respond to their needs. Our membership has had an overwhelming response of support to this position.
The Chair: Mr Patten and then Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Patten: Thank you for your comments. I'd like to zero in on the aspect of your last statement, which was, "We believe that the present level of authority for our local officials is more than sufficient for them to govern the municipalities and cities of the province." Earlier on you expressed your worry, and Ian Cunningham from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce made a similar point: the real worry about the taxing authority that municipalities will have now and the broad base of what that may mean; also, of course, what that may mean for business, the authorities of the municipalities to raise revenues related to business. That's the basic thrust of your message, is it not? So do you suggest that the authorities for that kind of taxation be rescinded from the legislation?
Mr Bagnell: I think at the outset Howard said very convincingly that our position was put forward that we don't want the municipal governments to have any more authority to levy taxes, fees. You can call them what you want; to us they're taxes and that's the way the business guy looks at them. When you code it in your general ledger it goes to taxes, whether you like it or not. We don't want the municipal governments to have any more authority to do that. Having just briefly read the amendments that were put forward this morning, I think that accomplishes that. Now, of course, neither of us are lawyers, and if you put two of them in a room, they can have two different opinions.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Gentlemen, I have a question concerning restructuring local government. As you know, there are provisions in the bill which give the province the authority to restructure by cabinet order. There is an amendment which basically says that any one municipality can request that and set that process in train.
My question to you is, are you prepared to live with the power resting in the hands of the government simply to pass a cabinet order restructuring Ottawa-Carleton? They may consult with you; they may not consult with you. They may consult with the local municipalities; they may not consult with the local municipalities. It's at their discretion. But they have the ultimate authority to pass an order restructuring the government in Ottawa-Carleton. Do you feel comfortable with that in the bill?
Mr Williamson: To answer your question, that issue's been discussed at great length already in the region over the last number of years. We feel very strongly that reform needs to take place. I don't see any reason to think that it won't take place and that one municipality won't recommend that. It's my understanding now that the province has that authority. Is that not correct?
Mr Grandmaître: No.
Mr Williamson: What authority do they have at the present time?
Mr Chiarelli: They have to pass a bill.
Mr Grandmaître: That's right. They need a bill from their local municipality.
Mr Bagnell: So for all intents and purposes what we're saying here is that they're passing the bill now as opposed to waiting two or three years to say, "We're going to restructure government in Ottawa-Carleton"; put the Legislature and the government through far more costs in the process to do the same thing that we could accomplish now.
Mr Chiarelli: No. What they're saying --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Chiarelli. We're into the third party's time. I apologize for interrupting. Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you for the presentation. I just want to be clear about your position in a couple of areas. First of all I just wanted to point out, you said you were in support of a couple of areas I think dealing with amendments to the Corporations Tax Act and other provisions, which I'm happy you are because those were in fact provisions that we brought in under the previous government and which now are being enacted, and we certainly support those parts of it as well.
Your basic bottom line is, if I have understood it correctly, that you don't believe there should be any more powers given to municipalities than exist today to impose any additional user fees, taxes -- as you said, "Call them what they will, they're all taxes" to you. Have I got that right?
Mr Williamson: That's correct.
Mr Silipo: In fairness to the government, despite our criticism of the way in which they've done this, it's clear that the amendments they've presented us with today appease some of the concerns you would have if they were to allow municipalities to impose additional user fees or taxes. I would urge you to take a good look at them because, I would say to you, as I take a first read at them, they don't allay all of your fears.
I don't want to raise things that may not be there, but I'm not sure for example -- it's clear to me that they're saying municipalities can't impose income taxes. I think it's clear that they're saying municipalities can't impose poll taxes. I'm not as clear about the gas tax. I'm serious about that; I don't know if that's the intent. If that is, I hope that gets dealt with, because I'm genuine about that. When I read the amendments here I'm not sure that "property or service" is how I would describe gas, and I think there's just a problem with that. But if the intent of the government is to say municipalities can't impose gas taxes, then wonderful. That's something that obviously we've been saying needs to be there.
When it comes to licence fees, I think again what's in here is useful in the sense that they are limiting the application of licensing fees somewhat in terms of saying it can't be in the way of a direct tax, as the present wording suggests. All of that is useful.
1040
There are a number of other areas in the bill that give municipalities broader powers to apply user fees. So I guess my question to you would be this: If in fact your position is, as it clearly is, that no additional powers should be given to municipalities, why do we need at all, do you believe, any of the provisions that are in this bill that relate to user fees or taxes of any kind? Why do we need to have any legislative change if what you're saying we should do is just basically, with respect to taxes at the municipal level, maintain the status quo? Do you think there's any need for any changes to the legislation?
Mr Williamson: Again, the amendments that you discussed this morning we saw for two minutes. The only comment I can make as far as whether it has appeased our concerns is that it seems to be moving in the direction we were recommending. Beyond that, I can't tell you whether we're completely satisfied with what has taken place. That needs, as you say, a more clear understanding of what it is that they have on the table. Our position has been that there should be no additional allowances for user fees and permits.
Mr Silipo: So you would certainly support any move that would be required to essentially leave the taxing powers for municipalities and the powers of municipalities to levy user fees at what they are currently.
Mr Williamson: That's correct.
Mr Silipo: I think that's quite useful for us to be clear about. The only other area I want to pursue, and it's really by way of comment, although I would certainly welcome your reaction to it, is when you say that other governments have also brought in omnibus bills. That's true, that's happened, but I certainly don't recall in my time in the Legislature any other bill that sought to have as many significant changes as this one and, at the same time, particularly to do that with little or no public debate as was the intent originally of the government. I think that's the other significant change.
Certainly Bill 175 is one that the government members like to continue to raise. That was not a bill that had a lot of significant changes in it. There was a lot more housekeeping to it, and in discussions with the opposition at the time, the bill went over from one legislative session to another in order to give people a chance to take a look at it and deal with it properly. I just wanted to make that point to you as well.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forth this morning to make your presentation to the committee.
ONTARIO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Ontario Restaurant Association come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to receive questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if, at the beginning of your presentation, you took some time to introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Paul Oliver: Good morning. The Ontario Restaurant Association welcomes the opportunity to present the views of the restaurant and foodservice industry on Bill 26. I am Paul Oliver, president of the ORA, and I'm joined this morning by Phil Waserman, a local restaurateur and immediate past chair of the association. In the submission which has been handed out, background on both the association and our views on Bill 26 are outlined in detail.
I would draw your attention to appendices A and B, which contain detailed proposed amendments to Bill 26. Appendix A contains a series of standalone amendments and B contains a comprehensive amendment. We have had these drafted to assist the committee in bringing the required clarity to this legislation, which is needed so that the wording reflects what the government says can and can't be done as a result of this legislation.
Rather than read our submission to you, we felt it would be more productive to simply highlight a few of our views and hopefully leave adequate time for questions and answers.
The Ontario Restaurant Association recognizes and supports in principle the purpose of Bill 26, that is, to achieve fiscal savings, to promote public sector restructuring and to facilitate economic prosperity.
While supporting the objectives of Bill 26, the ORA has serious concerns about the new powers that will be granted to municipalities under Bill 26 by way of changes to the Municipal Act. These changes will dramatically enhance the licensing, regulatory and direct taxation powers of Ontario's municipalities to the detriment of consumers and small business.
The ORA believes that these changes do not reflect the guiding principles of the Progressive Conservative Party as embodied in the Common Sense Revolution and Mike Harris's small business task force report. As well, we feel that these amendments to the Municipal Act are not in keeping with the overwhelming purpose of Bill 26, that of creating economic prosperity.
The specific concerns of the restaurant and foodservice industry focus on sections 220.1, 257.2 and 257.7. These legislative sections, when combined, represent a major and fundamental departure from previous municipal powers and responsibilities. Our concerns focus on how the new powers granted to municipal government will impact and limit the operating abilities of small business throughout Ontario.
In particular we are concerned that Bill 26 creates an environment in which even competing businesses could have different rules and different regulations, which in turn will distort fair competition and create an unlevel operating environment.
The ORA is also very concerned about the possibility that municipal governments will utilize new powers granted under Bill 26 to implement indirect sales taxes which detrimentally impact consumers and will inhibit the economic prosperity which is the objective of this legislation.
I will ask Phil to discuss our concerns regarding changes to the municipal licensing powers.
Mr Phil Waserman: In terms of municipal licensing powers, this issue is not new. Much of what is being discussed today was already debated in December 1994 when the previous government of Ontario passed Bill 198.
Bill 198 granted municipalities the power to impose conditions on a business licence, to include revoking, suspending or imposing special conditions on the business licence of an individual operation. This included limiting the hours of operation for individual establishments. These powers, which are currently part of the Ontario Municipal Act, have a number of important constraints placed on when and how they are exercised.
Municipal governments could only impose conditions on individual businesses if the business operator is found not to be operating with honesty and integrity or according to the law. This principle is abandoned under Bill 26. As well, in the present Municipal Act the exercising of these powers requires a hearing as well as providing for an appeals process. This principle is also abandoned under Bill 26.
The ORA participated in the standing committee hearings on Bill 198. At the time all three political parties supported the existing Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 198, that required a hearing before a special individual condition is imposed on a business operator as well as the requirement that honesty and integrity be a determining factor.
Bill 26 removes both the hearing and the appeal process and does not place meaningful limits on how or when a municipality can impose special conditions on an individual business's licence. We believe this new regulatory power creates the potential for a massive proliferation of regulatory red tape and the enactment of unfair and unequal competition.
The ORA believes that the exercising of special conditions on individual businesses should continue to be based on honesty and integrity. This is the only way in which uniformity and a level playing field across the province can be achieved.
Under the proposed changes in Bill 26 a municipality could impose a special condition on a licence, limiting its operation to between certain hours on certain days of the week. We believe this is unnecessary and very dangerous, as municipalities will not be required to justify their actions. The very idea that the Bay department store could have a different closing hour imposed on it that its competition over at Eaton's is inconceivable but possible under existing wording.
This uncontrolled power could also be used as a supplement to zoning powers or changing political desires. By effectively eliminating the grandfathering provisions required in municipal zoning, the uncertainly created for small businesses will have a profound and fundamental impact on small business financing.
It is important to remember that during hearings on Bill 198, all three political parties, including the Progressive Conservative Party, expressed concerns with Bill 198. Specifically, Conservative and Liberal caucus members objected to the broad powers given to municipalities to issue, suspend, revoke or impose conditions on an individual business licence, as the circumstances under which this power could be used were not specific enough.
The ORA was therefore surprised to see Bill 26 abandon the controls placed on the implementation of limiting conditions on individual licences. We hope and believe that this must be a technical drafting problem which needs to be addressed. We have proposed an appendix A and appendix B that require changes to ensure the balance presently contained in the Municipal Act is maintained. Without this amendment, the uncertainty and red tape created by these provisions will be overwhelming to small business.
Mr Oliver: Much discussion has taken place regarding the potential for municipal governments to impose direct sales taxes or direct consumption taxes on consumers. The ORA agrees, especially in light of amendments this morning, with the view put forward by Ministry of Municipal Affairs officials that it is unlikely that a municipal government could effectively impose a direct sales tax under section 220.1.
This does not mean that a consumption-based fee could not be imposed on consumers. Other provisions contained in Bill 26 would allow for a consumption tax or a consumption fee which would have the same impact on consumers as a direct sales tax. From our perspective, if it walks like a sales tax, if it looks like a sales tax and if it impacts like a sales tax, then consumers will see it and treat it as a sales tax.
Bill 26 creates two mechanisms by which an indirect tax could be developed and imposed. It is our view that the indirect tax mechanisms would be constitutionally defendable and would sustain a judicial challenge.
Under section 220.1 a municipality may pass bylaws imposing fees or changes on any class of persons "for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it." This section also provides for charges or fees that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue.
1050
Potentially, under this section of Bill 26, a municipality such as Metro Toronto or Ottawa-Carleton could impose a fee charge of 1% or 2% of gross sales on hotels, restaurants, retail and other tourism-related activities which would be justified as paying for services provided by the municipality to market or promote tourism and convention business.
The net impact of this initiative would be to add 1% or 2% of the cost paid by consumers, regardless of whether they were tourists or not. The effect would be similar to that of a municipal sales tax being imposed on consumers, but it would be defensible because it would be treated as a direct fee, and thus constitutionally valid.
The ORA feels that when section 220.1 was drafted, it was intended only to apply to direct services received by a person or a business, such as garbage collection, and not to be applicable to a fee for an allocation of blanket funding for abstract services such as marketing. As such, the ORA would urge this committee to amend this section of the legislation by clarifying that fees for services must only apply to services directly received by an individual or a business.
The other and more important area for an indirect consumption charge is under section 257.2, in which local municipalities are given the power to pass bylaws for licensing, regulating and governing any business carried on within the municipality. As part of this structure, municipalities can charge licence fees "for the privilege conferred by the licence or for the purpose of raising revenue." I understand that the "for the purpose of raising revenue" was deleted today; however, we still believe that the principle can stand.
These changes are significant and profound in that current licensing fees are limited to reflect the licensing cost, and not "for the purpose of raising revenue." As well, existing wording refers to a singular -- "the fee" -- while Bill 26 makes reference to "licence fees" in the plural. These changes, while minor in appearances, are profound in impact.
These amendments mean that licensing fees no longer have to be tied to the cost of licensing or regulating a business but can be solely developed to raise revenue. As well, the change to make fees plural creates the potential, and this is most important, for a variable or volumetric fee structure, such as a licence fee being applied or tied to a percentage of gross sales by a business.
Potentially, under section 257.2, a municipality could establish that a licensing fee for a restaurant is a variable fee in an amount equal to 1% of gross sales. In effect, this would amount to nothing more and nothing less than a consumption-based sales tax. This same principle could apply, in our view, to gasoline taxes.
It is our view that the indirect/direct tax scenario just outlined would be constitutionally valid under section 92(2), (9), (13) and (16) of the Constitution Act of Canada if implemented as part of a valid licensing structure. Technically and legally, this type of fee structure or licensing cost would not be a sales tax, but since it would be volume-based, the impact on consumers none the less would be the same as if it were a sales tax.
The ORA believes that this type of variable fee or consumption-based fee would be legally defendable because it would be considered "in the nature of a direct tax" on the merchant and, as such, would be sustainable under section 92 of the Constitution Act.
Legal precedents would substantiate this view. The ORA would draw the committee's attention to the Supreme Court ruling in Allard Contractors v District of Coquitlam and four other applicants. In the Allard case, the issue of whether a variable or volume-based fee was a direct or indirect fee or tax was examined. In this case, the district imposed a volume-based licensing fee on the removal of gravel. Allard argued that the variable licensing fee was an indirect tax on the consumers of gravel because it was reasonable to expect that licensing costs per tonne would be passed on to consumers.
The Supreme Court found that this type of volumetric charge or tax was valid under section 92 of the Constitution Act because it was ancillary or adhesive to a valid licensing regulatory structure. The Supreme Court ruling could be interpreted to justify the implementation of a volumetric licensing fee being implemented under Bill 26 amendments to the Ontario Municipal Act.
It is interesting also to note that the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General at the time, as well as the ministries from three other provinces, sought intervenor status in the Supreme Court case to support the argument that the province and, in turn, the municipality did in fact have the licensing powers to implement volume-based fees under the Constitution Act.
In conclusion, to recap, the Ontario Restaurant Association is very concerned about the new and unrestricted licensing and regulatory powers as well as the power to implement consumption-based taxes and charges that would have the same functional impact as a sales tax. It is our view that the potential outcomes were never intended by the government of Ontario. Unfortunately, existing wording contained in Bill 26 would enable these undesirable impacts.
I am certain that the government could bring forward more legal views or other opinions as to how these provisions of the Municipal Act could be or would be or may be interpreted by the courts. But the reality is that you are the legislators as well as the creators of the law. It is your responsibility to ensure that new legislation is crystal clear and that there is no potential for misinterpretation. We should not rely on guessing how the courts will interpret this legislation, just as it is unrealistic to create a legislative structure which is premised on an ad hoc ministerial intervention through regulation.
Bill 26 creates the potential for judicial misinterpretation. To avoid these misconceptions or misunderstandings, the Ontario Restaurant Association strongly urges this committee to introduce the required amendments so as to bring clarity to this legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We have a little more than four minutes per caucus for questions. We start off with the opposition caucus.
Mr Gerretsen: Let's make no mistake about it. This was the deal. I'm a former municipal politician and I know that municipalities for years have been asking for more powers. The deal is that the province wasn't going to give them as much money as in the past, they were going to be cut off by about 50% from provincial grants over two years, but they were going to get more powers. All municipalities want it, AMO wants it, just about every municipality we've heard of wants it.
It's all right for the government to say, "Our amendments now don't exactly do this, because people are against gas taxes, they're against income taxes, they're against sales taxes." The bottom line is that municipalities are going to have more powers and they will need them in order to supplement the income that they're losing from the province.
They only have two choices: either a reduction in services or they're going to find new ways through fees, licences or whatever they can think of that this act will give them to make up for the shortfall in revenue that they're getting from the province, and I think that's the basic premise of your presentation.
We can get into all sorts of legal opinions here as to their lawyers are saying this and our lawyers are saying that. The municipalities love this because they are going to get more powers. Do you have any comments on this at all, sir?
Mr Oliver: We would strongly urge this committee to close those loopholes or those potentials for a massive tax grab, tax increase, at the municipal level, because we would see some of the fee increases, some of the direct cost allocation, things like that, as nothing more and nothing less than a tax increase.
Mr Gerretsen: But you realize, of course, the municipalities would like that because they want these powers.
Mr Oliver: We would rather see the municipalities be faced with the issue of having to restructure and get cost savings out of restructuring rather than just passing it -- it's all one taxpayer out there.
Mr Gerretsen: Exactly.
Mr Grandmaître: You're absolutely right. Members of the government reminded us this morning that there's only one taxpayer in the province of Ontario. What the government is trying to do is cover up for the lack of transfer payments to municipal governments and blame the municipal politicians, municipal government.
This will force automatically amalgamation in Ottawa-Carleton, because some of our municipalities, as you know, can't afford to go on the way we've been governing in Ottawa-Carleton. So now the provincial government has the power to amalgamate and to restructure Ottawa-Carleton without your benefit, without your being consulted.
That's the power the government wants. It wants to restructure not only the GTA area but our 13 regional governments in the province of Ontario and download the power of taxation to local governments and also to downsize local government. I don't think you people will be winners in the long run once this bill is in effect, because municipalities will not use that power wisely; they will use it for their benefit.
Mr Oliver: One of our big concerns is that the current constraints placed on municipalities in exercising licensing powers, which were supported by all three political parties at Queen's Park on Bill 198, are being eliminated in here. Part of that was the appeals process, the hearing process. The things that the previous government ensured were in that legislation to protect small business operators from having arbitrary action are real concerns.
This could override zoning. Zoning says you grandfather existing practices. Under this, all you say is, if we want to move this commercial business, we can't under the zoning act, so we'll put such onerous conditions on it that it'll go out of business and we'll say we're never going to issue a licence for a department store or a restaurant or any type of business that we don't want there in the future.
For the small business operator, their appeal is to go to the court, but if they're already out of business, there's no sense in doing that. Previously, it had to be honesty, integrity, and there had to be a hearing before those were implemented.
1100
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation and also for having gone to the trouble of presenting us with amendments. I think it will be useful for us to go through them and to see how we can use the specific amendments.
If I have understood you -- and I just want to make sure that I have on one of the basic points that you make, because I think you made two or three key ones -- one in particular that I want to make sure I've understood is that with respect to the application of what I guess you call at the end of the day a sales tax, whatever it happens to be called here, your concern is that even with the amendments the government has suggested, it would still be possible for municipalities to apply what in effect would be a sales tax, based on the volume that a particular restaurant would do in business. Have I got it right?
Mr Oliver: Yes. We only received these shortly before our presentation. We've had a chance to go through them, speculating as to what some of the changes may be. The changes relative to section 257 say that in setting the amount of the fee charged for a licence the council shall take into account the cost of administering it. But a large construction case said that it doesn't really matter whether it's a direct fee or cost relative to actually going in and inspecting, in this case, the gravel pit, because the municipality in that case came forward to the Supreme Court and said: "We have to build roads, we have to maintain roads, we have to do this. The roads are being used by the gravel trucks. Roads are being used by tourists to come to hotels and restaurants, things like that." The court isn't specific on that.
We don't think that the amendments that have been introduced address those tightly enough to prevent that type of consumption tax. Some of the amendments we've proposed we think would tighten it down to ensure that those types of volumetric licensing fees are not imposed, and that's going back actually to what's in the legislation now that talks about a singular fee.
There was a comment earlier, and I can't remember from whom -- they were talking about if a municipality came forward and said it wanted to charge a $500 fee for licensing a restaurant, then the restaurant could say, "How did you come to that?" Under the current legislation there's no mechanism for them to ask for or demand or expect from the municipality information on how that fee is arrived at.
One of our amendments says that if someone is impacted by a licensing fee or a charge, they have the right to ask for, in writing, how that fee is arrived at. Those are the types of information that we want to see for our operators, so that if Guelph decides to impose a $500 licensing for restaurants, we want to know whether it's a realistic fee. Now if they imposed it and we went to them and they said, "Pay it or don't operate in our town," we're left with having to pay it. It doesn't force the restructuring that the government wants to talk about. If you want to force the restructuring, you get as much information out about these new fees as possible.
Mr Silipo: Certainly the licensing fees, in your view, would have to not, as the amendment here from the government suggests, simply take into account the costs of administering or enforcing business licensing bylaws, but, I would presume from what you're saying, be limited to the costs of administering.
Mr Oliver: Yes. We would actually change the government's amendment from "shall take" to "must take into account," and then we would also go back to the singular fee, because we don't want to have these volumetric fees which are allowed under a plural system. The government says that it isn't the intention to have volumetric fees. We say that you've got to bring the clarity to it to make sure that's very clear, because you've changed the wording from what's in the legislation now to what will be there in the future.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for your presentation. First of all, I want to thank you for the comment. You suggested that it was not the government's intent, earlier in your presentation, to tax gasoline and to allow income tax and so forth. I want to point out that the minister made that exact comment when this committee work started almost three weeks ago, that that was not his intent and if that was the way some would interpret it, he would be prepared to make amendments that would clarify the situation; not that legal opinion would allow the charging, but to make sure that we did not end up in court by some thinking that we could and some thinking that you couldn't.
I want to go, first of all, to the issue of licensing and the ability to charge cost recovery on licensing. Your position is that it should be clarified even more that it is in fact that, total cost recovery, but your association is in agreement with the mayor of Guelph, who suggested that if it cost a municipality $500 to issue a licence and to maintain that licence for a restaurant, the fee for that licence should be allowed to be $500.
Mr Oliver: We couldn't conceivably see how it would be $500. The example would be, Metro Toronto says it costs it $75 to process a licensing fee for a restaurant, but it don't do anything with the information. They don't do inspections, they don't do administration. It's a rubber stamp. If it costs you $75 to rubber stamp an application that comes in, 100% granted, they don't do the inspection, it's done at the city level, we would say you don't do cost recovery at $75, you just get rid of that licensing requirement. But this legislation doesn't force the municipality to do that. It doesn't require them to move down. What we want to do is know how they get at that fee. If it's $125, they come forward and say, "That's our fee." We need to know how they arrive at that. Why is it costing them that?
Mr Hardeman: So your association would support the payment of the total cost recovery on the licence if the municipality put forward documentation to justify the cost.
Mr Oliver: We would support reasonable fees, but we don't think the municipalities are ready to implement reasonable fees yet. What we have is an unrestructured municipal level, and now the cap is coming off. If you keep the cap on those licensing fees, you force the restructuring and then you can take the cap off. Don't take the cap off before you force the restructuring because the cost base is still there. All we'll see is this high cost base rather than a restructured government.
Mr Hardeman: The issue of the ability to charge taxes beyond the allowable ones -- and the amendment that was proposed this morning requires that a bylaw cannot be passed if it covers a use for the purchase or consumption by a person or property other than property belonging to or under the control of the municipality or local board that passes the bylaw. Would that indicate to you that you could not charge a fee or anything for something that was being bought or sold?
Mr Oliver: That's under section 220, our concern is under section 257, which is the licensing side. When we started our presentation we didn't think, even without these amendments, you could do it under 220.
Mr Hardeman: Would you suggest that would not allow the taxation?
Mr Oliver: No, that does not clear up the concern. Our concern on 257 still stands that you could impose an indirect sales tax or consumption-based tax under the licensing system because it's adhesive to the licensing structure.
Mr Hardeman: The last comment I'd like to question you about: You referred a number of times to restructuring, and obviously the first part of the M section deals with restructuring government and proposals and so forth. The region of Ottawa-Carleton is exempt from that section, or is not included in that section by reason of the fact that it did restructure a number of years ago when it became the region. Would it be your position that they should be included? We've had a number of requests from regions who are excluded from that section that believe there is a need for that type of process in the regions.
Mr Oliver: I wouldn't try to comment on that. The previous presenters had commented that they didn't think the Ottawa-Carleton structure was restructured enough because they had too many politicians for the number of people. I would defer my comments on that to their presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman, for coming in on the government time for questions.
Just before I let you go, maybe to your chagrin I'll make sure that committee members know that this is the appendix, which is the amendments from the restaurant association.
Mr Oliver: Unless you want to just adopt them holus-bolus.
The Chair: They look pretty official. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you very much for coming forward this morning and making your presentation to the committee.
1110
KEN RUBIN
The Chair: May I please have Ken Rubin come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain responses and questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if for the benefit of Hansard and committee members you could introduce yourself at the beginning of the presentation.
Mr Ken Rubin: I just submitted to the clerk a supplementary brief, which I hope the members have gotten. A few weeks ago I submitted a main brief. My name is Ken Rubin. I've been a resident of Ontario for over 25 years. I'm a public interest researcher and a consumer advocate. The main area that I'm here to speak to in Bill 26 is -- because I've been active as a watchdog for the user of local and provincial freedom of information and privacy legislation, I have a lot to say because it's directly under attack in Bill 26. May I add that it's a recipe for disaster.
I know that there will be government amendments to withdraw some of the concerns I have, such as charging for personal information files and the possibility that there will be tightening-up measures for access to individual health records. I'll still want to examine those amendments to see whether they go far enough, whether they in fact tighten up what the problem is. I still today will voice my opposition to those proposals, as they still remain.
My position is that all matters dealing with freedom of information and privacy should be withdrawn from Bill 26 and that the government should introduce improvements to strengthen, not weaken and emasculate, freedom of information and privacy legislation.
Let me start on the privacy side. I see 10 million-plus Ontarians whose privacy is threatened by Bill 26 as follows:
First, there is in schedule E of Bill 26 the introduction of mandatory -- I'm not reading from my briefs, by the way -- electronic vehicle devices for travel on toll roads. These devices can be used to trace people's movements and can be capable of calculating speeds of travel more effectively than the cancelled photo-radar program could have. Introducing one mandatory electronic device can open the door to legalizing and using all kinds of electronic tracing and surveillance equipment. Community street video cameras checking for unusual activity and voice-activated computers listening in on work performance are but two examples. Obviously, delete schedule E in terms of that provision.
Second, Bill 26, in schedules F, G and H, offers inadequate privacy protection for Ontarians' health records. Unless the restrictions are much tighter in how the data is used, how it's transmitted and whether it's transmitted in an anonymous, non-identifiable fashion, privacy of such records will greatly suffer.
Third, if the 1-800 snitch line to report possible welfare fraud can still stand without proper, fair information practices, why should I believe that any amendments forthcoming will end snooping on people's health files?
Fourth, as a replacement to photo health cards, Management Board, the very agency that's responsible for administering and giving direction to freedom of information and privacy, is examining the use of a multi-use ID card for Ontarians. One ID card for health, driver's licences, welfare assistance, voting etc. You tell me whether this government is reconsidering its privacy invasion tactics or not.
Let's move to the freedom of information side, where there are many opportunities provided to increase secrecy and whittle away at the public's right to know.
First, there are increased fees in schedule K that can be a deterrent at the local and provincial level to seeking government information. In my written briefs, I outlined what needs to be done so that Ontarians will have reasonable fees and reasonable credits and waivers on the other side of the ledger that encourage, not prevent, such access.
Collecting fees, particularly for personal information, is counterproductive and hardly a significant source of revenue. Most of the government propaganda would cost 20, 50 times as much.
Second, in schedule K, exiling users from freedom of information on the grounds determined by bureaucrats that such requests are frivolous or vexatious is totally unacceptable. Delete it. It is targeted at a few known users -- Mr Rabinovitch, Mr Riley, as I say in my brief -- just as the Apotex clause is. Totally unwarranted, totally against the civil liberties of this province. Only in the rare case of overwhelming evidence of abusive use after a full public hearing by the Information and Privacy Commissioner should a requester be, on case-by-case basis, refused access, not for a lifetime, not exiled from the right that every other citizen in this province is entitled to.
The manner to deal with any difficult, but not necessarily abusive or malicious, request is to explore the request with the requester and, where necessary, to use the mediation offices of the information commissioner. As it stands, any unknowing or infrequent users could be targeted for exile, from an opposition politician to a pesky citizen.
Third, there is in schedule K the lowering of the record identification standards, instead of improving what the public knows about agency records. Greater routine disclosure is not going to happen as a result.
Fourth, there is a gift of total confidentiality in schedule O when it comes to data submitted to the government from the mining industry that needs overturning. Why bother catering to special interests? Corporate secrecy is already well entrenched in the legislation. Delete schedule O in that context.
Fifth, there is enabling legislation in schedule M, the municipalities section, to grant local bodies the ability to charge more taxes and user fees without a requirement that this be done in open meetings after public discussion and debate and sufficient cost-benefit review. I wonder if this bill is subjected to a cost-benefit review.
Some of the agencies like hospitals, universities, social service agencies that would further pick the taxpayers' pockets are not subject to freedom of information at all. The records about their fund-raising schemes can remain totally secret. Taxation without representation: Remember that? Yes. That's what this is.
I have, as a frequent freedom of information user, been able to uncover meat inspection reports in this province; one continued use of DDT, if you can imagine; occupational health violations of companies -- named companies; the sweetheart deals at SkyDome that contributed to enormous public debt; and the fraudulent deal made between the soft drink industry in Ontario and the giants Pepsi and Coke and the government to continue using at least 30% refillable bottles in exchange for public assistance on an expensive blue box recycling program. One other example: the tremendous investigative cost of over $8 million, after false starts and missed opportunities, to bring Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka to the courts.
The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, however in need of reform, can be used constructively with persistency and commitment. Don't do that to me and others. There's over 23,000 of us in this province. There won't be 23,000 if you do this to this act.
I'd like, in the way of conclusion, to go back to the general aspects of Bill 26 and review certain inconsistencies found in Bill 26 that contradict the government's electoral promises. Bill 26 allows for increased government powers, for instance, in how the health delivery system will work: Order the doctor there, order the hospital closed there. The Harris government promised less government, so I think.
Bill 26 allows for further tax initiatives, ie, increases, and user-pay charges when the government promised tax cuts. I'm used to politicians; I've been around for 30 years. Bill 26 promises cost savings, but in the long run by lowering standards, for instance, and retaining tougher restrictions on the use of environmentally sensitive land, conservation land and forest, the cost to the future environment Ontarians will enjoy will be much, much, much greater than any short-term revenue achieved.
1120
Government and people, I agree, need to conserve more and be less wasteful. If that was the message of the Common Sense Revolution, hey, great. But I don't see it in Bill 26. But this does not mean you have to cater as you do in Bill 26 to special interests or put forward a mix of poorly drafted ingredients. The recipe -- I said it was a recipe for disaster -- need not be disastrous, a mix, if you will, to use an analogy, of legislating people on to cheap tuna without service or assistance or proclaiming the virtues of bologna, when father knows best without the true state of special wining and dining by the few who are in need of government regulation and not government largess.
I make a plea here to the committee, and later today I'll be going down the hall to the alternate hearings to make a plea there, because there are two Ontarios today and Bill 26 increases them, and I don't like that. I want a cooperative Ontario. I want to see this committee recommend abandoning the worst features of Bill 26. I suggest a constructive, not a destructive or an emasculation of freedom of information and privacy -- I want a constructive program to rebuild cooperatively a better, more conservation-oriented Ontario.
The Acting Chair (Mr Ernie Hardeman): We have slightly over five minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the third party.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I enjoyed your presentation very much. One of the difficulties with this particular bill is, as anyone will know who's followed the hearings, this is so complex and there are so many crucial areas where the government's making changes that quite frankly none of them are getting the full attention that they should. Earlier today we had some attention on the pay equity and the changes to the proxy method. These are critical areas to large numbers of Ontarians and they're just not getting the attention that they should. I thank you very much for coming in and focusing on this one, relatively small in terms of the number of words and references in the law, but critically important in the lives of the average citizen.
I would want to also point out, because it's important, and you make the point, that this government ran on a platform of a more open, more accountable government, a more transparent government that people could see and understand and comprehend. The fact of the matter is that this isn't the first time they've monkeyed around with the freedom of information and protection of privacy information. Bill 7, which was the anti-worker bill that this government rammed through the House that replaced the Ontario Labour Relations Act, contained changes to the freedom of information act and there was no focus on that, to the point where the freedom of information commissioner had to send letters to all members of the Legislature drawing to their attention these changes and his concerns that information that otherwise was available to the public would now be shut down. So I think we're beginning to see a trend that this government, quite contrary to what they said they would do in the election, is very keen on making sure that less and less of what government does is available for public scrutiny.
I want to thank you again for coming forward and commenting on this particular bill. I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on how you see -- because obviously you have great expertise in this area -- new technologies that are on the horizon coming into play. Your comments here reflect technologies that are known now. With the law as it now exists and the changes that are proposed, I suspect that you would want improvement to the existing law, let alone stopping the watering down of the rights that citizens have now. What sorts of things are you concerned about in terms of new technologies that perhaps are on the horizon but are going to be with us very soon?
Mr Rubin: Technology is moving very rapidly -- and by the way, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, I think, has done a pretty good job in trying to highlight some of them, from faxes to e-mail to AIDS testing. There's a whole bunch of confidentiality issues which, by the way, include the private sector. Quebec has just passed legislation that incorporates the private sector into the privacy legislation because they recognized that a lot of the technological invasion these days occurs then. There was a legislative committee that suggested constructive changes to this legislation.
There are a lot of threats, but I guess the concern is if you have a 1-800 snitch line, if you have a multi-user ID smart card, the linkages, the possibility's there. So what if you abolish photo radar but you have a better device inside the vehicle that can still capture, if the technology is geared that way, the speed of the person? It's much more damning.
I think that it's high time that Ontario -- and I know it's a big issue -- the last government, by the way, goofed up considerably on privacy issues. It's not just the current government. I think a lot of us have to learn about this.
Mr Stewart: Shame.
Mr Rubin: Well, I'm just trying to be nice to everybody here, I guess.
But I will say one thing, in your earlier comments, and that is, even the previous presenters, the Ontario Restaurant Association, one of the things that I had done from the region was get health inspection reports of restaurants, and there was third-party notification and there was a whole series of articles on that. Do you think I'm still going to get that or have to pay whoops of money to find out if people are getting poisoned in restaurants? It's that kind of thing. There's a rebound effect here.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes your time. We'll turn to the government. Mr Young.
Mr Young: How much time?
The Acting Chair: Five minutes.
Mr Young: I don't think that's vexatious or frivolous. I think that's important information and I believe you'll be able to get that information. There's a well-worn definition of vexatious and frivolous in common law that I believe will be applied and you'll be able to get the information.
But I would like to comment on technology, because it's my background and I share your concerns about privacy. We've investigated this. Technology can also help protect privacy if it's used properly, and if you wanted to trace someone's movements -- you put here that you can trace individuals' movements using electronic devices -- you could easily stand on the side of the road and write down their licence plate number.
In investigating the new devices, the devices that will be used for the toll highway use high-speed, encrypted data communication, digital data communication, and the individual is not identified. It's the transponder ID number. It contains no information with regard to the holder of the transponder. As well, the transponder is normally not on. It comes on for a split second when you enter or leave the highway. These are some of the things we've looked into and, as I say, I share your concern and my fears are allayed with regard to the toll highway.
But I did want to ask you about --
Mr Rubin: Do you want me to comment on that, by the way?
Mr Young: Sure, please.
Mr Rubin: Because, listen, I don't see it in legislative writing that the transponder that you say will occur anonymously, you can make that technology in reverse and make it identifiable, and until I see the bottom line that there's adequate privacy protection and you've made it mandatory for some God-unknown reason, I don't buy into that.
It's just like, I think Mr Harris will probably introduce electronic bracelets for prisoners. Well, in all the jurisdictions that it's been tried, there's a downside to it. It doesn't necessarily work. Ontario, a few years ago, thought about it. Well, I can just see him hopping into bed with that kind of thing, too.
Mr Young: The smart cards, in my view, offer a number of very, very progressive benefits. For instance, we know that one out of four seniors who enter hospital is overmedicated. If a senior were to switch doctors and going to be taking drugs that didn't match and would actually hurt them, the pharmacist putting it into a computer, a smart card, could discover that. It might save somebody's life down the way -- we have to think about saving money, too -- most importantly the patient's health, so there are some big advantages to that.
But what is the difference between a government smart card with encrypted data, and the current bank cards, the ones that almost everybody uses right now? What's the difference?
Mr Rubin: Well, for one thing, one is voluntary and one would likely be mandatory. That's a big difference. The tradeoffs that you want on your privacy, I guess, are what you feel about your own personal identity.
Yes, I agree. There are a lot of possibilities out there and the private sector isn't covered. Therefore, those bank cards are totally unregulated. I think they should be regulated. I think there are potential abuses.
1130
Mr Young: Have you heard of any abuses? Have you heard of any problems?
Mr Rubin: Well, I'd have to go and get my cases, but, yes, I certainly have. But I don't have the particular cases. But even on the smart card, yes, it may be coming, but unless you put the restrictions on these things, they're going to be abused. This is the big problem.
Mr Young: Also, you said that the public will not be guaranteed access to relevant meetings and records on local agencies. Now, I've had constituents come to me -- I've only held office since June 8 -- saying they go to the conservation authorities or they go to the library board and they get to say their piece for five minutes and they totally ignore what they have to say and then they have no recourse whatsoever. Under the new law, they'll have a recourse. They'll be able to go to their elected officials, the people they vote for, and that will be their recourse. That's where the accountability will be. Don't you see any benefit to that?
Mr Rubin: Well, I do. I haven't held office for 30 years, but I've been watching governments for 30 years, and I'll tell you, if I was the local school board and I wanted to go in private and discuss the budget or go to an information retreat or what have you, I would. There's nothing that says: "Hey, you have to have minimum requirements for open meeting standards. You have to release, and it isn't an exception to release, the meeting minutes of that subcommittee that dealt with the budget." This is the problem.
I'll give you one other example. I mentioned the Bernardo case. I believe it's your Attorney General who has asked that Justice Campbell review the case in terms of problems. Guess where that report is going to? It's a judge who's doing it. It's going to the minister; it's not going to be a public document. It can be subject to deletions under the freedom of information act.
This is the problem we're facing. We need more freedom of information. The public has to know on the local level, which will be much more greatly affected by the fees, and on the provincial level what's going on. Hey, we want to save the Harris government making wasteful mistakes too. I'm ready to monitor it.
The Acting Chair: That concludes the time for the government side. Mr Chiarelli, for the opposition.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Rubin, I want to ask you some questions relating more to general principles rather than specifics. I think most people would acknowledge that you probably have more expertise and experience in this area than anybody else in the room, unless there's somebody else I'm not aware of. But I would like to lean on that experience and look at some general principles. I'm going to ask you several related questions at the same time.
First of all, there's the issue of interpretation of government mandate. We know the government was elected and it had a platform and it wanted to accomplish certain things. One of the ways they chose to do that was Bill 26, the most drastic withdrawal of legislative authority and acquisition of cabinet and Premier's office power. I feel that the government is under the impression that it has been democratically elected to be a dictatorship for four years, to do whatever it wants, to accomplish whatever it wants. They wanted this bill to get through in two weeks; they're now talking about amendments which might reach into the hundreds, very, very significant amendments which never would have seen the light of day had the democratic process not won over. So I would like you to comment on interpretation of mandate in that context.
Also, I'd like you to indicate, in the context of a government that wants to work that way, also restricting access to information the way this bill does and intruding on personal privacy -- it's doing that in the light of cost savings and revenue -- what is the order of magnitude of cost to the government of access to information which would drive it to want to add additional user fees and the appeal process etc and restrict that access to many people? In other words, could there be a secret agenda to withhold access rather than to be really controlling costs and looking at fiscal responsibilities?
Given the government's interpretation of its mandate, given the cost to the government as a tradeoff against the right of the public to access information, what is your interpretation of what is happening with access to information and freedom of information in this bill, in the context that I'm talking about at the present time?
Mr Rubin: I think the first thing I'll say when you called me an expert is, I may with this kind of a bill become more of an expert because there'll be fewer Ontarians -- I mean, it's a complicated system, a cumbersome system right now. It needs improvement. My whole belief is that part of the need for it is that anybody and everybody in Ontario should use it. It may be a little more overwhelming for those on the receiving end, but why shouldn't you just be able to walk in and over the counter get information?
You don't need experts. You shouldn't need experts. But the legislation right now unfortunately does that. But with these amendments, with the fees and with the possibility you could be declared frivolous with the lack of more specific record identification, it's going to make it more difficult for users, particularly on the privacy side where, hell, you're applying for your own personal information and somebody wants you to pay for your own personal information.
The health inspectors are going to have access to your records, so if you want to see your records to check whether they've been in on your records, you pay a fee for that privilege. If you want to correct those records to make sure the information which could be inaccurate is accurate, you'll pay a fee for that. Kind of ironic, eh? Even if you don't get any record at all, you'll pay a fee for the information. Kind of strange.
As for the omnibus feature, listen, I prefer on the positive side to see omnibus legislation on freedom of information and privacy. For instance, on the freedom of information side, I believe that the notions of open meeting requirements, the citizens' initiatives, the freedom of information and a host of other things should be linked together in one bill. The previous Ontario governments have introduced those things separately. I think you can positively use an omnibus concept to bring together, and although I see the intent of the Harris government to try and cost-save and bring these together, they get a failing E because they just put too many things together and didn't look at the implications.
For instance, to answer one of your questions, they had to do a cost-benefit analysis on freedom of information, a look at the revenue they get, which is less revenue as the fee increases. In the United States under the freedom of information the cost of the whole darn administration of the act is, from what everybody says, like the cost of the military marching bands. Let's put this in perspective. I mean, it isn't a great cost program. You don't get, unlike other areas, great revenues. I can see highway tolls -- that's a great revenue. This is puny. What you're doing is you're deterring people from applying.
So a cost-benefit analysis of this whole bill, as I said in my presentation, would have been a healthy idea, because not only the implications -- hey, I hear very loud and clear that a lot of different groups have come from health to restaurants, municipalities, all have concerns because so much has been put together.
Mr Chiarelli: It's not a reasonable tradeoff then.
Mr Rubin: Well, it isn't, and on the freedom --
The Chair: I apologize for interrupting, gentlemen, but we've come to the end of your allotted time. We still have another witness to hear. I want to thank you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
CRAIG MCNAUGHTON
The Chair: May I please have Craig McNaughton come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. As you may have heard me say before this morning -- I noticed you sitting there -- you have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for responses and questions from the three caucuses.
M. Craig McNaughton : Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs, je m'appelle Craig McNaughton. J'habite à Ottawa depuis 16 ans avec ma femme et mon fils. J'ai travaillé tout récemment comme directeur général de la Fédération canadienne des études humaines.
J'aimerais vous remercier pour m'avoir donné l'occasion de vous présenter quelques recommandations concernant le projet de loi 26. J'ai quatre recommandations à mettre en discussion. J'imagine que j'aurai besoin d'un maximum de 10 minutes pour faire la présentation.
1140
Recommendation 1: Public review of Bill 26 should be extended in an effort to secure a collaborative fiscal strategy.
A decision to extend these hearings would be very well received by many Ontarians. A lot of individuals and organizations are concerned about Bill 26, and obviously only a few have had an opportunity to speak to you.
My own suggestion is that continued public review of the bill include a series of substantive meetings in each of the areas of major concern raised by Bill 26. In areas such as hospital restructuring, medical costs, municipal taxation, drug costs, access to government information, we need to get all the relevant experts, public officials and concerned citizens together in an urgent and public-minded effort to work out some sort of consensus. Right now, there is no consensus. Significant groups and sectors in the province are strongly opposed to the bill, certainly in its present form, but this opposition to Bill 26 does not mean there is no agreement on the need to tackle the deficit and debt problem.
In its brief on Bill 26, the Ontario Hospital Association clearly recognizes the seriousness of the financial situation facing the province and its hospitals. It also presents carefully reasoned and extensive amendments to Bill 26. The government needs groups like the OHA and the Ontario Medical Association on side before it passes this or comparable legislation. If it takes a couple of months to get everyone on side, so be it. The objective -- working out a consensual and pragmatic response to the province's financial crisis -- is worth the investment of time, energy and money.
What is the alternative? Basically, for the government to proceed on its own without the broad spirit of cooperation, compromise and innovation needed to succeed in its effort to reorient the province's economy. We need a collaborative effort to work out a financial strategy for the province.
Recommendation 2: The government must act promptly to eliminate the risk of an exodus of medical professionals from the province.
Health care questions are being taken up by the other set of hearings, but I want to flag one key point. I would rather not have to travel to the United States or another province to find health care for myself and my family.
Dr Byron Lemmex, president of the Academy of Medicine and a family physician here in Ottawa, made the point eloquently here last week. Bill 26 will accelerate the departure of Ontario physicians. They are already leaving and they are already cutting back medical services in response to Bill 26.
We cannot afford this loss of human capital, nor can we afford steady demoralization of the medical community. The government must move on an urgent basis to restore relations with the doctors and other members of the medical community. Renewed partnership is the best tool for confronting health care costs.
Recommendation 3: Bill 26 should be reworked to differentiate more clearly between local and provincial responsibilities.
Finance Minister Ernie Eves has stated that the bill is intended to "help us build a new relationship with our transfer partners with clearer distinctions between our roles, improved accountability and more local-level decision-making," yet there appear to be quite a few measures in the bill that actually undermine local responsibility in favour of centralized planning and control from Queen's Park.
In the area of hospital management, one provision removes the necessity for getting approval for bylaws passed by hospital boards, while another allows the Minister of Health to pass bylaws from Toronto, thereby undermining the responsibilities of hospital boards. That's in the OHA brief.
Another case in point: Bill 26 proposes a new section 25 in the Municipal Act that would expedite restructuring -- for example, annexations -- of municipalities. Section 25.2 starts out well enough, outlining how municipalities can opt to send restructuring proposals to the minister as long as they have proper public support at the local level. But then section 25.3 runs in the opposite direction. Cabinet or the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be able to force restructuring proposals on municipalities. One-person commissions can be created, and these commissions may, in turn, pass orders to implement their own restructuring proposals. These commission can also charge their costs to the municipalities.
This latter provision seems like a recipe for constant and unnecessary turmoil, and it seems to undermine the more traditional principle that local communities should decide the shape of local government. In short, despite the bill's objectives, there appears to be a real danger of inefficiency and diffusion of responsibility. The bill should be reworked to make it clear how local and provincial responsibilities are to be balanced.
Recommendation 4: The proposed restrictions on freedom of information should be replaced by a simple administrative measure allowing reasonable budgetary ceilings.
Schedule K of Bill 26 deals with the fact that a few individuals in the province have run up sizeable bills making unreasonable requests for government information. Unfortunately, Bill 26 does this by creating a new category of "frivolous or vexatious" requests. Heads of ministries are now to be allowed to decide whether a request can be denied as being "frivolous or vexatious." Any problems with such decisions are to be taken up in formal appeals to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The problem here is obvious. The terms are too vague and the opportunity for disputes over the legitimacy of requests too real. It would be much simpler to introduce the principle that the right to obtain government information needs to be moderated by a reasonable annual allocation of time and money per requester.
In an October 1995 appeal decision that dealt with complaints by the London Police Services Board about frivolous and vexatious requests, Tom Wright, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, came up with the solution: you distinguish between a citizen's ongoing statutory right to information and the "means available for seeking to realize that right."
If you need to go past a reasonable average allocation of time and money per requester, then you pay a special fee. It could be as simple as that. There is no need to be swept into endless controversies about whether a person's request is frivolous or vexatious. Nor is there any need to impose user fees on any and all requests for information. The measures in schedule K clearly do exactly what the commissioner says we should not do, which is to impose user fees "that limit access to those who can afford to pay."
The bill's explanatory note for schedule K says that "a person who requests access to a record is required to pay the fees prescribed by the regulations for any costs incurred in responding to the request" -- I emphasize "any costs." That risks defeating the whole purpose of the province's legislation on freedom of information and the protection of privacy.
A reasonable allocation of time and money would do the job we still need to do, which is to encourage citizens to engage the profound questions about government accountability and personal privacy that must constantly be addressed, regardless of which party happens to be in power.
The government, in my view, is at a critical juncture. It can push Bill 26 into law with minor changes, arguing that it knows best how to deal with the deficit, or it can convert public concerns about Bill 26 into a collaborative effort to tackle the deficit. My hope is that we go the latter route. Thank you for your kind attention.
Mr Hardeman: Good morning, and thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I want to go a section on page 3 concerning the restructuring of municipalities. You make remarks that the first part of that process seems to take it in one direction and then, in your opinion, it goes in the other direction when it comes to the implementation.
I gather from your presentation that you support the need for restructuring in Ontario and changing the way local government works, for financial reasons and for efficiency reasons. Recognizing that we have 26 counties in the province and that somewhere near half of those have done a local study to look at governance but there doesn't seem to be a process in place to implement that, I wonder if you could give us some suggestions about what we do to further that and provide the ability for something to take place on that type of process as opposed to what's been happening now: a lot of studies but no action.
Mr McNaughton: My only point is that I just think it's foolhardy to risk being seen as imposing something on a community. That leads, possibly, to controversy. If they've already done the study and they're keen to restructure -- I think that's quite possible in some of the cases -- just expedite the process by which they would apply to do that. I'm not familiar with all the steps that would be required, but I'd try to make it easy to do it.
1150
To send the Ottawa-Carleton area, for example, a message that we're going to restructure it in such a way here, without having what should be seen as a thorough consultation, would risk being -- let's put it this way -- inefficient; you'd have controversy.
Mr Hardeman: Of course the regions, including Ottawa-Carleton, are not included in that section of the legislation, primarily because they already went through the process a number of years ago and became the region from the former counties.
I would just question again how we would look at implementation, because that seems to be the roadblock that's in the way for change to happen. We can get much discussion and we can get many proposals, but there doesn't seem to be a process in place to facilitate the action. Recognizing that the municipalities are structured by the province, we need a way to have them implemented by the province. Would you have any suggestions we could add that would facilitate that?
Mr McNaughton: If you'll allow me, I'd just go back to the main theme. The main thing I would like to feel and see is a sense of partnership. What we're moving into is a polarized debate of some kind between those who are fiscally conscious and those who are socially conscious. Frankly, I don't think many people want that kind of either/or choice. In the case of municipal restructuring, I would just call up the right people and work closely with them to get an expedited result, whatever that might be.
Mr Hardeman: As an amendment then, if we put something forward that would include more public participation in the process, that would be an asset to the process.
Mr McNaughton: Maybe we find new terminology. "Consultation" suggests a long time and lots of money. Let's just work closely together.
To me it would be a brilliant stroke, if I can give you unasked-for political advice, to take out anything that might be seen as heavy-handed by Queen's Park. I don't think it's going to work well in your very own agenda.
Mr Hardeman: This is not the health committee, but you did mention it. In my community we have a great shortage of doctors, and this hasn't happened since Bill 26 was introduced; this is something that's been ongoing for some time now. There needs to be something done to facilitate the distribution of doctors in Ontario. Do you have any suggestions as to how that might be facilitated, other than what the bill is suggesting?
Mr McNaughton: I have the right guy for you, Dr Claude Vezina at the Porcupine District Medical Society. What he said is that you need an incentive package, is basically what he's saying. Dr Lemmex last week said this measure is not going to drive them north; it's going to drive them south. I really think you have to hit the brakes on that side and make sure that -- again, talk to the doctors. What brings a person north? Some people would go north and enjoy it. It's best to find those people.
Mr Young: I totally agree with you; we have to be engaged in a real conversation with the doctors. A number of us in caucus have doctors in their families and there's nothing we want more than to have peace with doctors.
But 70 communities in Ontario don't have a doctor. One community offered $60,000 a year, plus all OHIP billings, and they still couldn't get a doctor. You're on the right track -- I believe you are, and we're pursuing it -- but it's not as simple as it seems. I appreciate your ideas; it's an excellent presentation.
Mr McNaughton: I don't think any of these areas are simple. I must say it's a struggle, even in the area of freedom of information; there are all kinds of possibilities. That's why I suggest if you have substantive meetings, get the right experts around the table, including members of the public --
Mr Young: I can assure you they are going on behind the scenes.
Mr McNaughton: Well, why not bring them out in the scenes?
Mr Young: The doctors are not a single group. There are interns who disagree with surgeons who disagree with heart surgeons who disagree with cancer surgeons who disagree with family doctors.
Mr McNaughton: It would be a wild meeting, yes.
Mr Young: It's hard to have a meeting with one group that speaks for all of them. We're working very hard on it, I can assure you of that.
Mr McNaughton: But they'll have to get together in the end.
Mr Young: Agreed.
M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : Monsieur McNaughton, je vous félicite de la présentation que vous avez faite. À mon point de vue, c'est excellent. Vous avez résumé dans une capsule tout simplement l'opposition que nous avions à ce projet de loi.
Alors, imaginez si l'opposition s'était tue, n'avait rien dit, n'avait rien fait, si on avait joué tout simplement le «passons», en disant, «Mais passez votre loi.» Imaginez les problèmes que nous aurions rencontrés.
Le fait aussi que vous faites une recommandation que les audiences soient prolongées à mon point de vue est tout à fait logique, logique en ce sens : que la démocratie est basée sur le fait que la minorité doit avoir l'occasion de s'exprimer, et nous, d'avoir un gouvernement --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Morin.
I'm sorry, but by standing orders there are no demonstrations and signs like that permitted in our public hearings. I'd appreciate it if you'd lower the signs. I'm bound by those standing orders. I'd appreciate it if, in deference to the presenter who still has about 12 minutes remaining in his time, you would lower the sign. Otherwise, I'd have to recess; it wouldn't be fair to the presenter, who's spent quite a bit of time and would like to have himself heard and his questions answered.
I'd appreciate it if you would lower those signs.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'm sorry, folks. We'll recess until 1 o'clock this afternoon.
The subcommittee recessed from 1156 to 1300.
The Chair: Good afternoon. Welcome back. When we left we had Mr McNaughton in the chair with 10 minutes remaining; four for the Liberals for questions and six for the third party. If Mr McNaughton would like to come back quickly. Mr Morin was questioning. We may want to move that to, I believe, Mr McGuinty.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order. Order, please.
Mr McGuinty, you have four minutes.
Mr Phillips: Did we really need the police for that?
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Mr McNaughton, I wanted to thank you for your presentation and to at first compliment you on I guess the theme that I find runs through it, and that's the perspective you bring to the role of government. In government, one of the things you've got to decide fairly early on is how you view your public. Are they an obstacle to be overcome or a resource to be tapped? You view them, I think quite rightly, as a resource.
I don't want to be Pollyannaish about this, but you have to make an effort to draw on that resource and see if a consensus can be developed. If it can't at the end of the day, then the government has to act in the public interest, and that's their job. But I think they have to make a reasonable and genuine effort at the outset to do that. I just wanted to compliment you on the insight that you brought to that.
I wanted to ask you something related to your recommendation number 4, and I'm not exactly clear as to what you're recommending here. You state in the fourth paragraph from the bottom on page 4, "If you need to go past a reasonable average allocation of time and money per requester, then you pay a special fee." I'm always a bit concerned about averages and how that works out in reality. What if a person exceeded the average and they were then met with the obligation of having to make payment of a fee but they couldn't afford to pay the fee?
Mr McNaughton: I actually have a friend who is concerned with housing people in Toronto, and he raised that question. I don't want to put too much weight on this footbridge. I think you have to worry about public interest groups, for example, their need to access information, to be able to advocate their concerns. So that's one consideration.
I had a chance to talk to Mr Young briefly earlier, and I think the way to simplify my recommendation is to say, go talk to Tom Wright. I think really that's your key. I draw your attention to his order of October 18, 1995. It's actually a very entertaining read. It looks dull, but it's very entertaining and very careful. He has gone through all the precedents and how does one work out this question. The man involved there -- he was addressing the appeal of a Mr Riley -- in the end, Mr Wright said he couldn't rule on the legitimacy, the frivolousness or the vexatiousness of what he wanted; that wasn't his job. But, in a careful liner on that, he can rule on administrative sense, shall we say, that there's a limit even in his own office as to how much he can plow into appeals.
So I'm just trying to get in there with an administrative idea that in some sort of sensible way and flexible way you would limit the amount you spend on an average person. If the guy is running up a $30,000 bill, you say long before that, "I'm sorry, we can't spend that on you only," if it's just an individual.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McNaughton, for coming forward. I apologize for the interruption. But thank you for coming forward to make your presentation today.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, could I ask who requested the uniformed police officers to be here and escort the --
The Chair: I don't believe it was anyone associated with the committee. I believe it was the hotel. May I please have --
Mr Phillips: I just want confirmation of that. The hotel on their own phoned the police department to be here and to escort those people out?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): The hotel was called from my office explaining that there may be demonstrations and it was entirely up to them how they would deal with the situation, because it's their private property that we're on. But we have to alert them.
Mr Phillips: May I just say I personally find it objectionable. The demonstrators, yes, shouldn't do that. You gave them about one minute and you adjourned. Then when we came back there were uniformed police officers to escort them out of the room.
I don't like that and I'm associated with it because I was here and part of the committee. But they were given about one minute and then there were at least two uniformed police officers who chased them out of the room. I wonder if that's how we want to operate. I would have found it far more reasonable if the committee had had an opportunity to discuss it. People have legitimate concerns and they demonstrated for a total of three minutes and then we have uniformed police officers. And I don't blame the police officers; they were doing the job that they were called to do. But I want to register my concern about this as another step in silencing people who have some concerns.
Mr Sampson: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I don't know where my friend from across the floor is leading on this particular issue, but if he's trying to indicate the government somehow had responsibility for ordering the police in to escort those people out, I want to make it clear that it was not the case. We had absolutely no involvement in that whatsoever. The owner of this property that we are using now is entitled, in my view, to protect his property or her property how he or she sees fit. We have no control over that, we made no such order and if that's where my friend across the floor is leading I want to make it absolutely clear that was the situation as far as this side of the table is concerned.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr Young: Mr Chair, I didn't see any chasing going on. I saw an escort. I saw them walking out of the room in protest. I didn't see any chasing.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. I take it we've made our feelings known on that. I appreciate it.
EASTERN ONTARIO WARDENS' CONFERENCE
The Chair: We must continue this afternoon with the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Conference. Could members from that organization please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to receive questions and response from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you'd take some time to introduce yourselves for the benefit of the committee members and Hansard.
Ms Frances Smith: My name is Frances Smith and I'm the warden of Frontenac county, and my colleague is Ormond Giles, the immediate past warden of Lanark county.
We're here today representing the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Conference, which represents 13 wardens in eastern Ontario. We welcome this opportunity to make a submission to you on Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda.
The EOWC's submission will be limited to comments on schedule K, involving amendments to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; schedule M, involving amendments to the Municipal Act and various other statutes relating to municipalities, conservation authorities and transportation; and schedule Q, relating to amendments to various statutes with regard to interest arbitration.
The wardens are encouraged by the general thrust of those provisions of Bill 26 affecting the operation of municipal government. The EOWC in this submission will be making recommendations which we feel are constructive.
Part II of schedule K to Bill 26, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Even though the eastern Ontario counties have not been plagued by frivolous or vexatious requests, we understand that certain organizations have been required to spend considerable amounts of valuable staff time answering questions submitted under the legislation which appear to have no real purpose other than to frustrate the operation of the organization. As a result, we support the proposed amendments.
1310
The EOWC is satisfied that the proposed addition of section 20.1 of the act provides sufficient information to allow an individual who is of the opinion that his or her submission is not frivolous or vexatious to appeal to the commissioner for a review of the decision.
In spite of our support for the general thrust of the proposed amendments, we are of the opinion that the standards for determining what constitute reasonable grounds for a head to conclude that a request for access to a record is frivolous or vexatious should be included in the legislation rather than the regulations.
The EOWC recognizes that the legislation was prepared in a relatively short period of time. Nevertheless, we do not feel that it is reasonable to expect municipalities to support the proposal for changes to the regulations contemplated in subsections (2) and (3) of section 24 without the benefit of having these regulations available at the time the bill is introduced.
We would therefore submit that the standards for determining what constitutes reasonable grounds for a head to conclude that a request for access to a record is frivolous or vexatious be written as a section in the legislation rather than prescribed in a regulation. Also, that in situations where the regulations that may be prescribed under the legislation have significant implications for both the individuals responsible for implementing the legislation and individuals affected by the legislation, the proposed regulations be tabled at the time the legislation is introduced.
Schedule M to Bill 26, Amendments to the Municipal Act and Various Other Statutes Related to Municipalities, Conservation Authorities and Transportation: municipal restructuring: The eastern Ontario wardens recognize that there has to be a more expedient method of dealing with municipal restructuring than the current situation which requires introduction of specific legislation. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the proposed amendments would allow local bodies which may not be comprised of elected representatives to submit restructuring proposals.
In addition, we are concerned with the extent of the authority granted to the minister to make regulations under clause 25.2(9)(b), such as:
"(iii) providing for the degree of support required to support a restructuring proposal with respect to each type of restructuring;" and
"(iv) providing for the manner of determining the support."
We are of the opinion that it is unreasonable to expect endorsement of the legislation when the regulations which represent a significant aspect of the proposed legislation are not available.
In addition, we hear rumours that the regulation may allow a group of 75 citizens to make a restructuring request. We need not remind you that every member of municipal council subjected himself or herself to the slings and arrows of the ballot box. In our mind, it would be totally inappropriate to allow citizens who have no electoral base and who may simply be acting out of malice or frustration -- and an example may be that council didn't see fit to pave their road or decided not to widen their street -- an opportunity to make a request which may not represent the views of most residents and which could leave the local duly elected council with costs associated with examination of the proposal.
If a significant number of ratepayers feel that council's failure to act on a review of local governance is not appropriate, we are certain it will be resolved at the next election, which we remind you is at the most three years hence.
Furthermore, the EOWC is disturbed with the authority granted to a commission under subsections 25.2(11) and (12) and section 25.3. Given the fact that a commission may be composed of one or more persons who have no electoral base, it is our opinion that the commission should not be granted the authority set out in section 25.3.
In the event a commission is appointed, it is our position that the commission's authority should cease at the time it presents restructuring proposals to the municipalities and the minister. We trust that the minister would then consult with the municipalities before taking any action. In any event, if further action such as making an order to implement the restructuring proposal is contemplated, it must, in our opinion, be undertaken by an individual who has a legitimate electoral base, namely, the minister.
EOWC is disturbed with the proposed subsection 25.2(13) dealing with the issue of personal liability for those councillors who contravene any regulation under 25.2(9)(c) or 25.3(7)(g) by voting in a favour of an act prohibited by the regulation. It is our opinion that given the complexities of the issues that may result from restructuring proposals, councillors would be reluctant to make any decision or vote on any matter after the regulation has been put in place, since it may be that a municipal elector will take action because that person feels the municipality or successor municipality is adversely affected by the vote.
Even though the individual taking such action may be acting out of malice or frustration with the new form of government proposed, the councillors who vote in favour of such action may find themselves personally liable for the costs involved in defending such action. In addition, we wish to emphatically denounce any proposal that moves issues which would normally be the subject of corporate liability to the area of personal liability. This is an extremely onerous provision which we feel has no place in legislation. Accordingly, it is our position that section 25.2(13) must be removed from Bill 26.
We would make the following submissions:
(1) That the legislation be amended to clarify that only municipalities or local bodies comprised entirely of elected officials are entitled to make restructuring proposals to the minister;
(2) That section 25.3 be amended to clarify that a commission has no authority other than to present restructuring proposals to the municipalities and the minister;
(3) That prior to final passing of the legislation, the regulations contemplated under sections (9) and (11) of section 25.2 and section (7) of 25.3 and the principles to be established under section 25.4 be tabled and subject to review by municipalities and other affected parties.
(4) That proposed subsection 25.2(13) be removed from Bill 26.
Section 6 of schedule M: The EOWC recognizes that it is important that municipalities be able to determine which level of municipal government is best suited to provide a particular service. As a result, we support the general thrust of sections 209.1 to 209.6.
There are obvious questions which can only be answered once the regulations are available. For instance, would it be possible for local municipalities to assume upper-tier responsibility such as boards of health and children's aid societies? In addition, we question if municipalities have been granted real authority to determine the level of government best suited to deliver a service when the minister has absolute authority under section 209.6 to limit our ability to do so by regulation. It is the opinion of the EOWC that in the event the government contemplates limiting the services and facilities which can be transferred between levels of government, these limitations should be included in the legislation.
We therefore submit that the legislation be amended to clarify that subject to conditions set out in 209.2(3), (4) and (5), a decision regarding the transfer of a particular service is at the sole discretion of the municipalities affected. Failing this, any action by the government to limit the services and facilities which may be assumed at either the upper-tier or local municipal level be incorporated in the legislation; or, failing that, prior to final passing of the legislation, the regulations contemplated under section 209.6 be tabled and subjected to review by municipalities and other affected parties.
1320
Special-purpose bodies: The eastern Ontario wardens support the proposal that municipalities be granted the authority to dissolve special-purpose bodies in favour of direct accountability for decisions affecting public services and expenditures, and as a result we support the general thrust of the legislation. Nevertheless, as we have stated in other sections of this submission, we are concerned that the government has retained the right for the minister, by regulation, to limit the ability of municipalities to dissolve or make a prescribed change to a local board which the minister decides to protect.
It's the opinion of the EOWC that once the general authority to dissolve or make prescribed changes to a local board has been granted through legislation, any action to limit that authority should also be included in legislation. We would therefore submit that the clauses of subsection 210.4(7) of the act, which limit the ability of municipalities to dissolve or make changes to a local board, be repealed; failing this, that prior to final passing of the act, the regulations contemplated under subsection 210.4(7) be tabled and subjected to detailed review by municipalities and other affected parties.
User fees and licensing: The EOWC supports the provisions outlined in sections 9 to 24 of schedule M. We recognize that certain individuals, organizations and even municipal councils have questioned the general authority granted to municipalities to determine alternate revenue sources, which may be based on usage of services and linked to customer choice. Some of the statements made suggest that municipal politicians cannot be trusted to make reasonable decisions that are in the best interests of the taxpayers.
In our opinion a municipal council, because of the fact that it is accessible to the ratepayers it serves, is the least likely to abuse its powers to regulate, license and tax. Unlike the provincial and federal levels of government, virtually every municipality in Ontario provides opportunities for delegations to appear before the entire assembly. As a result, any proposal by a municipal council to exercise the powers authorized under these sections will be subjected to the test of reasonableness and fairness, given the fact that the council, in a public meeting, will be cognizant of the views of the individuals it serves.
Our only concern with the proposal under this area relates to the ability of the minister by regulation, section 257.5, to exempt a business or class of business from a licensing bylaw or to impose conditions on the powers of a local municipality under this section of the act. In our opinion, any attempt to exempt a business or class of business from licensing or to limit the powers of a local municipality under this section must be outlined in the legislation. We submit that in the event the government is of the opinion it is necessary to exempt a business or class of business from a local licensing bylaw, the exemption be included in the legislation.
Ontario municipal support grants: The EOWC supports the proposed legislation and recognizes that municipalities, in carrying out their local government functions, have a responsibility to be cognizant of different provincial priorities. On the other hand, it's our submission that this portion of the legislation should more clearly outline the fact that municipalities have the authority to manage the funds they receive under the Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act in order to meet local needs and priorities. Again, we are concerned with the authority granted to the minister, which allows him or her to establish standards for activities of municipalities, including the provision of services, and more specifically, which allows the minister to be general or specific in application of the regulations.
We would therefore submit that sections 29 to 32 of schedule M be amended to clarify that even though municipalities must be mindful of clearly defined provincial interests, they are empowered to determine the best uses for grants paid under the Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act that meet the needs and priorities of the municipality; secondly, that clauses of this section granting the minister authority by regulation to establish standards for activities of municipalities, including the provision of services, and to make a regulation general or specific in its application, and restricted to certain municipalities specified in the regulation, be removed prior to second reading.
Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act: The EOWC recognizes that there have, for a number of years, been suggestions that the act be amended to include the remote municipalities in six eastern Ontario counties in the county road system.
We acknowledge, given the uncertainty surrounding the transfer of additional provincial highways, and in some areas a request for county road services, it is appropriate that the bylaw which provides for the levying of a general annual rate for road purposes provide for a rate upon all the municipalities in the county not separated therefrom for municipal purposes.
Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that it is impossible to implement changes of this magnitude on such short notice, particularly when MTO has advised the Ontario Good Roads Association, "In counties where there are candidate highways in townships that are not in the county road system, the transfer will not take effect now." Accordingly, we feel there should be provision for a phase-in of the levy based on council's assessment of the situation.
We therefore submit that the proposed amendment to subsection 44(2) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act be amended to read: "(2) The bylaw shall provide for the levying of a general annual rate upon all the municipalities in the county not separated therefrom for municipal purposes, and may, for those municipalities which were not subject to a county road levy prior to January 1, 1996, provide for a phase-in of their portion of the levy on a basis determined by county council."
Schedule Q, amendments to various statutes with regard to interest arbitration: The EOWC supports the general thrust of the amendment to the legislation which requires arbitrators to consider a municipality's ability to pay. All counties operate a municipal home for the aged which is subject to the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act. We are of the opinion that the legislation should be further amended to require that the board of arbitration consider the county's ability to pay without incurring service reductions or tax increases.
The EOWC further notes that in communities where there is a significant number of employees in the broader public sector employed by both the provincial and federal governments, and where as a result salary levels are somewhat higher than might otherwise be expected, the criteria should require that the board of arbitration have due regard for comparison with private sector wages for similar jobs and the wage increases or decreases already freely negotiated by other municipal employees in the area.
We note that the provincial government, in order to effectively manage its operations, has removed successor rights from legislation governing the contracting out or divestment of services. You promised us the tools to do our job. This is one tool you have that it's absolutely essential we obtain if we are to achieve our mutual goal to reinvent government.
We would submit to you:
(1) That the criteria under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act be amended to clarify that the board of arbitration shall consider the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation without the necessity to incur service reductions or tax increases;
(2) That the criteria which the board of arbitration shall consider be amended to clarify that the comparison shall include a comparison with similar private sector comparators in the area and be representative of wage increases or decreases already freely negotiated by other municipal employees in that area;
(3) That the province extend to municipalities that which it has already provided to itself for the management of its own operations: the removal of successor rights from legislation governing the contracting out or divestment of services.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three minutes per caucus for questions.
1330
Mr Gerretsen: First of all, Madam Warden, I'd like to congratulate you on an excellent brief. You've raised many of the concerns that we have.
Also, it's always nice to see someone here representing the most beautiful county in the province of Ontario.
Ms Smith: I would agree.
Mr Gerretsen: You put your finger on it. There are many regulatory powers here that the Legislature won't be involved with if this passes. On the restructuring side, it's interesting to note that even with the amendments that were forwarded to us today the 75-person possibility is still there; it does not have to be a municipality. Also, the appeal mechanism from the commission is totally absent, and we've been pointing that out, as well as the personal liability aspect of the councillors that we're greatly concerned about.
But the former mayor here, Monsieur Lalonde, has a question right now.
The Chair: Mr Lalonde.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I too want to congratulate you for showing interest in this bill. You've mentioned that you're in favour, that you support the user fee and licensing. I am worried about this part especially when you come to the safety of the people, let's say for fire departments. If people know they might be charged for calling the fire department, they might turn around and not call it, especially when there's a car fire and especially when you're at the boundary line of two municipalities. It's like kicking a bucket of paper that goes to the next property. You might push the cart to the next property if you know there's no fee on the neighbour's property, and it's the same thing for the police.
At the present time I feel that in the tax base they're paying to the municipality this is covered already. I wonder, if there's a fee whenever the police are called or the firemen are called, if they are going to reduce the tax base they have for this property. That is my question.
Ms Smith: Just to respond to that, first of all I represent a small municipality in the rural area. Before my municipality would ever look at the cost of policing, we would look at cutting some other kind of service. I would believe that my council chambers would be filled to capacity if I suggested that our volunteer fire department was going to start charging for people to call it in. I don't see that will happen.
Mr Silipo: Thank you for the presentation. I think it's a fascinating analysis of this whole area, whereby the minister or the government gives municipalities various powers, as you've outlined, in the different sections, whether it's in restructuring, whether it's in user fees, whether it's in any of the other powers, but then clearly also holds out for itself through regulations and the powers of the minister, in effect, the final say. You do an interesting analysis of that, piece by piece. I think essentially what I keep hearing you say is, if you're going to give us these powers, give us these powers, and if you're going to put a lot of those things in regulations, then the regulations should be available for public scrutiny rather than just adopted by cabinet in the normal process.
Ms Smith: That's very true, and the other precaution that could be taken here is that municipalities could have the authority. If they show that they cannot handle the authority, then there could be something in legislation where the powers can be taken back. I know the province doesn't want to really be in that business, but it's like we're being condemned before we ever set to the task.
Give us the power. Let us deal with it. If we're not doing it right, then take those powers away at that time, but don't take them away before you give us a chance.
Mr Silipo: Okay. A couple of areas where I'm a little bit troubled by what you're saying, and if time allows I want to pursue them. In terms of the arbitration, you know, I'm sure, of the various submissions that we received from both firefighters' and police officers' associations, both of which have criticized severely these provisions. They point out to us, in fact, that there's no need for them, first of all, that in the vast majority of cases, in 85% to 90% of cases, there is no recourse to arbitration. There has been historically because the parties have managed to come to agreements.
Given that reality -- and I don't know what the situation has been in the eastern Ontario townships -- why do we need, or why do you feel you need these kinds of additional provisions put in which some people have described as wage controls by the back door?
Ms Smith: If you look at the example we used -- and I'll give you the example that is home for me, our home for the aged -- where we have federal and provincial employees that they are being compared to, if you compare the wages to the other county employees who have willingly agreed to a different amount, if you use the comparator of the federal and provincial governments, then the wage settlements will be higher.
What we're saying here is that if you're looking at a home for the aged and the arbitrator does not take into consideration things like ability to pay or decreasing services, most of our homes facing the cuts right now are looking at cutting everything they possibly can, and the last thing we want to do is cut services to our old folks. It would be very sad if an arbitrator didn't take that into account.
Mr Stewart: Thank you, Madam Warden. I appreciate you're from the beautiful county of Frontenac, but you did come to the beautiful county of Peterborough to have your meetings.
Ms Smith: That's right.
Mr Stewart: I really appreciate that.
Just a couple of little concerns. First of all, the municipalities want the autonomy. I believe that. I believe that municipal government is the closest and the best for the people. A concern I have, though, is that you seem to want to put a great number of things into legislation. Do you feel that will still give the municipalities flexibility? I guess I go back to Bill 163, which said you must be consistent with the province's policies, against what we're talking about now: to give regard to. Will you have the flexibility if too much of this goes into the actual legislation?
Ms Smith: I think what's been happening with Bill 26, as we've been hearing in the media, is that you'll have one municipality saying, "We're going to put a gas tax on," and another one saying, "We're going to charge a poll tax," and you'll have people totally up in arms because nothing seems clear about what you can and can't do. What we're saying is, don't make this bill muddy. Make it clear.
If you are going to reserve certain things that we can't do, then tell us, but don't leave it up to us to try and get lawyers and the cost of all that to try and implement things that are upsetting for people, upsetting for the politicians, to find out that's not what was meant by the bill. Basically, we want things to be clear in the beginning. It can save us all a lot of time and a lot of emotional things that we have to go through if it's clear in the legislation.
Mr Stewart: The other thing on restructuring, the thought that the commissioner who's being appointed would only be allowed to -- I assume that you're talking about the commissioner being a facilitator rather than actually directing the restructuring proposals?
Ms Smith: As we understand it right now, a commission can come in, draw the lines, go away and it's all done and you get a bill.
Mr Stewart: That's kind of what happened in the past, and Wellington county's a perfect example of it.
Mr Phillips: That's what the bill says. She's right.
Mr Stewart: I'm just asking a question. I don't talk with you; please don't talk when I'm talking.
Mr Phillips: You're misrepresenting the bill.
Mr Stewart: I'm asking a question. I said to you, do you believe that's the position a commissioner should be, as a facilitator?
Ms Smith: Definitely not. As a facilitator, possibly, but what we see is that if this government really wants local decision, then don't threaten us with a commissioner. Let us work on it, let us come up with a local decision and let us get on with business.
The Chair: Mr Stewart, I'm sorry, we've come to the end of your time. I want to thank you both for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
Ms Smith: Thank you for your time.
Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, maybe while we transition to the next speaker --
Mr Phillips: Not another amendment.
Mr Sampson: Mr Phillips has guessed correctly. I'm shocked that he would know I have another amendment in my hand.
Mr Phillips: They are coming hourly now.
Mr Sampson: It was one that was to have accompanied the ones this morning, but there was an error. One of the pages didn't quite make it to transmission. I do have the full document here. This is actually two amendments with respect to section 25.3 of the Municipal Act, if I can table them. Again unfortunately, and I apologize and hope the clerk doesn't take this against my account, I only have one copy.
Mr Phillips: Do we have copies for all of us?
Mr Sampson: Copies will be made, Mr Phillips. I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance to get the copies made.
The Chair: The clerk will provide some copies. May I please have a representative from the Older Women's Network come forward.
Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, on a point of order, if I may: I have grave concern with this constant interruption, when we're either asking questions or leading up to something, by the opposition. I believe that we're here to listen to the people rather than to listen to ourselves. What the rest of them do is fine, but if I happen to be asking a question and talking to these people, I would ask that in future I have the respect to at least be able to address those people.
Mr Phillips: I will agree to that as long as you tell them the truth. What you were telling them was not the truth in the bill. We won't sit still for people being misled here. Those are the ground rules.
1340
OLDER WOMEN'S NETWORK
The Chair: Welcome to the committee. You have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions, response from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if you would take some time at the beginning of your presentation to introduce yourself for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members.
Ms Connie Delahanty: My name is Connie Delahanty. I'm a member of and represent the Older Women's Network of Toronto and Ontario. I am here to express our objections to Bill 26 in general and, in particular, to the proposed amendments in the Employment Equity Act effective January 1, 1997. This change will repeal the proxy method of comparison, which is the primary method of determining whether pay equity exists in areas of employment where women predominate.
We believe that Bill 26 is not a gender-neutral law and that deficit reduction is not a gender-neutral activity. The proxy value provisions were added to the Pay Equity Act in 1993 to provide equity to female employees who, because there were no male job classes in their establishment, were effectively denied access to pay equity under the act. Why are we now proposing to change a law that finally attempts to pay women fairly?
One of the major goals of the Older Women's Network is to empower older women to overcome injustice and inequality in the workplace. As older women, many of us are directly experiencing problems that are the result of being unable to earn enough to provide for an independent old age. There has been a lot of talk from members of the current government about being self-sufficient and saving for our old age while at the same time denying us the means to do so.
In 1991 in the province of Ontario, there were 1,151,375 women over the age of 55. This represents about 12% of the population of Ontario. As everyone knows, these figures are going to increase. Females born between 1985 and 1987 can expect to live for almost 80 years. This is a long time to live in poverty, as many older women already know, and women's poverty in old age is a direct result of a lifetime of unpaid work in the home and underpaid work in the workplace.
The repeal of a law that grants a large number of the women of Ontario equal pay to that of men is not only a step backwards but we believe is an unbeatable example of the contempt that this government shows for women as well as for the law. The repeal of any portion of the Pay Equity Act will do nothing to promote the economic prosperity of Ontario, as Bill 26 is intended to do. It will promote the economic prosperity of a few, but not the majority of women in Ontario whom this government was elected to represent.
After the passing of the Pay Equity Act in 1987, a majority of 200 companies surveyed in Ontario stated that pay equity would not adversely affect their organizations' ability to compete in the current business environment. The addition of the proxy comparison method put workers in all jobs on an equal footing. That amendment is about to be removed. It appears that justice is now subject to shifts in the economy.
Women are a major component of the economy. In 1983, 77% of all female employees worked in just five occupational groups: clerical, service, sales, health care and teaching. These are the groups that would be most affected by the repeal of the proxy provisions amendment. For a long time now, these women, and many others, have been subsidizing their employers. The Ontario Equal Pay Coalition told the province's consultation panel on pay equity in 1986: "Women are already being very lenient with the business community which has profited for many years by paying women unfairly. Our demands are very modest considering the massive wage losses suffered by women over the years."
Paying women fairly can only improve the economy and allow us to make provisions for our future. If Ontario wants to start paying back its debt, let it start by paying back women what it owes them. Without fair pay, women, especially as we age, will continue to be seen as expendable burdens on the economy, institutionalized in profit-making nursing homes and cared for by yet another generation of underpaid and overworked women and health care workers.
The Chair: Thank you. You've left plenty of time, about seven minutes per caucus, for questions and responses. We'll start with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't know whether I'll need the whole seven minutes.
Let me say, Ms Delahanty, thank you for your presentation and for focusing in on an issue that certainly we've heard about from other presenters here, but quite frankly, I'm dismayed that we haven't heard more of an outcry against what the government is doing with respect to the elimination of proxy pay equity.
I know, having been the minister responsible for the previous government that coordinated the efforts that brought about the proxy pay equity, the sense of relief that we felt when we were able to come up with the solution that was then reflected in the legislation. As imperfect as that was -- and we recognize that it had limitations -- it at least allowed finally for some 100,000 of the lowest-paid women in the province to be able to get what other women had managed to get through the earlier provisions of pay equity, which was, albeit over a long period of time, to know that they would get some form of equity in their wages relative to what men in comparable jobs were getting.
One of the things that continues to astound me is the rationale that the government uses, and I hope that they will talk to you about this as their turn in the questioning comes up. Their logic seems to be that pay equity was never envisioned, and should never have been envisioned, to cover the women who work predominantly in nursing homes, in child care centres, in various social services like children's aid societies, who are the women that are covered by the proxy pay equity and who will be denied, as a result of this legislation, the right that they've had, not only to what they would have gained but, one could argue, also to what little they may have already gained as a result of the existing legislation. Although there's a provision in this bill that says that the employer's obligations will now be limited to 3%, there are no enforcement mechanisms. So that if an employer doesn't want to pay that 3%, there's nothing the employees can do about that.
I would be interested in your views about why this government would decide to do this. Why would they pick on the lowest-paid women in the public sector and deal with them in this kind of harsh way?
Ms Delahanty: As one of the columnists in the Ottawa newspaper said: "Don't kid yourself. This is a man's government." This is the way I feel about them.
Mr Silipo: People have said to us on more than one occasion that this government is giving certainly new meaning to the phrase "women and children first." We've certainly seen, in terms of various actions, from social assistance cuts, the various social services cuts, to this action, how in fact they are hurting women and children in a particular way. Again, on the one hand it's consistent, it seems to me, with the overall actions of the government as far as shifting the wealth and power away from most of us into the hands of a few, but I have to say to you that I still have trouble understanding why the government is so adamant about this particular provision.
There was a child care group that was here this morning, and they gave one possible explanation, which was to say that in the child care area at least this would allow the government not only to roll back the pay equity gains that women who work in the child care sector have made but also the wage enhancement funds that have been paid, about $2,500 per worker, that we instituted under the previous government.
I don't know if that provides any further explanation, but I just continue to be a little bit dumfounded, and I say that sincerely, as to why, among all of the areas the government could cut, they would do this and create the absurd result whereby you pit women against women in the sense that if a female worker is a school secretary, she has and will continue to benefit from pay equity, but if a woman works as a child care worker or in a nursing home or for a children's aid society, that woman will be denied the right to pay equity. There just doesn't seem to be any sense at all to me in that.
Ms Delahanty: There have been some very large settlements paying back women for the low wages they received, tremendous amounts probably, as money that they were due back, so maybe that doesn't look too good.
1350
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us today. I do want to make sure that you're aware of the fact that we are committing half a billion dollars in money to pay equity compensation. That was the statement embodied in the minister's statement at the end of November. That's a significant amount of money, I dare say larger than what the previous government was prepared to commit to like plans and an indication, contrary to what you've just heard from the other side of the table, of our commitment that we must establish appropriate pay equity plans.
With respect to Bill 26 and its effect on pay equity, I think if one reflects on how the proxy method has worked, I would be surprised if either one of the sides at the table would argue that it's 100% perfect as a system. So what we are trying to do is to recognize that maybe there are better ways to deal with that. But the fact of the matter is, there is half a billion dollars of funds which are going to be spent for pay equity plans in this province.
Ms Delahanty: There may be a better way, but you can't eliminate the one way that there is right now.
Mr Sampson: There are other ways, with respect, to establish pay equity plans, and the proxy method was only one of them. The problem with the proxy is that there are situations where comparisons were not appropriate and so that resulted in, frankly, stalemates, where there are no pay equity plans established because the employer cannot come to terms with the description, the comparison.
Ms Delahanty: That doesn't help all the women who aren't being paid. That's something the government is supposed to straighten out and hasn't straightened out.
Mr Sampson: That's right, and we need to, as a government, deal with the fact that we have to allocate that half a billion dollars appropriately. I don't want you to leave here believing that somehow we are trying to dismantle the pay equity concept; we're not.
Ms Delahanty: I'm afraid I do.
Mr Sampson: Well, we're not. There's half a billion dollars, a significant dollar amount of a very limited budget, more than the previous government spent on that plan, I might add, being allocated in this tough economic time to those particular pay equity plans. That is the commitment of this government and that will continue to remain the commitment of this government. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that.
Mr Phillips: I would just say to the delegation that the first thing the government took out of its budget on July 21 was the pay equity payment provisions. The second thing they took out was social assistance by 21%. The first thing was the pay equity provisions for the previous government's plans for the next few years. My question is, first, the pay equity schedule --
Mr Sampson: Not true.
Mr Phillips: It is true. If you want the proof of it, not on your time, but we'll prove it to them.
Does it offend you, people involved in pay equity, that an important issue like pay equity -- and Ontario, frankly, I think has been a leader over the years in pay equity; I think there's an acknowledgement of that -- that a major change in pay equity was put in, I think, in about three pages in a 212-page bill? Why do you think it was jammed in the middle of this bill, with all the other controversies swirling around the bill? Do you think it was an attempt by the government to try to ram something through in a significant way with a minimum of debate?
Ms Delahanty: That could very well be.
Mr Phillips: Do you think the fact that as we hear today -- we've heard from some wardens dealing with some substantial restructuring motions around municipalities; we'll hear later from the firefighters about some substantial concerns they have; we'll hear from the mayor and the regional council about substantial concerns -- that that may be evidence that the government hoped to create so much smoke around this bill that no one could see clearly into the total content of it and it could perhaps slide this change through with a minimum of debate from people like yourself?
Ms Delahanty: This is how it was presented to me. It's taken us a long time, I was told by the women in Toronto, to figure out what this is all about. It sounds very sneaky to us and that kind of thing, yes.
Mr Phillips: There's another section around arbitration that you may not be aware of, but we heard yesterday from the municipality of Red Lake, very angry about an arbitration award that gave people in the home for the aged a $2.36 increase over four years. They said the arbitrator's gone out of control. So the government is proposing to really put the cuffs on the arbitrators. I remember in the election they said they were going to take the cuffs off the police. They took them off the police and they put them on the arbitrators.
The way the arbitrators will be required to make their awards will mean that we have really a new wage control plan, and I suspect that one of the driving forces was things like the arbitration award at the Kenora District Home for the Aged, $2.36 over four years for those workers, an out-of-control arbitrator. Strange, but out of control. I wonder if --
Mr Patten: Sarcasm.
Mr Phillips: Well, it was sarcastic because I was interested in the out-of-control arbitrator at $2.36.
But my question to you is this: Do you think, as the arbitrators are being directed on their awards, that will have any impact on --
Ms Delahanty: I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrators directed.
Mr Phillips: The reason I raise this is because actually the previous presentation, if you were listening to it -- if you were here; I'm sure you were listening if you were here -- indicated that they needed controls on the arbitrators. My point is that many of the people who will be impacted by the controls on the arbitrator are women, and the combination of removing the proxy method and then directing the arbitrators in awards, have you had a chance to look at the implications of that in terms of how women --
Ms Delahanty: No, I haven't.
Mr Phillips: The last thing I want to ask you is, the government tells us this Bill 26 is designed to implement this, the fiscal policy; it's the hammer they need to do the Common Sense Revolution. In this document, the November 29 document, the number of people out of work in Ontario in 1996 is higher than it was in 1995. That's what the government says, more people out of work in 1996 than in 1995. Then it goes on to say that in 1997 there will be more people out of work in Ontario than there were in 1996. Two and a half years into the great Common Sense Revolution, there will be more people out of work than when Mike Harris took over as Premier. Have you any feeling of what that might do to the opportunities for women in the province who are looking for jobs and looking for opportunities?
Ms Delahanty: I think that most people out of work will probably be women, even like me, older women who are trying to find jobs who haven't got a chance now. We absolutely know it. It's one of the reasons we wanted to speak.
Mr Patten: My question would be, the government side says that the proxy value usage has stalled certain employment equity plans at this particular stage.
Ms Delahanty: Certain?
Mr Patten: Certain plans that were required by government to come forward to show some equity. Has your group had a chance to look at any of those in terms of ameliorating it? I think everyone would agree it's not perfect. Some of us would say: "But it is something. What is being replaced by it?" There's nothing being replaced by it. Given the existing approach, proxy values, are there things you see that can be ameliorated with that approach, that can be more effective in response to the government's --
Ms Delahanty: I think they're going over the method for implementing pay equity very carefully to see what can be changed, but it's an unnecessarily complicated business. But they are trying, yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
1400
NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have half an hour this afternoon to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain response and questions from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you both took a brief moment to introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and for committee members.
Ms Anne Marie Delorey: My name is Anne Marie Delorey. I'm the eastern Ontario regional rep with the National Action Committee on their executive committee. I'm also a member of the Renfrew county rape crisis centre, which is a rape crisis centre that services the upper Ottawa Valley. Also appearing with me is Susan Genge, who is an executive committee member with the National Action Committee. As you'll see from the copy of our brief, our names are both mentioned, as well as the other people we are representing here today.
I'd like to welcome the committee members to Ottawa. As you can see, we have lovely weather. It's a pleasure to appear in front of you. However, the general gist of my comments is not as positive. The National Action Committee is extremely concerned about this particular move of this particular government. We're particularly concerned with respect to two major issues that you'll see addressed in our brief. One is the issue of democracy; the other is the issue of economic security for women.
I'm sure you're well aware of the National Action Committee. We represent over 600 groups in Canada. They are members of the National Action Committee, and they participate in formulating the agenda of NAC. We also represent a diverse population of women, which means we represent women from different walks of life, women who will be more or less affected by this particular bill.
One of our major concerns about the process has been the speed with which it was set up in a response to, unfortunately, political action, social action, taken by members of Parliament. It was unfortunate that this government didn't see this broad consultation as a preliminary and important part of any formulation of legislation, that it wasn't thought of before the legislation was formulated and in fact people didn't have input before the legislation was even formulated.
However, here we are, and it has been formulated and it's been drafted to address, as I understand it, approximately 44 pieces of legislation; it also adopts three new pieces of legislation. Certainly, you know as members of Parliament that this is an extremely complex process and that in order to redraft pieces of legislation, you have to look at every piece of that legislation and what the new redraft or what the new piece will be and how it will affect other pieces of that legislation.
What I'm particularly concerned about is that we have been forced to present in front of you without having had the opportunity to do that careful review. We are going to be presenting in a very general way. I think it's also unfortunate for you as MPPs that you haven't had that opportunity, in my mind, to have that really extensive review of the effects of this particular bill. But, as you well know, there are other people who will be presenting to you, and they have focused on particular sections of the bill and have done that detailed work on their sections.
The other area we're particularly concerned about is that the government would limit public input in the long term, especially with respect to a bill that proposes a complete, in our view, restructuring of government and governance in the province on both the municipal and provincial levels. So what we see is a change that fundamentally will affect the way in which we participate in political debate and the way we participate in social governance in this province.
We urge the committee to take seriously the presentations that are put before it, including the ones other than ours. We understand that there are a variety of people presenting to you. In our view, that demonstrates the concerns that are being raised. These are concerns that cross the paths of many different people in Ontario: seniors and students, women and men, municipal politicians, union members, social workers, health care providers, parents and teachers.
You've heard the voice of teachers. They have presented themselves on your doorstep, and I think that's a fairly serious approach, for them to take themselves down from Thunder Bay and Timmins on buses to Toronto to tell you that they're concerned. You also hear from doctors and representatives of the police, the justice system and many other independent concerned citizens. In addition, the government has received feedback in the form of a general strike in London, Ontario, on December 11, which I understand is now planned for Hamilton on February 23 and 24.
Mr Patten: What time is that?
Ms Delorey: Probably 7:30. It's the time people start work.
In addition, you've also heard major church groups who have strongly expressed their concern about the actions of the government with respect to treatment of the poor, particularly those people on welfare and social assistance.
In general, as I understand it, polls have shown that Canadians are not particularly concerned in fighting the deficit on the backs of the people who are the least fortunate in our society. I think people are definitely concerned and have expressed that -- that they're concerned about deficits, that they're concerned about financial, fiscal responsibility, as you've probably called it -- but that's not to say it's to override the other concerns.
In particular, what we don't want to see is a withdrawal of the input of regular people into the political process at this opening stage in the omnibus bill and then, in a later stage, have no ability to have input as fiscal responsibility becomes the primary goal of this government. So our concern is that you've withdrawn or are attempting to withdraw the democracy process at a time when people are particularly concerned about the actions of this government and the weighing of many different priorities.
Our recommendations generally are for this government to slow down and to look at these things seriously, to determine what kind of society the people of Ontario really want. For the party in power, it's important to really determine what it is that people in Ontario want. What are their priorities, and do those priorities override the provision of health care, education, social assistance?
It's the National Action's Committee's proposal that withdrawal of the omnibus bill would be the most appropriate way to proceed, and then to proceed on reviewing those pieces of legislation which you are concerned about, and to get public input on them in particular. What we want is the ability to participate in the ordinary democracy of Ontario in the way that people have before: to present in front of this committee, but to be presenting about specific issues, not about 44 different pieces of legislation.
As I said at the beginning, the two particular concerns of our group are focused on the democracy issue, which I've highlighted, as well as the economic security issue. These two issues are of particular concern for groups which are concerned about the welfare of women in Ontario. In our view, Bill 26 constitutes a frontal attack on the economic security of women, as well as their ability to participate in democracy.
As you well know, women had to fight to get the vote in Ontario, the vote across Canada. Women also had to fight and have had to push in order to become representatives in our Parliament in Ontario. That is something that women have had to work hard to do, and it's not something that we're willing to say we'll give up with a stroke of a pen on one bill. What we see as important is participatory parliamentarianism.
1410
The other concern we have is that the bill, in our mind, overrides a lot of the international commitments made by the governments of Canada. Those commitments are to women's economic, social and cultural wellbeing, particularly being the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As you'll see in our brief, we highlight the commitments that have been made on behalf of Canada and by Canadian governments to ensure that policies that are designed by government do not adversely affect women when we're trying to respond to changes in the global economy, trying to respond to the fiscal situation.
In addition, the convention and the commitments ensure that economic and financial policy should not adversely affect poor women. They focus on providing publicly funded quality day care as a fundamental premise of a society. They focus on establishing and strengthening measures such as shelters to help survivors of male violence against women and children. We talk about providing support services for women with disabilities, providing equitable access to services, education and training, and stimulating and supporting women's non-governmental organizations, because through women's non-governmental organizations, and in particular through NAC, this is the way that women have participated in the governance of Canada and Ontario. Not all women choose to be elected to Parliament to participate in that process. This is the other way that women participate in the political process: by being involved in groups that are bringing their issues forward.
With respect to the issue of democracy, we're particularly concerned about the centralization of power with the cabinet, and in particular with respect to the centralization of power to specific individual cabinet ministers. So the ability of one specific cabinet minister to take power and to make actions individually is of concern. When you have a Parliament, the purpose of having a Parliament is that people act as a group to design law and design the functions of the government. To take that away and move it into individual power, we have a real problem. Individual power is not something that's supported by the history of democracy in Canada. We think that's of particular concern in this bill.
There are also elements of the bill that eliminate government accountability to the public. There are changes to the freedom of information act that we're particularly concerned about. That's a place where women have had access to find out what's going on in government, to find out about some decisions that affect them, to get more information. Removing that access eliminates the ability of women to participate in their government.
As I said earlier, women traditionally have not been high participators in governance, in Parliament. Only 18% of parliamentarians are women. In this government, only four cabinet members are women. NAC met with one of these cabinet members yesterday, who said to us that the concerns of women were on the agenda with this government. It's really difficult to understand how they can be on the agenda at the same time as being cut down by the omnibus bill. So it's really important, if that is a serious part of your governance, that in fact you carry that out. Saying women's concerns are important or violence against women should be ended is not good enough, to just make that statement. What we have to see is some action, and we have to see some action on this bill, in our view.
We've seen, since the government has moved into power, removal of two particular groups that have participated in advising government on issues. One was the Ontario women's directorate and the other is the Anti-Racism Secretariat. As I understand it, the Anti-Racism Secretariat was completely disbanded and the women's directorate has received reduced funding. In addition, there has been cancelled committed funding to a variety of women's groups and women's services. If access is being denied at each of these stages, either through the omnibus bill or through the removal of advisory groups within the government, then we continue to see an undercutting of the access of women to government.
We're particularly concerned with, and ask that you recommend the withdrawal of, the proposed changes that deal with democracy that particularly affect women, those which recommend centralization of power, as in to cabinet ministers on the whole or individually, those which eliminate the right to referenda, those which limit legal recourse of Ontario citizens against arbitrary decisions, those which insulate government officials from judicial review and those which limit access generally of Ontario citizens to the government.
As women, our democratic rights are much too important to be given away through a very intricate process, and that intricate process and difficult process is the one that's outlined in this bill. It will not only make people's access more difficult, but more complex. So then you have a change, people having to deal with a change as well as dealing with a reduction of their rights and access.
With respect to the economic security issue, our concern is this 30% tax cut and the balancing of that against the concerns and economic security of women in Ontario. We've given an example in our brief where if you take a chief executive officer making $1 million a year, which we have in our banks, he would receive a tax rebate of $63,000. This amount eats up the savings that could be made by cutting welfare benefits for 17 single mothers with two children, 51 people altogether. All of those people will be the people who are paying for the tax break for one business executive. That's extremely important to understand, that there are numbers of people who will be directly affected by pursuing this tax cut.
It's our view that the government did not suggest in their election campaigning that this was the balance they would be bringing to the budget: "We are going to cut single mothers. We are going to cut people off of welfare. We are going to affect those people who are most vulnerable in the society in order to give you people who have jobs, who are making some money, a tax cut." As you remove jobs and remove people from the workforce, you're going to have fewer and fewer people to provide the tax cut to. I suppose that's better for your budget, but it's not better overall because they end up on welfare.
There are several groups presenting to you that deal with particular services that are of particular concern to women: day care services, libraries, municipal centres, sexual assault centres, hospitals, homes for the aged, health care, transition houses etc. We particularly support the briefs that have been provided and will be provided to you by the Equal Pay Coalition, the Feminist Alliance on New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the Ontario Health Coalition.
Particularly, what you have to understand is that if you're going to be cutting these services, these are the services that are used by people who don't have a lot of money. If I have money, I can go ski. I can join a ski club and I can join a workout club and I have lots of ways of creating recreation in my life. If I don't have a lot of money, I'm going to be the person who's using your library. I'm going to be the person who uses the services at the municipal level. I'm taking my kids to the rink. Those are the people who are affected. The people who have money have access to other services, and the cutbacks of municipal services or library services can be accounted for in their personal budgets, but they can't be accounted for in the personal budgets of people who are living on social assistance or close to the line of social assistance.
1420
When you look at what jobs are being cut through restructuring, you're looking at a lot of jobs that are held by women. In the health care field, 80% of the jobs are held by women, and when we think about health care, that's a lot of what we think about. There are women providing our health care services. Libraries and day care centres -- those are the places where women work and those are the places where women have found employment that pays, employment that supports them and their families and employment that's safe. To the extent that they're unionized, they've been able to set up sexual harassment programs, they've been able to set up non-discrimination programs, so that they've had access to create a better working environment for themselves.
Those are the concerns -- that where you're cutting on one hand, you're going to end up putting women on the street, putting women on welfare. You're going to end up with those particular women, the women who were earning and paying your taxes, taking money, having to take money because they don't have jobs.
The unemployment rate for women in Ontario is nearing the 10% figure. For young women, it's near 14%. We see that increasing because a lot of the jobs that are being cut are what are called part-time work, what they've called the "frills" work. That's the work that women have been doing and it isn't frills work. Those are the people who are going to be most affected by this. Then, if you look at the other side, if you cut child care, if you cut library services, if you cut money to women's shelters and you restructure that, you also have the rope tightening from both sides. You have them losing jobs and not having access to services, but you also have the services decreasing or being eliminated. That's of particular concern.
As well, the Bill 7 restructuring has affected the particular participation of women in the workforce. That has affected -- and I heard some discussion as I came into the room -- the ability of arbitrators to make decisions in interest arbitration, but it also carries through in this bill, in our view, because as you privatize and give more powers at the municipal level to privatize and to move to a private contracting method of delivering those services, then you don't guarantee any women's jobs and you certainly don't guarantee that their rights as union members would be shifted. The fact of the matter is that for women's employment and women's pay, unionization has been the greatest eliminator of the wage gap for women. No pay equity law can touch what unionization has done for women. So if you remove that, you create this economic effect for women.
For unionized women, the wage gap is 15%; for non-union women, it remains a staggering 30%. If you've heard the most recent statistics that have been released, for the first time in many years the wage gap has increased between men and women. That's astounding, and that's with pay equity already in place for some places.
We've addressed in our brief some of the issues regarding pay equity and, as we walked in, we heard some of the panel's questions. Our concern about the wiping out of the proxy system in pay equity is that you take the jobs that have been the lowest-paid women's jobs, the women's ghetto jobs -- the libraries, the day care workers -- and you say that's going to be capped, the money you give them. But you've already determined that they're actually owed a lot of money. It's completely inappropriate in our view to say, "You're owed a lot of money," and then pay them 3%. In fact, in our brief we highlight a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench decision which says that once you figure out how much you owe them and then you cap it, you actually are running contrary to the charter, because you've already determined that they've been discriminated against. You say, "Yes, you've been discriminated against, but we're only giving you three cents on the dollar for what you've been discriminated against." We discuss that in our brief and find it of particular concern. I think you should find it of particular concern, because I can assure you that if you don't fix it, someone else will be taking you to court over it.
I haven't left very much time for questions, but I want to just summarize that overall we're particularly concerned about the economic security and the democracy issue. We're accepting questions from the committee to the extent that you have them.
The Chair: You're right, you haven't left too much time. We do have a little more than a minute per caucus for questions and responses. The government caucus.
Mr Young: I hold out some hope for equality of the sexes and the reduction of discrimination in society. I'm not sure of the exact age group; I think it was age 30 to 44. University graduates who are women -- 1993 I think it was, Stats Canada -- are now making more money than men, slightly more money. Don't you hold out some hope with regard to discrimination, seeing that that's a reality?
Ms Susan Genge: This is the stat that says if you're that age group, you're unmarried and you don't have children?
Mr Young: Yes.
Ms Genge: That those 42 women earn more than 40 men? It's such a tiny slice of the population of women that it's not significant overall. If you take the whole population of women, the situation is not good and not getting better. In fact, for the first time in 30 years, the wage gap overall for women is increasing. It's shocking actually.
Ms Delorey: Can I just make one brief response as well? I note that it's university graduates. This government's proposed cuts to university funding. So if we're going to get women into university, cutting funding is not going to do it.
Mr Patten: If I may, let me congratulate you on your paper. It's an excellent paper. I would also suggest that while we would expect you to address women's issues, you've really highlighted an overall principle that affects everybody, regardless of men or women, especially on the democratic front and the loss of parliamentary authority to the Legislature, which means everyone is diminished by this.
I think you have a very powerful statement in terms of the example of why we are facing these kinds of cutbacks when you relate this to the tax rebate. You take someone with a very high salary, the people who have will have more, and those who will pay for it will be those people who have less or really need some help at this particular stage.
Given that we only have one minute, I want to congratulate you on your paper. I think you've done an excellent job. Thank you.
Ms Delorey: Thank you for the feedback.
Mr Silipo: The minute that we have probably won't give us time for much of an exchange, but you may have heard earlier the exchange that we had around the proxy pay equity. I was struck by hearing for the first time, I believe -- I was trying to recall back, but I think it's the first time that we heard the defence that was given today by the government members for the elimination of proxy, which is that it wasn't working but that they've got something else in mind. I don't know what that something else is. It would be interesting to know what it is. Do you have any inkling that they've got something else in mind?
Ms Delorey: The only other thing I could see that would be helpful is, just pay women the money they're due. That's the easiest. You don't want to have all this complex -- pay them. If that's what you're saying you're going to do, great, but I don't see that.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies, for coming today and making your presentation to the committee.
1430
Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We had, as you recall, when we were back in Toronto some discussion in the committee about asking a number of ministers who had not appeared before the committee. Particularly, we raised the fact that the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for pay equity, had not appeared before the committee to explain the government's actions. I just want to reiterate my request to have the Minister of Labour appear, particularly so in light of Mr Sampson's declaration today that the government has some other thoughts and some other ideas with respect to proxy pay equity.
I think it would be useful for us to hear from the minister responsible, as we begin next week, perhaps, clause-by-clause hearings, what those other plans are so that at least it would give us a fuller picture of what it is that's driving the government to eliminate proxy pay equity provisions from the laws of this province. I don't know what the procedure is. Do you need a formal motion, Mr Chair, to do that or is that something that's being pursued in light of our earlier request?
The Chair: I do recall that earlier request -- I believe it was made during our first week of meetings in Toronto -- as to whether or not ministers would be appearing in front of committee during clause-by-clause. Do we have any kind of response to that, Mr Sampson?
Mr Sampson: I am going to have to look back at the Hansard and see what we agreed to do. I don't recall us committing to have the ministers there during clause-by-clause review. I don't recall that, but I'm going to have to go back to Hansard to determine --
The Chair: I don't think that was the commitment made. I think it was agreed upon that we would inquire into that, though.
Mr Silipo: That's why I requested it. I don't think there was a firm commitment from the government side that the ministers would be present. They couldn't commit the ministers to be present, but there was, I think, a clear understanding that the request would be passed on. I'd like to hear back as soon as possible as to whether, for example, the Minister of Labour will be appearing. If not, I'd like to know that. I hope she will, because as I say, I think there are some significant issues that I would like her to address, in view of what's being said particularly today around proxy pay equity.
Mr Phillips: My recollection was -- I forget the language -- that the appropriate ministers would be there to outline their amendments in clause-by-clause. I think if we look back at the wording, that was an undertaking we did get from the government, that on Monday morning the appropriate ministers would be there. I remember this very well; it looks like there's some shaking of heads over there. The thing we said from our side was that we would not insist they be there the entire week, but there was a clear undertaking they would be there Monday morning and they would outline the major amendments.
I'm sure we can find that language in Hansard in five minutes. It was either the first day of hearings or the Friday.
Mr Gerretsen: I heard it too.
Mr Sampson: Maybe we could have Hansard pull up that record. We'll see what was said and we'll respond when we see what was said. I just can't remember back. There was a comment made with respect to whether ministers were going to be there, but I can't recall --
The Chair: Can I ask the researcher to find that.
Mr Silipo: Except, Mr Chair, with respect, the issue I believe is not so much what was said or what wasn't said. Regardless of what was said, whether it was an undertaking, whether it was a request that would be passed on, I want to be very clear: I would like to have the Minister of Labour at least appear before the committee at some point next week to talk to us about proxy pay equity. I would certainly concur that it would be useful for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for example, to also appear and justify the amendments he's making and the amendments he's not making. That I would certainly agree with, but I don't want to get confused here in terms of what was said and what wasn't said. I want those ministers and other ministers who have responsibility for this legislation to appear before us and explain to us their actions.
The Chair: I believe Mr Sampson has agreed to pass that request forward.
Mr Gerretsen: Point of order: It's just on that last point, just so there's no misunderstanding. I don't think we want them all there at the same time like the last time. They were there for two hours and only two of the ministers got asked questions. I think it would be much better if they came at separate times so that full attention could be paid to the minister who's actually there and they wouldn't be under the same kind of time constraints.
The Chair: Duly noted.
Mr Sampson: I've noted it here, but I believe that we would be reviewing clause-by-clause in accordance with the schedule. It would seem to me appropriate that if they were going to be there, you would have the Minister of Labour there for the labour issues, not necessarily the less -- I'll review that, take the request and deal with it and try to report back to the committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sampson.
GRAHAM CORKE
The Chair: Would Graham Corke please come forward. Welcome, Mr Corke. I apologize for the delay. You have half an hour this afternoon to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for response and questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself for Hansard and committee members.
Mr Graham Corke: My name is Graham Corke. I'm an elector in the riding of Nepean. Although I have a PhD in economics, my presentation will be made to you today as an elector. I feel my views are representative of many of my neighbours and fellow electors in Ontario. I have no association to represent me. Over the last 20 years, I've been a part-time instructor, student and small business owner. The fact that I am here today is a tribute to a government that will allow a private citizen who really has no other voice an opportunity to speak. Like persons in similar circumstances, I have often felt or been ignored by bureaucracy.
I fully support many of the provisions of Bill 26. Last week, I had the pleasure of listening to your hearings. I will be rational and specific in my representations. I'm not here to demonstrate or to remonstrate. Even if I were opposed to aspects of this bill, my opposition to it would address those sections of it with which I take issue. Further, I will respect your civility by giving you reasons for my support or lack of it. I will not characterize the legislation or weep or call you names. My representations are to you, ladies and gentlemen, since as a sole elector I have no other audience.
Ontario has changed dramatically since the days I grew up in the small incorporated village of Bronte, Ontario. Fishing and farming were gradually being crowded out by manufacturing as the primary employers. Our village council met in the basement of a local public school. If you wanted to discuss local affairs, you could do so at the barber shop or the local restaurant, or even at the local harbourmaster's house where we often gathered on a Saturday evening. Between periods, the conversations usually turned to politics and were lively indeed. And there were all elements of the spectrum there; all parties were represented.
Since those days, people generally believe that we have progressed, that government has matured and become more professional. No doubt some of this professionalism in government is necessary. One of its effects is undeniable: The citizen has been further and further removed from decision-making. I saw Ontario gradually carved up into jurisdictions of one sort or another, all with their own elected officials and their non-elected and seemingly perpetual professional retinue. Government, in my opinion, became less democratic at all levels. Gradually it seemed that the overseer responsibility of legislators was more and more delegated to professional regulators who had no direct accountability to the electorate. Departments seemed to clone new departments, at all levels of government, which in their turn spawned committees and boards. Unfortunately, our ability as taxpayers to properly monitor this increasingly complex machinery did not grow at the same pace.
At the same time, our public indebtedness grew to its unimaginable present size of $100 billion -- roughly $10,000 for every man, women and child in Ontario. At the present deficit rate of $1 million per hour, this debt increases by $1 billion every 42 days. The burden of this debt, if allowed to grow at its most recent rate, could soon be about half average home mortgage payments.
For me this is a crippling and staggering fact, simply because in order to carry this debt, the government would need to expropriate, through taxation, the income I need to prepare for retirement. I have no pension other than CPP. I don't want the government to look after my interests. In my opinion, in the past the government has shown itself to be ill-equipped to assist and indifferent to my welfare. Now, if this public debt remains and grows, government will take from me, through increased taxation, the moneys that I will need in my declining years just to pay the interest on the government's past excesses. That's the point. It's staggering, ladies and gentlemen. This fact is pure and simply staggering.
In light of these facts, I and other Ontarians applaud the government's expenditure and taxation reductions. The opponents to this bill have characterized it as draconian, a plague. From my financial perspective and the perspective of many Ontarians who are self-employed, operate small businesses or work in an unorganized sector and must provide for their present and future welfare, it is a welcome plague indeed. Further, the characterization of my fears regarding the present size of the debt as "deficit hysteria" is a cynical response from many who are represented by powerful lobbies and whose pensionable futures are already well assured.
Let me say that if I were wealthy, I could cynically encourage you to spend and spend, eagerly awaiting the next rise in the interest rates when you were forced to borrow on the bond market. I would then collect a relatively high, risk-free rate of return. No, the wealthy have little to gain if this bill is enacted, but I stand to lose a great deal if it is not. Indeed, many of the opponents of this bill, represented by powerful lobbies, might be more readily placed in the wealthy category than myself. I could make one other point here, and that is that they are more able to shift the burden of the tax on to people like me because they have the representation to you, as other unions and other associations, and they have more power in setting their own tariff. So in effect I will be accepting a burden that they could shift to me.
1440
The other point that should also be considered is that the true burden was never really revealed. I see now that it's $100 billion. The former government was telling us something else, that deficits were in the range of $6 billion to $7 billion, and now we see even last year it was in the range of $10 billion.
Now I'll speak to some particular amendments and statutes.
Schedule A: The Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act will force accountability on government departments, crown corporations and arm's-length corporations which operate as agents of the government. The taxpayers are the de facto if not the legal stakeholders in these institutions, and these institutions must be accountable to the taxpayer. These departments and corporations provide services and products generally in a legislated monopoly market or in no market whatsoever. Any legislation that increases the ability of a consumer to monitor the costs and provision of these services and products can do nothing but increase the economy and efficiency of supply.
The private sector lives with the discipline of the market and consumer choice and, as a result, constantly strives for economies. However, in the public sector, mandatory consumption leaves the consumer without his or her most powerful weapon, the choice not to consume. Any bill which increases the ability to monitor institutions will increase efficiency and economy.
Ontario's recent experience with rapidly increasing power rates is a perfect example of the need for public sector or crown corporation monitoring. The rapid escalation of power rates has reduced consumers' standard of living. I just got my bill for my cottage, and I think it literally had doubled in a year, when consumption rates are almost the same. I haven't looked into it closely, but I'm asking myself, if this is the situation, how are producers reacting? How can they deal with escalating rates like this and maintain their ability to compete in both North American and world markets?
Schedule K: Likewise, amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will increase the ability of citizens to monitor the activities of departments, crown corporations and these arm's-length corporations. Specifically here, I suggest that freedom of information provisions be explicitly extended to those corporations that have been granted a monopoly to provide a service or a product to the Ontario consumer by the government. Such corporations are established as private, non-profit, non-share capital corporations acting as agents for the government. I prefer to be served by a corporation disciplined by accountability to its stakeholders or its shareholders.
The privacy commissioner has expressed reservations about the bill. However, it seems common sense that greater access to information is the hallmark of a government that wishes to further democratize the decision-making process. This government, I believe, is responding to its electors, who have clearly stated they distrust decisions made by an insular bureaucracy behind closed doors. The legislators are directly accountable for their decisions at election time, as we all know; the bureaucrats are not. Further, totalitarian states don't generally increase the access to information regarding their activities.
I suggest the position of privacy commissioner be retitled to privacy and public access to information commissioner, and that his or her role be mandated to include the study of information access on democratization, as well as the impact of such legislation on the individual rights of privacy. Surely these rights need to be balanced.
Further, opponents to this aspect of Bill 26 seem to have completely ignored the impact of modern technology on the public's desire and ability to acquire knowledge. Is Hansard on compact disk, for example? Have online information services been established by government departments and crown corporations? For approximately $200, today's electorate can purchase a vintage XT or AT computer complete with a modem that would enable them to access data remotely. The public knows the cost of access is decreasing and they expect -- indeed they want -- this access to be provided. In other democracies, in some jurisdictions, the town hall has become the electronic town hall. This legislation begins to respond to a demand for more direct democracy that is impacting not only Ontario but democratic states throughout the world. Perhaps this is a reason why lobby groups and other political intermediaries oppose it. Legislators who can respond directly to electors diminish the need for these groups.
Schedule M, amendments to the Municipal Act and various other statutes related to municipalities, conservation authorities and transportation, and schedule E, amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act and the Highway Traffic Act related to toll highways: The amendments provided in this schedule will enable local governments and boards to rationalize the delivery of services. I support user-pay provisions. Somehow, the term "user pay" has become a demon in the eyes of opponents. Typically, when purchasing a product or service, I evaluate the benefits and costs to me. If the benefits exceed the cost, I pay for the product or the service and I use it. We all do it every day when we buy a meal or anything else.
Efficiency, to me, is the ability to accept or decline the product or service at the price offered. Any legislation that gives me more choice as a consumer increases the democratization of the marketplace, in my view. Indeed, it puts the providers on notice that they had better respond to a market if they wish to remain providers. A market provides the most effective discipline to the producer of goods and services. If circumstances exist such that a market can operate, it should.
These amendments enable municipalities and boards to sell products and services, and I as the consumer can either purchase them or not purchase them. The mandatory consumption and production of goods and services is not the hallmark of a free society, in my humble opinion. If there are individuals who need income support to purchase needed products and services, they can still obtain it. Opponents of these amendments most likely feel that the demand for mandatory services is just not there, and if consumers have a choice, these producers will be out of business.
The act also enables governments at various levels to trade in services for a fee. This will enable the most efficient, least-cost producers to provide these services.
I strike out the references to the problems with the taxation, although economically speaking, if one municipality imposed a tax and another didn't, it would be economically unviable. Now the government has introduced amendments to the bill that prohibit poll taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes and income taxes, so there are no problems there at all. But the fact that we have such close proximity to the US border, or even to the Quebec border, for that matter, mitigates the provision of certain kinds of taxes.
The amendments to these statutes -- that's the amendments to the Pay Equity Act and amendments to various statutes with regard to interest arbitration -- will either create greater efficiencies by permitting a market to more properly function, or constrain an arbitrator to consider market forces when making an award. When prices are at competitive market rates, the volume of trade increases. That's just a fact. This legislation will have the effect of increasing employment by constraining an arbitrator to set a rate commiserate with prevailing economic conditions. One immediate effect will be to either allow employees to capture economic returns for skills in short supply or to continue to work if they are not.
Arbitration awards have not appeared to always consider economic forces in the past. It has never been clear to me that the arbitrator in these cases had a clear understanding of market forces. This legislation forces the arbitrator in labour disputes to provide an economic rationale, and even if he or she does not possess this expertise, they must now seek it. The legislation will more easily prevent awards from being set at artificial levels, with the inevitable subsequent electoral and taxpayer malcontent that such awards bring with them. You shouldn't discount that, because many people who are not in organized sectors will see these kinds of awards and have no power to obtain those kinds of returns. They'll see a non-market rate set by an arbitrator and, believe me, they just don't like it one bit. In short, fairness to all is more easily obtained.
Amendments to the Pay Equity Act will ensure that persons who invest in the acquisition of expertise will see employers consider this as the primary consideration when hiring individuals for positions demanding this expertise. In addition, minority groups will not be crippled by disincentives to acquire expertise. Anti-discrimination laws which apply to the provision of educational subsidies and the like remain to give individuals equal opportunity to acquire skills. There's no evidence -- we've seen it today -- that the proxy method in any way enhances the returns to individuals. It's impossible to quantify. In fact, various other presenters have said that the legislation doesn't seem to have worked.
1450
Recommendations: I believe Bill 26 could be strengthened by providing the government with more power to audit the uses of municipal and educational grants in a manner similar to the audit procedures that are recommended under the statutes applying to the health sector. In this way, Ontarians could be assured that funds were used for the ascribed purposes and no fraudulent claims were made. Policy implemented using provincial funds can be re-engineered in ways not consistent with the objectives of provincial electors, and every effective penalty should be provided and enforced on those boards and/or municipalities which persist in contravening both the letter and spirit of a provincial statute. I would recommend the appointment of special auditors in both the educational and municipal sectors.
I urge you to review the bill carefully, accepting those constructive criticisms that have been made by other submitters and that are consistent with the aims of the legislation. I ask that you maintain the overall goals and objectives you have formulated for Ontario and that you do not waver or allow yourselves to be bullied from these objectives by powerful lobbies or interest groups.
Finally, I thank you for your kind and generous attention to my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any other questions that the committee might have.
The Chair: We have just a little better than four minutes per caucus for questions. We start off with the opposition caucus.
Mr Grandmaître: One short question. On page 3 of your presentation, you refer to our present indebtedness, the total deficit of the provincial government, adding close to $100 billion. A man of your stature, with a PhD in economics, do you agree that the provincial government should continue to borrow $5 billion a year for the next five years in order to meet its 30% provincial income tax cut?
Mr Corke: For me, if I had run a company -- and I'll draw that analogy -- and I had not informed the shareholders of the true indebtedness of the company, and then they had no idea that the present situation was a $100-billion --
Mr Grandmaître: No, no. They knew this. They knew it.
Mr Corke: No, I'm sorry. I as a taxpayer did not know. I just recently calculated the burden of this on myself and I thought, what's going on here?
Interjection.
Mr Corke: Excuse me. You had your opportunity to speak, and I'm coming here to speak. You asked the question and I'm answering it. There is such a thing as a courtesy.
The point is just this: I didn't know what the true size of the deficit was until the recent figures, the total debt. The deficit, incidentally, is the $10 billion and the total debt is the $100 billion. I had no idea. Then you take a look at the overall impact of that. You have to sit down and think about it for a few minutes, and you say, "Hold it, what's going on here?" Basically, if they want to pay this back, they're going to have to clobber me. I have no way -- I can't go to my police association or any other bargaining unit and say: "Hey, get this back for me. Take a stance." I pretty well have to go to the marketplace and get it there. And you're saying to me, "How would you respond?" Well, this is how I'm responding.
I'm telling you, I would provide it, because as a taxpayer I'm entitled to it. You're taking from me the money I need for my retirement. You would say, "No, you don't get your tax refund. Basically that's the situation, because we have to provide certain kinds of services," but you never revealed to me the true extent of indebtedness. That's over the last two governments.
Mr Grandmaître: I wish you had answered my question.
Mr Patten: My question would be, you characterize this government as promoting great democracy, and on page 6 you talk about the privacy commissioner's expression of certain reservations. I would say to you that there is no government, in my opinion, in this country that has undercut parliamentary democracy as significantly. The Minister of Health himself, or herself, can make any decision without any future reference to the Legislature of this particular Parliament in Ontario: can close hospitals, can change fees, can tell doctors where to go, can change the whole shooting match.
You're saying to me that access to information is the worry of the commissioner. In fact, this government is proposing to close off access through charges, through having no appeal for any decision that a minister may take, or a commissioner appointed by a minister. How can you say that this is a move and a great move for democracy?
Mr Corke: Any move that increases the accountability of either a bureaucracy or a legislator to its electors is an increase in democracy. In other words, basically, if I can go and ask for information which, for example, would show me the books of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program or things like this and I could see whether or not certain kinds of decisions were being made and they cannot act in a way that subverts the intent of democracy, that increases it.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Corke. I apologize for not being here for all of it. I came in shortly after you started. I'm sorry. I did hear most of it and I've had a chance to catch up in reading it.
If I have time, I'd like to raise two questions, one for sure regarding your statements on page 3 where you talk about the deficit, the $100 billion, and --
Mr Corke: Excuse me. That's the debt, the increase to the debt.
Mr Grandmaître: The indebtedness.
Interjection: The debt and the deficit, they tend to go hand in hand.
Mr Christopherson: While I have great respect for your degree and your education, and it's much greater than mine, I did spend two years as parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer and so have some understanding of how the economics of the province work.
Some of us still have a great deal of difficulty understanding one particular important thread that this government seems to want to put through everything, and that is that if you accept that the debt and the deficit are in a crisis right now -- which we don't, but that's what the government suggested; it's a crisis, not a problem, an absolute crisis -- and if you further believe, as the government does, that we have to reach a zero deficit and eliminate the debt as quickly as possible regardless of how many people get steamrollered in the process, which again we don't agree with, but if you do, then many of us still fail to understand why, if that's the case, if there's such a crisis, the government seems to think it makes common sense to give a 30% tax cut before it deals with the deficit, which of course then helps to alleviate the debt. If you're a supporter of that, can you help me understand how that makes economic sense?
Mr Corke: Yes, very easily. Basically, it will give me funds I need to put in RRSPs to pay for my retirement that I'll get no other way. So it's as simple as that, and there are many, many people out there -- don't discount them. They may be plasterers, they may be carpenters, they may be all kinds of people working in sectors who are not necessarily union people. I operate my own small business in computer consulting. I have to go to the market to get my return.
Mr Christopherson: Without getting into a debate --
Mr Corke: Without getting into that debate, what I'm saying is that I have to get my return for the market and you're saying to me, "Why do you want some money now?"
Mr Christopherson: No.
Mr Corke: The thing is basically now --
Mr Christopherson: That's not my question, sir. My question --
Mr Corke: You're saying, why does the government want to give a 30% tax reduction now when they say it's a crisis?
Mr Christopherson: If the debt and deficit are such a crisis, why not put that money towards the deficit and the debt first, eliminate the deficit, get the debt under control, and then give the tax cut? That's what a lot of us fail to understand.
Mr Corke: We were deceived, sir. We were deceived. We did not know the extent --
Mr Christopherson: "We" being who?
Mr Corke: Myself and many of my neighbours. We didn't know the extent of this indebtedness. We didn't know that it was $100 billion and that the true load of it would be like half a mortgage payment if it continued to grow. If we allow this to grow, by the end of the century we could be looking at $300 to $400 a month.
Mr Christopherson: So regardless of whether or not this is the right thing to do, the government's going to march ahead, but you're saying had they known, they wouldn't have made that kind of promise because it doesn't make sense?
Mr Corke: I don't follow your question. Had the government known what?
Mr Christopherson: When I said, "Why do you think this makes sense, or why would you support that?" you went on to tell me you didn't know the level of indebtedness. My question would then be, if you did know the level of indebtedness, and I have no reason to question your word, of course --
Mr Corke: If --
Mr Christopherson: Let me finish.
Mr Corke: Okay.
Mr Christopherson: Then would you agree that had the government known those numbers, and I would suggest they did, they wouldn't have done this, because it doesn't make any common sense? Would you agree with that?
Mr Corke: No, I wouldn't. I mean, the thing is, the point of this is --
Mr Christopherson: It doesn't make sense to give tax revenues back before we deal with the deficit.
Mr Corke: That's exactly what I just said.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Christopherson: Would you also agree the deficit is the absolute most important priority facing the province? Which is it?
Mr Corke: Quite frankly, you just asked me the same question. I guess the question is, what makes up the debt? Is it transfers to individuals? What we've seen in Ontario is the failure to develop infrastructure, and so what's been happening is that moneys have been transferred to individuals and this has not developed the needed economic infrastructure --
Mr Christopherson: That's not the question.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Corke.
Mr Corke: You say it's not the question, but to me it is the question because the economy's ability to produce --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Corke.
Mr Corke: Excuse me, and your ability to produce -- I'm sorry, sir.
The Chair: It's okay.
Mr Corke: I mean, I feel harassed here.
The Chair: We have a certain amount of time for each caucus and we're moving into the government's time. I must move to Mr Sampson for questions.
1500
Mr Sampson: Kind of a related topic. On page 3, you indicated at the bottom that the "`deficit hysteria' is a cynical response from many who are represented by powerful lobbies and whose pensionable futures are already well assured." Have you ever had a chance to look at who owns these IOUs we've been doling out as the government?
Mr Corke: Basically, you look at the pension funds. You own a lot of them, the teachers' federation and people like that.
Mr Sampson: You said the public didn't know the size of the debt. I believe a lot of people don't know what $100 billion looks like. I worked in the banking business for a number of years, and I daresay I don't know what $100 billion looks like. I know what a dollar looks like. Would you be surprised to hear that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40-odd billion dollars of our debt is actually owed to public union pension funds?
Mr Corke: I wouldn't be surprised at all. In fact, that's what I would have expected.
Mr Sampson: But tell me, how do they feel secure in their future with respect to the value of those pension funds, given that credit ratings over the last number of years have decided, "We're going to take you down a notch"? That debt's worth less -- three times over the last five years. Do you think there's been an impact on the ability of the individual to get that money back when he or she retires, because the value has gone down?
Mr Corke: Certainly there would be that impact; that's right.
Mr Sampson: I'm talking about public union pension funds, but if you really peel back the numbers and you spend some time looking at it, a significant amount of the population of this province -- in spite of a conception that we owe all this money to the Japanese and the Europeans and the Germans, a significant amount of the money we owe is also buried in RRSPs that you and I may or may not have -- some have higher amounts; some don't -- that we're stashing away in the hopes that that money will have some value when it comes to retirement.
Mr Corke: Exactly.
Mr Sampson: So isn't it important to try to protect that value? If we don't, we're all going to be coming up to that pension wicket, and the guy behind the pension wicket is going to say, "I'm sorry, for that dollar you put in 10 years ago, here's 90 cents," or 80 cents or 60 cents, and then where are we going to be? We're not going to be able to live on 80 cents or 60 cents. The fact is, we are going to need that dollar to have been $1.20 or $1.30 because between the time we put that money in and the time we need to take it out to pay for our retirement, things cost more.
Mr Corke: The most dramatic impacts are the crowding out of private investment, the fact that you're encouraging people to just hold bonds and not take risks to get returns. You'd be forced to do that because you'd have to go to the bond market to finance this debt, and if you didn't want to tax to pay it back, you'd have to say, "Borrow it," and they would only borrow at higher rates because of the increased risk.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Corke, for coming forward this afternoon and making your presentation to the committee.
OTTAWA PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Mr Bill Cole: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Cole. I'm the president of the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association. I'm a full-time firefighter in Ottawa. With me is Ken Currie; Ken is the vice-president of our association and is also a full-time firefighter in the city of Ottawa.
We have a submission; I'm sure you've all received your copy. It's obvious by the thickness of this submission that it's not my intent to read line for line today; however, I would hope that the committee has an opportunity to review it. It does provide quite a lengthy review of the interest arbitration process, specifically the universal rejection of the legislated public sector ability-to-pay criteria. I hope this submission provides the committee with some valuable information.
I hope to cover three topics in my presentation, the first being the ability to pay and its role in the public sector interest arbitrations; the second will be the unprecedented authority that Bill 26 will provide for municipal restructuring; and finally, I hope to say a few words about the process and how Bill 26 will dovetail with the forthcoming changes to the Ontario Fire Departments Act.
For the record, the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association vehemently objects to the Conservative government's imposition of Bill 26, specifically schedules Q and M. We object to the increasing concentration of authority that this legislation gives to either ministers or cabinet to make decisions with little or no public consultation.
I'd like to begin with schedule Q and the imposition of five different criteria on the arbitration process. At the outset, it's important to begin my presentation with a question. Is a public sector employee entitled to a fair and equitable wage? I imagine the response to this question would be yes. The natural question that follows from this is, does the present system provide for this fair and equitable wage? Also, does the current wage determination system balance the interests of public sector employees, the employer -- the government -- and, finally, the interests of the members of the public? I will deal with each of these in turn.
Arbitrators across the province religiously guard their role as neutral, objective, credible and unbiased. Arbitrators believe strongly in the value of our industrial relations system and strive to emulate what the parties would have freely negotiated. They guard the interest arbitration system with more vigilance where it is a substitute to a right to strike or lockout. In these circumstances, the concept of free collective bargaining is limited for reasons of public safety. This limitation is endorsed by those providing the essential services, and the interest arbitration process has worked to the satisfaction of all parties. This is evident from the very few dissents that accompany interest arbitration awards.
Let's return to the questions I've asked. Is a public sector employee entitled to a fair and equitable wage? Does the system provide for this fair and equitable wage? Does the current wage determination system balance the interests of public sector employees, the employer -- the government -- and, finally, the members of the public?
I could say to you that the current system provides all of these assurances; however, being a representative of employees, and to make my point more convincing, my submission contains more than 30 quotes from different arbitration decisions which I hope will drive home our objections with more clarity.
The imposition of criteria clearly fetters the arbitrator's independence in resolving a dispute. In doing so, these criteria will permanently alter the level playing field that is a cornerstone of the free collective bargaining system. It creates an imbalance in the notion of bargaining that has caused some arbitrators to question the purpose of arbitration at all. I'm going to refer to some quotes and I'm going to invite you to turn to some pages, beginning on page 14.
Arbitrator Germaine, a British Columbia arbitrator, stated in a police arbitration case his comments on criteria. He said: "The capacity of the ability-to-pay concept to enable the employer to predetermine monetary issues is so evident that it begs the question of the policy of maintaining the arbitration process at all."
And arbitrator Hope has stated: "Interest arbitrators have consistently resisted the notion that they should make adjudicative determinations based upon government decree. The reasoning is based upon the concept of independence and neutrality."
1510
Public sector employees fear, and arbitrators concur with these fears, that employers will be allowed to pre-determine collective agreement improvements in their budgetary process. The arbitrator would be bound, through the ability-to-pay criteria, to respect the employer's determination of what employees would be entitled to receive. Where government is the direct employer, setting its budget so as to leave only a little amount, if any at all, will limit wage and benefit improvements for public sector employees. At the end of the day, the unilateral authority infringes on the public sector employees' right to a fair and equitable level of remuneration.
Arbitrator Swan made the following statement in a hospital case: "The extraneous influences which may be applied to the resources available to the employer bound by the present arbitration system are such that, either by manipulation or by sheer happenstance, those forces could render meaningless entire negotiation and arbitration processes if they were to be used as a significant basis for the outcome of collective bargaining."
Arbitrator Hope adds the following comment: "In the private sector where the employer in terms of funding the payment of wages and benefits is the provincial government, ability to pay is really a question of willingness to pay."
It is unlikely that employers will be making generous offers for contract improvements. Currently the city of Ottawa has about $75 million in uncollected taxes. If the city doesn't possess the political courage to begin capturing these losses, it is very likely that employees will go without for a very long time.
The obvious effect of these criteria would be the total dismantling of the collective bargaining process, with arbitrators handcuffed in their attempts to emulate free collective bargaining. At the end of the day, under the guise of criteria, the government is putting into place wage controls.
Arbitrator Shime makes the following comment: "If arbitrators/selectors were to consider the funding level of universities for the purpose of salary determination, they would in effect become handmaidens of the government. Arbitrators/selectors have always maintained an independence from government policies in public sector wage determinations and have never adopted positions which would in effect make them agents of the government for the purpose of imposing government policy. Their role is to determine the appropriate salary range for public sector employees regardless of government policy, whether it be funding levels or wage controls."
Finally, arbitrator Adams adds: "To base wages on ability to pay would force employees to subsidize these services to the public and render interest arbitration...largely irrelevant."
So how do arbitrators reach decisions on wages in the public sector? This is done through the use of comparisons in the local community, comparisons with other bargaining groups in both the public and private sectors, and, finally, with comparisons to other employees with whom the parties have determined a compensation relationship in the past through their own free collective bargaining.
Is the system fair? Academics agree that it is, and on page 8 I have a lengthy quote:
"Fairness remains an essential relative concept, and it therefore depends directly upon the identification of fair comparisons if it is to be meaningful; indeed, all of the generally accepted pleas for fairness inevitably come around to a comparability study. It appears to me that all attempts to identify a doctrine of fairness must follow this circle and come back eventually to the doctrine of comparability if any meaningful results are to be achieved.
"As long as arbitration remains essentially a public sector phenomenon, comparability seems best able to balance the legitimate aspirations of public sector employees against the interests of the public at large in such a way as to ensure justice in the distribution of employment income."
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has for years been criticizing interest arbitration. They have frequently made reference to large awards granted to essential services, but what they have left out are the numerous awards that were unsupportive of their position. Leading up to the social contract period, more and more arbitration awards were reflecting the current economic climate in Ontario. More arbitration awards were returning denying all wage and benefit requests. In Ottawa, the fire department was decreased by 55 positions due to an arbitration award, a cost saving in excess of $3 million to the employer.
Certainly, it is difficult to accept the argument that public sector employees are shielded from the economic realities of the community by the arbitration system. There is an old saying in public sector labour relations that public sector employees are the last to feel a recession but they're the last to emerge from a recession.
The second criterion contained in Bill 26 reads as follows: "The extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased." This would be one of the criteria that an arbitrator is bound to consider. Clearly, the determination of levels of service falls entirely outside the capabilities of arbitrators. These decisions are for those elected representatives for purposes of accountability. To require arbitrators to make these decisions will permit elected officials the chance to sidestep politically sensitive questions and arbitration will become a substitute for difficult decision-making.
When an arbitrator is boxed into making a decision to provide a deserved wage improvement at the expense of decreasing the level of service in an essential service, it is more than likely that the employees will be required to forgo those improvements.
By imposing these criteria, as I've said, the government will really be imposing wage controls without having to accept political responsibility for doing so. What's more, the provisions of Bill 26 will be permanent, perpetuating an imbalance in collective bargaining in Ontario favouring public sector employers.
I could speak all day on criteria, but I'd like to move on to schedule M. The Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association objects to the government assuming or providing the authority to restructure municipalities without the assurance of consultation in a process that could radically change the public sector employees' workplace.
There is the consistent theme that runs throughout this whole bill: that of not being limited by any other legislation. This seems to appear more in the restructuring section, schedule M. The question is, what other pieces of legislation is this government referring to?
While the government may see other legislation as an obstacle in restructuring, residents and municipal employees see these other pieces of legislation as the codification of rights and entitlements. This government can't expect residents and employees to feel comfortable with the recurring statement "notwithstanding any other act" throughout schedule M. Does this mean that the government will not be bound by the Fire Departments Act or the Police Services Act? What about the Employment Standards Act or the Ontario Labour Relations Act or the Pension Benefits Act?
In restructuring municipalities, the government wishes to reduce duplication and make better use of limited resources. This is according to the Solicitor General, Bob Runciman. The restructuring process will create confusion as various services blend themselves together. It would seem that this government would wish to do this, to restructure, with as much stability as possible, particularly thinking of the employees who will be experiencing these changes at first hand.
On the other hand, consistent with this government's no-holds-barred approach to municipal restructuring, this may be seen as an opportunity to attempt to strip collective agreements of many of the protections accorded to employees.
Firefighter collective agreements across Ontario frequently outline safety provisions. In Ottawa, we have minimum staffing requirements for our vehicles. The restructuring process should recognize those and not be an opportunity to eviscerate achievements that employees have made in collective bargaining.
1520
With this in mind, the government should expressly state that employee rights will be protected through the recognition of successor rights for collective agreements until such time as those collective agreements are replaced by a single contract in the workplace. It seems logical that a government would wish to mitigate the commotion that will arise in these changing environments.
A number of years ago, police departments in the Ottawa area were required to amalgamate and form a regional police service. Police officers in this area received assurances through the legislation that the amalgamation process would include the recognition of successor rights. As a result, the amalgamation process proceeded with one less major obstacle.
The fire departments in this region will be facing the same position shortly. We will be in the same place the police officers were but without the assurances of successor rights. Fire departments across Ontario have always been the responsibility of the lower-tier government. Municipalities have had the responsibility of running these fire departments for generations, and as a result, the Fire Departments Act has never included a successor rights clause.
Firefighters across Ontario should not be prejudiced by the absence of this protective language, since Bill 26 is the first movement to change these employment relationships. In the interests of stability in the workplace, we would respectfully request that this committee amend the bill to include the language that we have on page 26, the recognition of successor rights.
Finally, I'd like to make a short comment on the process that this bill has taken. People in Ontario, in my opinion, should be offended that the government would have even attempted to navigate Bill 26 through the Legislature with little or no public input. As can be seen by the numerous objections that this committee and the health committee have received, this is far from being a simple piece of legislation.
Bill 26 will touch every person in the province of Ontario in some manner. It will facilitate the dismantling of the public sector, restructuring municipalities, and has the potential to radically change the public sector workplace. To have even contemplated a process void of public input puts incredible strain on the credibility and accountability of government in general.
I understand that this committee has been thoroughly rebuked for the consultation process in dealing with the changes to the Fire Departments Act that are expected this fall, so I won't spend too much time on it.
I should say that the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association shares the feelings of firefighters across the province. I would like to draw your attention to a series of letters that are contained at the end of appendix B, where president Jim Lee of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association writes to the Honourable Bob Runciman. As you can see at the bottom of the page of that letter, the Honourable Bob Runciman agrees with the firefighters that up to this point firefighters have not been consulted. I am curious to know what has changed between then and now.
I believe that the Ottawa firefighters have been able to present cogent and persuasive arguments in favour of the exclusion of firefighters from Bill 26, or in the alternative, the deletion of the arbitration criteria and the protection of successor rights in municipal restructuring.
The unpredictability of the outcome of many of the provisions of Bill 26 will mean years of instability in the workplace, something that is especially harmful in emergency services. This concludes my comments.
The Chair: We have three minutes per caucus for questions, starting with Mr Christopherson.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much for that excellent presentation. I know the firefighters and the police have been actively participating, as much as this restricted process has allowed them, to raise a number of very legitimate concerns.
I know when I spoke to firefighters in other communities, and the police community, having worked with them when I was the Solicitor General, the one feeling and emotion that comes through is one of being betrayed on a number of fronts, and I think you have every right to be.
From a practical point of view, I can't even understand the politics of this, let alone the substantive issues of integrity that are involved also. How the minister and Premier will ever answer sufficiently to that, I don't know, and I don't know how they will continue to have legitimate dialogue with you in the future, given the kind of trust that it takes to work through a lot of public safety issues.
I think you should know, given the fact that you've made so many presentations across the province, that there still have not been amendments tabled by the government, to the best of my knowledge, that have touched anything that you have raised. Every issue that you have said is a priority so far has been ignored by this government. That means the arbitration issues, it means the user fee, the successor rights, the public safety issues, all of the concerns you have raised, so far this government has ignored. They have not seen fit to offer up a single amendment that tries to mitigate some of the serious, legitimate damage that I think you're pointing out will happen.
By the way, you and others, anybody who suggests there may be considerable or any serious harm to the public is just fearmongering, but at the risk of you being labelled that way by the government members, I want to ask you whether you believe the public has reason to be concerned about their own safety as it pertains to fire services, as a result of Bill 26.
Mr Cole: Absolutely, Mr Christopherson. I do share those feelings; I do think the public should be very concerned with the levels of service and what will happen in restructuring.
In the region in Ottawa we have a number of fire departments, each with different levels of service. I believe that as we go through the amalgamation discussions that we'll likely be starting in the next few months, there will be no desire to increase levels of service in the municipalities that may have less service than we have. I think what will be the result at the end of the day is that the high level of service that residents in the city of Ottawa will get will be watered down, to the benefit of our surrounding municipalities. I should add that it is not because of the associations and those locals not trying; it's because all of their concerns about public safety have fallen on deaf ears.
Mr Christopherson: The firefighters' association/union and the police association/union are, in my opinion, considered among the toughest, if you will, organizations in terms of representing their members. In other words, they do a very effective job of representing their membership and that's why you're there.
I would say to you, and I would appreciate your thoughts on this, that as a result of the anti-worker Bill 7, which stripped rights that workers have had for half a century in this province, there were no public hearings on that, the rights that are taken away from you here in this legislation, every measure this government has taken has been anti-worker to one degree or another and it seems as if, if they can take you down and they can take down the police and they can take down OPSEU, then everybody else should be an easy fight. How do you feel about that?
Mr Cole: I believe a lot of the comments that you've said are consistent with the Progressive Conservative government's anti-union animus that it has demonstrated in Bill 48 and some of the other things. There's been absolutely nothing that's persuasive or conclusive on scab legislation and things of that nature. I could provide you with academic studies that support that. I have very little confidence in our appeal to an amendment on successor rights being successful, because I think it doesn't bode well for employers across the province. I think this is truly a chance at the evisceration of collective agreements. I think the staffing provisions that we have are going to be lost and we're going to have to fight for them.
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, please.
Mr Cole: I think one reason why our associations are so tough is it's a dirty job --
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we have a certain amount of time per caucus for questions.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I was just wondering, dealing with the issue of the amalgamations or the restructuring of municipalities and then the successor right issue, under the present legislation, without Bill 26, if there was a proposal that came forward to restructure or to change municipalities, is there anything that would protect or would produce successor rights for the fire department?
Mr Cole: As I've indicated in my presentation, sir, there's nothing in the Fire Departments Act that guarantees successor rights. My position on that was that firefighters should not be prejudiced because there's nothing there. Fire departments, as I had indicated, for generations have been within the bailiwick of municipalities or lower-tier governments. Because of that, now, this sudden change introduced in the legislation could have a dramatic or radical effect on those sorts of rights.
Mr Hardeman: But the change in the legislation to deal with the restructuring of municipalities is to be able to do in the rest of Ontario what was done in the regional municipalities some years back, to restructure government and reduce the amount and the cost of government, the one difference of course being that it was done with individual legislation in each region. When it was done, it did not change the level of government that looked after the fire service. Could you give me some idea as to why you believe that it was not done, why the fire service was not put at the regional level at that time?
1530
Mr Cole: I think fire departments across Ontario have always been -- municipalities have always had an interest in maintaining the authority over fire departments because of the ability to determine the levels of service. In the city of Ottawa, where you've got older neighbourhoods, you're going to want higher levels of service because of the higher loss and higher risk. New communities may have less risk, and as such, would need less level of service. For these reasons, I think municipalities want --
Mr Hardeman: Would you think that the opinion of the lower-tier municipalities has changed since that time, that today they would decide that they would rather or they think they would get a better service from the fire service at the upper tier?
Mr Cole: I think we're going to see a colossal turf war between the lower tier and the upper tier over some of these services. I don't think municipalities will be in favour of losing the fire department. It is a very large portion of the service they deliver.
Mr Hardeman: You do realize --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Hardeman. We've come to the end of the government caucus's time. I apologize for interrupting.
Mr Gerretsen: I was very interested in the correspondence that you've attached to your brief, particularly Mr De Fazio's letter to the Premier, where he says, "Someday, somewhere, you are going to have to look me in the eye and tell me why you lied."
It reminded me of the time when I was on a committee with the Solicitor General and Mr De Fazio, who was then president of your Ontario association, back in 1982. We looked at precisely the same arbitration issues with the Solicitor General's department. That came to a screeching halt as well, when the Davis government, the Conservative government then, imposed in 1983 the legislation putting in the 5% wage controls. So just for the record, this isn't the first time that full consultation hasn't been given to you people. It was denied then, as it is denied now. Any comments before I turn it over to Mr Phillips here?
Mr Cole: I absolutely agree. We have been around this tree before without consultation. It does nothing but polarize the parties in trying to reach some settlement in the process.
Mr Gerretsen: That's right.
Mr Phillips: I want to recapitulate where we think this came from and then get your comment. I don't think there's any doubt that Al Leach went to the association of municipalities and said: "We're cutting your grants in half. Now, how can we keep you quiet?" They said, "Well, here's our shopping list, and one of the things we want is wage controls on our fire departments, and we want you to pass language for our arbitrators telling them what to do." It's language that exists nowhere else in the country. Wherever it has been tried, it has failed and has been taken out. "And we want you to amend the Fire Departments Act to direct arbitrators on settlements, and furthermore, frankly, to direct arbitrators when they are making their awards to `they shall consider' -- not `they may,' -- `they shall consider the extent to which services may have to be reduced if the current funding levels are not increased.'" So you cut the grants to municipalities, you strap them to the wall financially and then you tell arbitrators they must consider the fact that we've cut the municipalities' grants, and furthermore, services may very well have to be reduced.
I'd like you to respond to the fact that before the election you were absolutely promised by Mr Harris -- then Mr Harris, now Premier Harris -- that he would not make any amendments to the Fire Departments Act before you had been fundamentally consulted in detail and before you had a chance to look at the costing. Now we find, I think, personally, the most fundamental change to the Fire Departments Act touching services, giving arbitrators the right to touch services, and to impose settlements based on a municipality's decision on how much money they're going to give you.
I really have two questions for you: One is, is this, as other groups have told us, the Harris wage control plan through the back door; and secondly, were the fire organizations consulted before this bill was dropped into the Legislature and before we were ordered to try and pass this in two weeks?
Mr Cole: Absolutely not. As far as responding to your first question about the Premier's comments while on the hustings, I think really that's just the duplicity of the campaign trail. We take the promises that were given on the campaign trail often with a grain of salt.
As far as wage control is concerned, that's absolutely what it is. There's been no consultation with firefighters. In the letter that I do have at appendix B, in the last letter from President Jim Lee, it does indicate that two five-minute meetings with the Solicitor General breezing in and out of the room does not constitute consultation. I don't know in what environment that would constitute consultation, but it surely can't in Ontario. Mr Runciman agrees at the bottom of the page. That is where we are to date on consultation.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this afternoon.
CITY OF OTTAWA CITY OF NEPEAN
The Chair: May I have the city of Ottawa, Mayor Jacquelin Holzman, come forward, please. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have half an hour this afternoon to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions/responses from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if you'd both introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard at the beginning of your presentation.
Ms Jacquelin Holzman: Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'm joined by Mr Gerry Bellomo, who is the city solicitor for the city of Ottawa. He's here not necessarily to take questions from you but so that I could ask for answers.
Mr Phillips: We need him too. We need legal advice.
Ms Holzman: He's here to give me advice. First of all, I want to congratulate the government for doing what it said it was going to do, and that was, within its mandate, to look at fiscal savings, to look at public sector restructuring and to look into streamlining efficiency. Those are things that not only the provincial government requires but all levels of government all over Canada require. It's certainly something that the city of Ottawa, under my leadership, has always thought was very important. So we congratulate you for taking that step.
We're also looking forward to the Municipal Act review because it's critical that we disentangle provincial and municipal government roles. It's very important that municipalities have a wider jurisdiction and reduction of the approval processes to one level. Anything that can be done to cut out, to eliminate red tape at all levels of government but between levels of government is critical. So we congratulate you on that as well.
Therefore, I like the direction that you're going and in general, if you ask me to stop right now I'd be quite pleased to stop right now. However, since you didn't, it is important to make some comments and that's why I'm here today.
Time constraints have prevented the city of Ottawa from preparing a corporate position. However, we did discuss this at the policy committee and my views are based on guidelines that were approved by our policy and priorities and budgeting committee. My comments will only address those sections of Bill 26 that are relevant to municipalities. However, given my background in the health system and as a former member of district health council, as a president, a chairman, a member of the board of the Royal Ottawa Hospital and now a member of the board of the Ottawa Civic Hospital, if I had more time I'd be delighted to talk to you about the health aspects of Bill 26. Suffice it to say this presentation only deals with those positions in the bill that affect municipalities. In that instance, I support the position by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I was going to submit to you the city of Nepean's brief on general government but if I get a few minutes at the end of the presentation I'll be glad to ask the mayor to come and present it himself.
In Toronto, it's a forgotten fact that Metropolitan Ottawa is the second largest region in Ontario, and indeed it's the fourth largest region in Canada. We're the nation's capital and we're Canada's centre for high technology, software development and telecommunications.
The federal government, our major employer, is going through the largest and most complex restructuring in Canadian history, and no single region is more affected than Metropolitan Ottawa. They haven't even gone halfway through their intended government downsizing. This is a time for our provincial government in Toronto to recognize and to take notice of the concerns of its second largest metropolitan area.
On November 29, the 1995 economic statement of your government announced a support grants rollback of approximately 20%. In the interests of deficit reduction, and in a very short and difficult three-week period, we all sharpened our pencils and we managed to find the required money from our budgets in order to meet this shortfall. In our case, this was no mean feat. We spent many hours on it yesterday and we did complete the job as we had intended to do.
However, over the holiday season between Christmas and New Year, our accounting department received a letter from an official at Queen's Park -- in fact we didn't receive a copy of a letter between Christmas and New Year; we heard about the fact that there was a letter that other municipalities had received, and only because we found somebody in Queen's Park towards the end of January who was able to fax us a copy of the letter did we finally receive a copy of the letter. I know that between Christmas and New Year it isn't easy always to get information out. However, that's what happened.
We did find out, though, that the amount of money that we received from the province in 1995 was to be reduced by 47%, not 20% as we had budgeted for. And that was the budget that we actually delivered on December 20, 1995. After conversations with officials in Toronto, we found out that between November 29 and mid-December, cabinet took the decision to assess a disproportionate share of the rollbacks to the large municipalities. We understand that there was considerable lobbying during this period in order to produce that cabinet decision. That's what lobbying is all about. This went on without our knowledge, without our participation and without regard to due process.
1540
We believe that the process was flawed, as opposed to the fact that there was going to be a reduction in our grant. We expected, fully anticipated, a reduction in the amount of money we were going to be receiving from the province, but we have questions about the process. It's not an unreasonable request that we be given an opportunity to participate in such discussions.
We believe it is reasonable to request that we be given time and the opportunity to plan and budget effectively. In fact we at the city of Ottawa pride ourselves on having our budget completed before the end of the calendar year, and that's a problem when we deal with the federal government or the provincial government. You work on a different year than we do. When we throw away our paper calendar, we are also finished with the municipal financial year.
Partnership and due process: Senior levels of government are adopting the philosophy that there should be increased decision-making and program and service delivery responsibility in the hands of local government. Bill 26 is a manifestation of this policy and is indeed intended to give increased flexibility and control to local municipalities, and we congratulate you on that. It was high time, it was very important, and we congratulate you on taking the bull by the horns and making it happen.
I am supportive of this direction, but I'm concerned about our financial ability to assume these new responsibilities. I know that you are planning to get your face out of our government and resolve some of those issues and I know that's the intent of some of these pieces of legislation. But I'm concerned that in Bill 26, while the provincial government is prepared to give us new powers, it also wishes to retain considerable discretion and control by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in overruling or turning back the decisions made by the elected representatives in local government. The ministerial discretion applies to the fees and charges in the restructuring provisions. I understand, though, there have been some changes made and I haven't seen them. But we're very concerned that we should be considered partnerships and we hope that will be part of the new direction.
There should be a process in the event that one cabinet minister -- in this case the Minister of Municipal Affairs in Toronto -- decides that he or she does not like something that our elected representatives do in Ottawa. There should be some kind of local appeal process. The obligation and responsibility to consult with Ottawa, its elected representatives and its citizens on matters that concern us directly should be met.
I know there is an organization, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and I know they purport to speak on behalf of all municipalities, but there are some large municipalities that perhaps should also be considered as somebody that should be consulted when some of these decisions are being taken. We believe, as I say, that there should be an obligation and a responsibility to consult with those larger municipalities, their elected representatives and their citizens on matters that concern us directly.
I want to congratulate the province for listening to other submissions up to this point and proposing amendments, and I understand more are anticipated. I understand that some were just announced today, and that shows that this is not a solid, carved-in-stone process. We've just heard from the press that there have been some additional amendments that have been made to the fees apparently.
Just dealing a bit with the support grants, based upon my opening comments, it should not be a surprise to you that I am concerned about the discretionary powers afforded the minister under the proposed Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act. The bill appears to be giving considerable powers to the minister in deciding selectively who gets what, how much and when.
We believe, and common sense would dictate, that large, complex organizations such as the city of Ottawa require long-term funding plans and budgets. We believe it is not unreasonable that there should be a process in place which allows us to plan effectively for the kinds of massive changes the government is implementing and planning.
I recommend that an appeal process be enshrined in the legislation. I'm not suggesting that a judicial appeal process is necessary. Rather, even the ability to appeal to a cabinet or legislative committee would give us an opportunity to share our views and discuss the issue with more than one person.
Now I want to come to, as I think of them, probably one of the most important issues being addressed by Bill 26, that is, restructuring.
The provisions in Bill 26 relating to restructuring proposals are innovative and welcome. However, they are limited in application to counties, territorial districts and unorganized territories. The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and its constituent municipalities are in the throes of a restructuring debate, but the bill does not provide any method for processing restructuring proposals in a regional municipality. I believe the act should be amended to allow regional municipalities and area municipalities to access the restructuring provisions in the act.
We are now and we're going to be meeting tomorrow on this very subject. There really has never been a study in the last 20 years that has looked at what is the best level of governance, the best form of governance for this region of Ottawa-Carleton. It has always been looked at within the two-tier system, and our city council and most of the public have said that two levels of government at the municipal level does not work.
This act, in my view, should be amended so that you take into consideration the changes that are already being contemplated in the GTA, the greater Toronto area, and that neighbourhood, and that are being discussed particularly at the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
1550
The current draft bill prescribes considerable power and direction that will be given by prescribed regulations, which we have not seen. I would welcome an opportunity to review and participate in discussions on these regulations. While we are now excluded from these provisions, I am confident that this intervention will result in an amendment to the bill. I would hope that, if nothing else, you recognize that, just like you believe there should be fewer levels of government, we at the local level are trying to make it happen.
Fees and charges: I understand that amendments have already been announced. They need to be clarified if they haven't been, but I won't say much about that.
One of the areas, though -- you may not know this -- isn't reflected in the bill. The government did not take the opportunity to rectify the present inequity which sees local municipalities act as a tax collection agency for the regional municipalities, the school boards and the other agencies without compensation.
Never mind that we're not compensated for doing this, but because the bill goes out from the city of Ottawa, people therefore assume that the city of Ottawa is the recipient of their hard-earned dollars that come out as property taxes. In fact the city of Ottawa only receives 15% of the taxes, but there's the perception that the money is coming to the city, and therefore we get the whole thing. It would be nice to be compensated for that, and I hope that this will be addressed in the Municipal Act review which the minister has announced.
Another important area is interest arbitration guidelines. I appreciate the guidelines and the statutory authority for them. However, the guidelines as currently framed are made applicable only to firefighters, police, teachers and provincial civil servants. Municipal employees appear to be excluded. I hope that this was an oversight and that you will include municipal employees under the same interest arbitration guidelines.
You speak about accountability and it's something that's exceedingly important at the municipal level and it should be important at all levels of government. The provisions in the bill requiring municipalities to prepare and publish designated information "relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality's operations" give statutory weight to an accountability program that was initiated formally in 1995, but it's one that we've always considered to be very important.
We are prepared to share our experience with the government and work with it in developing a format which might be adopted across the province and have written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs directly on this matter offering our assistance. However, the preparation and publication requirement is an onerous and expensive undertaking. Given the massive cutbacks in provincial grants, I believe it is only reasonable that we be compensated for the cost of providing this new function. It's called fee for service.
In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate on Bill 26. I'm extremely confident that the views expressed in my statement will be reflected in the amendments to the bill and I hope that the government will move forward on these and many of the issues that are contained in the bill.
One of the last times I addressed a provincial hearing was on the bill that was going to reorganize the region of Ottawa-Carleton. It came in place and affected the last municipal election and it changed the structure of the region. I was the only mayor that spoke in favour of it. The government to its credit, the party in power to its credit, had the will to make it happen and they made it happen.
I congratulate our new government. I hope that you have the will to continue to make it happen. I thank you for listening to me. I think I have a few minutes. I would like to leave a few minutes at the end so that Ben Franklin, the mayor of Nepean, can introduce his paper too.
The Chair: Thank you. If you want to share some time, there are 12 minutes, which would normally get divided four minutes per caucus. But it's up to you, if you want to share.
Ms Holzman: No, no, he doesn't need 12 minutes. He said he needed about five.
The Chair: I'd appreciate it if he could do that now and we can ask questions at the end of that.
Ms Holzman: No, I intend to leave -- I will give him five minutes of my presentation, because I haven't --
The Chair: Okay.
Ms Holzman: If that's not a problem.
The Chair: Sure.
Ms Holzman: He's not part of my delegation, and he and I may not share the same views on some of these things.
The Chair: We'll have three minutes per caucus for questions and then we'll turn to the mayor of the city of Nepean.
Ms Holzman: To the mayor of the Nepean.
The Chair: Three minutes for the mayor of Ottawa.
Ms Holzman: He asked for five minutes.
The Chair: That'll give him his five minutes. We start off then with the government side.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I'm interested in your discussion on the restructuring and the need to do that in Ottawa-Carleton and the request that it be included in that section of the act.
I just wondered if you could clarify for me what you see as the difference in the restructuring proposal in the act and what would be available to the region today in appointing or having the minister appoint a commissioner or someone to look at the governance in Ottawa-Carleton, when they came in with a recommendation or a report, to have the minister then propose legislation to implement that report, which was done obviously when Ottawa-Carleton was formed. Could you explain what you see as the difference in what we're proposing for the restructuring of counties?
Ms Holzman: Well, just to go back to one of the reasons for doing this whole exercise in the first place, and that was for streamlining and efficiency, for public sector restructuring, for fiscal savings. Why would you want to undergo this whole process yet again for those geographic areas of the province that are part of a regional municipality? You're spending all of this time and effort on those that are not part of the region, on Tiny Town, Ontario. Why would you not build it in at the same time?
Mr Hardeman: The act sets out the process --
Ms Holzman: The act does set out a process; this Bill 26 does set out a process. I'm not objecting to the process. I'm simply saying, "Include us."
Mr Hardeman: You don't believe that presently you could do that, everything that's in the act now, except for the end result that the commission would be implementing it as opposed to the minister implementing it?
Ms Holzman: I can only suggest that you might as well do it now, one-stop shopping. It's all there for everyone in Ontario to see, whether you're a territorial municipality or whether you're part of a regional municipality.
Mr Patten: Mayor Holzman, you're a very generous mayor to the government here. Having supported the government's actions, you identified eight major concerns you have and, of course, they are all important concerns. You must have been somehow disappointed in having heard in the election that there would be only one taxpayer and then to find that, all of a sudden, the municipality is faced with 18-20%, and then, whoops, not so fast, 47%.
I wonder if you could share with us the difficulties that you and your council have been having in reviewing the last portion, which I guess was yesterday and perhaps late into last evening, on looking at user fees, service drops, cuts, that kind of thing, but particularly on user fees because that's another form of taxation that people are going to have. What can we be facing here in Ottawa?
Ms Holzman: First of all, on the reduction in our grant of 47%, a lot of that came about because through the processes not all of the deferred grant reduction from the social contract, unfortunately, was carried through to our 1996 budget. We carried through the $1.2 million of deferred grant that we had for the fire department, but we didn't carry through the other and that was our own error. So we had to accommodate that.
We knew that this was an average. We were surprised that it was a little bit more, but we understand the rationale because you want to protect the northern communities and the smaller communities. But user fees are a fact of life. If my granddaughter wants to take gymnastic lessons and we reduce the grant at the gymnastic centre, if her dad wants her to go, then they're going to pay an increased fee. One has to pay for services. That's why I'm saying we should be reimbursed for the service we provide to the region and the school boards when we collect our taxes. User fees are a fact of life.
Yes, it was a hard time. We have ideological differences on our council. Some people want to continue giving grants to other organizations and special-interest groups so that the salaries of their employees will be contained. I prefer to look after the city of Ottawa staff. Ultimately, everybody, every agency, every business, every level of government, has to do things differently. Times have changed. The taxing and spending days of the 1980s are past, are gone, so it's a new ball game.
1600
Mr Silipo: Mayor Holzman, you should know that the government amendments have been arriving at roughly four-hour intervals. The last batch, I think, arrived at 1 pm, so maybe by 5 pm before we leave we'll get the next one. I don't know whether it will address some of the concerns that you've raised or not. Mr Hardeman says no. Maybe tomorrow then. We'll keep trying.
I just want to ask you one thing with respect to the whole area of user fees. It's true that the government has clarified in this bill, by way of its amendments, some of the concerns with respect to taxation powers that had been granted and are granted by this bill to the municipalities. The board of trade was here this morning, as you may know. They were quite clear in their position that to them any of these measures, whether it's additional taxing powers or user fees, or whatever they're called, are taxes. They don't think municipalities should get any more taxing powers than you have now. What's your reaction to that?
Ms Holzman: I'm not sure we need any more taxing powers than we have now, except that the property tax is the most regressive form of taxation, I'm sure everybody would agree. At some point, in due course, we should be looking at what is a better way of generating revenue for the municipalities, because we are a partner and user fees a way of life. Rates where you have no choice, like taxes -- like head taxes, which I do not support -- those are things I don't support. But if you want a service and it's additional service, then the time has come that people have to pay for it.
Mr Silipo: Is the key for you there additional service? Because I would be troubled that if you categorize, as I would, property taxes as a regressive form of taxation, you would find user fees acceptable. It seems to me that they are even a more regressive form of taxation, because when you look at people's ability to pay, they would in fact hurt those who are least able to pay on a relative scale far more.
Ms Holzman: I'll give you an example. If you want to rent a movie or a video, then you go and you pay and you rent a video. That's user-pay. If I don't want to, why should my taxes have to pay so you can get free videos? At the libraries, why shouldn't those people who avail themselves of the library services pay?
The Chair: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Silipo, we've come to the end of that time. We have agreed to give some time to the mayor of the city of Nepean.
Ms Holzman: May I just conclude then by saying I thank you very much. The fact that changes are coming through every four hours means that Bill 26 is not carved in stone. We hope that we will see some of our concerns reflected in future changes.
The Chair: Thank you for coming and appearing before us this afternoon.
Ms Holzman: Thank you for allowing my colleague to address this committee.
The Chair: Welcome, Mayor Franklin. Quickly, if you could zip through, we have copies of your submission which we will distribute to the members so they will be able to read it.
Mr Ben Franklin: That's correct. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. Not knowing what was in Mayor Holzman's brief, mine is very, very similar. What I will do is just go through this as quickly as I can and not spend any time on the similarities other than to say that we too felt like the city of Ottawa and, I'm sure, like all municipalities, when we were pumped and primed for 20%. Then, when the economic statement came forward, we did the numbers. We said, "It sounds like 23%," and we ended up at 41%. Again, it's the process. We've used our credit card. Our credit card is full. We have to pay.
I agree with reductions, but we have to have a plan, we have to know in advance. It's very, very difficult to plan a budget. Our year begins January 1, so we want to have it finished by the end of December when we get a letter in early January dramatically changing our grant reduction.
Again, with the general thrust of the bill as it relates to municipalities, we are in agreement, but we do have some reservations. Also with the regulations -- we'd like to take part in the regulations. As you know, the regulations can often mean more than the bill itself. We don't want them to come out without an opportunity to be a partner.
In terms of restructuring, a similar comment: I just think the rules should be the same across the province of Ontario for fairness and equity. Mayor Holzman was right: I did not support her position. Some of you who were members of that committee on Bill 77, which became whatever -- I forget the number -- know I think the rules should be the same for regions and for counties.
I should say that if you're going to introduce changes to the traffic act relating to tolls, then we would like to hope that some of that money would come back into the infrastructure of the local area, not just go to general revenues, if you support that principle. It's not one that I support, but if you do, the local area should get the revenue in infrastructure development.
Amendments that you're making to the freedom of information act we agree with. Restructuring I've commented on.
Transfer of services: I stress the importance of allowing municipalities, and not the province, to determine the level of services. It could be that you had a certain standard and there were forms to fill out and there were a lot of provincial regulations and a lot of people to enforce those regulations at Queen's Park. The grants have been cut, and what we would not want is someone to come in and say, "Okay, your grants are dramatically cut, but your standards have now gone up, we've made an upward adjustment in standards." You could see how devastating that would be to the local area.
I do think that there should be someone in this area we can go to. I really have felt this for a long time, that this being the fourth-largest region in Canada, second in Ontario, we should have someone from the government who pays special attention to this region.
With the dissolution of boards, I agree with the provisions, but there should be no exemptions, and the bill does provide for exemptions.
I also want to point out that the fees that Bill 26 allows us to charge, just in the event that statements are made that all grant reductions will be covered by fees, in my opinion they'll help out a little bit but the opportunities within them will in no way cover for the grant reductions.
The rest of the items that are in it I'm just going to leave with you, because you did allow me five minutes and I've taken up the five minutes. I thank you for the opportunity.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor, for making your presentation.
Mr Phillips: I wonder if we could have one minute per caucus for comments.
Mr Sampson: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: It's mutual agreement that we start with one minute for each caucus, starting with the official opposition.
Mr Phillips: I despair of the process a little bit. You've got five minutes. You've got some major recommendations. Next week this will be an absolutely out-of-control process. The government's going to bring 100 amendments probably to the table on Monday. This thing's going to crash around for five days and no one knows how it's going to come out in the end. It affects your life and here you get five minutes. You've got some major recommendations for us. We will be lucky to get to them next week, I might say. We're into clause-by-clause on 211 pages of fundamental change. We give you five minutes. It's a crazy process.
The Acting Chair: Mr Phillips, your time is gone.
Mr Phillips: No, that's only 32 seconds. I've been counting.
Mr Franklin: I think your question answers itself. It's a very quick process and it doesn't allow you the full opportunity. I know what we will be doing is following it carefully and contacting our local members directly.
The Acting Chair: Mr Silipo, and we will keep it to the one-minute comments rather than questions and answers.
Mr Silipo: Absolutely. I think it's been quite useful to have heard, Mr Mayor, from both you and Mayor Holzman about the change in the cuts, from the original number that you were given to the others. I'm going to ask that we in fact get that information for other municipalities. It could be useful.
One other point that you have continuously made through all of this is the need for clarity and the need to see the regulations. That's something we've also been highlighting. Hopefully, the government will listen to that request coming from various municipalities of the need to see the regulations, because much of what is going to be happening is going to be detailed in those regulations. We think it's important that people see them before they're approved.
Mr Stewart: From what Mayor Holzman said, her 47% reduction was partly due to social contract. I assume your 41% was much the same. I guess the final question, the question I really want to ask is, what percentage of your total spending was your reduction by our government?
Mr Franklin: That's a difficult question. The fact is that our grant was 41% less this year than it was last year. No matter how you slice it up, that was the reduction. In terms of a percentage of total spending, again that's difficult. It was over 2%, but a lot of that's based on programs which are fee-for-service, and not every municipality has those. I would like to just end -- and I was listening to the firefighters' presentation -- that we do support the AMO position which introduces --
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. We do have to cut it. We are considerably past the allotted time and we thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Could I just pursue this point of the information on the actual reductions to various municipalities? I know that we received as MPPs, in December I believe it was, a letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs outlining the cuts, which, as has been shown us today, have changed in some instances. Would it be possible, either through yourself or research, to get us the updated numbers of what cuts have gone to municipalities?
The Acting Chair: I'm sure that information would be available and will ask research to get that for you.
1610
OTTAWA-CARLETON HEADSTART ASSOCIATION FOR PRESCHOOLS
CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
The Acting Chair: We would ask the Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association for Preschools to come forward, please. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome you to the committee hearings. You have half an hour to use as you see fit. We would ask you to introduce yourselves for Hansard and for the committee members. If you wish to leave time at the end for questions, we will share that time equally between the three caucuses. Thank you very much for coming in, and the floor is yours.
Ms Cathy Murphy: Good afternoon. I'm Cathy Murphy from the Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association. We would request that we share our spot with the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton. We will present for the first 10 to 15 minutes. I'd also like to introduce to you Laurie Brunet. She is the community liaison with the Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association and director of Nanny Goat Hill Nursery School.
Ms Laurie Brunet: The Headstart association of Ottawa-Carleton is committed to working with the families in our communities, the broader child care sector and the provincial government to enhance the quality and delivery of Headstart programs in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
The quality and accessibility of Headstart programs are at risk. We are here to address our concerns with Bill 26 and the impact it may have on our families and services available to them. We want to ensure the quality of our Headstart programs; protect the rights of children and their families; and continue cost-effective delivery of services to communities we serve.
We ask the standing committee on general government to consider our concerns and recommendations. We believe that if we work together, we will achieve the goal of quality early childhood intervention programs for children at risk which will continue to be responsive, accessible and fiscally accountable.
Ms Murphy: OCHAP has the following recommendations:
(1) We recommend that the provincial government meet with the local, non-profit, licensed, child care community before the provincial child care review is completed.
(2) We recommend that the provincial government, in conjunction with the non-profit, licensed, child care sector, engage in dialogue to discuss the various strategies for the redistribution of resources and services for children and families of Ottawa-Carleton.
(3) We recommend the provincial government continue to fund early intervention programs for children at risk.
(4) We recommend the Ministry of Community and Social Services recognize and give legislative recognition to Headstart programs under the Day Nurseries Act.
(5) We urge the provincial government to reconsider the following steps to reduce government support:
-- The elimination of proxy pay equity with the implementation of Bill 26.
-- The 21.6% cut to social welfare recipients' cheques. We would suggest this particular cut was too much, too fast for families of young children at risk.
-- The cancellation of the conversion program for commercial child care programs.
-- The Jobs Ontario subsidies, which are now at 80-20 cost-sharing with municipalities. Approximately 1,000 of these spaces have disappeared because regional governments have been unable to pick up the additional cost.
-- The cuts to the municipalities. They've sustained a 47% cut over two years. In addition to this cut, Ottawa-Carleton has had to absorb an additional $8 million. Further cuts to the municipalities will endanger child care spaces throughout Ontario.
-- The potential loss of junior kindergarten programs across the province will put at risk children who would not receive educational intervention until the age of six.
Ms Brunet: (6) We urge the provincial government to accept the federal government's offer for the national child care program. This 50-50 cost-sharing offer is an incredible opportunity for families in Ontario. The federal government does insist that the child care programs under this initiative be quality, affordable and accessible programs, and current spending levels of child care must be maintained.
(7) We urge the provincial government to maintain the current legislative regulations under the Day Nurseries Act of Ontario in order to maintain and support quality regulated child care programs.
Ms Murphy: The Ottawa-Carleton region's first Headstart programs were established approximately 20 years ago. OCHAP provides high-risk children from low-income families with enriched social and learning experiences. Enriched programming is designed to encourage each child to reach his or her full potential, to better prepare the child for entry into the educational system and to work with parents addressing family issues. All Headstart programs receive subsidies from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
The Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association for Preschools is an organization of staff, parents and board members of Headstart preschools licensed under the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Day Nurseries Act of Ontario.
The purpose of OCHAP is to support and coordinate Headstart preschool programs and community agencies -- we work with such agencies as the children's aid society, the Royal Ottawa Hospital child development services and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, as well as play therapists in the local area; to provide a central body to coordinate these services; to educate and provide professional in-service training to staff; to support parent education programs; to advocate and inform the community of Headstart programs; to advocate on behalf of children and families. That's the reason that we're here today.
The program components of quality Headstart programs include qualified staff with either child development diplomas or degrees and early childhood education diplomas; low teacher-child ratios, of at least 1 to 8; parental involvement -- we have an open-door policy in-parent program; a child-centred environment; consultation with other professionals; nutritious meals; accessible transportation; removal of barriers so that families and children can attend our programs; opportunities for field trips -- many of these children cannot get to farms or museums or swim programs without our field trips; integration of new Canadians and support for English-as-a-second-language learners; support for parents attending classes or working; parenting programs, such as Nobody's Perfect and life management skills; health and safety education programs; self-help skills for children; and in-service training for early childhood educators, support staff and parents.
Ms Brunet: The short-term positive benefits to the children attending Headstart programs include language acquisition -- many of our children may have a one- to two-year language delay, or English may be a second language; problem-solving skills; socialization; self-control -- the children learn how to control their behaviour and the consequences of their behaviour; greater self-esteem; empowering children; school readiness -- we introduce the children to the concepts they will need in order to achieve and adjust to the school system; healthy physical development -- we provide nutritious meals, physical exercise, gross motor play, and we teach the children how to take care of their physical needs; improvement in the child's communication skills; and self-help skills -- the children will learn how to dress themselves, feed themselves and toilet themselves.
Who are the children of the Headstart programs? Headstart programs are situated where the impoverished children live: Dalhousie, Centretown, Pinecrest-Queensway, Carlington, Foster Farm, Heatherington, Ottawa East and Hawthorne. There are 11 Headstart programs. Out of those 11, three provide full-day Headstart child care. The other eight programs are half-day Headstart nursery schools offering morning and afternoon programs.
The children in our programs are impoverished children who are at risk. The faces of these children are a part of society you prefer not to acknowledge. In Ottawa-Carleton's civilized society we have poor, malnourished and sometimes homeless children. We have approximately 24,000 impoverished children living in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
The children who attend our programs live in substandard, and sometimes illegal, housing. Their parents, usually single women, are spending an average of 60% of their income on housing. This does not leave much for the family for food, heat, hydro, clothing or medical supplies. Many children who attend Headstart programs are malnourished and consume all to a third of their daily nutritional food requirements in our programs. Since the reduction to the social assistance cheques, our food budgets have increased as the children are arriving at school underfed. Some children come to our schools without adequate sleep. They are tired because of stressors in the family home, or they may be too hungry or cold or scared to sleep. Many of our families live in continual crisis and many of these parents also grew up in poverty and in crisis, and so the cycle continues.
1620
We are here to represent the faces of these children. They have small voices and no vote in the outcome of their lives. These children are not just numbers. We are here to inform the standing committee and the general public on the importance of providing quality Headstart programs for children and their families at risk.
Headstart programs are the first important step in breaking the cycle of dependence and the need for social assistance. As stated in our report, Headstart programs have long-term lasting benefits. Headstart programs allow parents the opportunity to upgrade their skills, go back to school, find jobs and take parenting and life management courses. We provide support for parents who are attempting to rebuild their lives and take control over their circumstances.
Some of our concerns of the potential impact of Bill 26: OCHAP recognizes the provincial government was elected with the mandate of fiscal restraint. We are here to address our concerns with Bill 26 and the impact it will have on our families and the services available to them. We want to ensure the quality of our Headstart programs, to protect the rights of our children and families, and to continue cost-effective delivery of services to the communities we serve.
We believe that the legislation, the framework and the process for the child care review must balance the rights and responsibilities of the provincial government, the children and families and the early childhood educators.
Ms Murphy: The following are our concerns:
-- Under Bill 26, the Ministry of Community and Social Services will have the potential to deregulate the child care sector.
-- The Ministry of Community and Social Services appears to be moving towards privatization of the child care sector -- that would be the non-profit sector versus the profit sector.
-- The Ministry of Community and Social Services has not met with representatives from the Ottawa-Carleton licensed non-profit child care sector.
-- The provincial government has cut funding to the municipalities by 47%. Child care is a discretionary service and the municipalities do not have to provide it. Municipalities across Ontario are currently reviewing how to deal with this shortfall.
-- Under Bill 26, the elimination of proxy pay equity. This funding will be eliminated by Bill 26. Our profession is staffed primarily by women. The existence of the Pay Equity Act and the proxy amendments have prevented the provincial government from eliminating wage subsidy grants. When proxy pay equity is gone, the province can also eliminate the wage subsidy grant. This grant represents approximately one third of early childhood educators' income, thus placing many of these incomes below the poverty line.
-- Jobs Ontario subsidies affect communities with the highest rates of poverty -- an example would be aboriginal communities -- in Ontario. These subsidized spaces are at risk of closing if municipalities cannot fund their portion of the 80-20 cost-sharing arrangement.
-- The national child care program is at risk if the province is unwilling to enter a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government. Conditions are placed on the new federal money, which is to be used towards new child care spaces, and current levels of spending maintained.
We would recommend that the provincial government delete provisions in Bill 26 which will take away from the quality of child care programs throughout Ontario.
Ms Brunet: Non-profit Headstart programs and their impact on society: According to the findings of the High/Scope Perry preschool study, at age 27, adults born in poverty who attended a high-quality Headstart active program at ages 3 and 4 found the high school completion rate was 33% higher; employment was twice as good, with higher earnings and property wealth; there was a greater commitment to family and marriage; substantially less drug use; 40% fewer crimes, especially of a violent nature, and 40% fewer teenage pregnancies.
In order for our families to become better educated, it is essential for their children to have access to quality Headstart programs now.
Fewer poor families will translate into increased tax revenues, as well as government savings resulting from reduced demand for income security benefits, subsidized child care and other social programs directed to the poor. A better educated, trained and more productive workforce is essential to Canada's economic future.
Ms Murphy: Child care is an essential service for the majority of Ontario families with children. No strategy to combat child poverty will succeed without adequate quality child care. After years of study, debate and research, Canada is still without a national child care system which meets the needs of today's families. I'll give you some examples: The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970, the task force on child care of 1986, the special Commons committee on child care of 1987, the Canada Child Care Act of 1988, the national child care proposal of 1995 and the child care review of this provincial government.
It's interesting that most of these reports lead to the fact that Headstart programs and early intervention programs are primary in the development of children and we still do not have a program.
Judge Rosalie Abella's comments of 1984 are particularly relevant: "Child care is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Unless government policy responds to this urgency, we put women, children and the economy of the future at risk. Considering more than half of all Canadian children spend much of their time in the care of people other than their parents, and that more than half of all parents need child care services for their children, social policy should not be permitted to remain so greatly behind the times."
Ms Brunet: The importance of quality Headstart programs for young children at risk cannot be overemphasized. Poverty has devastating consequences for child development. Impoverished children are at a higher risk for mental and physical health and conduct disorders, which will put an even greater strain on the system. Research has proven early intervention programs will compensate for disadvantages experienced by these children in their environment by enabling them to achieve equitable outcomes. All children deserve equal rights and opportunities regardless of their socioeconomic status. OCHAP is committed to helping parents break free from the need for social assistance. The Ontario government must invest in all of our futures. It's time to invest in our children today, for substantial savings to our social structure tomorrow.
Ms Murphy: I don't know if you'd like to ask us questions now or wait until the end, when the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton has presented.
The Chair: Sure, that's fine if you want to go ahead.
Mr Frank Martin: I'm Frank Martin, the president of the board of directors of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton, and with me is Mel Gill, the chief executive officer of the society. I want to thank the Headstart association for giving us some of their time so that we can make a presentation to this committee. I would ask Mr Gill to start by touching on the major points of our written submission.
Mr Mel Gill: I apologize for the fact that we don't have copies for all of you. We exhausted our copies in the alternative hearings going on next door, since we had initially been led to believe we'd have a spot here and then were told we couldn't. We appreciate the opportunity, and let me say first of all that the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton runs a Headstart program and as such we are members of the Ottawa-Carleton Headstart Association for Preschools and endorse and support most of those recommendations and share many of the concerns that have already been brought to your attention.
Let me speak specifically about the importance of day care to child protection services. Many of the families that we deal with only manage to continue intact and continue to care for their children because of day care support. That is often the difference between a child remaining in the family home and coming into care. We also rely, as child protection services across this province, on day care to monitor children who are in high-risk situations, because we simply don't have adequate resources to do all of that work ourselves. Public health nurses, physicians and so on are others who are our early warning system for kids at risk.
With respect specifically to the impact of this bill on children's aid societies and child welfare services, let me say first of all that there are many issues in children's services which are of serious concern to us, not the least of which is adequacy of funding, or in fact inadequacy, as it currently exists. But much more important, and not addressed by this kind of legislation, is the overlap between children's mental health services, child protection services, young offenders' services and many other services directed at children, most of which are funded at the provincial level or at least partially at the provincial level. Those issues include: accessibility of services; single-point access; the importance of prevention programming, which has already been addressed; accountability and so on.
While we have responded to the challenges of creatively eliminating 5% from our budget, we're not anxious to hear the next shoe drop, as Ben Franklin indicated in his comments. We are concerned that this legislation opens the door for municipalities to dissolve local boards such as children's aid societies, and we are concerned not so much about the governance model but that any changes which are made to the governance model should also address the other many issues that exist in children's services, some of which I have mentioned. We're concerned that child protection services should be delivered in a uniform fashion across the province, and this legislation opens the door to a regional municipality delivering child protection services in one area of the province, a children's aid society in another, and perhaps a generic children's services agency in still another. We think that is highly inadvisable.
The second point I'd like to make is that we have enormous concern about the provision for disclosure of medical records. We have many medical records on our files that are provided to us as well as requirement for us to do our job. But, more importantly, apart from the privacy rights and, in my view, the very serious clash between this legislation on this point and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is that it opens the door for the government, by setting this precedent on medical records, to intrude into other confidential records such as those that we keep. Ours are equally of concern to the families that we deal with, as are my own personal concerns about my private medical record.
1630
I want, secondly, to quickly address the issue of the taxation powers and the poll tax or head tax, although I was alerted that this might be changed. Let me say simply two things: Any provisions which make our current tax system even more regressive than it already is would not find favour with people that we deal with or our own staff and board of directors. I say this particularly because the people we deal with in overwhelming majority are people who are already either at or within the margins of the poverty line, and anything which can be construed as a regressive tax impacts more deleteriously on them than it does on anyone else.
Finally, I want to make one final point with respect to pensions, and that is I have enormous concerns that the government, in making provisions to make partial payments to the pensions held by provincial public services, may in fact -- first of all, I think it's inequitable, grossly unfair, but secondly, I consider that is an additional precedent which opens the door to similar intrusion into other pension plans, and on behalf of the staff that I represent, and I'm sure others in the OMERS pension plan which most children's aid societies belong to, this would be seen as an extremely retrogressive and unacceptable step which we would oppose with the strongest possible voice.
Mr Martin: The point I would just want to add is that it seems somewhat ironic that the government would propose legislation that makes it easy to dispense with voluntary boards of directors, like organizations such as ours. On the one hand, we hear that the government wants to encourage participation of citizens in community affairs, and serving on a board of directors of an organization that provides protection and care of children is an extremely important way for ordinary citizens to participate in a significant way in the life of their community. I think I could easily make the case that care of children is maybe the most important way a citizen can participate in community affairs, since that really represents the future health of our communities.
It's equally important that voluntary organizations continue to exist, I would say with some encouragement from government rather than with what appears to be a rather discouraging message, because voluntary agencies are in a good position to advocate for children who are disadvantaged, and it's an unfortunate reality that many people believe that social services to children are simply a drain on the budget. The reality is that those services provide an essential foundation for a healthy community. That message needs to be carried to the public and I think can best be carried by voluntary boards of directors, voluntary agencies, and this Bill 26 allows for their termination on an arbitrary basis and is not an encouraging message to citizens like me who have volunteered our time and energy in these activities.
The Chair: We have a little more than two minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the opposition caucus.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much for a very important presentation. There are all kinds of tests for success that can be applied to government but, at the end of the day, I'm not sure there are any that are more important than how well it's looking after its children.
It's funny, when you were mentioning Headstart, the Headstart locations -- I used to practise criminal law here. I made a very good living defending what were then known as juvenile delinquents and those addresses rang back, rang very, very true in terms of the kids who used to live in those locations. The greatest tragedy was so much of what I had to defend in court was entirely preventable.
Mel, can you elaborate a little bit? If we were to open the door to a kind of a patchwork of models for delivery of child protection services, tell me, how would that be troublesome or problematic?
Mr Gill: I think it's critical that the mandatory nature of the legislation which governs child protection services be consistently delivered across the province. The standards in one community have to be the same as the standards in another. We all know that municipalities are variable in their support for social services and for child protection. Some of them in fact are outright hostile to child protection services and others, like Ottawa-Carleton, fortunately for us have been much more sympathetic to social services generally.
In particular, if child protection or children's services generally get caught up in block funding without a protected funding envelope for them, I worry very much that resources for child protection would get traded off against fixing potholes.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation, both of you, for reminding us, I think, as Mr McGuinty has said, about the importance of taking care of our children.
I just wonder if either or both of you could just comment a little bit more on how you understand the logic of a government that seems to be intent on proceeding, as you've listed, with a number of cuts that affect children directly, in terms of child care, in terms of programs like the Headstart program being in danger, in terms of cuts of funding to children's aid societies, especially when we think about the fact that the largest reason for that cut is in order for the government to find $5 billion to $6 billion to pay for its 30% tax reduction. Again, when we look at who it's going to impact positively and negatively, it's going to mean that most of that money is going to go to the 15% of Ontarians who earn over $85,000, not to the kind of people certainly whose children are served by the Headstart programs. What's the logic that you see coming through from the government in those actions?
Ms Murphy: Unfortunately, we haven't been able to sit down and have any dialogue in the child care community, the non-profit sector anyway, in Ottawa-Carleton, although we have attempted to do so on many, many occasions. I'm hoping that at some point the logic could be pointed out to us.
Mr Stewart: I don't think there are any of us on either side of this table who don't have a great care for kids and how they're brought up etc. But I guess a couple of concerns that I have when I look at the amount of programs that you have and I look at what I believe in some instances is a relative amount of duplication. Both of you have Headstart programs, both of you are looking after children, and you're only two of the various organizations in this province that look after them.
To be able to afford, and that's what we indirectly -- but so we can afford this thing, how can we get rid of duplication, that we will be able to find the money to do it? We have to make changes. We can't keep going the way we are, so how do we do it with groups like yourselves, of getting together to basically find the dollars so that we can continue on with these programs? I think that's a problem these days.
Mr Martin: In the Ottawa-Carleton region now, a group of child service agencies funded under the Family and Children's Services Act of Ontario has come together on a voluntary basis to look at how we can become more efficient in the provision of services by amalgamating some services, changing others, using methods of handling finances of agencies or dealing with personnel issues in agencies on a coordinated basis. A process has been established that is now proceeding to become more efficient.
1640
Mr Stewart: I think that's great. I guess my worry is too little, too late. When I look at some of these things, a lot of this should have been done over the last two or three years so we wouldn't be in the position we are in. That's my concern.
Mr Gill: We all recognize that there's some duplication in administrative infrastructure. There is not duplication of services, because duplication of services means you're providing the same service to the same client twice, and that doesn't exist. In fact, there is a serious shortage of services to children and families across the province. There are $800 million allocated by the provincial government for children's services across the province. It's not enough, and you're not going to find $10 billion in savings out of $800 million.
We think we do an efficient and important job and an effective job. One final point on the issue of poverty, child poverty particularly: You pay now to keep kids out of poverty or you pay later to keep them in jails, mental health centres and on the dole forever. It's commonly understood and there's good research in documents that if you eliminate child poverty, you eliminate 50% of the problems that you subsequently find through the Young Offenders Act, mental health services and so on.
The Chair: We've come to the end of your half-hour. I want to thank you all for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
CAROLINE ANDREW
The Chair: May I please have Professor Caroline Andrew come forward. Welcome to the standing committee on general government.
Ms Caroline Andrew: My name is Caroline Andrew. I'm a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you. I want to speak particularly on the parts of Bill 26 that relate to municipalities and particularly on three points, the restructuring, the dissolution of boards and municipal finance.
Basically -- a point I know you've heard before -- my point is that this bill is making absolutely major changes to the way municipal politics goes on in Ontario and this is being done with terribly little discussion. The municipal parts of this bill are tiny parts of a huge overall bill, and as we know, it is the health aspects of the bill that have been mostly discussed.
Worse than this, a lot of the major changes in the legislation will come through regulations that will be passed and are not even in the legislation and therefore, it seems to me, are distressing both in the sense of the tradition of public discussion of important issues and also of the responsibility for legislative decision-making.
I should add, as I'm sure many witnesses have said before, that I'm not entirely sure in all cases that I exactly understand the way the bill will work out. Second, as I raced out of the house this morning, I hear on the radio as I'm leaving the door that a series of changes have been made to the bill that concern the municipal parts, so probably half of what I'm raising questions about is no longer true. This obviously adds to the public's sense of frustration about this bill.
I have two major points. The first is about the importance of public discussion in a democracy, and the second is that in the case of municipal politics it is extraordinarily important that local regions, local communities, get to discuss and come up with solutions suitable for their local communities. It seems to me that the bill does not do this, that it acts against this by centralizing, but centralizing in a way that is somehow difficult to identify. It seems to me that though it speaks of municipal autonomy, it really acts to go against municipal autonomy.
Il y a donc trois questions sur lesquelles je veux me concentrer : la restructuration, la dissolution des agences et commissions spécialisées, et la tarification.
Sur la question de restructuration municipale, et c'est l'article 1 qui vise les articles 25.2 à 25.4, article qui veut faciliter la restructuration, mon objectif n'est pas du tout de contester l'objectif de la législation, qui est la restructuration. C'est plutôt que la question centrale, qui est dans l'article (iii), où l'on dit que le ministre va par règlement «prévoir le degré d'appui exigé pour appuyer une proposition de restructuration», n'est pas dans la loi. Donc, ça veut dire, si je comprends bien, qu'on ne sait pas qu'est-ce qui va être la question centrale. On ne sait pas qu'est-ce qui va être le degré d'appui nécessaire.
Dans un sens, tout le monde est pour la restructuration, dépendamment du degré d'appui. Qui doit appuyer la restructuration ? Est-ce que ça doit être l'ensemble des municipalités ? Mais on dit dans la loi que le ministre va par la suite faire les règlements.
Donc, je dirais que la question centrale sur la restructuration est évitée dans la loi, parce qu'on ne sait pas quels seront les propos du gouvernement. On ne sait pas si le gouvernement prévoit qu'il faut que l'ensemble d'une région soit d'accord ou si c'est la plupart de la population ou quoi.
Donc, là encore on peut être pour ou contre la restructuration, mais on ne sait pas, si je la lis bien, quel va être l'impact de la loi. Je crois que ça, au lieu de favoriser, comme je le disais, l'autonomie municipale, va faire le contraire, parce qu'on ne saurait pas, jusqu'à l'impression du règlement par le ministre, quel sera l'impact.
Therefore, on the question of restructuring, I'm not saying I'm for or against the restructuring, but I think the legislation is dangerously vague in that the central point is left up to ministerial regulation.
On the second point, the dissolution of local boards, once again my concerns are primarily about the nature of the legislation. For instance, on page 145 of the bill, where it says the minister will make legislation "until a regulation under subsection (7) relating to the dissolution of that type of local board is in force," as I read that, it means the province will decide what kind of local boards they want to dissolve but won't tell us.
At the moment, there is no way to debate: Are school boards necessary? Are library boards necessary? Are children's aid boards necessary? What do they involve? What do they not involve? Again I apologize; I've taught municipal politics for a long time and I ought to be able to read the legislation. But as I read the legislation, the municipalities cannot dissolve that kind of local board until the minister decides that's the kind of board he wants to dissolve. It seems to me that there again it is a crucial question of municipal politics and the way Ontario has governed itself.
1650
I want to come back to the point that Frank Martin just made, that it is the absolutely wrong way to go about establishing partnerships with local community groups to do this, saying, "We may dissolve you, or you may be the kind of board that you can be dissolved if you want to be," rather than engaging in a debate. I, as a number of people do, sit on a number of community boards. We are being told by all kinds of people now that local citizens must do more in the governance of their communities. It seems to me totally going against municipal autonomy and community local respect to simply hide what kind of agencies may or may not be dissolved.
As I understand it, the municipalities will be able to dissolve those kinds of local boards once the minister has decided that those are the kinds of boards, and again my point is largely the point of the absence of public debate. There have been some debates, not very much in Ontario recently, about whether we should have school boards. To me it's a debatable question. There are advantages towards the amalgamation of all local functions into a single-purpose body. It is also valuable, and certainly the Ontario tradition has been, to have a variety of local boards, that kind of local participation.
But it seems to me that this bill is what I was going to call "avoid debate centralization" because it doesn't bring out for debate what kind of boards are being seen as old-fashioned in the modern world and what kind of boards are still useful. It says that at some point this kind of board will be allowed to be dissolved and then municipalities can buy in. In terms of encouraging local autonomy or in terms of encouraging a genuine citizenship and a genuine partnership between community groups and the government, this is not the way to go.
La troisième question que je voulais soulever dans une brève présentation, c'est la question de la tarification des services. C'est clair dans le projet de loi que le gouvernement veut encourager les municipalités à imposer des frais pour les services. À mon avis, c'est un changement énorme dans l'histoire de la fiscalité municipale en Ontario. Nous avons une tradition d'utiliser beaucoup moins que d'autres juridictions la tarification des services. À mon avis, on agit encore là sans discussion, sans débat.
There's even some discussion -- and the mayor of Ottawa alluded to this -- that, "We say we're imposing user fees so as not to increase taxes." That's absolutely ridiculous. User fees are taxes. It's just that the weight of the taxation is on different groups.
I'm sure you are aware of the work that was done on user charges by the ex-Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice. Granted, those studies were done on user charges in the health field and we're now talking about the municipal field, but they do establish, as most of the literature on user fees has always established, that user fees are basically ways of putting taxation more on the less wealthy in the community.
Again my argument: I personally am not in favour of user fees, but I also think there's an important argument about debate. Are we able to have a discussion in the province about which way we want to go? The mayor of Ottawa, and here I would disagree with her, says this is a fact of life. I don't think anything is necessarily a fact of life; I think these are discussable things. We in Ontario should be able to decide what kind of tax incidence we want. As we all know, the tax system is an incredibly interesting system in that you can have all kinds of effects on the taxation. The Golden report, for instance, just to give that example, has some kind of interesting ideas about how we could look at the form of urban development through the tax system and try to act on that. We all know the tax system is a very inventive system.
But to simply slide through user fees or the increase of user fees as being an obligation -- rather than increasing municipal autonomy, what this is going to do is that municipalities are going to say: "Gee, we have to do this. This is the line of the legislation. Let's introduce more user fees." I would suggest to you that most of the literature on user fees has always been to argue that user fees have generally been a form of taxation that weighs more heavily on the less wealthy.
As I said, I wanted to touch on these very brief points to say that this legislation is making huge changes in the way municipal government operates in Ontario, in the financing of municipal services, in the operating of municipal services, in the whole philosophy of public services and local government. They're being implemented without discussion, largely. They're being implemented because they're being buried in this huge omnibus bill in which municipal questions are, for very good and sufficient reasons, minor questions compared to the health care reasons.
They're being, I would think, a little confused by the fact that the legislation changes as the discussion is going on; those people who thought they understood what the legislation was proposing then discover that's been changed. I suppose when one's in favour of the changes, that's a good idea, but it certainly doesn't encourage public discussion and debate. I suspect that in a number of ways some of the sections on municipalities are really counterproductive in that they do not foster a sense of the regions in this province having to come up with their own way and their own solutions to their problems. I suspect that not only is this legislation not in a highly democratic tradition, but I suspect it's rather counterproductive at the same time.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much, Professor Andrew, for your presentation. It was certainly an interesting analysis of the process and the impact that will happen with the government actions on a variety of fronts. You made that point that the government won't tell us what its intentions are with respect to boards. You used that example, but I think it would apply in a number of other areas. We would argue it's typical of what the government has been doing. Their actions, it would seem to me, are based on the premise that they won the election on June 8 and therefore ought to be able to govern as they see fit, and they know best and they should just get on with it, and why should the rest of us really have any right to get in the way of their delivering their agenda, whether or not that agenda was one that they explained to the people of the province in the election? They're the government, and they should govern. Is that an extreme categorization of the attitude you see from the government?
Ms Andrew: To the extent that the government wants to move in the direction of getting citizens within the province to do more of the governing of their community, if that is the intent, this is the totally wrong approach to take. If you really want to build up partnerships with non-governmental organizations, with private citizens working in their community, the way to do it is with the maximum of clarity and the maximum of being clear about, if I take the example of boards and agencies, which boards and agencies are seen as useful, which boards and agencies are seen as perhaps, well, not so useful. Whatever the reason, it is totally counterproductive to building the kind of society where people can take an increased amount of interest in the governance of their community not to make it very clear.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon. I would say I would agree with you that the legislation creates major change in the way municipalities are going to be governed or are going to be able to be governed in the future with this legislation. I also point out that a number of municipalities have made presentation that they do not feel that the change is major enough, that there need to be even more changes made because they feel they are the level of government closest to the people and can implement the people's wishes and their ability to pay more closely than Queen's Park can. I suppose that would be open to debate from the different sectors of the economy.
I do want to deal, first of all, with the issue of the restructuring process and the difficulties with it. A lot of presentations have been made, and I personally believe that that's what this process should generate. We should start with proposed legislation, listen to the presentations made and then change where change is required to meet the needs of the presenters who came forward. So I don't make an apology for bringing forward amendments, having listened to the presentations, and coming forward with what would be improvements.
1700
One of the areas that we have put forward today is in the area of restructuring, to go a little bit broader on what the commission or commissioner would be required to do in order to meet the end result of restructuring a municipality, including such things as holding public meetings and consulting with each municipality and coming up with a proposal that meets the needs of the local communities. Would that solve some of your concerns with the restructuring part of the bill?
Ms Andrew: Some of them. But it seems to me my major concern is that the legislation simply says the minister will make regulations on what will be the criteria for acceptable support. It seems to me, in a sense, that is the crucial question. It seems to me the government should be prepared to be clear -- I'm not talking about absolutely specific numbers, but it seems to me that the legislation should be much clearer on what kinds of support the government is talking about. Is the government talking about that it will introduce legislation when the city -- whatever? But to simply say, on that absolutely crucial question, to give no guidelines in the legislation and say simply, "There will be regulations about that," seems to me to be in a sense centralizing the process so much that it will not generate regional discussion about what is a compromise solution, because in a sense the central definitional question is absent.
Mr Hardeman: The other issue would be the area of user fees and the public debate about user fees. You suggested that we should have a public debate, and the consensus of the province, whether user fees should or should not be used as a way of funding the services. Do you not feel it's the type of debate that would be more appropriately put at the local level, that the municipality could have that debate about whether that's an appropriate way to fund the services in the local area as opposed to a province-wide position?
Ms Andrew: Yes, I think this bill is a province-wide position. I think the bill is saying, "Push user fees." In a sense, I agree with you. I think that is not a --
Mr Hardeman: Recognizing that of the user fees that would be available to municipalities, a great number of those they presently have the ability to implement, without the change in the legislation to allow it to be a broader direction. If the municipalities needed to raise funds, there is nothing today to prevent them from doubling the user fees that they presently have a right to implement. I would use one example, the right to implement user fees on garbage collection. Most municipalities have decided not to do that.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Hardeman, we've come to the end of the government caucus time. I apologize for interrupting.
Mr Lalonde: Madame la professeure Andrew, je tiens à vous féliciter de votre présentation. Nous partageons votre inquiétude. Nous croyons que le projet de loi est dictateur, et puis que c'est exact que le ministre va avoir les pouvoirs d'abolir des commissions, des bureaux de direction, et aussi de déléguer les pouvoirs aux municipalités.
I see that you're worried about user fees. We are concerned too, especially in rural areas. A day care, for example, the day that we will apply the user fees heavier than they are at the present time, we have a chance that the day care centres will be closing in rural areas -- when I say rural areas, such as the municipality of Rockton or Hawkesbury or any of those places -- because there won't be enough children in there after to keep the day care going.
Also, when we're talking of user fees for garbage collection, for example, everybody's paying for garbage pickup at the present time as long as they are giving a reimbursement for that. We are concerned about the fire protection, we are concerned about the police protection user fees. There's a lot of domain at the present time that we are concerned with.
Je peux dire définitivement que nous encourageons les groupes à soumettre des amendements afin que le gouvernement les regarde de très près et pour qu'il prenne en considération les présentations que font les groupes, comme vous le faites ici aujourd'hui.
Donc, encore une fois, merci pour avoir pris le temps de lire le projet de loi. Maintenant je vais passer la parole à mon collègue M. Gerretsen.
Mr Gerretsen: Professor, I've had a great interest in municipal politics for the last 20 years I've been involved, and I was also involved with AMO at one time, as its president as a matter of fact, about 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, I think what the government missed in the whole municipal affairs area is this, and I mean this in all sincerity and as non-partisan as I can be, and that is the whole notion that yes, they talked to AMO, but they forgot one important other player in this and that's the general public. Now there are some amendments coming forward that apparently are going to introduce a public meeting concept etc, but it seems to me it's unfortunate that the process, whether we're talking about the introduction of the bill or the way in which these meetings are handled, which -- I don't call this consultation. You can make a presentation, as all the other people have done, and we have a couple of minutes to respond back and forth. That's not true consultation the way we know it.
At the municipal level, I think one of the reasons it works so well is because there are many public meetings in many different areas, and municipalities would be absolute idiots to implement anything of a major nature without having that kind of public input. I just wonder what your comments are on that, that it's the process rather than the substance of the legislation here that has really sort of gotten in the way, because as far as I'm concerned, the government really forgot about one other major player in this whole exercise and that's the general public. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms Andrew: I agree in the sense that my presentation is based on the fact that I think indeed in some ways, in a number of ways, the legislation is counterproductive because it is not building that kind of discussion that will make local and regional solutions easier to find rather than harder to find.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gerretsen, and thank you, Professor, for coming forward today to make your presentation to the committee.
BIG RIDEAU LAKE ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We have two more presenters. I understand we actually just have a copy problem on the agenda, and the Big Rideau Lake Association doesn't appear, but they were scheduled to be on today and we just have the wrong copy. So we have the Big Rideau Lake Association to come forward and then we have the region of Ottawa-Carleton, and that will be the end of the day.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the committee. You have half an hour to make your presentation today. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to receive response questions from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if, for the benefit of Hansard and committee members, you would take some time at the beginning of your presentation to introduce yourselves.
Ms Julia Sneyd: My name is Julia Sneyd, and I'm a past-director of the Big Rideau Lake Association. With me is Mr Bob Sneyd, who is the director of the Big Rideau Lake Association, and Mr John Peart, who is also a director of the Big Rideau Lake Association. We are a volunteer, non-profit organization concerned with planning and environmental issues. I will now refer to Mr Bob Sneyd who will present our brief, which I believe you should all have a copy of at present. No, you don't have it?
Interjection.
Ms Sneyd: Yes, there's a letter.
Mr Robert Sneyd: As the letter is being circulated, and by way of introduction, the Big Rideau Lake Association represents all users on what is really the largest lake in eastern Ontario, stretching some 22 miles and with literally hundreds of miles of shoreline, situated in two counties and five townships, with one conservation authority, in this case, in our case, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
Our main mandate is to address and assist the various municipalities with planning-related issues, ecomanagement projects, resource issues such as water quality and wildlife habitat, public safety matters concerning navigation etc, and lake-specific research projects. In other words, for the wellbeing of all users whether or not they are based in the municipalities. I think it is important to underline that this lake is very open, having, for example, some 9,000 to 10,000 boats pass through it, courtesy of the Rideau Canal facilities, having six marinas based on its shores, 10 independent launching ramps, two villages and some 1,400 shoreline residents, and it is located near the headwaters of the Rideau watershed system.
1710
We've addressed our comments in this brief letter, which we'll speak to in a moment, in a non-partisan way, because we believe that both developmental and environmental issues are best looked at from that side, so I would direct you to the letter. Mr Chairman, with your permission, to facilitate and to compact our presentation -- it's the end of the long day for you all, I know -- we would propose that within 10 to 15 minutes we can complete the presentation and allow some time for questions thereafter.
I would like to proceed, if I may, by indicating, as you may have already seen, that there are seven short, three- to five-line paragraphs in this letter. I am not going to read our presentation, but I would simply like to comment in one or two minutes to each of these paragraphs, if we could do them sort of in order and then, following that 10- to 15-minute time period, have a chance for any questions that you have. In respect of the other people who are here at the table, perhaps I will read the paragraphs, however, since they don't have the copy in front of them, but I'll comment on them in order, one at a time, if I may:
Good development in Ontario relies on effective work by conservation authorities in partnership with municipalities, government agencies, non-government organizations and the province.
I'd like to comment on that paragraph by underlining the words "good development." We're in favour of good development, and we think that means cooperative, sensible planning, management and use of our scarce resources. We believe it's only a sustainable healthy environment that will be the basis for long-term sound economic growth. Bad development, on the other hand, may yield short-term gains for long-term fiscal drains.
The other key word in that sentence or paragraph is the word "partnership," and that's where we see the conservation authorities as being crucial. We see them as a vital link. We've had a lot of experience over the last number of years with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, and we can testify to that experience directly, though I think this is a matter of provincial concern and it's in that setting that we drafted the letter.
The conservation authorities have a proven record and they have been endorsed as recently as last week, in the Golden report, where the Golden report envisages conservation authorities to continue in their reporting function to municipalities. Even to think about the dissolution of conservation authorities -- well, it is unthinkable, in our view. If I might digress from section 27, which is the focus of this letter, given the fact that conservation authorities are established by a majority of municipalities, we find it undemocratic, to say the least, that the bill suggests conservation authorities may be disbanded by a minority of municipalities, but that's a slight digression.
The second paragraph: This is true in natural regions defined as watersheds, whose economic and environmental realties cross municipal boundaries, and particularly true in relation to Big Rideau Lake, which is located in five different townships and two counties.
"Watersheds" is the key word there, and we think this is what is not being given sufficient credence by the majority members of the Legislature, presuming they are behind this legislation. If you look at the Conservation Authorities Act, the mandate is a pretty broad umbrella: study, conserve, restore, develop and manage watersheds. Watersheds. The act was written in 1946, I guess by a Conservative government, and its objectives still make sense 50 years later.
The watershed concept has been internationally accepted as a management principle, and at the same time, an assumption of economic strength and growth is always tied with a healthy environment. Again, recently, only last week, the Golden report reinforced the watershed concept and gave a very careful independent and comprehensive review of conservation authorities, incidentally. Water flows, obviously, and that's the whole point. So much of municipal concern is based on land base. Water flows downstream, and it's the downstream recipients of the water who, of course, are most liable to any kind of adverse growth development or pollution.
We see the conservation authorities and the watershed systems as, if you wish, like a highway. If it's choked up, the health of the whole body politic is affected. Healthy watersheds are the lifeblood, if you wish, to all the communities in the environment. The CAs, therefore, we believe are crucial intermunicipal bodies because they take a holistic approach as opposed to tendencies towards fragmentation. The key idea there is watersheds, and we think the bill should address that. The Rideau Valley watershed, incidentally, is some 5,000 square kilometres, one of the larger ones in Ontario, and it's also interesting to note that some 90% of populated Ontario is covered by conservation authorities.
The third paragraph: Conservation authorities such as the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority have, for years, demonstrated the commitment and expertise to interface and coordinate in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.
The key word to my mind there is "expertise." Very briefly, in commenting on this paragraph, I think it's demonstrable that most of the conservation authorities have the level of commitment and expertise that we have seen in the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, and the essential services that they provide municipalities, we think, must be maintained.
I was talking to the professional planner of a town in this watershed, a town of some 6,000 people, only a day ago, and he underlined the importance in his view of the conservation authorities. Even though this town has a professional planner, he would despair of a future where conservation authorities were emasculated, and what of the other rural municipalities that can't afford planners on a regular basis? It boggles the mind.
We see conservation authorities as an agent for municipalities, as a servant, if you wish, implementing provincial and township municipal standards and criteria, accountable to municipalities -- fair enough; they're not wild cards, they're not a third-tier level of government -- and efficient management organizations. Bill 26, fairly enough, addresses the problem of fiscal savings. We agree with the objective. We think conservation authorities are a means whereby some of those objectives can be realized.
Paragraph 4: From this it is clear that the proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, section 27, must be amended to allow CAs to respond to the majority wishes of the component municipalities should they desire watershed planning and management services beyond those of mere flood control.
I think this is the crux of our message, that the majority of municipalities must be able to engage the services of CAs, as already referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, without repeating anything there, and it would be to strangulate the CAs were they to be limited to merely flood control structures. That would destroy a legitimate and historic function of the CAs. Bill 26 must allow municipal freedom for a majority of municipalities in a watershed to engage CAs to help fulfil there the municipal responsibilities, particularly at a time when increasingly powers are being downloaded to municipalities.
Paragraph 5: Such municipal flexibility, together with the ability to raise necessary levies, would be a reasonable expression of local "autonomy and accountability," consistent with the principle espoused by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in a recent letter of January 2.
The key word here is "levies." Again, it would be false yardage to grant added powers to municipalities and responsibilities, without giving them some power, and the levies they should be able to raise to support the conservation authorities, we think, are crucial. The CAs are accountable and they are perhaps the best vehicle to pool efficiently municipal resources on common ground.
1720
Paragraph 6:
The province, too, has sufficient general interest outside municipal jurisdiction to continue some level of financial support for conservation authorities.
I'd like to speak to that sentence first. The province does have a share and an interest, we think, for general amenities for economic development and growth that lie outside the boundaries of municipalities per se, and a lot of these amenities and watersheds are provided by water resources, and certainly they go well beyond mere flood control structures. So we would like to think, while it's understandable in this time of cutbacks, that less money would be directly transferred to conservation authorities, that some money still is legitimate to flow directly to CAs.
The second point in the paragraph: As well, it would be prudent for the government to embrace the recommendations to be found in the Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario: A Blueprint for Success, a study prepared by the Association of Conservation Authorities.
Bill 26, again, we do not quarrel with the objective. The streamlining objective is quite a reasonable one, and we think that if this committee and the House give due attention to that blueprint, a document which apparently was forwarded to both the present government and the previous government, they would be well served by the principles to be found in the blueprint for streamlining.
Times are changing. Provincial ministries like Natural Resources and Environment and Energy are withdrawing from field delivery and focusing more on scientific research, policy direction, auditing, monitoring, advising, enforcement and so on, but then more and more devolves on municipalities or their agents, we would say the CAs, to be involved in the field delivery. I think you'll see in the blueprint structure for changes that plan, and it's a very solid one, we think, and one that we believe this bill should take into account.
Finally, paragraph 7, in summary:
Good development will save money for all interested parties -- small p -- and taxpayers, now and in the future. In this, conservation authorities have a vital role to play. Big Rideau Lake Association fully supports the role of the conservation authority in general and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority in particular.
Again, the objective of Bill 26 is to save money. In summary, we believe fiscal prudence means, in the case of CAs, pennies spent for prevention will save costly cures down the road.
Thank you very much for this opportunity for making this presentation, and we welcome questions or any dialogue at this point.
The Chair: We have four minutes per caucus for questions. We start with the government caucus. Mr Sampson.
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Frankly, doing it in the way you did, I found it very informative to hear your thoughts but follow along with your letter.
What we're trying to do with this particular legislation is, I think, re-establish the watershed management issue as a local issue, but the problem that you've raised and the concern that was raised by at least two other deputants so far is that when you say "local," it's more than just one municipality you have to deal with or one township; it's two or three or a large number, and chances are they're generally not likely to all have the same view, but the issue still has to be resolved locally.
The legislation here says: "All right. With respect to flood control, that's a provincial issue, we think, and here's the funding to be able to deal with that. With respect to watershed management issues, that's perhaps more of a local issue, and we need to ensure that the CAs are properly empowered in the municipalities to come to some resolution with respect to watershed management and to determine how to fund it, which is probably the most important part of the equation, since we've taken money out of your pocket." We've cut the money that we're allocating to CAs.
Do you have difficulty with that general theme? I don't want to get buried in the specifics of the legislation, clause this and clause that, but do you have any problem with the general theme?
Mr Sneyd: Our reading of the legislation is that while the principle we can go a long way to agreeing on, the legislation appears to prevent CAs from raising levies through the municipalities for anything other than mere flood control structures, and that's the Achilles heel of this aspect of the bill.
Mr Sampson: Maybe we then have to get into the minutiae of the clauses, because I don't, frankly, see that, because I see that the CAs have the authority to apply the levies, and there is an appeal mechanism for the municipalities to say, "Well, no, I don't think that's the right levy amount," and the process goes on. There's also the ability to come back to the minister and say: "Listen, I can't get these people to come to some conclusion as to what the issue is. You help me tell them what it is they have to pay and what it is we have to do to deal with the watershed management issue."
That's my interpretation of the legislation, so I must be missing something that you're seeing in here that's not giving you what you're looking for as part of the local empowerment aspect of what we're discussing.
Mr Sneyd: That's your own personal view, which I appreciate. Legally, how do we read the bill? Is the question we raised a non-starter; in other words, do the municipalities have power to raise levies necessary for the CA work that's needed in their watershed?
Mr Sampson: That's my understanding.
Mr John Peart: If I may interject at this point, how we read it is that if a levy is raised by a CA, obviously the municipality can appeal, and that's fine. It will go before an entity which I had never heard of before, which is the --
Mr Phillips: Mining and Lands Commission.
Mr Peart: Thank you very much -- Mining and Lands Commission, but I don't see anywhere in the section that there is a further right of appeal to the ministry itself; in fact, it says here there are no further appeals from the decision of the commission. Perhaps it's just our misreading of the situation, but --
Mr Gerretsen: No, you read it right.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We must move into the opposition time.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's good to hear from someone who's touching on the broader issue of the environment and some of the negative impacts that are going to be had on it as a result of Bill 26.
Just in passing, I want to let you know that I didn't know much about CAs prior to being elected in 1990, but what I have learned since leads me to believe that really they are a hidden jewel. They're away ahead of their time in terms of the holistic approach, the watershed concept and the good work and the tremendous bang for the minimal buck that's been invested. They've been a very, very positive development in the history of the province.
I wish I could be more positive in terms of the government's approach to environmental initiatives generally. The other day I put out a press release, and I kept track of these things very closely, and I listed on one page all of the initiatives taken by the Harris government designed to protect the environment, and I had nothing to put on that page, and then I had another page listing all the Harris initiatives which are eroding protective measures, and there were 22 measures there.
You're going to sustain a 70% cut in funding. My understanding is that under Bill 26, effectively, a minority of those who are entitled to seats on a CA board would be permitted to dissolve it. It's also my understanding that there wouldn't have to be a public hearing for that to take place. Is that correct too?
Mr Sneyd: That's our reading of the bill.
1730
Mr McGuinty: It's also my understanding that some of the lands that have been received by conservation authorities were in fact donated, and there was kind of an implicit trust that they were to be used and administered by the conservation authority.
There are some municipalities, I gather, which aren't particularly partial to conservation authorities. Do you think there was some kind of deal here cooked up between AMO?
Mr Sneyd: May I speculate?
Mr McGuinty: By all means.
Mr Sneyd: I don't know. It's entire speculation. You tell me. All I know is that 41 municipalities compose Rideau Valley. We are aware of no municipalities that are lobbying anybody to say, "Get rid of the CAs or weaken the CAs." Not at all. I was in touch with the Rideau Valley and I said: "Across the province, are there not CAs that are really rotten apples in this marvellous barrel, that they should be gone after?" He said, "Frankly, we are not getting any feed from municipalities." So what is it? I don't know anything about AMO. Maybe one or two people hijacked AMO and they are not representative of the municipalities across this province. That would be my speculation.
The Chair: Excuse me, we must move to Mr Christopherson's time.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am really glad you got on the agenda. It is heartbreaking to go through a whole day anywhere and not have the environment raised at all, particularly given the seriousness of what Bill 26 means to our environment. So I thank you very much for your presentation and your persistence.
One of the things I find really ironic -- and I suspect if it was ever put in front of John Crosbie he'd just start spinning on the spot -- is the Tories like to talk about "short-term pain for long-term gain" and yet this time around on this issue it very much seems to be "short-term gain for long-term pain." They are going to find the immediate savings that the 70% cut will bring them for the short-term fiscal need they have, but in the long term it is going to do immeasurable damage to the environment, and the cost.
I am from Hamilton and if any community understands the fact that if you don't deal with the environment in the short term in the long term you'll pay, it's Hamilton. We saw that with our harbour. If we had a chance to do that over again, we would put a lot of measures in place that we didn't at the turn of the century when we became the manufacturing steel centre of North America, arguably. But we didn't, and yet here we are with a government that's prepared to ignore those lessons of history and do what they're doing.
It has been suggested in my community, when the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority came forward, that they believe that there are CAs in Ontario, a lot of them, that will actually fold up. I'd like your thoughts on that. They will just entirely disappear because they won't be able to survive this kind of a cut. Secondly, that many of the lands that are now held in trust by the conservation authorities may indeed find themselves out on the free market and sold and lost forever as a public treasure and public use for generations to come. Could you comment on those two aspects, please?
Mr Sneyd: If I could speak to the latter one first, while we haven't addressed this in our letter, it is a problem. To me, it is unthinkable that lands that have been gathered over a period of 50 years and have been donated or sold cheaply to conservation authorities would be sold off. That is a betrayal of trust of the past on the one hand, and it is a betrayal of trust in the environmental future on the other hand. It's my personal opinion on that.
I don't honestly know, to answer your first question whether there are some CAs folding up their tent or not. I have asked the question because you appreciate that our organization is entirely separate from the Rideau Valley, although we work with them and have worked with them for years very cooperatively.
My sense is that RV -- and it may be a very healthy one; I don't know so I can't answer -- can survive, I think, if it has the ability, working with its constituent municipalities, to be able to raise the levies.
For example, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton apparently has no question about the existing levy for the upcoming year. So as long as they have the power cooperatively to raise levies sufficient for the work, which goes in the Rideau Valley way beyond flood-control structures, most of which are looked after by federal authorities as you can appreciate, then I think RV can survive. But I couldn't speak to any other authorities. I have no knowledge.
Mr Christopherson: That's fair. I appreciate that. The last thought is -- if we have time, your comments would be appreciated -- I would hope you don't get too discouraged because I don't, quite frankly, believe it's very likely that we're going to see amendments that will mitigate the damage that you're concerned about. I think it's going to happen regardless. I would hope also that you and the other CAs will be monitoring what's happening and reporting to the public on both the environmental cost of the changes in Bill 26 as the powers in there are executed and, secondly, the fiscal costs so that we can make that case to the public that the government was warned, here's what they're doing with the power they said they didn't want to use, or the fact that they said no, that wouldn't happen, and here is the resulting cost in terms of our environment and the dollars to future generations should we ever get back the political will to do something about it.
Mr Sneyd: Well, maybe I'm an eternal optimist. I think there are reasonable people at the table and they could address needed amendments on this particular aspect of the bill. If it takes longer, so what? If they need to be deferred to further consultation, so what? If, as you suggest, it becomes that it's a done deal and it's going to happen, then you can be sure that our organization and thousands of others across the province will continue to monitor the damage and make every attempt to redress.
I'd like to think at this stage, despite the compressed time lines, that there still can be something done. I would urge the majority of this committee to face the Legislature with some honest and enlightened amendments to advocate under Bill 26. It would be politic for the majority of this committee and the majority of the Legislature to do that, I think; I really do. I'm not saying that in a threatening sense. I think it's responsive to the people. Quite candidly, if you looked at how our association voted in the last election, I wouldn't want to suggest just how many of our members might have voted Conservative. You know what I mean.
Mr Gerretsen: Heaven forbid.
Mr Sneyd: Heaven forbid, but you can't tell. It's a secret ballot.
The Chair: Our half-hour has come to an end, and I want to thank you all for coming forward this afternoon and making your presentation to the committee. Thank you very much.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
The Chair: May I please have Mr Peter Clark, regional chair, regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this afternoon and this early evening to do your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions or responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd both introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Peter Clark: I'm Peter Clark, chair of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and with me is Wendy Stewart, regional councillor and, incidentally, chair of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
Mr Phillips: I see why this part is in here about going slowly.
Mr Gerretsen: What's this about conservation authorities?
Mr Clark: That's a collaborative arrangement, as far as I'm concerned, just to get it started.
I'd like to thank you for allowing me to have an opportunity to speak to you, given, I understand, the pressures on the schedule and other things. I'll do my best not to leave any time less than the half hour so I don't have to listen to any rhetoric. That's it. Loosen up a bit, anyway.
Mr Silipo: It's been a long day.
Mr Clark: I understand it's been a long day. I had a prop I was going to bring with me today, a little boxing glove somebody gave me, because every now and again I feel battered, and I suspect that you do too.
The Chair: I would have had to rule that out of order, though.
Mr Clark: It has a little squeak to it which would have certainly been something different than what you've been listening to; you've been listening to loud squeaks, I understand.
As I said, you've heard a lot of presentations today, and certainly some earlier that I might wish to digress to if I get through the meat of the presentation. The regional chairs across the province are also going to be submitting as a group to this committee, and that, I believe, is being faxed to you tomorrow, so I'll try not to duplicate too much of that material so you won't get it twice.
1740
The economic and social challenges of 1996 necessitate a serious and swift action and cooperation between the provincial and municipal levels of government. Taxpayers are demanding that we work together to seek efficiencies, attack debt, hold the line on taxes and provide services. The first three are one thing; the latter seems to be somehow or other occasionally missed in the equation. It is a concern of all of us to get the house in order, whether it's at the federal level, provincial level or municipal level. I get many calls from people who say quite clearly: "We support the provincial reductions. We believe the province has to do it." Well, frankly, I believe most of us at the municipal level do believe that something had to be done.
With respect to how we then approach this, I think it's incumbent on me as chair and chief executive officer of the regional municipality to try to approach this bill in a constructive and supportive manner. I make it clear to you, all of you, that I wasn't elected as the opposition to the provincial government, whether it was the Davis government, the Miller government, the Peterson government or some other government whose name I would hope fades into obscurity as quickly as possible.
Mr Christopherson: That's a class act.
Mr Clark: I thought you'd like it.
Mr Silipo: Can I take back my agreement to hear Mr Clark?
Mr Clark: Thanks, Tony.
Overall, I believe that Bill 26 will facilitate positive change and promote greater flexibility on the part of municipalities so that they can respond to the fiscal pressures confronting us on a daily basis. I support the initiatives identified in the bill: to reduce the number of special-purpose bodies; simplify funding arrangements between the two levels; and improve various statutes, especially with regard to interest arbitration, because I believe that will result in substantial savings.
There are a number of observations and specific recommendations which I hope will be helpful. I will be initially addressing the aspects of Bill 26 dealing directly with the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, schedule M. That is, I guess, the area that affects us directly, although there are some related areas that clearly affect us on a community basis.
Bylaws imposing user fees and charges: I am generally in favour of these amendments in the sense that municipalities need to be able to raise revenue to deliver services. The current financial and budgeting problems facing municipalities, together with the substantial reduction in provincial transfer payments, require greater flexibility in municipal funding arrangements. Consequently, the proposal to broaden the ability to raise revenue through user fees is a welcome idea. Above all, if the province wishes, however, to mandate new services or enhance the levels of service already in existence, it must be prepared to provide the financial resources, either directly or through empowerment. You cannot insist on certain types of service delivery unless you either supply the funds or supply the ability to raise the funds for that particular service.
Concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere about the user fee provisions being draconian; we're going to have poll taxes -- nonsense; impose sales taxes -- that's a provincial jurisdiction; we're going to have GST, PST and LST, for local sales tax -- I think not; and commodity-related taxes. I've never been in favour of imposing local gasoline taxes or other such measures. But you certainly will hear me say that I believe those taxes that you charge for that at a provincial level should go to that expenditure envelope, not general revenues.
It's critical, in spite of that, that municipalities have the high degree of flexibility that's contemplated in this bill. I would caution you, though, that you have to match the service standards you wish to impose on the municipalities to the ability and flexibility to raise the revenue to accommodate that. In other words, if you set provincial guidelines for spending, allow the freedom to properly do that. That's the only way to be accountable.
In the spirit of partnership between the province and the municipalities, it is essential as well that there be communication and exchange of financial information. There will be provisions for that. However, it is important that this exchange be done in an efficient way, in a meaningful way. The structure in which this should occur should reflect the needs of both partners. A lot of bookkeeping done at the local level to accommodate a provincial bureaucratic machine -- if you cut some of that out, we'll both save money.
I think the ministry should look at setting up a task force on these intergovernmental requirements and see whether or not there's an improvement that might take place, an exchange of information that might be beneficial for future fiscal planning.
I fully endorse the concept of the bill related to the dissolution of some boards. That's not all. But you must admit that if we are to achieve accountability, Mr Phillips, in a very clear way, accountability says that if I am delivering a service and I am paying for it, somebody else shouldn't be appointing the people who are going to dictate how much the bill is. We have never been able to -- and this has been all levels of government -- at the local level for a long time in particular with the police service boards. You can argue that there are service standards we are talking about here: "We want to insist on a tamper-free police service. We want to be pure as the driven snow. Therefore, we will appoint the people." Unfortunately, in our case they're spending some $115 million of property tax money, which I have to go to the well for and I have to take the responsibility for to the public of Ottawa-Carleton. Therefore, I believe it makes some sense that you follow the golden rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.
Talking about financial accountability from the Common Sense Revolution, every government that I have ever dealt with talks about accountability. I think that if the government is paying the bill, it should be the one that is accountable, because that's who in the end has to answer to the people. Regional council, as the financially accountable body, should have control of police budgets and appointment of the members. Do not exempt them from this bill in terms of the elimination of boards. We've got some, though, that you've got in this bill that we can question whether they should be included. We will get to that in a minute. However, I think you have to look at the safety, interest and welfare of a community and put it and place it where the responsibility is, and that is in the hands of its duly elected, politically accountable representatives.
1750
Conservation authorities are the next one, and I brought an expert. Of course, we have heard from the previous group on the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. Yes, there are 41 different entities making that up, and it is cooperative, and it is better bang for the buck than you could get if the region delivered it, because it is beyond the region's boundaries, among other things. It is certainly a better buck than if you tried to deliver it out of Toronto through MNR and 17 branches of MNR, which is what you will have done if you do this. I think you've got to deal with the conservation authorities on a case-by-case basis. I'm not like the previous speaker; I do believe there are some conservation authorities that should have a lot different approach taken to them. On the other hand, this bill doesn't allow us to carry on with the particular arrangements that we've actually made work in this region. Wendy, maybe you want to pitch in.
Ms Wendy Stewart: Perhaps I'll wait and see if there are any questions after.
Mr Clark: Okay. She didn't anticipate coming up here, and I've sandbagged her a little bit. But that's okay; I'll pay for it later.
I think the provisions permitting dissolution should be applied with care and I think the notion is that the offending partners or the municipalities involved in these CAs should have the right to retain the CA and its existing funding arrangements. That would put the responsibility, again, down at the level where you're closest to the action.
There are provisions in schedule M dealing with migration -- a vote of the majority of the upper tier or a majority of the lower tier on service migration. I think it's to be commended. That way you get rid of some of this internal turf war and fighting that goes on. However, where you currently have regions where they are run by the lower tier, it's not going to achieve what you think it might; in other words, it's not a fair and equal contest in terms of the playing field.
Again, I think there's the ability of the provincial government to determine by regs which services and facilities may shift. In other words, while you say you'd like to have this service migration model, you want to also have the right to prescribe. I think that the prescribed services and facilities contemplated need a wide application, but I think it's also helpful if there's an early indication from the government as to which services and facilities you want to consider. In other words, you need to have feedback on those kinds of things before you go ahead and do them. It will reduce the need to go back and fix up the problems.
Finally -- it's maybe semifinally or something like that -- the creation of block funding greatly enhances the ability of municipalities to manage their own financing, given that there are fewer resources available, considerably fewer resources. It underscores the desirable trend towards greater local autonomy and responsibility. I think the change in approach is long overdue.
In addition, proposed amendments permit the minister to make regulations establishing standards for activities and requiring municipalities to comply. Here we go again: "You comply, you go out and raise the taxes, and get shot by the public. We're just going to make the rules." That's really not, as I read the intent of the government, what they've said. "We want to empower, we want to push the decision-making down." Yet in this situation I presume that the government wishes to have certain minimum things done with the money the government is sending on. I think you just ought to cut the cord, because I think eventually the government won't be providing any money, so the issue will go away by itself.
In addition, the proposed amendments permit the minister to make regs establishing standards for activities and requiring municipalities to comply. OMS grants will be tied to those standards? We have no idea what they are at this point. We have no idea what you're talking about. First off, you no longer have the money applied against roads and certain municipal operations. "Here, we give you X dollars. You go and do the right thing with it." If the right thing for a municipality such as, I don't know, Parry Sound or North Bay, one of those, was to not plow snow, I think you'd be prescribing in a hurry what you expected to happen.
It worries me a little bit that if you're committed to set standards, then you'd better be permitted to make sure there's enough money to meet those. It may well be that you go from this nice, politically acceptable, from my point of view, block program back to prescribing because you don't like what they're doing. Just a word to the wise: Having been there before, it seems to me that you may be opening up something that you may not like having to deal with at some point.
In terms of restructuring local municipalities, Ottawa-Carleton seems to have continuing concerns. I understand earlier today you were told there hasn't been a review of Ottawa-Carleton in 20 years. That's just not true. There was the Mayo report in 1978; there was the Bartlett report; there was a committee of regional council in 1985; there was the Graham report; there was the Kirby report -- reports forever. In fact, nothing but reviewing of governance in the last 20 years has taken place. There have even been amendments to governance. So don't believe everything you hear.
It has often been the position of Ottawa-Carleton in dealing with a variety of provincial and municipal issues that one size doesn't fit all. It was the position of the regional chairs, in the report Pursuit of Better Government, that one size doesn't fit all but that you ought to deliver the service in its most cost-effective manner. Of course, as the regional chair and with a small bias, I believe the most efficient and cost-effective manner is the regional level of service. Take that with the appropriate grain of salt. But that's the reality -- I actually do believe that.
The recent release of the Golden report -- I could have brought it with me today, but it's too heavy. That's quite a document. There have been discussions at the lower tier. Apparently the lower tier here feels it's all right for it to discuss, say, eliminating the region or whatever and going back to a committee of self-serving people, but the notion has to be what's the best bang for the buck, because we haven't got very many bucks at any level. So there is concern. The GTA report has stirred governance concerns all over the province.
For instance, in Prescott-Russell, you have 18 municipalities and 75,000 people. A lot of those municipalities aren't economically viable, and I think that in real terms it makes some sense to have some of them joint, but I believe that the decision-making on that should occur at the county level. The county should get into that, get everybody around the table and figure out what's best to serve the people of Prescott-Russell. I don't have a problem with that. I do believe, though, that the province is saying you must get on with it.
I think each region has to be considered on an individual basis so you can provide some kind of tailored analysis reflecting those decisions, and I think you should be cautious. Strong public support for major restructuring in Ottawa-Carleton right now? The public haven't been ringing the phones off the wall in my office about restructuring of government. The primary concern is cost-effective delivery of service and accountability of those who are delivering it, and 18 months ago it directly elected its first council to the regional level, severed from the lower tier. At the same time, police services were devolved upward and the solid waste services, by decision of council, including the mayors, were devolved to the region. It was felt that the region-wide contracting of collection of garbage would save money, and it will.
The province added some minimal jurisdiction on economic development, but I still think there is a need to consider that further adjustment that eliminates fragmentation. Economic development in real terms, both in Metro Toronto and here, is something that suffers from the notion that if you have 11 municipalities, each one wants to fatten its tax base. Each one then is going to compete internally for economic development. This isn't good for the region, it isn't good for the province and it certainly isn't good for Canada. We're wasting a lot of money on internal stuff instead of going out and getting the bucks from somewhere else to help everybody.
1800
I appreciate the underlying thrust of the bill is to provide greater flexibility. The bill contains extensive regulation-enacting authority which may be exercised at discretion, and while I endorse the concept of implementing regulations, I am concerned that the authority contained is not sufficiently categorized or defined, and I think to some extent I've seen some evidence you're already doing some of that in this process. In the absence of an indication as to how the minister will exercise regulation-making powers, it is difficult to appreciate the scope and exact impact of this bill, in particular how the bill will affect the inhabitants of Ottawa-Carleton. An early indication from the government in this regard is essential.
With regard to interest arbitration, proposals contained in schedule Q are most welcome by the publicly accountable managers of municipal corporations. The criteria that are proposed reflect today's economic realities and must be considered in any interest arbitration proceeding. It is essential that these criteria not only be considered but applied to enable municipalities to meet their service obligations in the context of fiscal reality. Although the proposals relate specifically to emergency and essential services, their application will provide long-term benefit to municipal employers and employees.
Finally, I support the changes proposed in Bill 26, schedule K, on freedom of information. This is probably the biggest single place for abuse that we've run into.
I'd like to express my appreciation for this opportunity. I think Bill 26 is a good first step. As reflected in my comments, it may require some changes; however, taking action is better that inaction. It is obvious that good faith will be required by both provincial government and the municipalities to make this legislation operate properly. However, if all levels of government are dedicated to be more effective, efficient and accountable, then this will provide a workable framework. I am hopeful that these ideas will be helpful to you.
There are a few things I might add from my notes on something that happened earlier today. Somebody says two levels of government aren't working. It ain't true, they are. But there are certain elements of the population of politicians at the lower level that would like to, I guess, serve themselves a little better by making those kind of statements.
Frankly, we obviously have further administrative savings that could be done by rationalizing government here, but the comment that you shouldn't waste time on Tiny Town, Ontario, should be paraphrased. Don't waste your time on tiny mind, Ontario. Let's get on with fixing the problem.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got almost two minutes for caucus for questions or responses.
Mr Clark: I'm sorry I mistimed it.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the submission. Earlier we heard from the mayor and I appreciate her submission. But I'm having some difficulty in knowing the message you were trying to communicate to us because in both cases, the mayor of Ottawa more than yourself, you said I think, "We support the bill," and then went on to indicate major concerns. The mayor of Ottawa had by my count eight major concerns about the bill, and I will tell you the government has no intention of accommodating most of those major concerns the mayor has.
In your particular case I think your message is, this is very important to Ottawa. But you're almost living testament to how much importance the government places on the fact that you were barely heard only at the last moment and that we will begin clause-by-clause next week. I will say to you, Mr Clark, we're going to go through A, B, C, D; we're going to go through four days before we even get to the Municipal Act and then we'll barely put any time and attention to it. I thought you've got many important suggestions in here that should be considered.
My question to you is, if you believe, as I'm sure you do because you say it, that this should be done in a constructive and supportive manner, is this any way to try and do something this substantive, dealing with you in this almost insulting way, hearing from you at 5:30 only because you put some pressure on us to hear -- and I'm glad you did. But for a bill this important to you and the municipalities, is this any way to run an operation?
Mr Clark: I have to let you know, Gerry, that there has been, as you well might guess, staff-to-staff consultation between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the legal people across the province in terms of the regions. So there's been a certain element of preconsultation.
On the issue of being here today, we probably didn't ask early enough to be considered among the regular run, and it was decided --
Interjection.
Mr Clark: No, we didn't put our name in early enough.
Mr Phillips: Should you have to, though?
Mr Clark: Should I have to if I wish to meet a committee? I think it's due process. I don't feel it's insulting. I think I've been accommodated and I thank you for that, and including David, even though I must admit I let a little rhetoric get out of hand. Tony, I'll apologize for that. I'll at least take it to him.
Mr Silipo: If that's an apology --
Mr Clark: I certainly apologize.
The Chair: With that, we're into Mr Silipo's time.
Mr Phillips: The answer; give me an answer.
Mr Clark: The answer is, I don't feel I've been insulted. I think what we've tried to say is that, while you're doing this and all the things you're going to do in regs, get those regs out, get feedback on the regs before you start trying to implement them.
Mr Phillips: That ain't going to happen.
Mr Clark: It may or may not. I'm not sure it happened in any other previous government either, but I think it's --
Mr Gerretsen: That's the point.
Mr Clark: No, that isn't the only point.
The Chair: Mr Clark, I must apologize. We're into Mr Silipo's time. I have to let him --
Mr Silipo: Actually, I just want to really ask one question, because I think your presentation is clear as it is in terms of your general support for what the government is doing, with some concerns as you've outlined. But I continue to be puzzled about one thing. I ask this not so much in terms of your own position, although obviously I want to hear that, but just in terms of your sense from your colleagues across the province.
I recall the days when I was part of a government that made small reductions to grants to municipalities, 1% or 2% cuts, and the kind of outcry we heard in those days, which were not that long ago. I don't remember hearing a great deal from municipal leaders about the need to restructure, the need to cut, the need for acceptance of those cuts. I have a little bit of trouble meshing the reaction that we got from municipal leaders at that time with the kind of reaction there is now to 40% cuts, 45% cuts, 20% cuts.
While I'm not saying that people are happy about the cuts that are happening now, on a relative scale I would imagine that there ought to be a hell of a lot more outcry than we're hearing. Why aren't we hearing it?
Mr Clark: I can partially tell you that this government hasn't told me what to cut, who to hire, who not to hire, all that other stuff that was tied in with the other one. In other words, there was far more interference with our business. I told the Premier at the time, "Tell us how much money you want, don't tell us how to get the money, how to deal with the problem." It was the way it was done. It was the issue that: "Well, it's a social contract. We'll make everybody a union employee across the province."
Mr Silipo: That's not the social contract. Come on.
Mr Clark: Well, put it this way: Union and non-union employees across this province were told that they were going to be dealt with in a central, prescriptive manner and that they were going to take days off or pay cuts, whether I could have found the money any other way or not.
That was a significant irritant in that whole process. All of a sudden the management of this municipality, which I ran an election for and received a mandate to manage, you were getting into the business of trying to manage the municipalities from Queen's Park. I think it's inappropriate. I thought it was inappropriate then and I said so.
The Chair: I'm sorry to wade in again. We have to go to Mr Hardeman now.
Mr Hardeman: Just a quick comment on the last question: I was involved in municipal government for 15 years, in fact even had the opportunity of being a member of the regional chairs for three of those years. I can remember many times saying that there was a correlation between local autonomy and provincial funding. That's what this bill, at least in my opinion, proposes for municipalities.
If I could just quickly ask you, Mr Clark, on that issue, we had a presentation from the city of Ottawa and the city of Nepean this afternoon. Both indicated that they would like to see the regions being included in the restructuring portion of the bill. Not that it would necessarily happen, but they thought that the ability to do that and the process should be made available to all of Ontario. From your presentation you suggested it's not needed, but do you see any problem with its being there so it could be utilized by the people in Ottawa-Carleton?
Mr Clark: In Ottawa-Carleton, though, it wouldn't matter, because you have separate levels of government, and therefore it would require a majority of regional council to move a service up or down, it would require a majority of local municipalities. If they want to do something that one or the other doesn't want to do, then it won't happen.
But in the other ones where you have double direct elected and you have the region as hostage to the lower tiers and the financial decision-making based on, "How much of our wish list can we get in there?" and it's not accountable to the people in my view -- the county is not accountable to the people, and the regions that don't have direct election aren't accountable to the people either. That's why doing it for the regional level wouldn't make any sense to me.
The Chair: Thank you for your time. I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation this evening to the committee.
Mr Clark: Thank you, and I hope that at the end of this the synthesis of all this provides an improvement to the legislation.
The Chair: Just a couple of quick notes: The first one is that the researcher has passed out summaries of deputations up until last Friday. I want to thank him for that.
Carleton Bus Lines will meet those who are travelling on the bus out front in one half-hour.
Mr Phillips: I recall before Christmas there was a discussion with, I think it was the subcommittee if my mind reminds me properly. I think there was an agreement that the appropriate cabinet ministers would present amendments on Monday. I raise that now just because I think we should give the maximum notice to whoever is in charge, whoever's listening over there. My memory tells me it was perhaps a subcommittee with Mr Clement that undertook that, but I wonder if the government member might check that out for us.
The Chair: Since it was to your best recollection something that happened in the subcommittee, perhaps we can discuss that further tonight when we're having a short subcommittee meeting, when we get into Kingston.
Mr Sampson: I think Mr Phillips was referring to the subcommittee of the whole, if I can use that phrase.
The Chair: Can we talk to Mr Clement about this?
Mr Sampson: And I will endeavour to get in touch with our side of that committee. I'll talk to my people and we'll try to get some indication of what was decided at that meeting.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 am.
The subcommittee adjourned at 1813.