SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
KINGSTON PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATION
BUILDING A STRONGER INVOLVED COMMUNITY
SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE OF ST VINCENT DE PAULSTORRINGTON COMMITTEE AGAINST TRASH
CATARAQUI CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONEVIDENCE SUBCOMMITTEE STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS
GREATER PETERBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PETERBOROUGH SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL
PETERBOROUGH COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
CONTENTS
Friday 19 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
City of Kingston
Gary Bennett, mayor
Kingston Professional Fire Fighters Association
John Machin, president
Richard McCullough, second vice-president, Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association
Township of Kingston
Isabel Turner, reeve
Frances Smith, warden, Frontenac county
Queen's University Faculty Association
Frank Burke, representative
Grant Amyot, representative
Building a Stronger Involved Community; Sisters of Providence of St Vincent de Paul
Rob Hutchison, member, steering committee, BASIC
Lucy Myers, member, BASIC; member, peace and justice committee, Sisters of Providence of St Vincent de Paul
Canadian Auto Workers
Buzz Hargrove, national president
Storrington Committee Against Trash; Cataraqui Conservation Foundation
Janet Fletcher, representative, SCAT
Elizabeth Munt, director, Cataraqui Conservation Foundation
Bill Warwick, general manager, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority
Ontario Federation of Labour
Gord Wilson, president
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
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Galt, Doug (Northumberland PC)
O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)
Rollins, E.J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)
Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0856 in the City Hall, Kingston.
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, committee members, to Kingston. We have before us from the city of Kingston Mayor Gary Bennett. Mr Bennett, I hope you'll just bear with us for one moment. We have a motion we've got to put forward and have a discussion on that will be moved by Mr Gerretsen.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a motion that reads as follows:
Whereas Bill 26 will have a major impact on every individual in Ontario; and
Whereas Bill 26 requires broad public input before being passed into law; and
Whereas nearly 60 groups and individuals in Kingston want to provide input into the bill, but only 16 will be heard between this hearing and the hearing that was held last week; and
Whereas the community of Kingston only has two half-days of hearings;
I move that when the House returns on January 29, the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended such that the portions of the bill that do not require urgent passage for fiscal reasons be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further hearings can be arranged across the province, including the community of Kingston.
The Chair: Speak to the motion, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Gerretsen: I'd just like to take a few minutes. As I indicated, there are over 60 groups. Just to give you an indication of some of the groups that want to speak here and have not been able to get on the docket, they include organizations such as the Kingston Transit Advisory Committee, the Kingston Friends of Public Libraries, the field naturalists, the Cataraqui Conservation Authority, the Kingston PUC, the Queen's graduate society, OPSEU Local 431, CUPE, OSSTF District 21, from Cornwall.
I might note that last week as well, we had a parallel hearing on Friday afternoon at which time we heard from people such as Richard Tindal, a well-known expert on local government issues; CUPE Local 1974; the Kingston General Hospital; Kaye Healey Homes, Elizabeth Fry Homes, etc. I could go on and on.
What the process has really proven more than anything else is that the people of Ontario and the people of this area want to have input into the process. Although there are some select few who have been chosen by each side of the committee to make a presentation, it seems to me that if you're going to have real consultation with the people, then you want to hear from all of those people who want to make a presentation.
I know this motion hasn't gone very well in the last week or so, but I do urge the members of the government, who are all hardworking, dedicated individuals, to do the right thing on this last day of hearings and vote in favour of this. All they have to do is say to their House leader: "Look, there's been an awful lot of controversy about this bill. There are about 45 different acts that are involved, about 20 major changes to the acts. Why don't we hold up meeting as a Parliament until the end of February and have three or four more weeks of public hearings across the province, including in this area, so that all those people who want to speak about the issues that have been raised in this huge bill, which covers over 200 pages and more acts than have ever been changed at one time in the province before, will have an opportunity to speak?"
Do the right thing, gentlemen, and vote in favour of this motion.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to speak in support of this motion. I want to say to the members on the government side that, being the eternal optimist that I am, we're looking for that fourth vote today that will get us beyond the 4-3 vote that we've seen every other day that this motion has been presented by either a Liberal member or an NDP member of this committee.
We presented this motion, and the one that I'll be presenting afterwards, because we believe that it is crucial, particularly on a bill like this, that adequate time be given for people to be heard. There are in this case, as there have been in every other community, far more people who want to speak to this bill than are able to speak because of the limited number of spaces that are available for us here this morning.
Mr Gerretsen has mentioned a number of groups. I would add at least one more, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kingston, which was not able to speak to us today and won't be able to speak to us today.
Each of these groups has been pointing out to us in various other communities that we've attended -- and certainly, looking at the list today, I'm sure the same will be the case here today in Kingston -- many of the flaws that exist in Bill 26. Even those people who have come to speak in favour have pointed out a number of areas that they themselves would also like to see further study on and further work done on.
The basic bottom line is that this bill changes fundamentally the province of Ontario as we know it today. It is a major tool in the Tory government's agenda to dismantle basic services in this province, to take away pension rights from public servants, to take away pay equity for the least-paid women in the province, to put in by the back door wage controls through direction to arbitrators, and many other changes that fundamentally alter the basic structure of the province as we know it.
It is an affront to the dignity and fairness that any individual would have towards any other individual in this province, particularly coming from any legislators, that this would be done with the kind of limited discussion there has been, and even that limited discussion has taken place only because of the actions that the NDP and the Liberals took in the Legislature back in December. Otherwise, we would not be here in Kingston today to hear even in a limited way what the people of Kingston have to say.
So we feel it's incumbent upon the government members to recognize that more time is required. While a few parts of this bill can be passed on January 29, we believe that most of this bill needs a lot of further discussion, and certainly what people have been telling us so far supports that wholeheartedly. We hope that the members of the committee on the government side are finally understanding that reality.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): It's always a pleasure to come back to my home town, Kingston. Before I proceed, I want to establish a few facts so that the people of Kingston can understand the processes that are involved here.
First of all, the committee time that's been allocated to this particular piece of legislation, the actual time we'll be sitting, hearing deputations from the public, reviewing the document, the legislation, under clause-by-clause review, is more committee time than any other piece of legislation in the past 10 years for the Parliament of Ontario. Yes, it reflects the fact that this piece of legislation is indeed sizeable, but it reflects our commitment to hear from the public.
We've heard indications that, "Well, you wouldn't have been here unless we had staged this event in the Legislature in December." The fact of the matter is, when committee time is established to review legislation, there's always some to-ing and fro-ing between the House leaders and various offers for committee time are on the table and off the table. In fact, one of the offers that was on the table by our House leader at one point in time, rejected by the two parties, was to actually have a longer time. We were going to have the same amount of committee time in Toronto, two weeks on the road starting January 2, a layover week, which would have allowed us a week of time to consider the thoughts and the recommendations of the people we had heard and we would have had reviews and written submissions, and then clause-by-clause review. That was indeed an offer that was on the table and was rejected. But we are here today. We are listening. We are prepared to receive written submissions.
We, by the way, are not the side of the table that determines who gets on or off the list. The schedule is determined by all the parties. Procedure was established with the consent of all the parties at the beginning of these hearings to determine, frankly, how people would get on the list and who wouldn't get on the list. Those procedures are being followed. We are not controlling who's on or off the list, contrary to some of the beliefs that people might want you to believe.
As I said earlier, we are listening, we have heard a number of deputants so far -- I don't know what the total is now -- 178 so far in written submissions and hearings that we've heard. We are prepared to review written submissions. We will give them consideration.
Mr Chairman, we will not be supporting this particular motion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sampson. Before I put the motion, I would like to welcome today Mr Sergio from Yorkview, Mr Cleary from Cornwall and Mr Rollins from Quinte. Voting members today are Mr Silipo, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Phillips, Mr Tascona, 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, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
You have a motion to move, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Whereas this is the final day remaining for public scrutiny on Bill 26; and
Whereas public interest in this bill has been overwhelming; and
Whereas the vast majority of presenters to the standing committee on general government have recommended that major changes be made to the bill; and
Whereas only a few amendments have been tabled to date by the government;
I move that this committee recommend to the government House leader that the 55 individuals and groups that requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Kingston be given the opportunity today to see all of the government amendments to Bill 26.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, speak to the motion, please.
Mr Silipo: Briefly, this is another aspect of the points we were discussing on the previous motion. We know there have been a number of suggested changes, not only for withdrawing the bill but even in terms of making some substantive changes to this bill, from many presenters. We presume that if the government is true to its word, that it has been listening, that in fact there are amendments it is prepared to make.
Yesterday for the first time, after calling on the government for the last week at least and longer, we heard and saw some amendments that were tabled. We saw them yesterday, even though some of these are ones that we received indication from ministers earlier that, in fact, they were looking at, and we know that in fact there were discussions last week, if not before, at cabinet that presumably passed these amendments.
We saw yesterday some amendments presented that clarify or restrict the rights of municipalities to levy taxes, which is certainly one of the major areas that people have been very concerned about. Interestingly enough, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when he first presented the bill, kept saying that the legislation did not allow municipalities to do these things, did not allow the municipalities to, for example, impose an income tax, a sales tax, a gas tax, a poll tax. Well, lo and behold, now they've finally come around to realizing that it does and have put in front of us amendments that say municipalities can't do those things, although I still contend that the question of the gas tax has not been clarified sufficiently in this. But I take it that the intent of the government is in fact to be sure that a gas tax will not be able to be applied by municipalities.
0910
There are other amendments that have been put before us, but the point is this: First of all, it took the government up until the second-last day of hearings to give us any public indication of what those amendments would be. They will say, of course, that they needed to wait until the hearings were over, or almost over, because they wanted to hear from people, and I think there's some truth in that. But the reality also is that they're the ones that claimed when they wanted to pass this bill before Christmas, which was their original intent -- let nobody be misled by anything else they hear; that was the original intent of the government, to pass this bill, with no public hearings, before Christmas -- at that time they indicated that they had some amendments they were going to make. So even then they knew what amendments they wanted to make to this draconian bill, to this poorly drafted bill, to this hastily drafted bill, and they did not have the decency to tell us until yesterday what even some of those amendments are.
We can only hope that there are many more amendments to come, and we think it's incumbent upon the members of the government who are sitting here on this committee -- obviously, we know they're only the spokespeople for the government, but they're the ones that are carrying this bill on behalf of the government in this committee -- to give the people of Kingston here today a clear indication of the range of amendments that they're prepared to put in front of the committee; if they do that, then perhaps, depending on what those things say, some of the concerns will be allayed.
We know, for example, that the concerns the firefighters have been putting before us will not be allayed by any of the amendments that have been presented so far. I could go down the list. We know that the issues of pay equity have not been addressed so far. There is a removal in this bill of pay equity rights for 100,000 of the poorest-paid women in the province. The removal of pension rights in this bill has not been addressed by any of the amendments.
I would like to know, and I think the people of Kingston would like to know, is the government intending to make any changes to those sections? I think it's incumbent, for the discussion that we're going to have this morning to ensue in its fullest form, for people to know what it is they are dealing with in terms of the amendments. Are there going to be more amendments, or is what the government tabled yesterday the full extent of the changes that it wants to make?
Mr Sampson: That's right, yesterday we did table eight amendments, certainly a number of them reflecting clarification of the items and the issues around the ability to apply user fees by the various municipalities as proposed by the legislation and some reflecting, frankly, a theme that was consistent throughout the hearings so far. We are still listening, and I expect, frankly, that we'll be able to table further amendments before the day is out. I don't know that it's going to happen in the city of Kingston today. But, frankly, there are some items that will reflect discussions and deputations to us as recently as of yesterday that have encouraged us to take a look at aspects of the bill and come forward with some changes.
So before Mr Phillips has a chance to read the Toronto Star, I'll tell him that I understand the health side is going to be tabling some amendments throughout the day today as well. I just wanted to clarify that. We are a separate committee, and they will be tabled when we are prepared to table them.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Well, I would just say to the public here in Kingston that the government will vote against this motion, and it's part of the whole sorry process of this bill. They will thumb their nose at the public again today.
This bill was introduced when virtually all of us were in what's called a lockup, hearing the details of the fiscal statement. It was done deliberately. At 3:30 this was tabled in the House when we were in a lockup and could not leave the lockup until 4. Why was it done that way? Because the government tried to force this thing through before there was any legitimate debate. They wanted this bill passed in two weeks, by December 14.
Most of you people in this room have studied this bill and you know that it touches every single person in this room in a very significant way. So they tried to thumb their nose at you by trying to ram this through by December 14. Then, as pressure began to build, they said, "Oh, no, no, no, we'll have some hearings," till midnight, before Christmas, in Toronto -- not in Kingston. We would never have been here. It took some extraordinary measures by the opposition to force them. Even then, they tried to force public hearings the first week in January, right after New Year's, hoping you wouldn't have time to prepare for this.
I would say to the government members, the minister, Al Leach, five minutes into the hearings, on December 18, said he had amendments. We said: "Table them. Tell the people what they are." He refused to do it. Do you know why? Because he doesn't want people like the mayor of Kingston to know what they really intend in the bill.
They had an embarrassment yesterday. The warden of Frontenac county, Warden Smith, was before our committee at 1 o'clock, raising some significant concerns about the bill, a well-researched brief. They were due to table an amendment at 1 o'clock. They didn't table that amendment until 2, until the warden had left, because the amendment didn't do what the warden thought should be done. They didn't want the warden to see that. It's on the whole issue of restructuring. So when the warden had left the room, they tabled the amendment. As I say, it's part of this sorry process. They're thumbing their nose at everybody, they think they can ram this thing through with no legitimate debate.
I guarantee you, they've got amendments in those briefcases over there; they're filled with amendments. I think there'll be 100 amendments before we're through and they all know the amendments right now. Do you know why we're not seeing the amendments today? We will see them in Peterborough. We won't see them here. They've got them there, but they won't table them here. Probably because, Mr Mayor, you may not be totally happy with the amendments.
I don't know. I don't know what your brief is, but I suspect, knowing the history of the mayors of Kingston, you have studied this bill well and probably have some constructive recommendations for us. But they will not table the amendments. They'll try to sneak them through, perhaps at 5 o'clock today in Peterborough, hoping no one will pay any attention.
We had the sight yesterday of the mayor of Ottawa supporting the bill, but expressing eight major concerns about the bill and saying, "I'm sure there'll be amendments." Well, there won't be amendments to accommodate the mayor's concerns. I know that, because the government has made it very clear in these hearings they're not going to amend it.
So we have this process and I guarantee you, there's never been a bill like this. Here we are, discussing major amendments to our police, our firefighters, to municipal restructuring in every way, to fees, to licensing, to pay equity, to the pensions, to the Mining Act, to natural resources, to all of our health system -- and it was just a week ago today, I think, John, that the committee was here.
They won't table the amendments because this is the bully bill, and the bully bill has virtually no friends right now. It has the odd friend because some people think they're going to accommodate their concerns. Well, when this bully bill finally passes, it will have no friends because it is designed to implement the agenda of them and frankly, that's not the agenda that I think the people of Ontario want.
When they got elected I thought they were merely mean-spirited, but this whole process has taught me they're not only mean-spirited; I think they're incompetent because 100 amendments to this bill --
0920
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please, ladies and gentlemen. We have limited time to hear speakers today.
Mr Phillips: So probably about next Wednesday or Thursday we will finally get to debate the municipal portions of this bill, and it will be part of this sorry process -- no amendments, a bully bill that offends the decent people of this province. I think it will show finally the true face -- the cold, hard face -- of the Conservative Party.
I and my party will of course be supporting the motion. I'm afraid that the government members will follow the same process they followed in every single city and thumb their nose again at the public.
Mr Silipo: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Gerretsen, Phillips, Silipo.
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
CITY OF KINGSTON
The Chair: Welcome, Mayor Bennett. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may want to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain response and questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you introduced yourself and those at the table with you for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Gary Bennett: Good morning. I'm pleased to have with me Councillor Joe Hawkins and Councillor Carol Allison-Burra, along with Mr Rick Fiebig, the city treasurer. I appreciate the opportunity of being here and I know the citizens of Kingston will give you, as always, a warm welcome.
Mr Chairman, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity for the city of Kingston to share its concerns and support, where it makes good business sense for the community, of the provisions provided for in Bill 26. At this point, I would like to make it clear to the committee that my remarks may not be supported in whole by the members of the city council and that one of the strengths of local government is that there is a wide diversity of opinion and beliefs on our council that reflects the interests of the community. This morning we intend to divide our presentation into three sections. Those are the financial impact of the social contract and the Harris government cuts; comments on sections M and Q of the proposed legislation as they affect the city of Kingston; and questions that we believe require further clarification.
Before addressing those three points, the city of Kingston would like to make it clear that we believe this bill should have been split into more manageable sections and the public given more opportunity for consultation. I am taking this opportunity to table the city of Kingston's public consultation policy, which is included in your brief, schedule A, which, had it been followed by the province, might have avoided the procedural debates that are being held and allowed us all to concentrate on the impact and the implementation of the proposed changes rather than on procedure and process.
We are pleased that the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and the assistant deputy minister met with myself, our chief administrative officer and the treasurer to seek suggestions on amendments to the Municipal Act and other relevant acts prior to the tabling of Bill 26. The key areas of consultation were in the areas of the elimination of special-purpose bodies, additional revenue opportunities, binding arbitration, restructuring and amalgamation.
This morning, what I'd like to do is just go through a variety of slides that we've provided for you. However, if you're wondering why people are so animated when you come to Kingston, perhaps the following slides will provide you with part of the answer.
Slide number 1, which is included in your brief, is an indication of where the city of Kingston's operating revenues come from. With nearly half of its $100-million budget coming from the senior levels of government, the large reduction in transfers has placed the city of Kingston in a very vulnerable position financially.
Slide number 2 -- and this is a very interesting one for a lot of people -- indicates not only that the city of Kingston as a corporation is in a vulnerable position, but also that the community is particularly susceptible to government cutbacks. Presently, 55% of the local workforce is employed by governmental organizations; it's the highest in the province and it is even higher than our nation's capital.
Slide number 3 speaks to our operating revenues. It is not surprising that the largest expenditure class is for the wage and benefit costs of municipal employees. However, what's equally or more surprising is to learn that 31% of the city's expenditures go towards welfare assistance, with nearly 20% of the population in our community receiving either municipal or provincial assistance.
Slide number 4: Over the last six years welfare expenditures in our community have increased from $5 million to over $30 million. In 1996 there will be a decrease in the amounts paid, as a result of the reduction in rates approved by the provincial government as of October 1, 1995. Unfortunately, the subsidy rates for reimbursing the city for expenditures have been reduced, with the result that this reduction will actually result in the cost to the local taxpayers in the city of Kingston to be increased by over $1 million. Some communities -- in fact, the majority of communities -- in Ontario were winners as a result of the reductions in the remuneration levels. The city of Kingston was one of the losers.
The final slide relates to the issue of unconditional grants. A major source of funding for the city over the years has been the unconditional grant program. Unconditional grants can be used for any municipal purpose, such as capital projects, operations or holding the line on taxes. The city of Kingston has historically had a significant level of unconditional funding due to the fact that it is an assessment-poor municipality compared to the provincial average. This stems from the fact that the city of Kingston contains so much property that is not subject to local taxation. For every dollar of taxable assessment, there is 50 cents that is not subject to tax. That's the highest in the province. In 1993, the implementation of the social contract reduced these grants by 25%, or approximately $2 million. These grants will be reduced by 35% in 1996, and we accept the fact that they will probably decline to zero by the end of this decade.
We would like to make it clear that the proposed revenue opportunities in Bill 26 in no way compensate the city for the loss of revenue as a result of the reduction in grants. Many individuals see the city in terms of hard infrastructure, but I remind committee members that soft services such as day care require adequate attention, and the current speed of change requires short-term decision-making for what are essentially long-term issues, with no guarantee that our sort-term solutions will ameliorate the long-term problem.
I'd like to now refer to schedule M of Bill 26. We've provided our recommendations in bold type for ease of reading for the committee members. The city of Kingston, with its municipal neighbours -- Kingston township, Pittsburgh township, Ernestown township, Lennox and Addington county, and Frontenac county -- has engaged in a process over the past six months of attempting to restructure governments in the greater Kingston area. This exercise was triggered by a number of factors that are set out in schedule B to our brief, entitled Position Paper by the Corporation of the City of Kingston on Municipal Reform in the Kingston Area, and we're pleased to add that to our brief here this morning.
In many respects, as our brief indicates, the city of Kingston and the greater Kingston area are dealing with many of the problems experienced by the greater Toronto area. It is essential that a more efficient, timely and economical method of dealing with municipal restructuring be legislated, and it appears that Bill 26 is a sincere attempt at providing local municipalities with a way of dealing with restructuring.
The other point that is clearly made in our brief is that the most important decisions about local government reforms in Canada have been made by provincial governments. We would like to take this opportunity to remind this provincial government that Kingston city council passed a resolution on August 8 of last year requesting the appointment of an independent commission to examine, evaluate and make recommendations with respect to the most suitable municipal structure for the greater Kingston area. Kingston city council continues to take the position that if local negotiations fail -- but we do have tremendous confidence in the process -- the province is in the best practical and legal position to examine and implement, after due consultation, a more efficient and effective government structure for the greater Kingston area.
We are concerned with the definition provisions of subsection 25.2(1). This section needs clarification. As you are aware, greater Kingston's urban envelope encompasses municipalities in two counties, and we want to make certain that either clause 25.2(1)(a) or 25.2(1)(c) allows for the majority of communities with the majority of population to require the minister to add that urban form to any restructuring proposal, in order to have a contiguous urban form.
Our recommendation is that section 25.2 provide for restructuring across county boundaries. Traditionally and historically in Ontario, when restructuring has occurred at the local level, we've taken the model of the county as somehow sacrosanct and it can't be changed. We've seen that all through the regional government reforms in the early 1960s and the 1970s. I think that needs to be rethought.
Next, we are concerned with clause 25.2(9)(b) as it reads, and we have provided that part of the bill. It is our understanding that a triple majority rule is being considered by cabinet as a method of satisfying these sections. We understand that the triple majority rule would apply where two or more municipalities within two or more counties are attempting to arrive at a restructuring proposal rather than requesting a commission or proceeding under the existing Boundaries Act provisions.
If the regulations state that the majority of the counties and the majority of the municipal councils within the counties representing the majority of the population -- and I apologize for the explanation, but it is complicated -- would all have to agree to the proposal, then quite frankly this formula has the potential, if not the certainty, of reinforcing the status quo, which is not acceptable to the majority of ratepayers in the greater Kingston area.
0930
Let me make our point more clearly: The township of Ernestown is clearly within the greater Kingston area urban envelope. It partakes in all kinds of joint services with Frontenac county organizations, benefits from the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission, and yet all assessment growth and a disproportionate share of the joint services savings accrue to Lennox and Addington county. Under the proposed triple majority rule, with the two counties being involved, it is assumed that both county councils would have to approve a proposed restructuring involving Ernestown township, as well as the majority of the 16 municipalities in Lennox and Addington county, the majority of the 15 municipalities in Frontenac county -- and at this point we are unclear as to whether the city is equivalent to a county or equivalent to a municipality within a county. We require clarification if the restructuring efforts currently under way in the greater Kingston area are to be successful.
It would therefore appear that those communities supporting the restructuring in each county within this region and the city would have to have the majority of the population in the three municipalities, that being the two counties and the city. Our initial reaction is that such a rule is unconstitutional in that municipalities within an upper tier, such as a country structure, effectively have two or perhaps three votes to the one held by the city.
Our recommendation under this is that a simple majority rule be put in place wherein the majority of the local municipalities with the majority of the population within the communities directly affected by the restructuring must support the proposal or that in such a circumstance where consensus is not attainable the minister appoint a commission to design the most efficient municipal organization to service the locality.
This leads to a further need to clarify the definition of "locality" under section 25.2 of the draft bill. Under the "Proposal to restructure" provisions of the bill, subsection 25.2(2) stipulates that a submission to the minister must indicate that the proposal has the prescribed degree of support of the prescribed municipalities and local bodies in the locality.
Our recommendation is that in order to ensure that the intent incorporates directly affected contiguous urban areas, "locality" be defined to include at least those municipalities and local bodies within a census agglomeration, where one exists. It is felt that this would ensure that the interests of the larger community are considered in cases where they are artificially split by county boundaries.
Next, we are concerned with the provisions and the impact of section 83.1, which is entitled "Information re: municipal operations." This section enables the minister to obtain benchmarking information on efficiency and effectiveness from all municipalities, with the costs being borne by the municipalities. We applaud the concept of benchmarking, but our concern is that huge investments of time and money will be required to gather and process the appropriate information and then pay to have the results audited.
Subsection (4) provides for the audit of such information, and we assume that this is at an additional cost to the local municipality. Most municipalities do not currently use activity-based accounting or have job-costing and time-and-materials-costing management information systems. To bring software and training up to an acceptable and competent level, as well as having sufficient staff to enter the data with existing systems, will require a huge investment and may not represent a good investment of taxpayers' dollars. If the game is to force contracting out, just say it.
There appears to be no provision for consultation with municipalities in terms of developing the benchmarks. This is unacceptable and the bill must be amended to provide for such consultation. Our recommendation is that the bill be amended to require the minister to consult with the local municipalities and the public in order to develop the list of areas to be benchmarked and the manner in which a uniform, province-wide approach can be adopted and developed.
We're also concerned with the section of Bill 26 entitled "Ontario Unconditional Support Grants Act" and its impact on local autonomy. Subsections 31.3(1)(a) and (b) will force municipalities into a situation where they would have to contract out in spite of collective agreements. This concern is based on a reading of section 83.1, the municipal operations section, sections 31.3(1)(a) and (b).
Let me sketch a scenario for you. The minister is proposing to establish benchmarks at this point with no requirement for consultation with municipalities. In a separate section of the act, the minister is provided with the power to use those benchmark numbers to establish service levels or standards for activities. If these standards are not met, the following sections allow the minister to reduce the grants to a municipality by an amount which appears to be equivalent to the level at which a municipality fails to comply with the standard established. In effect, the minister now has the power to set service standards for local municipalities or reduce grants. So much for local autonomy.
We are proud of the teamwork between the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 109, and the management and council of the city of Kingston in establishing a task-force-based system for garbage and recycling which has dramatically reduced costs while improving efficiency. We have one employee on a refuse truck while many of Ontario's municipalities have either two or three. We are currently working with CUPE to further increase our efficiency in this area.
If as a result of benchmarking, the minister determines that the Kingston method of operation is the most efficient, the minister may require other municipalities to achieve the same standard in spite of whatever collective agreements they might have or risk losing part of their grants. On the other hand, should the minister decide that the benchmark can only be made through private sector contracting out, then the city, which entered into its collective agreements and is bound by their provisions and successor rights, is not in a position, even assuming council agreed to it, to contract out. We are caught between a rock and a hard place; that is, between our collective agreements and ministerial discretion.
We are confident the minister does not want to set local service standards. Our recommendation under this section is that the bill be amended to clarify the role of the minister and reaffirm the role of local municipalities in setting service levels.
The next section refers to boards and commissions. It's a very important part of this bill.
Ontario has always possessed innumerable boards and commissions separate from municipal government. The creation of some of these public bodies actually predates today's federal and provincial governments. Unfortunately, by their very nature, many of the current boards and commissions have become municipal enclaves, insulated from direct municipal council control.
This has resulted in a fragmentation of municipal autonomy and responsibility. It becomes difficult for all but students of local government to determine direct responsibility for public decisions when decision-making authority is dispersed among a diverse variety of public boards and commissions. There are approximately 800 municipal governments in Ontario, but depending on one's definition, there are over 2,000 special boards and commissions. The confusion in the mind of the electorate is understandable and it must be eliminated.
Historically, it may be possible to hold municipal governments partially responsible for the proliferation of many of these bodies. Faced with difficult and delicate matters, it became convenient to delegate the decision-making powers to separate, less political bodies. However, it is a widely shared opinion that local priorities and issues are better dealt with and assessed at the local council level with the accompanying local perspective. Municipal governments must be given the authority and the power to act independent of the countless boards and commissions that currently inhabit the local political landscape.
It is often argued that once a function is placed under a special board, it receives the individual attention of the members of that board and thus receives the benefits of specialization. Regrettably, specialization has the potential to breed isolation and biased self-interest. Today, local government must view the community as a whole, as a system of interrelated economic and social functions. Special-purpose bodies often lack the wider community perspective necessary to make balanced and efficient decisions. The result is a variety of separate governments, all competing with one another and claiming to represent the interests and needs of the same citizenry while diffusing the most efficient utilization of community resources.
Another of the oft-promoted benefits of local boards is that they relieve municipal councils of the responsibility and administration for many lesser matters. It needs to be strongly stated that it is an illusion to think that the creation of an independent board or commission somehow relieves a local council of an administrative burden. There can be more effort expended attempting to control, integrate and coordinate the numerous functions and activities of independent boards and commissions. The result can often include inefficiencies of scale, duplication of staff and equipment, and an inherent inability to establish true community priorities.
The provincial government must realize that this fragmentation of a municipal government structure is most extensive in Ontario in comparison to all other provinces. There are extremely few, if any, public services that cannot be performed as effectively by committees of council or regular administrative departments of municipal government. If this were not the case, then virtually every municipal department would be equally justified in claiming independence for itself from council's control. This is not to say that there could very well be unique and compelling reasons for the continued existence or creation of special boards or commissions within a community, but that decision should be a local municipal council decision and not a legislative requirement.
Municipal government has historically been preoccupied with basic service delivery and physical infrastructure expansion. Today, municipal governments have matured to the level of competence and professionalism necessary to assume the expanded role demanded by their more complex urban environments. For Ontario's municipal governments to remain viable and accountable, it will require unique and innovative approaches to the rapidly changing social and economic urban environments of the 1990s and beyond. Having local authority for a community's physical and human public resources reside with municipal councils would cause less confusion and create a more effective and efficient form of government which would be more capable of responding to the diverse and unique needs of the respective communities.
Our recommendation under this is that the government of Ontario remain strongly committed to those sections of Bill 26 that give municipalities the full authority to dissolve local boards and commissions and to integrate their functions into municipal government in an effort to increase administrative efficiencies and improve public accountability. It is our understanding this is clearly the position of AMO.
At the beginning of our brief, we indicated the factors that have created unparalleled reductions to staffing levels and service levels as a result of the carryover from the Rae social contract and the cuts imposed by the Harris government. We support the government in its goal of providing additional methods for municipalities to generate revenue. We do so keeping in mind that a tax is a tax is a tax. Our council has been supportive of the concept of user fees and it is our position that the ability to apply new revenue-generating opportunities directly to the user, but as pointed out above, these fees will in no way offset the grant reductions to this community.
I've asked our treasurer, Mr Rick Fiebig, and our chief administrative officer, Mr John Morand, to review these sections of the act and I would like to make the following comments.
0940
There is little doubt that with the magnitude of the transfer reductions we are facing, we must find new sources of revenue if we're able to maintain even the basic municipal services without substantial property tax increases.
At the same time, even if the province would allow it in the final version of the bill, could you imagine the problems with some municipalities having a sales tax, while others would have a gas tax, while others would have no taxes? Can you imagine the new bureaucracy that would have to be established to collect these revenues, at a time when we should be doing just the opposite?
The solution may be for municipalities to finally receive a portion of provincial sales and gas tax revenues, if possible based upon local revenue streams. In Kingston's case, the best type of tax would be a payroll tax similar to the health tax. This would help offset the problem we have with the declining unconditional grants and the PILOT inequity in this community. Once again, it would make sense that the province would collect this revenue through its existing administrative structure. If the province is not in a position to take this approach, we would like to seek clarification on the section headed under general licensing powers, and we have printed that for your information, Mr Chairman.
Moving to page 19, which refers to this italicized section: These sections should be read and need to be read in conjunction with subsection 257.1(1) and clause 257.2(2)(f). Under these sections, could the municipalities in the greater Kingston area establish a licensing fee for hotels, service stations, liquor control boards and Brewers Retail which would require "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," which would be equivalent to one cent per litre for gasoline, $1 per occupied room night for hotels and $1 per litre for alcoholic beverages? Further, should a business not agree to the collection and remitting of such fees, then it is our interpretation that a municipality may charge a licence fee of $1 per year for those who comply and a graduated fee of up to $10,000, for instance, per year for those who do not. We seek clarification of the new revenue opportunities within this bill. We would ask you to keep in mind section 257.3, the exercise of power, in providing us with your answer.
In our 1996 draft budget, we have included a revenue item of approximately $92,000 which, if generated, will save two of the 99 jobs that are currently slated for elimination during our 1996 budget deliberations. That revenue is based on the municipality being able to charge for vital event registration and marriage licences to reflect a fee for services to our citizens and those in surrounding municipalities in the townships where the service is not provided.
Our recommendation is that the regulation clearly provide municipalities with the ability to charge for vital event registration and increase costs for marriage licences.
In addition, the city of Kingston and other university towns expend substantial funds in regulating building standards related to housing provided to students. As you are aware, the city is remunerated for its hospital and university and college grants through the infamous heads and beds tax or a grant in lieu of taxes. We are of the opinion that the provisions of section 220.1 and sections 257.1 through 257.3 would enable the municipality to charge a fee in the nature of a direct tax on the landlords and residences providing student housing, including the university. This would help to offset additional costs of property standards enforcement in university towns so that an additional user fee could be instituted, through the universities, directly to the students living in the residence.
Our recommendation under this is that any amendments to Bill 26 not remove the ability to invoke user fees associated with property standards enforcement.
The police services board: The police services board in its budget is expecting to generate $50,000 in revenue by providing an alternative fine for certain provincial offences. For instance, an officer finding someone without a seatbelt could charge them under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, section 106, with a fine of $105 and two points, or charge them with a municipal offence, of which the penalty would be to attend a safe driving seminar given by a police department at a cost of approximately $100, we have suggested. This would generate substantial revenue for the municipality and would provide driver education immediately related to the offence, rather than waiting until the number of driver demerit points issued required an interview with the Ministry of Transportation officials. Since we are budgeting based on the ability to do this, we seek immediate clarification that it will not be disallowed by the legislation or the regulations thereto.
Schedule Q: I would like to speak to those amendments under schedule Q of the bill. These are the amendments to the various statutes with regard to interest arbitration, in particular the Fire Departments Act, and I am conscious of the fact that the city's professional firefighters' association is following my presentation.
We strongly support provisions within this schedule, most specifically the Fire Departments Act and the criteria provisions. As you are aware, the current legislation requires that when, through the collective bargaining process, firefighters table a proposal for a salary increase, the requested increase is built into the municipality's budget.
In the past, when municipalities at arbitration hearings have discussed the issue of ability to pay, the arbitration panel has been able to point to the requirement that the municipality budget for the pay increase, and since it was in the budget, you merely have to raise taxes to pay for it.
Times have changed. The arbitration system has been generous to fire, police and the Ontario Nurses' Association. Other groups in the municipal government certainly have not received nearly the same salary advancement, and the arbitration awards have had a significant impact on the cost of our services. Therefore, the system needs to change to reflect local economic conditions and the level of increases that non-union and other union groups have received.
Actual historical relationships need to be considered when an arbitration board is looking at wages and other forms of compensation for employees subject to binding arbitration. As was stated at our council meeting this past Tuesday evening, our firefighters' union must be willing to give in order to balance our budget at the present time, and we require these new rules for binding arbitration. The same criteria should apply to police services and our home for the aged, wherein arbitration awards have outstripped the municipality's ability to equitably pay its other employees. We are strongly supportive of any changes in arbitration which would require those employees bound by arbitration to be responsive in their demands with respect to the ability of the community to pay.
The taxpayers of the city of Kingston and other municipalities are asking you to level the playing field by including and passing the proposed amendments in section Q.
In conclusion, we have limited time and we would like to respond to your questions. I would like to point out that it has been a difficult exercise to respond to the draft legislation, in that you must have copies of a variety of pieces of the legislation on your desk as you read through the omnibus bill. It would have been much better had there been a series of individual bills introduced simultaneously with concurrent hearings across the province. Perhaps in the future, omnibus bill changes could be handled through a series of separate bills with concurrent hearings. It would simplify the process, and I think it would give us all a much greater opportunity to participate.
We thank you for this opportunity to make a few comments and we would certainly be pleased to answer any of your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We have two minutes per caucus for questions, starting with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mr Mayor, for your presentation. I'm glad that we've had at least this opportunity to hear from you. Certainly your last point is one that we would concur with as a minimum in terms of any future legislation: giving people the chance to actually have adequate time to look at it.
I appreciate very much the figures that you presented at the beginning of your brief, because I think it paints a very different picture of how the whole government's fiscal agenda impacts on a city like Kingston from what we are typically led to believe back at Queen's Park. Just to give you one example, the Minister of Finance said in his statement, I believe, or certainly in some statement that was made, very clearly that the 22% cuts to the welfare rates would actually benefit municipalities. You're saying that it's costing you $1 million more, if I read your brief correctly.
Mr Bennett: You did.
Mr Silipo: I'd be interested in any comments you may have on that point. But I guess the one question, given the limited time that I have, is actually on one of the last points you made around the arbitration process.
This has been criticized by a variety of groups, certainly including the firefighters -- and I'll be interested in hearing their submission as the next presenters -- who have clearly characterized this as being really nothing more than wage controls by the back door. It would then mean that you as the employer would be saying to the arbitrator, "This is what we believe we can pay," and the arbitrator would have very little, if any, flexibility to award anything different from that. So one could ask, what's the point of going through that process of pretending that somebody else is making the decision, as opposed to simply saying the municipality will determine what the wage settlement will be?
Mr Bennett: Historically, certainly in the city of Kingston, we've had an excellent rapport with our employees and we've had an ability, in most cases, to not have to seek the arbitration process. Certainly in terms of the police services board we've been very successful. We just believe that you're taking one smaller subgroup of the total municipal complement and providing it with perhaps benefits or processes that are not clearly provided to all the municipal employees. What we're asking for is a level playing field; in other words, that we use a similar process of labour negotiation and collective bargaining with all our employees and no one has the provisions or the opportunity to be given priority under specific acts. We just think that collective bargaining should be uniform in the province and should not be defined through a variety of acts.
0950
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I note that schedule Q or schedule M hasn't changed the budgeting requirements with respect to a request for a salary increase by the firefighters being put in your budget. But I also note that what you're really saying is that the arbitration awards for the firefighters have exceeded the freely negotiated settlements for your other employee groups and that you're supporting the mandatory requirements, with respect to schedule Q, to bring fiscal reality into this particular sector, the interest arbitration.
My question, though, relates to your statement that the arbitration awards have outstripped the municipality's ability to equitably pay its other employees. I'd just like you to comment on that.
Mr Bennett: Historically, what we've seen is if the arbitrators award a higher increase to, let's say, our firefighters -- I'm not singling out our firefighters -- the difficulty becomes that we have to go back to our other employees now who look at that arbitration award and say, "Well, we negotiated and agreed collectively to an increase," and it appears as though it's a separate, autonomous process. We should ensure that when we deal with our employees, we're dealing with them all collectively. I guess we're concerned with the provisions currently that everyone can seek arbitration under specific acts. We're just asking to ensure that when we deal with our municipal employees, we deal with them all collectively together.
Mr Gerretsen: Gary, first of all let me congratulate you on an excellent brief. You've brought up many points that we haven't seen anywhere else. Unfortunately, in the clause-by-clause deliberations next week we will have maybe three hours to look at all of the municipal issues in schedule M. You've raised many issues, so you can well imagine how much real discussion will take place. Of course, this isn't real consultation either. You make a presentation and we get two minutes to respond to it. That's not what consultation is about, as your brief points out.
We've gone around the province. I haven't been involved formally with AMO; I know what the deal was. The province basically said, "We're going to give you less money but we're going to give you more powers." The moment we talk about some of these "more powers" that municipalities want, whether it's a poll tax or a gas tax or a room tax or a gas and alcohol tax or even a sales tax etc, immediately the province comes back and says, "Oh gee, we didn't mean that, you know." But what do they mean? This is the game that we've been playing back and forth.
The bottom line is this: You're going to have a lot less money and you've got a choice of fewer services, a general tax increase or you want some of these additional powers with respect to fees and licensing and things like that. Is that not correct? I'm not saying you're going to do it tomorrow -- you're a responsible council and a responsible organization and you'll try to work within your budget -- but you want the ability to levy something like a gas tax or, as you said, to generate the revenue opportunities out there as a municipality, don't you?
Mr Bennett: I want a very clear and very immediate clarification of just what our new powers are. We're two weeks, going on to three weeks into our budget year. We're budgeting a lot of the ability to impose or create new opportunities for revenue under the assumption that many of our interpretations are correct. At this point in time every municipality in Ontario is assuming their interpretation of what they can or cannot do in terms of the user fees is appropriate.
Interruption.
The Chair: I apologize for the interruption. Mr Gerretsen, we've come to the end of your time.
Mr Bennett: We're unsure, as a lot of other people are.
The Chair: Mayor Bennett, I want to thank you very much for coming forward to the committee today and making a presentation.
KINGSTON PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Kingston Professional Fire Fighters Association come forward.
Can I please have order in the room in deference to the presenters. If you're going to have conversations, you should take them outside. Thank you very much. Go ahead, gentlemen.
Mr John Machin: I'd like to introduce my group. To the left of me is Richard McCullough, number two vice-president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, and to my right is George Harris, secretary-treasurer.
My name is John Machin. I am a full-time firefighter with the city of Kingston and also president of the Kingston Professional Fire Fighters Association. I represent 98 personnel whose experience ranges from 32 years to one year. I would like to address the ramifications that may flow from the omnibus Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, better known as Bill 26.
At present, Kingston is number one as a retirement community in Ontario; we are number two in Canada. Our city core has an extremely high density of old buildings, many of which are of historical significance and designated as heritage buildings. The construction of these buildings and their locations require specialized firefighting services.
Budget and staffing cuts: Kingston is a unique city, with a total property tax base being 67% taxable, 32% non-taxable. Outstanding property taxes at present are $10 million to $12 million in arrears. Welfare costs in the city, out of a $100-million budget, are $35 million. Our budget shortfall as a result of this government is in excess of $7 million to $9 million.
A great number of educational, federal and provincial institutions have a significant effect on these above figures. Some 17% of the total fire department calls in 1995 have been to Queen's University buildings. As the fire department's budget shortfall requirement is $953,810, and 95% of this is salary or benefit related, it is extremely difficult to meet these cuts. Approximately 23 staff members will be required to be dismissed in order to meet these target cuts. This is approximately 25% of our workforce. This type of action would decimate the service of the fire department and all related services that are currently provided to the municipal taxpayer.
Defib, medical assist calls, auto extrication, hazardous waste spills: These have been added responsibilities outside of collective agreements and legislative acts.
Station closings due to budget cuts will place the responsibility squarely on the municipal council to inform the residents of that area that there is no service from the station in that area and to expect a delay in response times. This would place the budget before the public safety of the municipal residents.
With staffing cuts it would be difficult to staff high-rise apparatus, therefore leaving buildings of more than six floors in an extremely high-risk situation.
The provision of other services, including medical responses, would then have to be reviewed.
I now would ask you to turn to schedule M, appendix A.
The firefighters are currently involved in a review of the fire service in the province, under the direction of the Solicitor General, the person appointed by the government to be responsible for the fire service in Ontario. We are dealing with the Fire Departments Act, a specific piece of legislation, and there is a potential number of amendments that would directly affect the level and delivery of the fire service in Ontario.
Prior to the election of the Conservative government, we solicited comments, on behalf of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, from potential candidates in our local areas who were seeking election, on what their position would be on the proposed changes to the Fire Departments Act. We received written responses from a great number of potential MPPs seeking election on behalf of the Conservative Party. In those responses we received letters from the now Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, the now Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, the now Minister of Labour, Elizabeth Witmer, and the now Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, all stating the following, and I quote:
"No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted. And we will insist that all changes be fully costed -- both from the point of view of workers as well as management."
1000
In a conversation on December 14, 1995, the Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, agreed with our provincial president, Mr Jim Lee, that we had not been thoroughly consulted as was promised by the Premier and other ministers of the current government. I refer you to a letter, also accompanying your package, dated January 15:
"The Honourable M. Harris, Premier
"Dear Sir:
"This letter is in response to your letter addressed to Mr Patrick J. DeFazio, Editor of the Intrepid/Fireline, dated December 29, 1995, and received on January 13, 1996.
"You make the comment that consultation has taken place and is still continuing.
"Mr Harris, in a meeting held on December 14, 1995, with the Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, I made the following comment, and I quote:
"`That I did not construe and would not construe this meeting or the past two meetings as being thoroughly consulted.'
"Mr Runciman asked me what I thought was consultation and I told him that a five-minute meeting with him breezing in and out could not be construed as consultation.
"Mr Runciman agreed with me at that point in time that in actual fact we had not been thoroughly consulted.
"The exact conversation was confirmed with Mr Runciman in a letter dated December 15," which is also attached.
"Mr Harris, your statement about the consultation process is not correct and we would suggest you take the time to discuss this very important issue with Mr Runciman and review the correspondence from our organization in this regard.
"We are again asking your government to live up to their commitment to us before there are any changes to the Fire Departments Act.
"Jim Lee, President
"Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association."
Unilateral powers to a municipality in schedule M: Once amalgamation or regionalization, on which discussions are presently ongoing in this area, is implemented staff will be considered new employees with no successor rights or collective agreement.
The devastating effects of this proposed legislation would destroy not only 75 years of negotiated collective agreements, but the trust and good faith that has developed between the city and our association during that time. A new collective agreement would then have to be negotiated, with the final resolve under the proposed changes to the arbitration process in schedule Q.
Schedule Q: Under this section, the municipality would present the ability to pay before an arbitration hearing, and as no objective tests for measuring the municipal employer's ability to pay has ever been established, it would therefore force arbitrators into rendering a decision that would be a form of wage control. This may destroy public safety, trust agreements, family enjoyment, health, lost productivity and morale.
At recent town hall meetings held in Kingston, the public, when asked to respond to what services are essential to be maintained, the fire department received an approval rating in excess of 90%.
Section 220.1 of Bill 26, the head or poll tax, would establish two types of citizens: those who could afford and those who can't. User fees could cost lives. The fact that there is a user fee for emergency services would deter citizens from calling immediately upon discovery of an emergency. Any delay in reporting an emergency because of a fear of a user fee could seriously hamper our abilities to contain the situation. This would have a significant impact on both lives and property.
In closing, the government took office on a platform of no new taxes, but this document has only shifted the responsibility for taxes to the municipal taxpayers. The firefighters have absolutely no control over these unpaid debts. However, we are being forced to accept this type of legislation which will have a devastating effect on the public safety of the citizens of the municipalities in Ontario.
We are here today to ask the Conservative government to live up to its commitment to our provincial association that there will not be any changes to the Fire Departments Act without consultation. We are asking the government to exempt the firefighters and the fire service from the impact of Bill 26 and allow us to continue discussions on our own piece of legislation, the Fire Departments Act, as was promised by the Conservative government prior to its election.
If this piece of proposed legislation is the best form of a Common Sense Revolution, what do we, as dedicated firefighters in the municipality of Kingston, have as a vision for the citizens who have entrusted their public safety to us?
Applause.
The Chair: Order, please. Ladies and gentlemen, I understand and respect your desire to respond at many occasions during the presentations. I want to let you know that each group has a limited amount of time to present, and after the presentation, the remaining time is divided equally among caucuses for questions. Prolonged response eats into that. I know that the gentlemen at the table and other presenters want the maximum time to respond to questions, so I just want you to keep that in mind.
Mr Tascona: Thank you very much for your presentation. As a member of these hearings I've been involved in representations from different firefighter groups throughout the hearings in almost every city, in some cities more than two firefighter groups. We've also heard from your president on at least three occasions at these hearings. Each time, the proposals have been focusing on schedules M and Q, so we're very familiar with the approach and what your concerns are.
I'd like to say at this point with respect to schedule Q that there has been consultation. Certainly a letter has been given to your president with respect to the criteria that have to be considered by the arbitrator, that these criteria are not exhaustive and that other criteria can be considered that are relevant to the process. As you know, there are things that are required to be considered, but consideration is far more than saying, "You have to do this," in terms of dealing with levels of service.
Levels of service are still under the control of the municipality. It's a political decision, obviously. You've raised some concerns about which you'll have to deal with your council. Obviously, it's part of the collective bargaining process in terms of the level of service and the way you want to provide that. We've heard the position of the city of Kingston through the mayor at these hearings today.
I'd like to say, though, that we've heard from other firefighter groups, in particular the London group. We respect the right that you want to do the best job for your members. Obviously, wage increases would be something you would like to see. What we've heard on the other side of the coin is that the taxpayers are not in the mood for any more wage increases that would result in a tax increase. That's one of the criteria that has been approached through the municipalities saying, "We don't want any increases in taxes, and add that to the criteria," and that's been their standard position throughout. That's been the position of the school boards, the police service boards etc.
The mayor indicated that there had been a task force to deal with CUPE in terms of trying to reduce costs and also services. Would you be in favour of an approach dealing with such things as productivity bargaining, which will have to deal with such things as saving costs, maybe redefining the compensation pie? It's clear from your mayor's presentation that they feel you've done very well in the interest arbitration process, to the detriment of the other workers. We got that out of him, and it's in his brief. Also, they feel that any more wage increases to the firefighters are going to reduce the pie and will affect services. Those are the statements from your own city.
I'd like some comments from you, your side of the story, with respect to the comments made through the city brief, and also what your view would be with respect to productivity bargaining in these era where we have a very difficult situation in terms of fiscal debt, which has been brought on in the last 10 years through mismanagement in financial spending of other parties. That is a fact, and everybody knows that.
We've got a fiscal reality and we've got to deal with it, and I'd like your suggestions for a solution to this, other than the fact that you're looking for wage increases not being part of the control system.
1010
Mr Machin: As you look at page 2 of my brief, it says "outstanding property taxes." How do you expect me as a firefighter to run around the city and get those collected? I have no control over what property tax is outstanding. As you look at the next list down, if you indeed recovered those outstanding property taxes, we wouldn't have a shortfall. If we're only short between $7 million and $9 million and there's $10 million to $12 million outstanding -- I believe you went to the same school that I may have -- that would show there's a surplus.
Mr Tascona: That would indicate to me too that people are having difficulty paying their taxes because they can't afford to pay them any more. Every city we've gone to has indicated that property tax arrears are unbelievable, which would indicate to me that there's a real problem out there in ability to pay; it isn't there any more.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. I'm going to try to summarize what I think we've been hearing on this section, then I'd like to know whether I've interpreted it properly.
Before the election, then Mike Harris, now Premier Harris, gave the fire organizations of the province a solemn undertaking that there would be full consultation, including costing, before any amendments were made to the Fire Departments Act. The election was then held, and then this is what I think happened. No one's contradicted me.
Al Leach went to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and said: "I'm going to cut your grants in half. How can I keep you quiet?" He agreed to unlimited licences, unlimited fees, restructuring proposals and some things that direct arbitrators in a way that exists nowhere else in Canada. The only time it's ever been tried is under wage control plans, and then it was abandoned where it was tried. It exists nowhere else. There is no question that what is proposed in schedule Q for arbitrators tilts the balance like that -- no question. No one who looks at it can argue.
I remember that Mike Harris said he was going to take the cuffs off the police. The police never realized he was taking the cuffs off them and putting them on the arbitrators, because that's what this is. It directs the arbitrators how they have to make a decision.
This, in my view, is the most dishonest part of the whole bill. They should have come clean and simply said, "We are imposing wage controls or wage rollbacks on police, fire, and hospital workers." It is no accident, by the way, that it's schedule Q, the very last section in the bill. When I got the bill, I turned to the last, because I assumed that's where they were trying to hide things, and that's where you were. I really did. I worked backwards from there.
They've been telling the money markets: "Don't worry. We've got this new legislation that will essentially direct wages for the public sector, a new wage control bill." My point is this: If that's what they want to do -- and it's clear what they want to do -- they should have been honest with everybody, with you people to whom they gave the promise before the election, and said: "I'm sorry. We've changed our mind." However, I might say the deficit now is exactly the deficit they thought it would be when they were running the campaign. Nothing's changed, other than the fact that you weren't at the bargaining table between AMO and the government, and you were sacrificed.
Have I characterized it properly? The implication of this direction to the arbitrators, which exists nowhere else -- and I understand why the mayors are fully in support of this; their grants are cut in half, their backs are to the wall and they've got to find the money somewhere -- you're it. In your study of the arbitration, have you been able to find anywhere else in Canada where this exists? Would you agree that this is at least the Harris wage control plan through the back door, if not the Harris wage rollback plan through the back door?
Mr Richard McCullough: I totally agree with that. What the government did to this organization is nothing but a Dunkirk. What Mr Tascona suggests, that we were consulted, is totally false. I'm a representative of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association who sits on the Fire Service Review Committee. I was at those meetings with Runciman. We were never consulted, and for him to suggest that we were is totally false.
Mr Gerretsen: This isn't the first time this has happened. I can remember being an AMO rep, when I was mayor of this city back in 1982, on a committee that met with the Solicitor General, the association, the chiefs and a whole bunch of other interest groups to deal with exactly these sections, and halfway through the process that came to an end because the Davis government imposed the 5% and 4% wage constraints. It's the second time they've done this to you fellows.
Mr McCullough: Getting to schedule M, that's going to allow the municipalities to downsize, replace full-time with volunteers, privatize the fire department if they wish, and it's going to do nothing but increase response times. As everybody here should be aware, the initial stage of a fire is the most important, and if the increase in response time happens to double or triple, this bill will mean we're going to be pulling the people out of fires and they're going to be totally roasted.
We're telling you here today as Ontario firefighters and Kingston firefighters that this is going to affect public safety in Ontario. I'd like to ask the government, what are you going to do about it under the Harris government?
Mr Silipo: I want to come back to this question of public safety, but let me pursue the issue of the arbitration for a minute. As you probably know, but I think it would be of interest to the people here, your colleagues in Timmins showed us the video showing Mike Harris making the commitment he did to no changes without consultation, at one of your association's gatherings. In addition to the letters, we also had the pleasure to see that commitment, which clearly has been broken.
Mr Gerretsen: Was that Mike Harris in that video?
Mr Silipo: It certainly sounded and looked like Mike Harris. The point I wanted to pursue on this question of the arbitration is that the mayor earlier indicated that there's been a history of settlements reached here in Kingston without resort to arbitration. Can you tell us, over the last 10 or 15 years, how many times you've had to go to arbitration?
Mr Machin: I believe that over the last 10 years we've been once.
Mr Silipo: Once. That's pretty typical, isn't it, of most areas? The figures your provincial association shared with us, which I don't think have been denied in any way by AMO, show that in about 85% of cases across the province, settlements are reached without resort to arbitration, and where you have to go to arbitration, agreement has been reached on the financial package unanimously, meaning that even the appointee of the municipality has, at the end of the day, agreed with the package.
On the point Mr Phillips made and that we made earlier about this being wage controls by the back door, I want to make an observation and ask you to respond. While that very clearly affects firefighters, police officers and nurses initially, because those are the three groups that tend to use arbitration the most, even though it's not very often, the importance goes way beyond those three groups of employees. In the power sharing that's going on, in the deal struck between AMO and the Harris government, this would not only allow municipalities to control your wages but it would allow, in effect, through the pattern settlement that then gets established, for them to turn to all other employees and say, "The firefighters got 0%," or a 2% rollback, "and the police got the same, so that's what you're going to get."
That's the importance, and this is the issue of the government not having the decency to be straightforward and say, "This is what we think should happen," but just passing the buck this way, in this case to arbitrators, to have them do the government's work for it so it seems like it's being done impartially when in effect it's being done very much in a straitjacket with very clear directions from the government.
1020
Mr Machin: I believe that's correct. I see where we're going to have great difficulty in the province of Ontario having an arbitrator sit with possibly the criteria all laid out for him. He is no longer an independent person. He is dictated to by the government as to what he -- or she -- will do.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, we've come to the end of the time. I want to thank you gentlemen for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
Mr Machin: Also for the committee I will give a video, and it deals with the 911 distress call, on what happens with reduction of people. I would sincerely hope that the government will look at it.
The Chair: We'll have that filed with the clerk.
TOWNSHIP OF KINGSTON
The Chair: May I have representatives from the township of Kingston come forward, please.
Ms Isabel Turner: Good morning, gentlemen. I understood I had 10 minutes, so in my presentation, you may be able to make up some of your time lag. My name is Isabel Turner and I am the reeve of Kingston township. I would like to introduce to you Warden Frances Smith from Frontenac county, whom I will ask if she can just deliver a paper to you, not present it but merely deliver it.
I would like to thank you on behalf of the corporation of the township of Kingston for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill 26 and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We are hopeful that the input received in the course of these hearings will be used to finalize Bill 26 in a manner which adequately responds to the needs of the people of this province.
As I understand that you have received many comments on this bill, I intend to limit my remarks to two critical items in Schedule M, amendments to the Municipal Act and various other statutes related to the municipalities.
However, before addressing those concerns, I would like to share with you that reviewing the legislation was extremely difficult due to the absence of the related regulations. We have also heard that the ministry is making anticipatory changes. However, not having the benefit of the text of these changes, I trust you will bear with me as I proceed.
Restructuring by commission: Sections 25.2 and 25.3 provide for the imposition of restructuring by an independently appointed government body. Such a commission may consist of a single individual, and such commission can implement restructuring without any reference to the minister.
This commission, established by the minister by regulation, is to develop a restructuring proposal, which proposal may then be implemented by exercising -- and I draw your attention to -- special powers yet to be detailed in regulations. In the absence of these regulations, it is difficult to determine if there will be any involvement of the municipal councils affected, the public or others in developing restructuring proposals. It is clear, however, that the decision of the commission to implement the restructuring proposal in accordance with the regulation establishing it is final. For these reasons we have grave concerns about the type of commission proposed in Bill 26.
Commission powers: We are concerned with the special powers that will be vested in these commissions, particularly because we don't know what the extent of the powers might be. While we appreciate that these are for the most part to be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council by way of subsection 25.2(11) -- and it's quoted below so we don't have to go all over the place to look for it -- the absence of the regulations makes it most difficult to review the proposals of the legislation in a meaningful way. It appears that where a restructuring commission has been established, the affected councils could be severely and unnecessarily restricted from conducting the necessary business of the local government. This underscores the need to make the relevant regulations available for comment if meaningful input on the desirability and utility of this type of commission-driven reform is to be made.
Implementation orders in subsections 25.3(3) and 25.2(12): We are particularly concerned about the proposed powers of the minister and commissions to make orders to implement the proposals they develop, and more so about their powers to make such orders notwithstanding the provisions of any other act or regulation that is inconsistent with their orders. These are staggering powers for potentially just one person to exercise. Further, there are no provisions here for dialogue or questioning prior to the issuance of such orders, nor any rights of appeal once the orders have been made. We suggest that the powers of the commission be limited to the reporting of its proposals to the minister, cabinet or other appropriate body, so that any decisions concerning implementation will carry the appropriate political responsibility.
Public and other input: We feel strongly that any commission should be formally required to seek local input in the development of its restructuring proposals. As the proposed legislation contemplates only publishing the orders implementing a restructuring proposal, there is no provision for public input or involvement of any kind in the process of formulating a proposal. Neither does it include, let alone require, any type of consultation with local authorities in the course of developing and implementing a local government restructuring proposal. As presently proposed, the minister could appoint a commission, the commission could develop a restructuring proposal and, though slight, the possibility exists that the first we might hear of it is when our clerk receives the order of a commission implementing a proposal altering our local government structure under clause 25.3(4)(b).
We believe steps must be taken to revisit Bill 26 in order to ensure that adequate public involvement and community consultation will occur in the course of developing any restructuring proposal, and further that the end results being recommended to the minister be imparted by the commission to the affected ratepayers.
One-person commission: We believe that the final decision for the restructuring of local government is too important to leave in the hands of a single non-elected individual with no safeguards, checks or balances. We also believe that such a commission should not be allowed to make the final restructuring decision. The authority to act must carry with it appropriate political responsibility.
Process: If a commission approach must be used for the restructuring, then there is a need for a process to air concerns related to the actions of the commission, particularly in its making of orders to implement a restructuring proposal. Also, some provisions must be included to require commissions to report to the community at key points in the process.
We therefore recommend that the powers and duties of the commission be re-examined and that in particular, first, subsection 25.3(3) be amended to limit the powers of the commission to the reporting of its recommendations to the minister, cabinet or other appropriate body; second, provisions be added to ensure adequate public involvement and community consultation in the development of restructuring proposals; and third, subsections 25.2(11) and (12) be amended in order that no one person, not even the minister, shall be placed above the lawful authority of the provincial Legislature.
Here we beg the question: Is it lawful for a regulation of government to have superior authority to a statutory provision of the Legislature? After all, who else in this country can act with impunity in the face of government legislation and regulation? It appears that subsections 25.2(11) and (12) provide a commissioner with the authority to do just that. We can find no rationale for giving such an unelected position such power without the responsibilities that would run in concert with such power. I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that not even a judge in our highest courts has the power to set aside laws, legislation or regulations which are otherwise valid and enforceable. How can we sanction attempts to give such powers to a commissioner?
News reports have been issued that the following could very well be redundant; however, until the formal withdrawal is given, I will present to you our original submission, and this is on councillor liability. This provision relates to the contravention by councils of regulations made by the minister for localities where a commission has been established to develop a restructuring proposal. This section makes council members personally liable for any adverse financial effects which may result from the contravention of certain regulations related to restructuring. It's a bit like putting a target on the backs of politicians who have been retired from political service by local government restructuring, especially so in light of the provision that an action against such politician may be brought by any municipal elector of the municipality.
You may be aware that AMO's position is that this is an unwarranted financial consequence for municipal politicians who exercise their responsibilities in good faith. We agree with that and feel that this is both unwarranted and unacceptable. It certainly stands in stark contrast to the immediate preceding section, which authorizes the minister or commission to implement a restructuring proposal and to ignore any existing laws that might stand in the way, apparently in the absence of any process or reference to anyone else and with no personal responsibility for any financial or other consequence. It appears that it may be very difficult for the average councillor to know with any certainty just what is in effect and therefore what he or she is supposed to do.
We believe this proposal requires extremely careful reconsideration, since it allows any municipal elector to bring the action. Having had experience with actions brought by municipal electors, I can tell you that these actions are often based on inaccurate and/or incomplete information and that they can be costly to everyone involved. We had one such elector who cost the municipality in excess of $100,000.
One of the critical points here is that the issues are not often crystal-clear in terms of whether or not a contravention has occurred. Consequently, this proposed legislation is likely to result in unwarranted actions being brought against private citizens whose only crime was having served their community as a member of a municipal council. If such individuals were found guilty, it is likely that they would have no means to pay the adverse financial effect, and those individuals who are found innocent will reap the benefits of mental anguish and legal bills as final payment for their dedication to public service.
Under this proposal, no one seems to win. Even the commission could be inundated with requests for confirmation that council's proposed actions will not be in violation of the commission's orders. On the other hand, the minister already has the power to act if a municipality misbehaves, since he can send a commissioner to take over the operation of such municipality.
We believe this provision should not be pursued in the absence of compelling evidence to confirm that it is necessary, equitable, desirable and, most of all, workable. It would seem more businesslike and reasonable for such contraventions to be dealt with by the ministry, and with respect to the suspect municipality as a corporate entity, not placed on the backs of retired municipal councillors.
We therefore strongly recommend that this subsection 25.2(13) be deleted.
Gentlemen, I would like to thank you once again for having received this presentation.
The Chair: We have five minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the opposition caucus.
Mr Gerretsen: It's always nice to discuss these items with the reeve from Kingston township, the oldest and fastest-growing township in Ontario.
Interjection.
Mr Gerretsen: No, no, not about you; I was talking about the township.
Isabel, you've really put your finger on it, because I think there are a couple of things that people ought to remember. Number one, when a commission gets appointed, its decision is final. No appeal by the minister, by cabinet, the OMB or anybody; it's final.
Secondly, there's absolutely no requirement for public input. In anticipating what my friends are going to say, yesterday after Frances left, a couple of amendments were tabled that dealt with some public input. There is some public input; for example, holding at least one public meeting. Now, you and I know that this kind of process is going to require a heck of a lot more than just one public meeting. And people are going to be given an opportunity to make representations once the draft report is out. So there are some minor amendments coming. But I think the point that you make in all this is that this is a very complicated matter that almost deserves a bill on its own, yet it's just one little part of one schedule of a bill that contains about 20 different parts to it. What's your comment about the process in all of this?
Ms Turner: We've had process in place for many, many years, and whether it's the fact that you are perhaps used to looking at that process and feel that you find that acceptable -- what I find rather unacceptable is this: We look at communities. There is ownership in these communities. The ownership is the taxpayer, and let's not forget for a minute that same person digs into their pocket and they pay federal, provincial and municipal taxes. It's the same person. The key to a local situation: They have more of an ownership. They feel that their money is going towards what they have chosen and where they have chosen to live. It's unaccepteble to have someone come down and say, "You've now changed to something else," and they have absolutely no say in the matter.
The other part about it is, as I understand it, the commissioner can run up all kinds of bills and do all kinds of consulting and then turn around and say to the municipality, "You owe this." It seems a bit strange, and the bit that worries me is that we don't lose sight of the democratic process that we are so used to in this province. This is why I felt so compelled to bring these two matters to your attention.
Mr Gerretsen: And by which local government has functioned very well, because of the democratic process.
John Cleary has a question.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I would like to thank you for your presentation. It's always good to hear from municipal people. I know that I've been in on many hearings in our part of eastern Ontario where municipal governments are ready to restructure but they don't seem to be able to get any information on the criteria. Maybe you could help me out on this, that information is required on the form in detail that the minister will require in a restructuring proposal.
What is meant by a "prescribed degree of support" and what is a "prescribed municipality"? What is meant by in a "prescribed manner" for determining support? Most of all, what are the "prescribed criteria" and what is the "prescribed type of restructuring"? They've had people sent down to our area from I guess the Toronto area trying to help the municipalities, but they didn't have a clue what was going on either. So the municipalities are hanging out on a limb. Maybe you could make a suggestion to us.
Ms Turner: I think that's why I'm here, because I'm looking for the answers to the various prescribed -- there was one; I'm sorry, I don't have it noted here, but it's rather a complex thing. I did hear someone say that there are some areas where the agreement comes in and it's something to do with the number of municipalities, the number of electors, and it goes on and it becomes very, very complicated. I think what I'm looking for is, please give us something a little simpler, please give us something a little more direct, please give us something with a democratic process in it. Really, that's all I'm asking.
1040
Mr Cleary: I'm really pleased that you said that.
The Chair: Mr Cleary, we're into the third party's time now. I'm sorry. Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: How much time do we have?
The Chair: Five.
Mr Silipo: Five? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Reeve, nice to see you again. Last time I was here, I think we were announcing some measures to help people on social assistance. I'm glad that we're having the chance to talk about these issues today, although I wish it was in a different context.
What I take very clearly from your presentation is a sense that, "Look, restructuring needs to take place; we're not saying that no restructuring is the answer, we're not saying that the status quo is the answer, but surely there is a democratic process that needs to be followed," and while the establishment of a commission may help in that, in terms of dealing with a way to look at issues and a way to look at potential restructuring of various services that municipalities are now offering and suggesting improvements, at the end of the day, you believe very fundamentally that the people who should be making the decisions are the people that are elected to make decisions, and those are the politicians.
So at the end of the day, if I've heard you correctly, the commissioner and the commission, in whatever way it's set up -- and you're suggesting it should be certainly not just one individual -- ought to, in effect, report to the minister, obviously report to the municipalities, and if someone has got to take the responsibility, then it should be the provincial government through the minister making that decision. Is that --
Ms Turner: That's what I'm saying.
Mr Silipo: Okay. I would certainly agree very much with that, because it seems to me that that's how one exercises the responsibility that comes with elected office, not by shuffling it off to someone else and saying, "You go figure it out," and then we'll stand back as government or as ministers and just simply say: "We wash our hands of it. The commissioner has decided that this shall be done, so and so, and that's what will be done."
I think that's one of the things that we find fundamentally problematic with this bill: Where there are problems like that, where there are issues like that, the government seems to be quite willing to pass on to someone else the seeming responsibility for making those decisions.
Just to pursue this question of contradictions, I was interested very much in your analysis of the councillor liability issue, because of course one of the other things that exists in this legislation is that at the same time that the minister is giving powers to municipalities, for example on the user fees and on various other things, it's also holding for the minister, through regulation, the power to undo any of those decisions.
It's ironic that under the councillor liability section, where through a restructuring there's a potential for councillors to be sued by another municipality or by an individual resident and so be held liable for whatever actions they may have taken, there's no provision, of course, to hold the minister liable if he decides to stick his nose in and change a decision which he at first seems to be giving municipalities the right to make. I just thought I'd point out that other contradiction which I see in the bill. I don't know if you've looked at it in that context as well.
Ms Turner: No, I did not particularly look at it in that context. I looked at it in the context of not knowing. We looked at it in the context of, how would we know? We looked at it in the context of, how do you carry out the daily business of a municipality? I would just like to give you perhaps another very quick example. You could have a commissioner come down, he's got all the authority to do whatever, but the municipality really doesn't know either what that authority is or what those provisions are, what the regulations are etc.
You must understand that I'm dealing with this from a very blind spot, because we don't have the regulations. So I'm assuming and presuming just to draw some things to your attention that you may want to look at. But I guess what I'm saying here is that in dealing with the municipality, the municipality sits down and draws up a budget, for example, whether it be both in capital and operating, someone comes in -- say, Mayor June -- you've passed your budget, you're going ahead with it, and for some reason you could end up in the situation where you've contravened whatever it is that has been written. That could in fact put a municipality, I think, in a lot of danger for carrying out the services that it has to to the municipal ratepayers, because it may come to a point where (a) the municipal councils will not make a decision on anything or (b) the commissioner in fact is inundated constantly with requests to say, "Is this all right; can I pay my payroll this month?"
I think there are better ways of doing it just with a little bit of thought. It could be spelled out there if that is the route that it has to go.
However, I do think that it is an imposition, and if this kind of liability is going to be put at the municipal level, then quite frankly, I think -- and in my life I try to create everything with fairness -- that what is good for the goose should actually be good for the gander, so why not at every level?
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Good morning, Madam Reeve. First of all, I'd like to address the issue of the amendments and the public consultation. Recognizing that the legislation does start off in the restructuring portion that it is a locally driven process, that the commission is appointed upon the request from municipal government, not at the direction of the minister -- there was a lot of concern expressed during the hearings by people from the municipal sector that it should require further public consultation, consultation with the people, the ratepayers and the municipality. Obviously from your presentation you've not yet read the amendment, but it says the commissioner must consult with all the affected municipalities, must prepare a draft report, must provide the opportunity at public meetings for anyone wishing to speak to that, then must post the draft report and allow time for written submissions and then print a final report. Would that deal with the issue of getting public input into the process?
Ms Turner: It doesn't deal entirely -- can I respond back to that in a way? A municipality can request an annexation or amalgamation with another municipality without the other municipality -- point A, point B, you know? -- knowing. So in effect what you've got here is a request, and according to what we're reading in the bill, no consultation, nothing.
I have to say, sir, I have a community that feels that there's a tremendous ownership in what they do -- waste management, Lemoine Point and I could go on and on. Horrendous public meetings have been held with people, with input, and this is great, but you've got to know at what level this input will be used.
The other side of it is to come back and report to people at different stages so they can follow the process. They become part of it. They know what's going on.
Mr Hardeman: The other issue: The Kingston mayor suggested this morning that there should be a better way of defining locality as to a restructuring proposal, that it should not require the support of the upper-tier government and the lower-tier government in all localities, that a restructuring proposal should be able to contain just those area municipalities that would be directly affected by the amalgamations. Do you see a need to be sure that it is protected that those municipalities that are impacted from the municipalities leaving the structure are also informed that in fact it will change -- in your case it would change the makeup of Frontenac county if there were some discussions ongoing with just Kingston township and the city of Kingston. Do you feel it's important to make sure that all those affected are involved, as opposed to just those that are going to be part of the change?
Ms Turner: Well, sir, I think they must all be involved, because I think you have to look very squarely at what a county does and how some municipalities, financially or whatever, support others. It is like a family, if I can put it that way, and if you can look at it that way and you find some family members that perhaps are in a business together and one leaves, what the impact would be on the business. I think you've got to look at it in that light. To take, for example, Pittsburgh township and Kingston township away without anything further being done for our northern municipalities, what we call our northern band and our middle band, and their islands, I think would be shameful. I think this has to become a whole picture.
1050
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman. Your time is exhausted. I believe Ms Smith wanted to table --
Ms Frances Smith: Actually, yes. I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about my submission because I had my opportunity yesterday. I would like to just comment quickly on Ernie's comments, and that is, if particular attention is not paid to the restructuring of the south end in comparison to the north end, what in fact you do is you prop up one level of government and cripple the other. I don't believe that's the way the province of Ontario should be governed. I just want to leave these and thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you both for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from Queen's University Faculty Association come forward.
Mr Frank Burke: My name is Frank Burke, and Grant Amyot is with me. We represent the Queen's University Faculty Association, which has recently become a certified bargaining agent. I will address some specific issues in terms of our association's response to Bill 26. Grant will deal with some more general issues.
The Queen's University Faculty Association would like to register its strong opposition to Bill 26 both on principle and in terms of the bill's directly negative effect on the QUFA constituency.
We oppose in principle, first of all, the process of Bill 26 prior to the intervention of the Liberals and the NDP: the attempt to rush through, with no public consultation or input, legislation which dramatically limits the powers of transfer partners and significantly reduces currently legislated rights, both collective and individual.
Secondly, we oppose the general thrust of the bill, which is to concentrate excessive power in the hands of a few, establishing government by fiat, particularly in terms of hospital and health facilities.
Third, we oppose certain specific components of the bill which violate principles which QUFA stands for and which have potential implications even if they don't apply immediately to our faculty.
Schedule J, the elimination of the proxy value method for determining appropriate salary levels for women employees: This will diminish or eliminate gender pay equity, a principle which we have fought long and hard for at Queen's. We also oppose the bill's transitional provisions, which in all likelihood will mean the pay equity raises for women already covered by proxy will be lower than they would have been under the existing law.
We oppose schedule H, the threat to universal health care posed by proposed amendments to the Health Insurance Act, as well as the ability of the Health minister unilaterally to alter or terminate the delivery of medical services and procedures.
We oppose the termination of existing agreements with the Ontario Medical Association with regard to representation, arbitration and other legal rights of physicians. I will come to that in a moment as an issue that specifically affects our constituency.
Schedule G: We oppose the elimination of neutrality in arbitration which will ensue if arbitrators are required to take into consideration an employer's ability to pay and the potential for reduced services when deciding on wages. This quite clearly forces the arbitrator to think as an employer rather than as someone weighing equally the concerns of employers and employees.
We're opposed to schedule K and schedule F, the significant diminishment in access to information currently provided under the provincial or municipal freedom of information and privacy acts. So on the one hand access to information is diminished, made more difficult for individuals, and on the other hand, in schedule F the Health minister is given unqualified discretion in collecting, using or disclosing personal information.
Finally, in terms of our general opposition, we're opposed to the elimination for public employees of pension rights they currently have under the law in the interests of facilitating privatization and downsizing.
In terms of specific reference to Queen's faculty, there are two major issues; first of all, the power to close hospitals without consultation or debate. Queen's is one of the oldest and finest universities in Canada and a significant part of its strength lies in its medical school. The medical school in turn is dependent on its pedagogical and practical links to Kingston General Hospital, to Kingston Psychiatric Hospital and to the Hotel Dieu.
We strongly oppose investing the Health minister with the unilateral power to eliminate hospitals, which could effectively destroy medical schools as well. We feel that the Progressive Conservatives have not taken into consideration the educational implications of the health issue.
Second, we oppose the elimination of negotiating rights for the Ontario Medical Association. QUFA represents faculty physicians teaching and researching in the school of medicine. As an organization that supports the rights of professionals to negotiate, we strongly oppose this assault on the bargaining rights of our members.
In closing, we would like to point out three things:
First of all, Bill 26 far exceeds the stated intentions of the Progressive Conservative Party in both its Common Sense Revolution document and in the provisions of the Treasurer's economic statement of November 29, 1995.
Secondly, the bill seems to contradict the stated platform of the party in its unprecedented attacks on individual rights. It directly contradicts Premier Harris's photo-radar stance, which was the defence of privacy and of the individual. At the same time, in its arrogation of unprecedented power to the cabinet and its ministers, it seems a direct violation of the party gospel of less government.
Finally, to us, the bill doesn't make a lot of political sense. It's our observation that the level of centralization the bill would give to the government would have been unimaginable in Ontario without the precedent of the social contract. We feel that the social contract brought down the downfall of the NDP. We feel Bill 26 is far more extreme and we can't see how it will not have a similar fate in terms of the current government.
Now I would like to pass things on to Grant.
Mr Grant Amyot: Professor Burke has outlined some of the particular concerns we have about this bill, but as citizens we're also concerned with what it means for the population of Ontario as a whole.
One of the major issues which is raised by the presentation of this bill and the process by which it's being introduced and rushed through the Legislature is the question of what is democracy. It seems there are some who believe that democracy means that a party which receives 45% of the popular vote and a legislative majority then has the right to do more or less what it pleases for the next five years, whether that was in its election platform or not, with only a minimum of public consultation or parliamentary debate.
Our view, on the other hand, is that democracy means public policy should be made by the elected government after full debate in the public, with interested groups, in the media and in Parliament. We see this bill as a very bad sign for the future of parliamentary democracy in Ontario.
The Conservative Party, in one of its first acts, restored the oath of allegiance to the Queen for police officers. Many of us thought this was quite an appropriate act, but when it comes to the substance of our British parliamentary and democratic traditions as opposed to the forms and outward trappings, it seems the government is moving in the opposite direction. This is a bill which will concentrate more power in the hands of the cabinet, remove more issues from the open debate between government and opposition, between elected representatives of the people in Parliament, and instead, shield them from this essential element of the democratic process.
More particularly, this bill contains measures which remove several decisions from the public and political arena and instead place them in the private sphere. We can see this, for instance, with respect to the deregulation of drug prices. We see it with respect to measures that will facilitate the privatization of government services. In this way they are limiting the scope of democratic decision-making in Ontario.
Second, the bill contains provisions which will shield many of the decisions that do remain in the political sphere from public debate and scrutiny; for example, the power of the minister to order hospital closings and to direct in a fair degree of detail how hospitals shall carry on their business, and the provisions restricting freedom of information which will make it harder for the public to find out about the background for many governmental decisions.
Third, this bill will allow the government to reach certain important decisions having to do with public spending, in particular having to do with the salaries of public sector workers, without the public process of negotiation with the representatives of those workers, as in the case of doctors, or will weaken this process of negotiation.
1100
There used to be, in the very old days, a maxim that the Queen does not negotiate with her subjects, which was taken to mean that public sector workers had no rights to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. This view has been superseded today of course by the view that public sector workers have the same rights as workers in the private sector to fair treatment, to organize, to negotiate their own wages and conditions of work.
This principle was undermined in the first place, as Professor Burke has pointed out, by the New Democratic Party in the social contract, and we haven't forgotten that, but this bill goes much further. The introduction of the ability-to-pay criterion for public sector arbitration is a significant limitation on the bargaining rights of the workers in those sectors that are targeted.
It's been a long-standing maxim of arbitrators that "public sector workers should not be expected to subsidize the community through substandard wages and working conditions." It's obvious that if the ability-to-pay becomes a criterion in arbitration, it will be easier for governments to reduce their own ability to pay through tax cuts or other spending measures and thereby put downward pressure on the wages of their own workers.
In many of these areas, the police, the fire service etc, there is no true free labour market. The number of buyers of labour is restricted and entry into the pool of workers is also restricted -- there are stringent qualifications -- and in any case, it has been quite correctly determined that it's not in the public interest to allow these workers the right to strike. Therefore, the interest arbitration system was set up as a kind of simulacrum of the collective bargaining process that occurs in the private sector.
This is how arbitrators understand it. It's not intended to be a system which gives public sector workers richer settlements than they would've got if there had been free collective bargaining. The stated principle used by arbitrators is the replication principle; that is, the award they make is intended to replicate the settlement the parties would've made if they had engaged in private sector style collective bargaining. Therefore, any limitation on this principle is an attempt to push the public sector workers into a substandard position vis-à-vis private sector workers. Of course, the attack on the OMA's rights to negotiate for its members is part of the same.
Finally, there's a fourth way in which this bill tends to remove important policy issues from public scrutiny and thereby undermine the quality of democracy in Ontario. This is the centralization of power in Queen's Park and the removal of certain powers and autonomies from the transfer partners of the provincial government.
It's our view that while local autonomy cannot be used as an excuse for indefinite obstruction of necessary reforms, nevertheless, in general those directly affected by decision-making should be the ones to make those decisions, and in certain areas those with the expertise should be the ones to make those decisions. For example, doctors should be the ones to make medical decisions; similarly, university faculty must be the ones to make academic decisions. While universities as institutions are not directly affected by this bill, nevertheless, we see it as a very disturbing sign, as Professor Burke said, of a tendency towards centralization which we would strongly oppose were it extended to our own sector.
This is a statement from our provincial organization which sums it up very well. "We have become increasingly concerned about initiatives taken by former Ontario governments which threaten to undermine university autonomy by enhancing centralized bureaucratic regulation."
While Bill 26 does not directly alter the underlying structure of publicly funded autonomous universities, it does suggest a trend, particularly with respect to health care services, which threatens to undermine the existing relations between the government and all transfer partners. We see this as yet another aspect of the bill's drive to undermine and limit the scope and quality of democracy in Ontario.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. I appreciated very much your comments around the process and reminding us that discussion about the democratic process, particularly when one has a majority government, is not just an academic discussion, if I can use that phrase; that something very fundamental has been breached when a government assumes that simply by virtue of winning a majority, it can then unilaterally make changes without any reference to what people may want or what people may think about the actions.
The point we have been making is that the government has the right to govern, has the right to pass whatever laws it deems appropriate, but that does not give it the right to bring in a bill, particularly a bill like Bill 26, and expect that it should get passed without any public input, any public hearings, just because they won the election on June 8.
As we've gone through these hearings, I was hearing that kind of defence from the government members in the early days. I think it's fair to say they've toned down their defence on that point, because I think they've realized as we've gone through the hearings that there is a legitimacy to the process we are following that allows people to come forward, raise concerns they have with this legislation and hopefully have the government respond by way of amendments, if not by withdrawing some of the basic areas of this bill that we believe are fundamental.
One of the particular points you raise, and I'm going to raise this by way of example because I think it applies in a number of other actions the government has taken, is the elimination of proxy pay equity. I don't know that it necessarily affects people in your sector, but I wanted to flag the point you're making because it seems to me to be typical of what this government is doing. Through this legislation it is eliminating the right to pay equity for 100,000 of the lowest-paid women in the province, which is, among other things, now resulting in the absurd situation whereby some women will continue to have pay equity and others will not, and those who will not, ironically enough, are going to be those who are the lowest-paid. It seems to me to be typical of what we've seen from the government of hitting hardest those who are at the lowest end of the wage scale.
I don't really have a question for you, but I wanted to flag that point, because it's something with respect to pay equity that in my view we haven't talked enough about in this committee. Interestingly enough, yesterday in Ottawa we heard for the first time from the government side that they have intentions to replace the proxy pay equity with something else, but they haven't told us what that something else is. They're saying again: "We're the government. We have the right to do this. We're going to do it and we'll let you know later -- maybe -- what it is we're going to do."
Mr Amyot: I agree that it's a most serious attack on the worst-paid. It seems to be of a piece also with the attempt to compress wages and costs in the public sector, since it's largely people in the broader public sector who are involved in this proxy exercise. It may be that improvements could be made in the proxy process, but the objectives must be maintained. Day care workers -- it always amazes me that people choose to go into day care teaching, given the tremendously low wages paid in that sector.
Mr Silipo: They certainly don't do it for the money.
Mr Amyot: Exactly. A large number don't have a union either, they're in such small workplaces, so this is almost the only tool they have to improve their conditions. To take it away would be a real crime, I think.
1110
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Are you both professors? Are you doctors also?
Mr Burke: Yes.
Mr Young: Medical doctors?
Mr Burke: Not medical doctors, no.
Mr Young: Okay. I want to comment on your concerns about the democratic debate. With regard to the hearings, our House leader, Mr Ernie Eves, met with the House leaders from the two opposite parties in December. There was discussion, there was an offer put on the table for 360 hours of hearings. I wasn't there. The members opposite weren't there. The discussions broke down. There was civil disobedience in the House and we're here.
Applause.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Phillips: Stop telling lies about us and we won't tell the truth about you.
Mr Young: On a point of order, Mr Chair: That was unparliamentary language. Mr Phillips has accused me of telling lies. Mr Phillips has called me a liar, for the record. Will you withdraw it?
The Chair: Would you withdraw that accusation, Mr Phillips?
Mr Phillips: I'll withdraw what I said, but not what I think.
Mr Young: When we're done, we will have heard over 300 delegations in 12 cities. We will have made amendments. Eight amendments were tabled yesterday. We are really listening. We are addressing people's concerns. Some vested interests, no matter what changes we make, will not be happy with the bill, and we accept that too.
The key planks in our platform were to create change in Ontario by restructuring, to cut government spending by 20%, to cut personal taxes by 30%. We said there will be 13,000 fewer civil servants. We said we would do what we had to do to get Ontario back on track, and we're doing it. In a multiparty system, 82 out of 130 seats is a massive majority, so we're carrying out our mandate.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Young has the floor. I'd appreciate it if you'd allow all parties to ask their questions.
Mr Young: When you live a society and you believe in free speech, that means everybody gets a chance to speak.
With regard to our health care system, we know that one out of four seniors admitted to hospital is overmedicated. We know that 70 communities in Ontario don't have doctors. One community even offered $60,000 in bonus pay and they couldn't get a doctor to go to that community. This is a problem that's been around for 15 to 20 years and the previous governments refused to deal with it. We know there are 6,700 empty hospital beds in Ontario. If you put them all together, you'd have 30 medium-sized hospitals sitting empty. We're trying to deal with these problems. We have to deal with these problems.
We have cut administrative costs in hospital spending. We've reinvested it: $16 million in heart surgery; MRI, a medical service superior to X-rays, we've added to 23 communities, which is already available in Kingston; kidney dialysis will be available everywhere in Ontario, and it's already available in Kingston.
It's hard to get good news out sometimes when you're government -- we accept that too -- but we've added 140,000 low-income people, working poor, to the Ontario drug benefit plan. I imagine some of them will be in Kingston.
We're reinvesting the health care administrative costs we're cutting --
Mr Burke: Could we have a question out of this instead of a campaign speech?
Mr Young: Excuse me, sir, this is my time. We're reinvesting the administrative costs we're cutting out of health care. You made a statement that there was a threat to universal health care. We're working very hard to preserve --
The Chair: Mr Young, we've come to the end of the time for the government's response. We now must move to the opposition members.
Mr Phillips: You're probably familiar with the document the Common Sense Revolution. The member just said that's what they ran on. What they promised was no new user fees; this bill imposes user fees. They ran on no cuts to health care; it cuts $1.3 billion out of the health care system. They ran on a program of fairness to firefighters, police and hospital workers; this bill imposes arbitration that exists nowhere else. They ran on a program of support for the classroom; this bill guts the classroom. They ran on the program that tuition fees will be allowed to rise slightly over a four-year period; this bill imposes a 20% tuition fee increase on students in universities.
Mr Young: There's nothing in this bill about tuition fees.
The Chair: Mr Phillips has the floor.
Mr Phillips: Excuse me. You said the other day that this bill implements this document. This document, the one tabled on the same day as the bill, calls for a 20% fee increase for university students. You're trying to mislead the people of Ontario if you say that's not the case.
My question to the faculty is this: Is this the platform they ran on in the bill, if it includes all the things they said they wouldn't do and now are doing with this bill?
Mr Burke: Obviously, the answer to your question, and it's included in our presentation, is that the bill far exceeds anything they claimed they were being elected to do.
We're not here to get in the midst of a competition between political parties; we're here to represent the interests of our members. But one strong point that has to be made, and probably the principal reason we're here, has to do with process and democracy. It doesn't matter by what majority a party is elected; it's elected to represent the people, not to ignore them. I think the implications of that have been reversed in terms of what's happened with this bill.
Mr Cleary: I would like to thank you for your presentation on Bill 26 and how it will affect your university. I met with a group of secondary teachers recently on Bill 26 and they shared a number of your concerns. They tried to come before this committee but were refused.
The government's giving municipalities authority over school boards will compromise the quality of our children's education, based on how much the municipality can spend. While all members of the committee realize that in order to reduce the deficit you have to control costs, do you agree with members of OSSTF District 21 who suggest that cost containment should not be the number one concern guiding those responsibilities for educating Ontario's students?
Mr Amyot: Obviously, we agree with the thrust of that statement. If you want a general comment on educational policy, we feel that education is crucial to the future economic health of the province, that it's an investment in the future. I'm sure MPPs on both sides of the House know industry jobs are becoming much more knowledge-intensive. People need higher and better skills, and to underfund in any way any level of education --
Interruption.
The Chair: Pardon me. That's not allowed. We'll have a 10-minute recess.
The subcommittee recessed from 1119 to 1128.
The Chair: We've come to the end of our 10-minute recess.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. Ladies and gentlemen, by the rules of the Legislature I am unable to continue proceedings when there are banners and demonstrations like that in the room. I would appreciate that being taken down. We had two minutes left for the Queen's faculty. They have deferred that, so we will now go on to the next witness.
BUILDING A STRONGER INVOLVED COMMUNITY
SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL
The Chair: I believe we have in front of us representatives from Building a Stronger Involved Community.
Mr Rob Hutchison: My name is Rob Hutchison. I'm representing BASIC, which is Building a Stronger Involved Community, a coalition of individuals, agencies, organizations and labour locals committed to giving leadership to our community in challenging governments and corporations biased against middle- and low-income people, and enabling justice, equity and dignity for all. I'm accompanied here by Lucy Myers, who will speak later to more general remarks.
Members of the committee, we are speaking here on behalf of BASIC. The first part of my presentation involves the effect on democracy and democratic process. First of all, we are deeply concerned about the nature and makeup of Bill 26 as an omnibus bill which seeks to subsume significant changes to a number of government acts under one legislative action.
A democracy, if it is to be run with proper regard for its citizens' opinions and interests, needs to allow its citizens the time and opportunity to understand and debate the merits of the specifics of proposed legislation. This is especially so in the current case when the acts being amended cover diverse areas of public interest, from health, pay equity and privacy to natural resources.
In democracies it has been found that checks and balances, such as divisions of power, levels of government with different powers and legislative methods encouraging due consideration, are a necessary part of curbing actions that turn out to lead to unintended consequences. In its presentation and overarching intent, Bill 26 threatens to disrupt these checks and balances and lead us too quickly down a road of which we do not know real destination.
It is also one of the lasting principles of democracy that the law not be held over the heads of the people; that is, that when a law is proposed, the people are able to clearly understand its meaning, implications and means of enforcement. Bill 26, on the other hand, has many unclear implications on a number of fronts, partly because it continually refers to a number of acts not cited in context and partly because it removes, confers and amends powers in a variety of different ways to a variety of different bodies, and partly because the minister in question and/or the cabinet are given significantly increased and open-ended residual powers applicable in a wide number of different and indeed new circumstances. Indeed, the act allows individual ministers and/or the cabinet alone to gain unprecedented powers which can be used to circumvent the powers of other elected members of the Legislature, including members of the government's own party, without recourse. The act opens up the possibility, as no other single piece of legislation, to government by executive fiat.
For example, in regard to schedule M, amendments to the Municipal Act, the act supplies no scheduling of provincial funding to municipalities. By failing to do so, and leaving funding open to arbitrary ministerial decision, it ends the predictability of funding for municipalities and thereby makes coherent financial planning and governance extremely difficult. The act severely tilts the power balance of partnership between the province and municipalities towards the province.
For example, the act allows for the municipal levying of user fees and licences, but gives the minister unrestrained review over these sources of revenue. In this area, the minister may make up any regulations he wants and apply them retroactively. This is a recipe for financial chaos at the municipal level.
Municipal law lawyer George Rust-D'Eye has been quoted recently as saying that he "has never seen a statute that gives regulatory power to a minister. It is usually given to the cabinet. Here [in the act] it is given to the minister without requirement to consult or give notice. As well, a [ministerial] regulation would take precedence over any legislation." He said, "I've never seen anything like this."
Another lawyer points out that this provision for arbitrary power puts an end to the rule of law, which in part holds that it is a case of simple justice that people or bodies should not be held to compliance with new rules or laws retroactively. For how are municipalities to know what they can or cannot do, how can they plan effectively, if those actions may be arbitrarily changed by a minister with retroactive consequences? This kind of provision practically invites the advent of political paralysis in municipal governments.
Bill 26 grants even greater arbitrary powers to the minister. For example, there are at least six cases in the Municipal Act section of Bill 26 where powers are granted to the minister "despite any act." The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has stated that such provisions are not unusual. However, again, George Rust-D'Eye says that in the current Municipal Act he finds no instance of where the minister is permitted to make regulations.
As a further example, Bill 26 also allows the minister to dissolve a municipality. Previously this required an act of the Legislature, where such a potentially far-reaching decision might be properly and publicly scrutinized.
The act does not permit citizens or other bodies the right to appeal a minister's decision; for example, to the courts.
The act allows the minister the power to defer and stay any application to the Ontario Municipal Board -- traditionally the body of appeal in planning decisions for citizens and businesses -- without appeal to anyone except the minister himself.
Under the act, the Public Utilities Act is amended such that a municipal corporation may pass a bylaw which might, for example, allow it to take over the local public utilities commission without obtaining the democratic assent of the electors. This issue is of special concern to Kingston citizens as they have at least twice voted not to let city council take over the public utilities commission. A majority of citizens felt that they were voting for a fiscally prudent position. From a Kingston perspective, it is strange that a government dedicated to fiscal responsibility should change the law to make the process less democratic and quite possibly less fiscally prudent.
The committee might wish to reflect on the likely outcome of such a set of provisions that do so much to centralize power and authority in one person, and jettison so much of the intent and practice of previously constituted process. For under the new proposed changes there is no truly and properly constituted process. The minister rules, period. It is a set of circumstances that invites patronage and favouritism for it has no process and no appeal system. The changes in the Municipal Act may have the appearance of efficiency, they may have the appearance of effectiveness, but in fact in their urgency to be efficient these provisions will make for an unwieldy system, top-heavy in responsibility and accountability, and tending to lead to an increase in incoherence and paralysis in municipal government.
What is more, politically, as so often happens with such top-down hierarchies, the minister will become a lightning rod for multiple grievances and disputes as appeals of every type end up in his office. There will be no way to deflect responsibility or take greater time for consideration. The minister alone will be accountable for uncountable decisions, many remote from his offices but, by the act, open to his intervention, his decision, his accountability for municipalities, bodies, agencies and citizens. For by these changes the buck stops with the minister. But, as the committee's members know, politically the buck will not stop with the minister. For example, if somebody wants something in your riding and it turns out the minister has already made a decision about it and you have to appeal it, his political neck is on the line. Where does that leave you?
In short, Bill 26 attempts to do too much, too fast and without the due consideration that its many parts need and deserve. In order to maintain the integrity of the democratic process, BASIC calls on the government to divide Bill 26 into its constituent parts, at the very least in terms of the Health Insurance Act, the Pay Equity Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Municipal Act. In this way the constituent parts may receive proper public and legislative consideration and citizens may properly understand the implications of the bill.
Speaking to the merits of the bill, we call on the government to realize that a number of the parts of Bill 26 are ill-conceived and will have perverse consequences unless revised. Those parts will tend not to lead to greater efficiency but inefficiencies and paralysis at the local level. Politically, they will tend to lead to greater unnecessary political unhappiness and troubles for the government. This is what BASIC considers to be a minimally democratic and efficient approach to Bill 26.
BASIC is a coalition and I've agreed to do three testimonials, very brief, on behalf of three different organizations that asked me to do so. I think I said two; it is three there.
1140
Kingston Private Home Day Care questions the effects of the changes to the Pay Equity Act. They point out that under these changes there will be no avenue for those in traditional female jobs to address pay equity issues, that for those in their private situation they will no longer have the proxy male comparator method against which to consider their pay levels; it's repealed in the act. The result will be that there will be a large discrepancy between wages in the municipal area and those in the private area and that the changes will only make an unfair situation worse. They also point out that the day care system is in jeopardy and that, with the threat that per diems and purchase of service will be cut, day cares are in danger of closing. As day care supplies the means by which people may get and continue to work and helps people get and stay off social assistance, they strongly request that the government positively address these issues.
The Kingston Preschool Centre, a children's mental health centre, agrees that the deficit must be addressed but argues that it is false economy to underfund a centre-based child care system, as future costs will be much greater. For example, they point to the Perry Preschool Project in the United States, which with a control group and a 25-year follow-up study concluded that quality centre-based child care resulted in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 7 to 1 and savings of $95,000, with the child care group having better employment, better school completion, less crime, less teenage pregnancies, and less drug use results than the non-child-care control group. They also point out the benefits of child care for improving employment potential. They ask, "How will public expenditures be reduced if parents' education towards employment or actual employment is terminated because affordable quality child care is no longer available to them?" They ask government to maintain its child care funding.
Graduate Students' Society urges the committee to extend consultations so that the public issues involved may be `unpacked' in a more meaningful manner. They point out that as a diverse group of service consumers, taxpayers and future service and professional sector workers, they are affected by these cuts in a multiple of ways that need to be properly evaluated.
Ms Lucy Myers: My name is Lucy Myers. I am a member of BASIC and a member of the Justice and Peace Committee of the Sisters of Providence of St Vincent de Paul. Thank you for allowing us to speak to you today.
Michael Harris will probably go down in history as a major significant agent of social change. At the moment, the impact of his Common Sense Revolution has been negative. It is hurting the most vulnerable and weak, those without power or control in our society, namely women and children. You, the government of Ontario, have the power to turn that around today. You can let the Premier know that he can go down in history as a positive agent of social change. His policies so far have shocked, have forced us to do a reality check. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the social safety net has great, big, gaping holes in it. The middle class is disappearing. But we also know we cannot take any more cuts and we know that Bill 26 can impose sweeping, fundamental and irreversible change on us and we will have no avenue of recourse.
The Sisters of Providence of St Vincent de Paul used to go out and beg for money for food for the poor. Today I am begging once again on behalf of the poor and marginalized: Please slow down. The enormity of what is happening is so extreme that some people are in shock, others in denial. A sense of desperation is seeping into our collective consciousness. Please consult with people before proceeding with this bill. Please listen to us. There are imaginative, creative people out there who have alternatives to the policies you are proposing that will not be as devastating.
We are being given a wonderful opportunity to create something new, a new way of being in Ontario, a new way of being with one another based on community rather than individualism, based on sufficiency instead of growth, based on sharing instead of hoarding and stockpiling. Can we work together and develop new economic and social strategies for creating employment? How do we develop a new vision of work, new patterns of work in a globalized and high-tech age? Could we put people first, before profit?
The process has already begun here in Kingston. We are organizing; we are helping each other. Charitable, religious and community groups are coming together to dialogue, share resources and to just be in solidarity with those who are hurting.
An economic system that creates affluence is the same system that creates poverty. I believe the reason the government of Ontario is so upset with the people of Kingston who have come out to demonstrate is because the people are voicing this important truth. They know that rampant social spending is not the cause of the debt and the deficit. It is high interest rates --
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please.
Ms Myers: It is high interest rates and tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals. They know that all spending is a matter of priorities and political choice, and the Ontario government has chosen to put the heaviest share of spending cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable people, just as it is choosing to cut taxes for the rich.
Since November 1995, we have been holding a silent vigil every Friday from noon to 12:30 to be in solidarity with people who will be hurt by Bill 26. Last night we got together for an hour and a half of community and interfaith solidarity. We are talking about ways of becoming less dependent on government, but we are afraid of deeper cuts. We are afraid that we won't be able to cope if the government takes away any more from us or sells our housing projects to private companies or banks, which can and likely will increase the rents, as there will be no controls. We are begging you to be the political party that is willing to be the protector of society against the market economy, which is more interested in creating a favourable climate for business than for the people.
We agree with the Catholic Bishops of Ontario that "the provision of economic security for the unemployed, the impoverished, the displaced and the afflicted is a civic and religious duty to which we are all bound. Love and compassion must be given as much consideration in decision-making as fiscal and economic considerations."
The government says it is up to charities and the local and faith communities to look after those in distress, but you never talk to us about it. We say government also has to share the responsibility. We do and continue to do our part, and we are begging you to do your part by scrapping the omnibus bill and starting over.
Your economists justify giving tax breaks to the rich, saying that they will stimulate investment and consumption and eventually benefit the whole economy, including the poor. High-income people generally do not spend their money locally or on things that stimulate the economy as a whole. They take a foreign vacation, they buy luxury goods or they invest their money, more and more often outside Canada.
We have distributed a petition asking the members of the Legislature to withhold approval for any tax rebate until the causes of poverty and unemployment are dealt with effectively --
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please.
1150
Ms Myers: -- and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down.
To top it all off, high-income earners pay the same price for a loaf of bread and a litre of milk.
The single largest group that will be hurt by the cuts are children. Children make up about 40% of all social assistance beneficiaries. So please slow down for the children's sake.
Single mothers are one of the poorest groups in Canada. Single mothers on social assistance who do not have paid employment are hardly "doing nothing." They are caring for and raising children at a tiny fraction of what it would cost to pay someone other than a mother to do it. The most common reason why single mothers can't get off social assistance is the lack of affordable child care. Your government is cutting child care, which will make it even harder for single mothers to work.
The Sisters of Providence of St Vincent de Paul have long walked with the poor, providing health, educational and social ministry to the people of Kingston, and they continue to do so. It is because of this desire to be compassionate and caring that we offer these thoughts.
Yes, you do have a mandate to govern, but not at the expense of the democratic process. The citizens of this province are denied a voice in issues that directly affect them. We do not believe that your mandate relieves you of your responsibility for the poor and vulnerable, the hungry and homeless, people in crisis, or those in ongoing need. We do not believe that your mandate allows you to ignore hungry children or battered women, offenders in family violence, the mentally ill and the disabled, prisoners returning to the community, single moms and the elderly. We do not believe that your mandate allows you to hand over the job of looking after the most vulnerable without any consultation.
The secrecy that surrounds Bill 26 breeds fear and distrust. I wanted to read the bill, but I was told a copy would cost $600.
The speed with which things are proceeding frightens and alarms us. The desire to put the books in order is admirable, but this is only a very small aspect of a very complex political and economic system which has run out of control, with no apparent concern for the people and their values, and also without a mechanism for evaluation.
Do you have the courage to put a halt to the bill, allowing time to talk about it, to listen to creative, imaginative alternatives which are out there to the debt and the deficit problems, but which would also get at the root causes of poverty and hunger, homelessness, oppression and suppression?
Who are you serving? It used to be that government was for the common good. The government protected the weak and the powerless from the oppressor. We beg you to take back your role as protector of society. Thank you.
The Chair: We have two minutes per caucus for questions.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. Thank you. We have inside of two minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Sampson: I really appreciate both of you coming to make a presentation to us today.
I can't say that the government here is trying to unravel the social fabric of society.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. Please allow questions from all three parties. I'm going to have to recess if you don't --
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. I don't want to have to recess again. Order, please. Can we please have time for each caucus to make presentations.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. Order.
Mr Sampson: I think what we're trying to do in this particular piece of legislation, the work that we've done to date, is to establish a basic economic and social fabric that we as Ontarians can all afford and are prepared to live with. If things had been managed properly in the past, why are we in this mess financially? So we're listening to your comments and your concerns, but you know, the cuts that we've had to make are not something that's pleased any of us on this side, or anybody in the Legislature, but we feel it's necessary to do some reorganizing to change the status quo, because the status quo, in our view, is not going to allow us to continue on in a society and to pass an Ontario to our children and to our children's children that we had. I want to let you know that we are listening to your issues and your concerns.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sampson. Mr Phillips? Mr Sergio.
Mr Hutchison: Excuse me, do we get to reply to that?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Thank you very much, Mr Chair.
Mr Hutchison: Excuse me. That was not a question. That was a statement.
The Chair: They can respond or ask questions.
Mr Sergio: They are allowed to do that. As long as they spend their two minutes, they can spend them any way they want.
But let me say that I have very much enjoyed your two presentations, perhaps more especially than all the others because the two of you come from the heart and soul of what the community is and should really be, and I know especially from St Vincent de Paul because I have done quite a bit of work and I know the work that you do.
Let me say this before I come to my question, if time allows. Before the election, Mr Harris said, "We are going to give you less government and we're going to be a much more open government and we are going to be a much more accountable government." Bill 26 represents none of that. As a matter of fact, it totally changes the face of government, especially the democratic process. If Bill 26 doesn't do that, then I call it the sorry Tory story.
My question to you is, if the will of one to the will of a few can be imposed on so many -- first to you, Mr Hutchison, and you spoke so well on behalf of Building a Stronger Involved Community, and to you, Ms Myers -- what will this do to our society if the powers given to the ministers under this bill were to be approved on January 29?
Mr Hutchison: I think that, other than what I've said already in the brief, allowing these kinds of powers to go to ministers or just cabinet and to narrow the focus of power will lead to a great deal more frustration and social unrest. I don't see how it can do otherwise, partly because, as I said, it will lead to inefficiencies, to ossifying of the political process, and I think that it can't be healthy or even efficient for government to run like that.
I think that's clear. I don't see that there's anything else to say other than that it should not be done like this and that there are other ways -- we know there are other ways; we don't have to invent them, they're already there -- and they can turn out to be just as efficient and probably more efficient because they won't have so many unintended consequences.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for both of your presentations. Given the short time, I won't repeat any of the points that you've made, but just simply say this. One of the basic reasons why the Tory government is doing what it's doing in terms of the cuts it is making across the province is because it needs to find, in its own numbers, $5 billion -- we think closer to $6 billion -- in order to pay for the 30% tax reduction. That 30% tax reduction will benefit the most those who are already well-off. To use your phrase, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
1200
When we look at the way in which that rebate is going to be spread out, there are about 15% of Ontarians who make over $85,000. That 15% of Ontarians will get back, through that tax cut, 40% of the value of that tax cut, or some $2.5 billion, and the other 85% of Ontarians will have to share the balance. When it comes down to people who work in the organizations that you represent or who are served by those organizations, they will see very little proportionately, especially when you look at what they will have to pay on the other side through increased user fees and other taxes.
I guess my one question to you would be this: Do you think people, when they voted for Mike Harris on June 8, realized that the results of their Common Sense Revolution would be to fundamentally shift the wealth and the power in this province the way we are seeing it happening now?
Mr Hutchison: No. I think what you see in Ontario is a great deal of anger and resentment about the fact that over the last 20 years, but certainly in the 1990s, real wages have dropped. In the 1990s, real wages have dropped by 8%. We have seen figures that are showing the debt load of most families is critical; 89% of available income, I believe it is. That means people are scared. That's why they voted for this government, because they wanted some kind of change. It was blind, and they had some responsibility for that. But they haven't been led well, they have not been informed well, and for that I can't blame them. The corporate media has a great deal of responsibility in misleading the population on this issue.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we've come to the end of your half-hour. We still have two presenters to hear. I want to thank you both for coming forward today to make your presentation to the committee.
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the CAW come forward.
Mr Buzz Hargrove: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Buzz Hargrove, national president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, and with me is counsel to the CAW, Catherine Gilbert.
I start this morning by reminding the committee members, especially the government side, that we heard a lot of talk during the election campaign about common sense and less government. I would propose here today that we have seen very little of any common sense since your election and we have certainly not experienced less government for the vast majority of the people of Ontario. There's more government in Bill 26 than any other bill that's ever been presented to the Parliament of Ontario; more government that governs and takes away power from those in society who have the least power today and transfers it to those in society who already have too much power today.
So when you talk about less government, it's less government for the powerful, it's less government for the business community -- the mining industry, for example, to close down mines without regard for the impact on the environment -- it's less power for arbitrators to look at the real issues that face public sector workers. It's less power for community groups that can't afford to use the public services if they have user fees. It's less power for seniors, who find that drugs are going to be deregulated under this bill; and copays for drug payments, drugs for people who need them, the elderly. Every study that's ever been published in this country and other countries around the world has talked about the need of the elderly for drugs, yet this bill attacks the elderly. It attacks the lowest-paid group of people in our society, women, in the public sector by dismantling the terms of pay equity that allowed the commission to look at, in a responsible fashion, comparable work outside of the jurisdiction, outside of the workplace. It just goes on and on and on.
I'm not going to try to deal with every issue, but I do want to say as clearly as I can today, as a citizen of this province for over 30 years and a bargainer for our union for almost all of those years, that this bill, in and of itself, is an affront to the democratic process. With the greatest of respect and not a put-down to even the government members, but out of my experience I would argue this morning that the government members couldn't possibly understand the terms of the bill that's before the House that we're going to push through in the hearings that end today. It's absolutely impossible for people to understand this bill.
If General Motors were to present this kind of change to our collective agreement, which is impacting a lot less people and is dealt with by 30 members of a bargaining committee, and give us 300 hours to study it, you would be guaranteed there would be a strike. If we were to submit, as a union, the kind of changes you're proposing here and give General Motors 300 hours to study it, you could guarantee there would be a lockout.
I read the Toronto Star this morning. I read the Globe yesterday that talked about a number of amendments -- amendments, I would say, that more than change the focus of the bill or the intent of the bill but strengthen the anti-democratic parts of the bill which say that the commission that's in place now that has the ability to close hospitals without consultation with the community only has the next four years to do that. Well, everybody that's there understands that's the term of office.
Most dictators that take over Third World countries say: "We're only going to be dictators for X number of years. Then we're going to move to the democratic process." The idea that somehow you can have the power of an administrator to seize control of a hospital for the purposes of closing it down away from the democratic structures that are in place through hospital boards and community boards, and then somehow say you've made a major concession by saying you're going to give 30 days' notice before you close down the hospital is, again, an absolute affront to democratic procedures.
I would argue that this bill should be scrapped, as other people have said here this morning before me, and proper public consultation take place. If changes are required to deal with the problems of Ontario -- and we have real problems; problems of debt and deficit are real -- but to do it in this fashion or to pretend to deal with it in this fashion is not only anti-democratic but is dishonest. For somehow the government to say to us, "We are going to cut social spending by $8 billion" -- and parts of this bill are part of cutting social spending and cutting away, taking away the rights of so many groups in our society -- "and at the same time we're going to pass on $5 billion or $6 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest people and the better-off people in our society" and to somehow equate that to cutting of the deficit, I would submit, with great respect, is at best dishonest.
It's interesting that the government can ignore the fact that for the second year in a row the banks in this country have announced profits of $4.3 billion last year and $5.18 billion this year; that the CEOs of the banks were all in a mad race last year to get to $2 million in income from the banks through their salary and bonuses, and this year they're all in a mad scramble to see who can be the first to reach $3 million.
1210
Then this morning I pick up the paper and I read where the new environment, the new Ontario, has the banks now setting up a new comfortable structure for the wealthy people who come into the banks, where they will have this wonderful place to sit in comfort with sofas and all of the amenities that go with the wealth and power of the people in our society that Mr Silipo talked about, the 15%; they will have the special privilege of getting this kind of service while the rest of us have to line up at the teller or, more likely, at the automatic banking machines as they continue to reduce tellers.
For us somehow to watch this happening and say in good conscience that we can take money away from a single mother on welfare who's trying to live on $1,300 a month to feed and clothe and educate her children, to cut her income by $300, at the time these people are living in such incredible wealth and the improvement in that wealth is growing rapidly, increasing every year, at a time in the development of our nation when the wealth we're producing today is so much greater than at any other time in the history of our province and our country -- for us to say to the neediest groups in society, "You no longer can enjoy the basic elements of a democratic society," which is shelter, food and the ability to clothe and educate your children, I would submit, is an absolute disgrace and something I, as a human being and an activist and being involved in the political system all of my adult life, never believed I would ever see in this province or this country. I quite frankly am not very proud that we're seeing it.
I'll conclude my remarks this morning by emphasizing that the cornerstone of a democracy is public input and public debate. I would submit that when the people of Ontario voted in the last election and elected 82 people, which is a significant majority, as the member mentioned earlier, they did not turn over to a group of 82 people the social, economic and political agenda for four or five years. They turned over government to these people, and government in a democracy means consultation and input, especially with those people who are affected by the changes. There's no justification, and you wonder about the anger and frustration you feel here today. I feel it wherever I go in the province.
I would submit that there will be more demonstrations at Queen's Park and throughout this province in the first year of this government if you continue down this road than there was in the entire 40 years of previous Tory governments in this province. I would submit that.
We have had demonstration after demonstration after demonstration. The people of London, the organized working people, took the day off on December 11 to protest, not protest what was happening necessarily in the workplace, but to protest what the government was doing to the basic fabric of their community. In Hamilton and in Oakville on February 23 and 24 you're going to see it again. In spite of all the naysayers who say that everybody agrees with this government, there are large numbers, and increasing every day, of people saying, "We did not vote to give up the democratic process by electing 82 people to Queen's Park."
Like the speaker before, I would urge this government to reconsider, and whether you're correct in saying that there were discussions, about 360 hours of public input, or you were forced by Alvin Curling and his sit-in in the House and the members of the opposition who supported him, to bring about 300 hours, I would submit in either case it is an affront to democracy and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Ontario to think that somehow we could have real input into the massive changes that are being proposed here under this omnibus bill, unprecedented in the history of this province.
Yes, we've had omnibus bills before, but never introduced in this fashion. Normally they've been brought forward and passed with the consent of all parties in the House, not being opposed by the opposition to a person and by every group in the communities across this province that are impacted by these changes. Surely in a democracy, their thinking and the impact on them has to have some impact on the government's final decision.
The Chair: We've got five minutes per caucus for questions starting with the opposition caucus.
Mr Phillips: By the way, your written presentation was very good, and I would urge people in the room to get a copy of it.
Mr Hargrove: Are you saying my verbal wasn't all that good?
Mr Phillips: That was fine too. I just wanted to say, because it pulls together, I think, many of the concerns of the bill.
I want to take advantage of your experience in collective bargaining as a leader of one of our large organizations, and try and give us your feeling of how the bargaining is likely to take place between the government and its public sector, recognizing this, that just as they are at a crucial stage, as you point out, this bill takes $250 million out of the public sector pension. They tried to do it through regulation and the courts told them they were acting illegally. So the bill exempts the government from the law that protects every person in this province from pension. The government has exempted itself from it.
The second thing it does, it changes the way arbitration works in a way that exists nowhere else, and the government will acknowledge they essentially have directed the arbitrators to award settlements that disadvantage those workers who come under that. They've acknowledged that part of the restructuring is going to cut 13,000 jobs out of the public sector and part of the structure of this bill is to allow a very large privatization of work previously done by the public sector. All those things are there.
Now, imagine that you were the head of the public sector union entering bargaining with this government, what is likely to be the climate at the table when they've kind of punched you in the nose four times and then said, "Let's sit down and chat."
Mr Hargrove: I don't think I have to answer that. Our record has been pretty clear, because we've had some experience with that in the private sector. There's the odd employer that thinks they can dictate the terms of the relationship, and it always ends up with a fight. What Bill 7 accomplished and what these changes here accomplish -- they're a complete destruction of what was a mature and developing, a maturing labour-management relationship in the province, both in the public and private sector.
Unfortunately, Bill 7 was a major setback for the private sector, and this is a major setback for the public sector. It fascinates me how we can sit back as a people and watch what's happening to public sector workers. Federally, I believe we're now in the seventh year without a wage increase. We're now going into the fourth year in the provincial public sector, with workers getting no wage increases, actually working for 5% less than they were just three years ago.
I'll quote a guy by the name of Newall, who just resigned late last year as the president of one of my favourite organizations, the Business Council on National Issues. He said there are two major problems as he leaves his position -- he never identified them when he was in power -- that should be dealt with by the business community and government. One is the lack of respect for workers in the public sector. He argued, "How can you expect to keep the best brains that you need in government by continually reducing their pay and dismantling all the things that are important to people in the community and the services that they provide?" The other one that he went after the business community for is their lack of effort in trying to deal with the problem of poverty in this nation. This bill simply adds to those problems and continues on the road that Mr Newall said we should be reversing as we head towards the 21st century.
1220
The Chair: We've come to the end of the time.
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mr Hargrove, for your presentation. We talked earlier, and certainly in your comments you picked up on the tax cut and how that in fact benefits largely the 15% of Ontarians who make over $85,000.
One of the reasons that the Conservatives continue to push on the tax cut is that they believe that is their big job creation scheme. They promised in their platform, as you know, to create 725,000 jobs over the next four to five years. This is their single largest, they believe, job creation incentive. I just want to point out a couple of interesting observations for me and ask you to comment on these or any other aspects of it.
Yesterday, in a presentation from someone who was supportive of what the government is doing, a small business person said, "I want my tax cut because I want to put it into an RRSP and I need to get that break." The government's own figures in the economic statement indicate that the rate of unemployment next year is going to be higher than it is this year and the year after that it's going to be even slightly higher yet. So we're seeing in effect, and their own figures suggest, that at most we will have 150,000, 200,000 jobs created in the next three years.
I guess my basic point is this: Given that the attitude we saw from the gentleman yesterday is likely what we're going to see in terms of where the money will go, and given this government's own figures that suggest jobs are not going to be created anywhere near the levels that they've predicted, where are the jobs going to come from, do you think? Or is that also a case where the government said one thing, in terms of job creation being one of the main focuses, and we're just simply not going to see it?
Mr Hargrove: I was incredibly opposed to the tax cut when I first heard of it and then, I think it was on November 14, I got up in the morning and read the Toronto Star. The headline quoted Mr Saunderson -- I think he's the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism -- who claimed that the 30% tax cut would create 725,000 jobs. Over coffee I had to second-guess myself a bit and I said: "My God, I probably, instead of opposing it, should be recommending that they increase it to 60%. We have a million and a half people unemployed in the country. We could bring them all into Ontario and put them to work." But of course on my second cup of coffee, as I normally do, I came out of my fantasy land and said, "The tax cuts are simply going to mean a lot more wealth for fewer people, higher-income people like myself."
Although I don't know -- I haven't seen the bill yet -- I'm told by some of the experts that I'll get about $4,000 a year in a tax cut at my salary of $108,000 annually. That's my total income, by the way. It's not like the banks who've announced $2.3 million in salary and bonuses and don't include their income from investments, which are huge.
I'll receive $4,000. I don't need $4,000. People like me don't need $4,000 less in income tax. I have a very, very good standard of living and quite likely, if I get a chance to get a couple of weeks' vacation this year, I'll spend a lot more than that out of the country, which most people in my income bracket will do.
I am absolutely insulted and find it despicable that a single mother on welfare will lose over $3,000 a year. She's struggling to feed and clothe and educate her children, and someone like me gets a $4,000 tax cut.
Mr Tascona: Thank you, Mr Hargrove. I appreciate you taking the time to come here. We've listened to a number of locals of the CAW throughout these hearings and I've found their approach very professional. Certainly they've helped this committee in terms of dealing with collective bargaining in particular, under schedule Q.
I've had an opportunity to go through your brief with respect to schedule Q and I'd just like to address some of the concerns that you've pointed out in terms of the criteria.
Certainly, I share your approach that the public sector employers should not be relieved of their responsibility for making decisions for the public service through schedule Q. That has been put forward by your locals, and my response to that is that that certainly isn't the way it should be. The intent is that the decisions on levels of service and all things in arbitration should be through the negotiation process.
I've also indicated, and the requests have been made, that if you're going to have criteria, which is in other jurisdictions, having mandatory criteria in the public sector -- this is not the only province -- you don't restrict it to these five factors. Certainly, that has not been the intent. I think Mr Runciman indicated that to the president of the professional firefighters' union, that they're not to be exhaustive; that they're to be all relevant factors. I'd just like to indicate that we all get into interpretations. I could interpret one way and you the other way. But that isn't the intent. I certainly have viewed it that way.
In other areas of schedule Q, in terms of the process, we've had a number of unions that have approached all of them in terms of public sector, private sector. You're the second-largest union in this province, and I'd like to say that the presentation and the focus that we've heard -- not necessarily from your union, because you're private sector and you may or may not have some members within the public sector; I'm not aware. But I know that you're not subject, in dealing with the automobile companies, to interest arbitration. You negotiate the agreement and you get the best deal you can under the circumstances.
Certainly, the presentations we've had have all been focusing on wage increases. We don't want that to be limited, and you have commented on the ability-to-pay principle. We had the benefit of a discussion with one of your local presidents, I believe it was in Kitchener, and he bluntly put it to me: "You're talking about the inability to pay the wage increases and the debt the province is in and the structure that has been imposed under Bill 26. Why don't you get together with your unions and work out a process in terms of doing productivity bargaining when you're faced with an argument of ability to pay?"
He said: "When we're faced with that argument, we don't accept that. We'll basically negotiate and they'll have to prove to us that's the case. We try to find some savings; we try to find the best way to reorganize the compensation package as it can be." I think that's an intelligent way to go about negotiating when you're faced with a position that's being put to you. I would expect the public sector employers to do that, rather than to hide behind schedule Q, because that's certainly not the intent.
Is there room for productivity bargaining in the public sector, as there is in the private sector, to try to deal with the financial situation, to try to deal with the best way to provide the services in this environment?
1230
Mr Hargrove: The short answer is yes. There's always room for improvement. There's fat in the private sector. I see it every day of my life. There's fat in the public sector. The real test of a democracy is, can people sit around a table and come to grips with the issues it takes to eliminate a lot of the fat and pass the savings on to the taxpayers? Unfortunately, this doesn't do that. This bill just frustrates the hell out of working people. You're going to get no cooperation in the workplace. You've destroyed labour relations in the private sector.
We had an excellent relationship with the major auto companies that led to a settlement in 1993, for the first time in our almost 60-year relationship without a strike, without a day's lost production in any of the companies. Now we're at one another's throats over Bill 7, and Bill 26 is going to create the same atmosphere in the public sector, which wasn't very good to start with.
I would just say, for God's sake, let the parties work out the problems. There's no role -- if you really believe in all of the things you said during the campaign, you should be withdrawing government and letting the parties decide this thing. This is not what this bill does; this is not what schedule Q that you're talking about does.
The other point you made is on intent. You know, the best of intentions have been turned over by arbitrators, by judges, by labour relations people especially, in both the public and private sectors, so the intent of a bill has to stand the scrutiny of public debate and input. Mr Leach, instead of resigning, at least is now saying he recognizes that he screwed up and he's going to make some changes in the bill. There are literally hundreds of other changes that have to be made to this bill to make it anywhere near understandable, let alone acceptable. So I would say the only solution is to withdraw the bill.
If we're concerned, if these are the areas the government identified as to where change has to take place, let's start the public debate and input. What's wrong with communities like Kingston, the people over here today and a whole lot of others, coming here and advising the government and the opposition members as to what they see as solutions to the problems we face jointly as a people? That's the way I believe governments should operate.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hargrove, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today. We appreciate that.
STORRINGTON COMMITTEE AGAINST TRASH
CATARAQUI CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Storrington Committee Against Trash and Cataraqui Conservation Foundation come forward.
Ms Janet Fletcher: My co-presenter is Elizabeth Munt of the Cataraqui Conservation Foundation.
Ms Elizabeth Munt: This is Bill Warwick, who is general manager of the conservation authority.
Ms Fletcher: Good afternoon, Mr Chair and members of the committee. My name is Janet Fletcher. I represent the Storrington Committee Against Trash, or SCAT. We are a citizens' group primarily concerned with protection of the Rideau Canal and area drinking water sources from contamination produced by the Storrington dump, which is located north of Kingston and is owned by Laidlaw Waste Systems.
With regard to public consultation and the Environmental Bill of Rights, we appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns regarding Bill 26. We especially value this privilege because we know it has been denied to thousands of other equally concerned citizens of Ontario.
Public consultation is an extremely important component of any democracy and should not be viewed merely as a bothersome obstruction. The opportunity to provide input on matters of great concern empowers citizens to exercise some control over their environment and effect positive change. Citizens need to know that their government is willing to listen to their concerns and be open to change as a result.
Public consultation must be recognized as a valuable resource by decision-makers. Our own experience in participating in the environmental assessment of Laidlaw Waste Systems' proposed expansion of the Storrington dump is an excellent example of the value of public input. If the public had not been afforded the opportunity to fully and equally participate in this process, the decision-makers would not have had the benefit of a balanced assessment of the proposal and therefore may not have fully recognized the need for the stringent conditions that resulted from the environmental assessment of Laidlaw's application.
We now draw upon this experience in condemning Bill 26. In particular, regulation 482/95 effectively denied the public the right to scrutinize Bill 26 under the Environmental Bill of Rights. Why was this exemption made? On what grounds? It is not as though the environmental concerns we all share are going away. The government, through Bill 26, undermines the rights of its citizens. It deliberately overrides legislation designed to ensure that the public may participate in the decision-making process in a meaningful way. With the passage of Bill 26, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the real possibility that future legislation may be passed that is also designed to avoid such scrutiny, thereby denying the public a voice. If the government does not respect this principle of fairness through the passage of Bill 26, it will not respect this principle in future legislation regarding protection of our environment.
Amendments to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act: Access to information is a very important right of all citizens. The amendments to this legislation will make it much more difficult for taxpayers to obtain the information they need. In the case of Laidlaw's environmental assessment mentioned previously, the public would not have been able to adequately prepare their case without full and easy access to information. By making access more difficult in terms of exemptions and fee structures, the government effectively limits the right of its citizens to access information.
There are already sufficient built-in barriers, such as continuous 30-day waiting periods, which prevent the flow of information in a timely manner. The institution of higher fees further discourages citizens from attempting to obtain information. Governments should take into account that there is already a cost to members of the public who file a request for information and who may be forced to take time away from their employment, investing unpaid hours in reviewing documentation that can only be accessed during working hours and may be located in another municipality. There are also costs involved in obtaining copies of the documentation reviewed.
When information is freely shared, truly informed decisions can be made which benefit everyone. The amendments to this legislation are unwarranted and unfair and should be withdrawn.
Amendments to the Municipal Act: The amendments proposed to the Municipal Act do not include a provision for public consultation with respect to restructuring.
Land use planning may be adversely affected by a weakening of legislation regarding new development. In addition, the amendment to restrict development fee levels may result in existing taxpayers having to unfairly bear the costs of servicing for new developments in their community.
Bill 26 does not seem to promote responsible land use planning. These amendments would not seem to contribute anything toward deficit reduction. A combination of poor land use planning and unrealistic development fees places the taxpayer at a potential risk of having to shoulder the cost of environmental degradation and servicing of developments.
With respect to the amendment concerning dry cleaners, we find it odd that our government is deregulating this sector when there is a US-Canada commitment to phase out perchloroethylene. The dry-cleaning industry should be encouraged to use less environmentally damaging processes. This deregulation does not seem to have anything to do with deficit reduction. The amendments appear to promote the use of a chemical that may pose a serious health risk to workers and the general public and continues to threaten the health of our environment.
Amendments to the Mining Act: We have serious concerns with respect to the relaxation of environmental regulations for the mining industry. These changes may set a dangerous precedent. It would appear that the mining industry is being given special status as a result of these changes. Others in the business and industry sectors may begin clamouring for equal status. Further relaxation of environmental regulations may then result in widespread pollution that may be very costly in terms of our environment, our health and safety and our economy. We simply cannot afford to cede to industry on the issue of environmental protection. We have made some progress in terms of trying to curtail environmental degradation and improve the health of our environment, and it will become increasingly important for all of us to ensure that this progress continues.
If potential polluters are not required to file closure plans for rehabilitation and to provide realistic financial assurances up front to cover the cost of a cleanup, those costs will have to be borne by the taxpayer. We therefore fail to see how such changes will benefit the province in an economical sense. Rather, it would appear that business and industry will continue to reap even greater profits at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer without fear of being held accountable. If the purpose of Bill 26 is to reduce our deficit and make Ontario more prosperous, these changes in regulation do not appear to support that purpose.
It simply does not make sense to allow industries to earn huge profits and to not hold them accountable for the costs of damage to the environment caused by their businesses. In the case of the Storrington dump, a site that will likely require millions of dollars to cover the cleanup of existing contamination, Laidlaw was required to post financial assurances of approximately $80,000. This is simply outrageous and amounts to mere pocket change in terms of the real cost of an environmental cleanup. If business and industry want to earn profits in our province, they should also accept responsibility for any negative impacts caused by their operations, and this should be considered part of the cost of doing good business. The beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario should not be placed in the position of potentially having to bear these costs.
1240
The amendments contained in Bill 26 potentially place our environment at risk. Bill 26 restricts the rights of the citizens of Ontario to easy access to information important to them and denies them the right to scrutinize government decisions under the Environmental Bill of Rights. In addition, Bill 26 places taxpayers at risk in terms of liability for costs of environmental cleanup and servicing of new developments.
Changes to legislation should not be made in haste and without a fair and complete assessment of all of the implications. It is our opinion, therefore, that Bill 26 should be withdrawn and separated into its component parts. A thorough review of each component should then be undertaken which includes an assessment of the long-term impacts and should include much broader public consultation. The citizens of our province have great fears and concerns over the changes that are being proposed, and they should be allowed full access to their decision-makers.
Ms Munt: I wish to add my sincere thanks to this panel for the opportunity to express on behalf of SCAT -- and, I might add, many other conservation groups in eastern Ontario -- our deepest concern regarding the impact of Bill 26 on conservation. Although we support the need for fiscal cutbacks and wish to contribute as best we can to a balanced budget for Ontario, we deplore the complete destruction of precious resources that have taken 50 years to acquire for the public domain and the needs of our citizens.
Especially hard hit are conservation authorities, and for us here in Kingston, Bill 26 means the likely dissolution of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, with the 9,500 acres it oversees and owns being handed over to municipalities already hard hit with cutbacks.
Since there is no protective legislation in Bill 26 to keep these conservation lands intact, and municipalities have not the expertise nor the resources to manage them, all these properties that have taken more than 25 years to purchase and set aside will likely be sold and lost forever as conservation and public lands. Originally, these lands were purchased by expropriation and purchased from willing sellers who expected the lands to be preserved for future generations, and by donations of land or money to purchase land.
It will not be possible for the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to maintain itself only with levies for "flood control structures" and "provincially significant" designated lands. In the Kingston area, we will probably lose three of our conservation properties: Little Cataraqui Creek conservation area, Lemoine Point conservation area, and Gould Lake conservation area. All these properties have a high environmental value for recreation, for ecological teaching from public school to post-graduate levels, for preserving wetlands, for biodiversity of species, as well as for our natural heritage. It is unthinkable, after the struggle to assemble these valuable lands, which is still ongoing after 25 years, that they will just disappear under the auction hammer.
As well, at issue are moneys used to purchase conservation properties. In Bill 26 the province has provided to recoup moneys it granted for conservation lands when and if these properties are sold. But no consideration is given to the many environmental groups, corporations, foundations, families and individuals that have so generously donated funds towards what they believed was the purchase of conservation lands, entrusted to the provincial government for public use and future generations. Bill 26, as it now stands, will stop cold private donations for the purchase of any properties held in public trust.
In Kingston, the Cataraqui Conservation Foundation helped finance the building of the outdoor centre at the Little Cataraqui Creek conservation area, and at the moment its fate is awaiting decisions from Bill 26. This same foundation, understanding that the conservation authority would need greater financial support in the future, has recently inaugurated an endowment fund. Initiatives from the private sector such as these are placed in limbo by Bill 26.
Having outlined some of the adverse effects Bill 26, in its present form, will have on conservation, we would like to make two recommendations:
(1) Legislation should be implemented in Bill 26 to prevent the sale and dissolution of conservation lands. Even if we cannot afford to maintain them, we should keep them in the public domain for future generations and healthier fiscal times. Those properties, being adjacent to and intermingled with urban areas, are just too precious to let go. The people of Ontario will never forgive the Harris government for the loss of these lands.
(2) While some restructuring of conservation authorities may be necessary, Bill 26 should be amended to allow conservation authorities to remain operational in a new, lean and vigorous role. Until Bill 26, authorities have been able to maintain an independence from local government that has allowed them excellent objective judgement. This is probably the reason for their success in conservation, not only in their own properties but throughout their watersheds. They have on many occasions saved large tracts of wetlands by denying fill permits. We have not truly appreciated their work enough, especially in the urban areas.
Ontario has a vital need for the work done by conservation authorities in order to sustain a long-term healthy environment available and accessible to every Ontario resident. I, for one, would be willing to contribute my income tax reduction towards maintaining conservation as it is now delivered by conservation authorities to the province of Ontario. Thousands more would do the same.
The Chair: We have 12 minutes for questions. We will start with the third party.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for your presentation and for bringing to our attention here, as we've had in a few other instances across the province, the environmental concerns that are in this bill. I think you ask at the outset of your presentation a very good question, which is, why did the government choose to exempt the provisions of Bill 26 that relate to the environment from the application of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which, as you know and certainly people here might know, means that there would be an ability by the public to scrutinize what actions the government is taking?
I'm sure you know, but I think it also bears emphasizing, that the government's action led the Environmental Commissioner to issue a special report -- which is not something that's done usually, as I understand -- because she was concerned. The Environmental Commissioner, people should know, is someone who's appointed to that position. She's an officer of the Legislature, so that means she was appointed to her position by agreement of the three parties that had representation at the time -- the three parties that still do. So it was someone found to be obviously fitting for that position by all three political parties.
She has major concerns about what the government is doing and she has said -- and I just raise this in asking you to comment -- that given the significant decisions that are made by the Ministry of Finance, which has overall responsibility for this bill, the ministry should be legally required to comply with the same provisions of the Environmental Bill of Rights which were in place before regulation 482/95 -- which is the regulation, as you pointed out, by which the government exempted itself from this bill -- was filed.
1250
If we have the commissioner telling us that in effect there are some significant concerns that she has which have led her to issue a special report and if you are saying to us, as many other groups, from conservation authorities to people concerned about the environment, are saying to us, that these are not measures which are necessary and good in terms of the public interest of the province, do you have any sense as to why it is that, so far at least, we've heard very little from the government that indicates it has heard that message? Certainly, in terms of any amendments that we've seen, there's been no indication given that this is an area they're prepared to make any amendments in. Unfortunately, so far at least, all we can say is that they're not going to do what you're asking us to do.
Ms Fletcher: I don't know how to answer that one.
Ms Munt: I am still hopeful that there will be some amendments. Maybe I should ask Mr Warwick to comment on that, because I think he has a feeling about some amendments.
Mr Bill Warwick: I'm not sure whether the question relates to the environmental bill or to the amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act under the omnibus bill, but with respect to the Conservation Authorities Act, what we're experiencing now is a bit of a groundswell that is building. There are more and more people concerned today; we're getting more and more calls. We've been going out and talking to many of the municipalities in our jurisdiction. They're expressing real concerns about the potential loss of conservation authorities and sort of an associated liability that they're being expected to take on as a result of the transfer of responsibilities from the resource ministry.
So there are a number of things here that all tie together -- the downloading in some respects of environmental services, changes to the Conservation Authorities Act through the omnibus bill -- and there really doesn't appear to be a blueprint that anybody can follow to determine where the government is going in this whole initiative. There's a growing feeling of uneasiness out there: Just how are our resources going to be managed in another year?
Mr Sampson: Let me just ask a few questions on the conservation authorities side if I can for a second, and I'll try to switch to the mining side if I have some time left. Is it a fair statement that the roles and duties of the conservation authorities have changed since they were established a number of years ago?
Mr Warwick: The basic objective of conservation authorities as contained in the Conservation Authorities Act hasn't changed since the 1940s. With Hurricane Hazel there was an emphasis put on floodplain management, but certainly the conservation authority in this area was not sold on the premise that it would be heavily involved in flood control. It was sold by a group of people who wanted to manage land better, who wanted to provide for the future recreation of the people in this area. They wanted to protect some of the sensitive lands and had a real feeling for what I would call the basics of grass-roots conservation.
Mr Sampson: Right, but the roles and responsibilities, at least the legislated roles and responsibilities of conservation authorities, have kind of been modified to reflect the local reality. I think what I'm hearing from you is, "Yes, here's what the legislation says they're supposed to do, but in fact, for instance here, they may be doing more than that because that's what the local community wants." Is that a fair statement? Is that what I'm hearing?
Mr Warwick: I would go back to the Conservation Authorities Act as it has always been written, in section 20, and that gives the authority a very wide mandate to undertake conservation projects that the community does want, yes. Our problem is that quite often the mandate of the authority that is funded changes from time to time.
Mr Sampson: Okay. You get, frankly, your sources of revenue from two sides. You get funding from the province and funding, through the levy process, from the municipalities. Presumably, though, those two funding sources were established to reflect, if I can put it this way, the two roles and responsibilities of kind of a general provincial responsibility with respect to flood control, right? There are dollars attached to that. Then there are local responsibilities that this particular conservation authority, you here, has picked up that are presumably funded through the levy to the municipalities.
Mr Warwick: There are actually three sources of funding.
Mr Sampson: There's private as well.
Mr Warwick: There's money that we raise ourselves, as well as municipal funding and provincial funding. One of the big difficulties that we have with Bill 26 is that it is now narrowing the role of the conservation authority and is redefining what is provincially significant, or the work that we do that qualifies it as being provincially significant, and what we're hearing is that the protection of these natural areas that were acquired with considerable contribution from the provincial government and as a public trust is no longer going to be supported by the provincial government. There are some very sensitive lands that will continue to receive some provincial funding, but the bulk of our properties will not.
Mr Gerretsen: First of all, let me say that this is quite a different presentation than we had from the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, which we had in the very first day or so, which absolutely astonished me. You used to get $34 million in the province for conservation authorities and that's been cut down to $10 million. Now, maybe why they were so supportive of the government was because they figured that with one stroke of the pen you were going to lose the other $10 million as well.
I think people ought to be aware that conservation authorities can simply disappear by majority vote of the authority members themselves. Once that happens, then you really have no control, because there are so many different municipalities involved, as to how wetlands will be preserved. Would you not agree with me on that?
Mr Warwick: That's correct.
Mr Gerretsen: Right. That's number one. Secondly, there is the point about the preservation of the lands and the wetlands and the waterfront lands that you're talking about in your brief. You and I know that in Kingston we've fought this issue here for the last 25 years, to try to get as much waterfront land and wetlands for public access and public use as possible. I can tell you as one member of the Legislature, and I hope my Liberal colleagues will agree with me on this, that we will fight this tooth and nail, because to turn over wetlands or waterfront lands that communities and conservation authorities have acquired over the last 25 and 50 years and now have to somehow privatize them out to meet some kind of budgetary requirement is absolutely ludicrous. I can give you my commitment on that.
Now, how do you hope to preserve the situation here in Kingston with the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, in light of the legislation?
Mr Warwick: Our chair has done considerable work to analyse Bill 26, but basically the problem with Bill 26, as it sits now, is that it is very confusing and it's creating confusion in this general area. I don't know that I can adequately answer your question, but I would suggest that perhaps every member of the committee pick up a copy of the Kingston paper, which on the front page has an article that indicates the confusion that is being created in this area as a result of Bill 26.
Mr Gerretsen: It also talks about new fees in the police budget. That's another issue.
The Chair: Thank you all for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Chair: May I have representatives from the Ontario Federation of Labour come forward.
Mr Gord Wilson: You better be careful with statements like that. As I see fit, we might have something different than a presentation today.
I understand that members of the committee have a copy of our written submission, and I want to get part of it on the record. I'm Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. I am joined today by our legislative director, Ross McClellan, who is a person of some expertise in the ways of government and the construction of legislation and who, I can tell members of the committee, has been actively engaged in an analysis since this has been introduced. We've had great difficulty keeping him filled up with Valium to keep him down.
1300
The Ontario Federation of Labour welcomes this opportunity to present its views on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, on behalf of our 650,000 members. Those members and their families have, in the public discourse recently, been referred to as special interests, and I want to say to the government members of the committee, you're darned right. Every one of those people and their families are special.
We want to thank the members of the two opposition parties for their use of parliamentary tactics which made these hearings possible. Without their activity in the Legislature, the public would have had no input at all into these processes today. There are times when governments are arrogant and autocratic and they have to be brought to heel. We believe this was one of those times, and again we congratulate members of the opposition for forcing this issue.
The federation has provided a detailed commentary on Bill 26 in section 2 of our written submission. In the short time available to me today, I want to focus on some of the worst features of this seriously flawed omnibus bill. Before I do, I must make some comments on the fundamental economic assumptions that lie behind Bill 26.
This is a bill which is justified on the grounds that it is necessary to restore the economic health of Ontario. I want to make it crystal clear that the labour movement in this province rejects the fundamental economic premise of the Conservative agenda and the Common Sense Revolution.
Of course we agree that Ontario's operating deficit is too high, and that program spending cannot be sustained by borrowing and that operating expenditures must be brought into balance with revenues. Every family in this province knows that. But we totally disagree with this government's views concerning the causes of Ontario's fiscal problems, and we utterly reject the reactionary and socially destructive solutions.
Ontario's fiscal deficits did not come about because we are living beyond our means. We are one of the wealthiest and most prosperous societies on the face of this planet. In 1994, Ontario's gross domestic product was $302.5 billion. Ontario's GDP on a per capita basis for 1994 was $27,743, higher than all but a very small number of nations in the entire rest of the world. Proportionately, we spend a lower share of our GDP on government services and programs than most of our economic partners in the G-7. It is undeniable. It's a simple fact.
It is also worth pointing out that as of April 1995, Ontario's budgetary expenditures per capita of $4,874 per person are lower than those of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and, please note, Alberta.
The hysterical overreaction of this government to Ontario's deficit, of which Bill 26 is simply the latest example, is in our view not only unwarranted but is a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.
Ontario's deficits are the creation of deliberate, wrongheaded government policy by successive federal governments, first the Mulroney government and now of Paul Martin's Liberals. They are the right-wing policies of the corporate agenda, the policies of neoconservative economics and of monetarism. For more than 10 years now, they have inflicted upon us insanely high interest rates, creating a state of permanent recession, low growth and high unemployment. Combined with the free trade deal which decimated Ontario's manufacturing sector, these policies have been catastrophic for our province.
The policies of the permanent recession have kept the jobless rates at depression levels; 8% is now being called full employment, and whenever the unemployment rate threatens to fall below 8%, interest rates are immediately hiked and the permanent recession is restored. A whole generation of young people are frozen out of the job market, and thousands of older workers are thrown upon the scrap heap.
There are alternatives. There is a set of workable solutions based on genuine common sense and a balanced approach to economic policy, and it is an approach called for by an increasing number of economists. It is to abandon the monetarist nightmare and the strategy of permanent recession and embrace strategies that will bring about full employment in our province. This means easing monetary policy, lowering interest rates on a long-term basis and concentrating on economic growth, with government as an active partner in promoting economic development. It means maintaining Ontario's revenue through fair taxes, with everybody paying their fair share; holding the line on operating expenditures, but don't slash and don't burn. Let economic growth over a reasonable period of time eliminate the operating deficit and begin to retire the debt we currently face.
As long as real economic growth lags behind interest rates by as much as five points, as it currently does and as it has for most of the past decade, government deficit-fighters have as much chance of success as a rat chasing its own tail.
But instead of policies to solve our problems through economic growth and full employment, we have instead the Common Sense Revolution, modelled, I would argue, upon other similar failures in the United Kingdom and in the United States. The Common Sense Revolution proposes borrowing money we don't have to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy, and other speakers have spoken of the insanity of that; increasing Ontario's debt by $29 billion over the next five years to pay for the tax cut; slashing essential services and firing tens of thousand of public sector workers; cutting economic growth by at least 2.9%, according to the CSR document itself; introducing labour market policies designed to terrorize workers and their families and to continue to depress, in a downward spiral, their wages; and completely wrecking consumer demand with a terrorist approach to society and the economy which has created a sense of insecurity not felt since the end of the Second World War. And now, in order to implement this unbelievable economic folly, comes an assault on Ontario's democratic traditions through Bill 26.
The Savings and Restructuring Act creates three new acts, abolishes two statutes and amends 44 other acts. The process is now a matter or historical infamy. While it has become clear that even some of the ministers do not know what is contained in the bill, what we do know is terrifying.
The Minister of Health is given dictatorial powers over Ontario's community hospitals. The bill deregulates drug prices and introduces user fees and deductibles for seniors, in blatant violation of election commitments, and it paves the way for the privatization of medicare. It grants the government enormous arbitrary powers over the medical doctors and abrogates a formal agreement with the OMA.
It rolls back the law which provided for pay equity for the lowest-paid women in the public sector.
It gives enormous arbitrary power to the Minister of Municipal Services to abolish local governments and to force mergers and amalgamations, and allows for privatization and new forms of local taxation. At the same time, it strips away the traditional democratic checks and balances such as municipal referenda and accountability to the Legislature itself.
Bill 26 guts the laws requiring environmental cleanup of abandoned mine sites.
Arbitration for workers in the broader public sector, such as police, firefighters, teachers and hospital workers, will be severely constrained, and any notion of fairness will be set aside by this bill.
Section 2 of our written submission comments on each of these issues, and this afternoon I want to highlight, if I can, three areas of concern.
First, this is dangerous and authoritarian legislation which puts excessive and arbitrary powers into the hands of ministers while at the same time eliminating the traditional forms of accountability to the Legislature or to the local community. For example, the Minister of Health is given unprecedented authority to depose community hospital boards and to take over hospitals directly, to run them, shut them down or to force mergers. He can even dictate what medical services can or cannot be offered in a given hospital.
I've got some news for members of this government. Ontario's hospitals don't belong to the government of Ontario, nor do they belong to the Minister of Health. Each hospital in this province belongs to the community it serves, which has built it and nourished it and sustained it over years and generations. No government has the right to assume dictatorial powers of the kind set out in Bill 26. You will learn this the hard way if your minister is foolish enough to try to use these authoritarian powers. Change in our hospitals must be managed in a democratic way, hospital by hospital, community by community, with a full partnership between all segments of the local community and the provincial government. The government's jackboot approach to hospital management is a violation of Ontario's traditions of democracy and is improper as a role for government.
But it doesn't seem to stop there. The Minister of Health becomes a kind of feudal lord with unlimited powers -- to decide what drugs we can use, who will get our private confidential health information, where a doctor is allowed to practise medicine, and all this with no accountability back to the Legislature. This is powermongering run completely amok -- and there's more. The citizens' right to information from their own government is being severely curtailed at the same time that private records become a plaything of the Ministry of Health.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs gets brand new dictatorial powers of his own to change at will the very structure of local government, to force amalgamations and to eliminate entire municipalities, to privatize services and to allow the imposition of new forms of taxation, all by decree.
All this is an outrageous affront to Ontario's democratic traditions. That it comes from a government which campaigned against big government and getting government off our backs raises hypocrisy to an art form.
1310
A second area to highlight is the theft, the legalized theft, of Ontario government employees' pension benefits under schedule L of Bill 26. Ontario's Divisional Court ruled just last month that the government has no right under existing law and agreements to abrogate its pension contract with its own employees. To use its legislative majority on a retroactive basis to steal as much as $400 million in deferred wages -- and I underline "deferred wages"; that's what pensions are as part of a bargaining settlement -- in the form of pension benefits legally owed to your employees is simply despicable, and that is exactly what this government is doing under schedule L of Bill 26.
Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This government is about to launch one of the largest mass layoffs in Canadian history. Up to 20,000 workers in the OPS, both bargaining unit and managers, will be fired, according to Premier Harris. The Pension Benefits Act has explicit provisions designed to protect the pension rights and economic security of any employees in this province who are facing precisely this situation, whether it be public or private sector.
Wherever there is a major downsizing, the Ontario superintendent of pensions has the power to order a full or partial windup of a pension plan. Such a windup protects the interests of the laid-off employees in a number of ways. The employer is required to fully fund all benefits payable to the affected workers within five years of a partial windup. Short-term workers will get vesting and older, longer-service workers are protected against economic catastrophe by a grow-in provision and other enhancements. These pension protections for employees facing termination are set out both in law and in the contractual agreement between the government of Ontario and its employees and their union, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.
Any government which seeks to steal from thousands of its own employees it is preparing to lay off is deserving of the mistrust and contempt society affords to any thief or group of thieves.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Wilson: I told you I'd get a rise.
Under schedule J, the right to pay equity for about $100,000 low-paid women in such areas as day care, child welfare or nursing homes has been effectively abolished. That is the consequence of eliminating the use of the proxy method for pay equity. To do so at a time when the wage gap between men and women has actually widened for the first time in nearly three decades speaks volumes about this government's chauvinistic and reactionary attitude towards women.
The freeze on the minimum wage has hurt working women. The repeal of Bill 40, which made collective bargaining easier to obtain, has hurt working women; so has the attack on the funding of women's shelters. These actions all reveal a consistency and meanness of purpose on the part of what appears to be the most brutal of all governments in this province.
Bill 26 represents the most authoritarian power grab in Ontario's modern history. Not since the infamous police state bill of Tory Attorney General Fred Cass has there been such a blatant attempt to gather arbitrary and centralized power into the hands of ministers of the crown. It is an affront to democracy and a disgrace to this province that this government has such little regard for the principles of democracy. This bill should be defeated and its authors made to apologize to the people of Ontario.
As this government continues to operate under a cloak of secrecy, we are faced almost on a daily basis with revelations of some change of heart or change of mind that's been pencilled or inked in in some dark back room of the Legislature. So I want to conclude my remarks in an addendum, as we've had to respond to some revelations of the last day or two. Let me conclude my remarks by commenting briefly on the amendments to Bill 26 to the extent that we understand exactly what they are, if it is possible to understand exactly what they are.
The Minister of Health appears to be willing to limit his newly acquired dictatorial powers to a four-year period, after which they will sunset out of existence. The previous speaker commented that there may be some correlation with the length of a determination of a government in office.
Our view is that if these powers are so dangerous that the law should sunset in four years, it should be obvious to everyone that they should not have seen the light of day in the first place. We stand by our comments that the proper process for hospital restructuring is the democratic process, with the full participation of all the people who have a stake in the outcome.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs appears to be introducing amendments to prohibit municipalities from enacting a poll tax, a gasoline tax or other forms of direct taxation. Since the minister was so adamant that the bill did not confer any powers of direct taxation and threatened to resign if it did, all I can say is that we eagerly await, with hundreds of thousands of other people in this province, his announcement of his resignation.
For the government to concede that it was dead wrong on some of the central elements of Bill 26 is, quite frankly, shocking. Rhetorically, I have to ask the question, what would have happened if the opposition had not forced these public hearings? The whole process, we submit, has been a disgrace and a disaster from start to its logical and imminent conclusion on January 29.
I say again that the content of Bill 26 in the beginning is simply a move away from democracy and the traditions of this province and one that more closely resembles the dictatorial powers held by others in government in other countries in the world.
I want to say, in conclusion, a final comment to the members of the government sitting on this committee. Some of you may have judged my comments this afternoon to be harsh, and some of the language I've used has been less than candid perhaps but certainly straightforward. But I want to say to you to take my remarks in context, because I represent a great deal of the frustration developing around this province. The hurt or pain some people may have felt in offence at what I've said here today, if you've taken it personally, I can tell you, if you move around this province, is nothing when measured against the hurt and the pain now starting to be suffered by the people of Ontario as a result of your actions.
You must take responsibility for the decimation of the social infrastructure now taking place in this province. I predicted in November, when Mr Eves made his economic statement, that we would see in February and March of this year families thrown out on the street as landlords evict them, as those people had no choice but to use the reduced amount in welfare benefits to buy food rather than to pay the rent.
The Toronto Star has carried stories of that. I'm only surprised that it's happening this early, and we will see a continued winter of discontent. I don't want to go overboard, but there is a correlation between the deaths of two people in the city of Toronto in the weather we've had and the cuts the government's imposing upon communities. All of those organizations and institutions -- church organizations, community institutions -- that have provided the services to allow the homeless to come in off the street now find themselves completely beyond their means in being able to deal with those people currently on the streets. We are going to see more of that, unfortunately, unless this government takes some immediate action to try to change that.
As I talk to workers who currently have jobs, don't think they're on side about the 30% tax refund. Those workers understand fully that the money they get back will be long gone in additional levies placed on them by municipal governments struggling to survive out there, through user fees for everything from school bus travel to blue box collection.
Those workers also fully understand that they're at peril. As we continue this downward and contracting spiral within our economy, we should learn the lessons of history. The lesson is that for every worker you throw out on the street, that's one less worker who's able to buy the products and the services that someone else has made. It's not a very complex economic situation.
I appeal to this government on behalf of the people I represent and the countless hundreds who have not had the opportunity to come before this committee to please consider again what you are doing in Bill 26 and the other economic measures you are taking in this province.
Applause.
The Chair: Order, please. We'd like to get some questions in.
1320
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I suspect we might be hearing you in the committee that's going to review the budget process, but I want to take this opportunity to talk to you about what you believe to be the alternatives. You said there are alternatives, and talked about easing monetary policy and lowering interest rates on a long-term basis. Neither of those is within the purview of provincial fiscal management. How do we as a province deal with those two items?
Mr Wilson: This province represents roughly a little better than a third of the population of this country. Ontario has always been, if I could be so bold, within the context of Ontario, Canada. There has been a great deal of influence this province has been able to exert when it wanted to, often reined in its authority for all sorts of other sensitivities across the country, and I appreciate that.
But let me use a couple of examples. Although I admit candidly and will say up front that the world has changed in terms of the economic structure, we shouldn't completely dismiss those things that worked in the past. At the end of the Second World War, the per capita debt in this country was higher than it is now, and the federal government, with support from provincial governments and at the urging of some provincial governments, promoted two very distinct policies that were quite useful.
The first was that we would pursue full employment, because we understood that the way you get out of debt is to have people working; that's how you incur less debt and are able to pay off your debt. It works in every household. If you've got two people laid off and one gets back to work, you pay off your debts faster and you get out of the hole.
The second one was that we really went after the finance community and said to them, "You can't continue to charge interest rates that exceed the rate of growth or development within our economy." That's one of the serious problems we have, and there's not a peep out of the province of Ontario in addressing the financial community and in dealing with Mr Martin, saying that we have to get serious about redressing that question. You can't have reinvestment as long as money keeps getting piled into those people who deal with paper and don't convert that into bricks and mortar and into service.
I would argue, as we do more fully in our brief, that the way out of debt is to promote those policies which continue to place less demand on expenditures because people don't need the services. By that I mean that when you put people back to work, they don't need welfare payments. That's a very simple economic premise. And I am not a fool -- at least I don't think I'm a fool; I've been involved with dealing with people in public life for quite some time. The debt requires challenging some power structures in this province that this government and the federal government are not currently challenging.
Mr Phillips: As usual, Mr Wilson, you've been an eloquent spokesperson for all the people of Ontario. I'll just say that there will be lots of amendments, but they won't change the essence of this bill. This is a mean-spirited bill. All the amendments will simply prove that they're mean-spirited and incompetent.
I want to ask you about the climate for bargaining, particularly among our public sector. I asked Mr Hargrove the same question. The government is right at the edge of a very important piece of negotiation with its unions, and here's what it's done. As you say, they have stolen -- that's your word -- money from the pension funds, and many would agree with you on that. They have taken away bargaining rights for arbitration. We heard the extraordinary thing this morning of the mayor of Kingston saying, "Please make sure the regulations allow us to increase the cost of getting married in Kingston so we can save two jobs." It's right in the brief: increase the cost of marriage licences so they can save two jobs. That's what the mayor is pleading with us to do.
As you point out in your brief, one intent of this bill is to allow layoff of at least 13,000 people and to privatize many services.
In terms of the climate it creates, when you ask employees to cooperate with the government in dealing with the financial problem and when you do these things through this bill which will pass January 29, what sort of climate is the government going to face?
Mr Wilson: I think Buzz Hargrove spoke quite clearly on that. Labour relations in my time in this province in the labour movement -- it's been about 30 years full-time -- I have never seen labour relations at the low ebb they are now in the relationship between employers and workers.
It depends on your perspective. If you're an employer, you have two tacks: You either try to arrive at what's generally conceived to be a fair agreement, which both parties can walk away with, saying, "We didn't get everything we liked, but it's a deal with can live with"; or you can try and run over people. I'm not at the bargaining table with the public sector, but my guess, and I'll say it here, is that I think this government is embarking on a strategy that we've seen in the private sector before: Where employers feel they have an upper hand, they're going to precipitate a strike. I would not at all be surprised to see the workers in the public sector having to respond.
If you believe you're going to roll over people and they'll lie down, that's a successful tactic from an employer's perspective. If you think the Ontario public sector employees are going to lie down, that's a gross miscalculation. I'm just trying to make an honest assessment. I think we're in for a donnybrook in this province.
Mr Silipo: Thank you for the presentation, Mr Wilson. You talked about amendments. You might be interested in knowing that in addition to the amendments presented to this committee yesterday and the few that were presented on the health piece, which you commented on, we understand that today in Hamilton, which is where the other half of the committee is, some 50 amendments were presented by the government on the health part. We don't know what additional amendments there will be -- we haven't been told -- as they relate to the issues you addressed, other than the health ones. We wait to see what happens.
Having gone through this process, it would seem to me that the very best one could say about this government is that it has been incompetent in how it's dealt with this whole issue and this whole bill, that it's just screwed up. That would seem to me to be the best one could say.
What scares me is that I don't think that's what has got us to this point. What has got us to this point are some of the issues you've addressed, that what this government is doing is acting in a very dangerous and authoritarian way, that what it's doing by its actions is causing not just a lot of frustration, pain and hurt -- which it is, as you've noted -- but is polarizing this province in a way that I don't think we've seen for many decades, even when we had Conservative governments in the past.
What I saw in your brief, beyond outlining that particular effect, was a sense also that there are solutions and that this kind of approach by this government is not necessary, if it really is serious about resolving the fiscal problems we have as opposed to a different agenda, which is to shift the power and the wealth from the many to the hands of the few.
Mr Wilson: There are two ways to reach a solution. You either do it arbitrarily or you do it cooperatively. On Bill 26 I don't think there's much doubt that it's been an arbitrary process.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Mr Wilson, for making your presentation to the committee today.
Mr Gerretsen: Mr Chairman, I would like to file with the committee a report of the alternate hearings held here last Friday. We will be having alternate hearings later on today as well. I would like to give you a summary of the evidence that was given, as well as reports from the various people who filed.
Mr Cleary: I have a number of submissions that have been presented to me in my office by individual groups and organizations from Cornwall and area, some who attempted to make oral presentations before the committee but were not selected. I would appreciate it if you'd circulate these to the committee members. Thank you.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned until 5 o'clock.
The subcommittee recessed at 1330.
Report continues in volume B.
VOLUME B
CONTENTS
FRIDAY 19 JANUARY 1996
Police Association of Ontario
John Moor, president
Paul Walter, president, Metropolitan Toronto Police Association
Paul LaCourse, administrator, Halton Regional Police Association
Stu Campbell, administrator, Peel Regional Police Association
Mark McConkey, director, Durham Regional Police Association
Brian Adkin, president, Ontario Provincial Police Association
Whitby Chamber of Commerce
Allan Faux, president
Marc Kealey, member, government relations committee
Debbie Sweetman, chair, government relations committee
Peterborough Child Care Forum
Sheila Olan-MacLean, president
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Dr Terry Quinney, provincial coordinator, fish and wildlife service
Jenny CarterGS-936
Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce
Don Frise, general manager
Peterborough Social Planning Council; Peterborough Coalition for Social Justice
Jacqueline Powell, executive director, Peterborough Social Planning Council
Floyd Howlett, chair, Peterborough Coalition for Social Justice
Ski Telemark LtdGS-948
Holly Blefgen, president
County of Peterborough; City of Peterborough
Doug Pearcy, warden, county of Peterborough
Jack Doris, mayor, city of Peterborough
Ronald Chittick, administrator, city of Peterborough
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
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Galt, Doug (Northumberland PC)
O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)
Rollins, E.J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)
Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Report continued from volume A.
The subcommittee resumed at 1713 in the Ramada Inn, Peterborough.
The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Could I ask the room to come to order. Welcome everyone, committee members, to Peterborough. At 9 pm, our last presenter this evening will be the mayor of Peterborough, and Warden Doug Pearcy will be here, in case people want to know about that. It's not on any of our printed schedules, so I want to make that announcement.
We have two motions, but a point of order, I believe, from Mr Sampson first.
Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, I would like to table with the committee the remaining amendments that we have with respect to the non-health component of Bill 26. Again, I do apologize. I will take the scowl of the clerk as we go all the way home to Toronto tonight, but I only have one copy; I apologize.
Mr Phillips: How many amendments are we dealing with?
Mr Sampson: There are a total of 64 amendments, technical and non-technical inclusive.
The Chair: We have two motions on the floor, both from Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: I look forward to seeing the amendments, but more about that later. I'd like to move:
Whereas there has been overwhelming public interest in Bill 26 and 40 groups and individuals have requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Peterborough, which far exceed the eight spaces available today for hearings;
I move that this committee recommend 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 Peterborough;
Further, this committee recommends that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss this issue.
Mr Silipo: I move this motion because we see that here in Peterborough as, indeed, we have throughout the many communities that we visited in the last two weeks, there are far more groups that would like to speak to this bill than are possible for us to fit in to the spaces in the times available.
We know that this bill speaks to a lot of fundamental changes, that there are certainly changes that are proposed in this bill that provide a tremendous shift of powers to individual ministers and away from the Legislature, tremendous shifts of power to municipalities, giving municipalities far-reaching powers to impose a variety of taxes and user fees, and powers that change fundamentally people's rights in this province.
Just to cite a couple of examples: This bill takes away pay equity for 100,000 of the lowest-paid women in this province. This bill takes away basic bargaining rights for specific groups, but I would suggest for many groups, indirectly, primarily firefighters and police officers -- and I note that we're about to hear from a police association -- by directing the arbitrators to, in effect, impose the employer's position in any settlement disputes. This legislation takes away pension rights of public sector workers and does many, many other things which I will not get into at this point for the sake of time.
What essentially this legislation does is it takes away basic rights that people have in this province, it changes the social fabric of this province like no other piece of legislation ever has, and for that to happen is an affront in and of itself, but for it to happen in the kind of underhanded way in which this government has tried to bring about this legislation, with little discussion, with initially no public hearings, with hearings only taking place because the opposition managed to force hearings to take place -- otherwise the good people of Peterborough and the surrounding communities would not be able to speak to us on this bill tonight -- is just a complete affront to the democratic principles that we've had in this province for 150 years.
For all of those reasons and many more that I could cite, I think it's appropriate that this motion be before us and give the government members one last opportunity to recognize publicly that the process has been completely inappropriate against the kinds of issues we are dealing with, and that further hearings should be established and set up here in Peterborough so that we can give this bill the proper and due consideration that is its due.
Mr Sampson: As I speak to this particular motion -- and I'll make my comments quick because we have a late night tonight and presenters who want to present -- I think it's important for the people of Peterborough to know that we have spent, at the end of tonight, after the 9:30 presentation, more committee time in reviewing this piece of legislation than any other piece of legislation over the last 10 years in this province.
It certainly reflects the extent and nature of the bill. There were a number of other offers to the House leaders of the various parties. The opposition parties, when the time allotment for committee work was being established -- that's the usual process in the House -- as one of the offers actually had us spending one more week reviewing these documents among ourselves so that we could make sure that the amendments were indeed appropriate before we started clause-by-clause review, but that offer was turned down by the opposition House leaders.
1720
I think it's also important to note that it's not this side of the table that determines who has the opportunity to sit at the table to make verbal presentations to us. That was a procedure that was established by all three parties before this committee started its hearings. We stuck to that agenda throughout the extent of the hearings. The list of people presenting here has not been determined by us, although some people would lead you to believe that.
We are listening. We have tabled amendments. Yesterday we tabled amendments; today we've tabled amendments, some of them frankly technical in nature dealing with the traditional and usual drafting edits one normally sees in any legislation, some being substantive, reflecting what we've been able to hear from the various groups that have been before us and how we've responded to that. There may be more. We are not finished our hearings yet. There are presenters who are yet to come before us tonight, and we will continue to listen and respond to those issues and concerns as we see that we should.
Mr Speaker -- Mr Chairman, I would like to pass now and say that we will be voting against this particular motion.
The Chair: I don't think I would want that promotion actually, Mr Sampson.
Mr Phillips: I want to speak about the motion. I think the government should be ashamed of itself in the process you've followed here. It's an embarrassment to you and an insult to the people of Ontario. I mean that as --
Interruption.
Mr Phillips: Just in case everybody in the area doesn't appreciate it, this bill was introduced at 3:30 on November 29 when my colleagues were locked up reviewing the fiscal statement of the government. The only way we could see the fiscal statement was to be locked up. They knew that and they deliberately, at 3:30 when we could not leave the lockup until 4, tabled this bill. Why did they do it? Because they were going to try and ram this thing through in two weeks.
This bill is unprecedented. For those of you who haven't had a chance to study it, it impacts every single hospital, every single doctor, every single senior on drug benefit plans. It takes $250 million out of public sector pensions, which they tried to do and the courts told them they were acting illegally. So what do they do? They're trying to pass a law here to exempt themselves from the Pension Benefits Act. That's the act that protects everybody, but they're trying to exempt themselves from the Pension Benefits Act. It is a disgrace what they tried to do with this.
I will say that when I got the bill, the first thing I did was I went to the back of the bill because I figured the way this government operates, that's the one that has the most potential for damage. And what's there? It's the arbitration. It's the area where you promised -- you promised the firefighters of this province you would not touch the Fire Departments Act without consultation. This does that. You promised the police organizations you were going to take the cuffs off the police organizations. Well, you're taking the cuffs off them and putting them on the arbitrators. You completely handcuff the arbitrators. Fair collective bargaining is gone for those individuals. And they wanted to ram this thing through in two weeks. Absolutely unheard of.
Finally, with a little bit of pressure, they said, "All right, we'll give you some hearings" the member just talked about, "all before Christmas, all in Toronto, and with no intention of making substantive amendments." As I believe strongly, I thought this was a mean-spirited bill when it was introduced and now it's clear it's not only mean-spirited; it's incompetent. We now find today, if you listen carefully, we now have 63 amendments being tabled here at 5:25, deliberately being tabled before -- none of you can see these amendments; you won't see these amendments when you make your presentation. We now, I think, have about 140 amendments to this bill, and I will say to groups that are presenting tonight that we will begin what's called clause-by-clause hearings on Monday. If we have an hour at clause-by-clause to discuss the issues of the police organizations and the firefighters, I will be surprised. That's why they have it at schedule Q. Come next Friday, we may get one hour to discuss this, because they're going to ram this thing through. For sure on January 29, this will become law.
It is an absolute insult and I think some of the government members know that. I think some of the government members, if they could turn it back, wouldn't allow this to happen, but you are allowing it to happen. For the public, they are thumbing their noses at you.
I say there will be some groups tonight supporting this bill. Frankly, they'll support a portion of the bill with no idea of what's in the rest of the bill, but we're going to pass one bill. I will say to those who support the bill tonight, you better understand what you're supporting, because you're trampling on the rights of a lot of individuals in this province. This document promised no new user fees; it promised they wouldn't touch health care; it promised they would protect classroom spending; it promised it would protect our policing spending. This bill does exactly the opposite.
So if you wonder why the opposition and, I think, many of the public are angry, it's because this betrays a fundamental right of people to have an opportunity for input into legislation that affects them dramatically. This bill is going to be rammed through. Tonight we'll see, as we've seen since the hearings began, as we move motions that are defeated, the government has no intention of extending the hearings and giving people an opportunity for further debate.
It frankly is a sad day. It's a sad day for Ontario; it's a sad day for the Conservative Party. This is not the Progressive Conservative Party of Bill Davis, Leslie Frost and Robarts. It's a totally different party, and this bill is an embarrassment to you.
The Chair: Before I put the motion, I want to welcome Mr Stewart from Peterborough, Mr Galt from Northumberland and Mr O'Toole from Durham East to the committee tonight.
Eligible to vote are Mr Silipo, Mr Phillips, Mr Tascona, Mr Sampson, Mr Hardeman and Mr Young.
Mr Silipo: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Phillips, Silipo.
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Silipo, do you want to move this motion, in light of the --
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I certainly do want to move it, particularly, I have to say, in light of Mr Sampson tabling some further amendments with us. I'll speak to that.
The motion is as follows:
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 has only presented a few of them; and
Whereas presenters should be aware of all of the substantive amendments being proposed;
I move that this committee insist that the government immediately table the remaining proposed amendments so that the amendments can be part of the considerations during the presentations in Peterborough.
We've heard from Mr Sampson on behalf of the government that he's just tabled another 64 amendments, I believe he said. That's in addition to the eight amendments that were tabled yesterday and in addition to the 60 or so amendments that were tabled through the health part of the committee between Wednesday, I believe, and today. Today there were over 50 amendments tabled in the other part of the committee.
I have to say that I just find the process that the government has followed on this flabbergasting, to say the least. I appreciate the fact that the government is moving amendments. So far, the eight amendments that I've seen are ones that remove some of the draconian measures that are in this bill. I would think that really at the end of the day there ought to be only one amendment, and that is that you take sections A, B, C, D and E, with a couple of amendments, you pass those sections, because I think there's general agreement on those, and you withdraw the rest of the bill. That could be done in three amendments, I would suggest. But of course, what the government is doing is it's going to continue to run roughshod over the democratic principle. It's going to continue to insist that this bill be passed.
1730
I'll be interested in seeing what the amendments are that we have before us. I find it passing strange that we were, this morning, in Kingston. We had some indication earlier today that there would be amendments, and yet we had to wait until we began the hearings this evening to have those tabled, and we still don't know what they are. We still don't know what those amendments are. Some are technical, and that's fine, that's been the normal course of things, although again I say to the government, the fact that you rushed this bill means that there would be of course technical amendments, because you just rushed to draft this bill.
But I'm more interested, quite frankly, in the substantive amendments. I don't know if in the additional amendments some of the issues that were not addressed in the earlier package are addressed. It would be useful to know that; it would be useful for the presenters to know that. That's what this motion is suggesting, that in fact we get those substantial amendments, we know what they are, that the people presenting know what they are so that they know whether the concerns they have are being addressed or not by these amendments. I suspect that some of them will and most of them will not, and that is what continues to be fundamentally wrong with what the government is doing. So we will continue with the process. We will see where it will get us, but I'm sure we haven't seen the last of amendments, and that's why this motion still is necessary.
Mr Sampson: As I said earlier when I tabled the amendments, there are indeed both technical and substantive amendments, the technical ones, the traditional drafting ones, and the substantive ones reflecting, frankly, the general theme that we've heard as we've gone around the province and through our session in Toronto in December.
I'm a bit concerned that we have over the last week had recommendations from the other side of the table to table amendments when numerous times that I have been able to look back at procedures of various committees, that hadn't been done by the other side until the committee was in clause-by-clause review. However, they seem to have come to a different view of life now that they're on the opposition side of the table.
This particular motion, I'm afraid, although we've tabled the amendments that we have to date -- and I want to re-emphasize to date, because we have people yet to come before us and we're listening with an open mind, and there may be some amendments that reflect the discussions that we have tonight and the discussions that we will have among ourselves as we review the written submissions through the weekend. So at this point in time our side has tabled the amendments that we have prepared so far. I cannot speak for the health side. Unfortunately, Mr Silipo's amendment, I believe, is broad enough to cover the health side. I am not aware of that committee's work to date. We set up these two committees so they could be separate and independent of each other and review the pieces of legislation separately and independently.
With respect to that particular motion, I think we'll vote against it, but I want to make it clear that we have tabled amendments that we have prepared as a result of (a) the continued technical review of the bill and (b) the comments that have been received from the people of Ontario as we've gone around in this committee process.
Mr Phillips: Again, this is part of this process of thumbing your nose at the public. Five minutes into the hearings when we began back on December 18, Al Leach came and said he's got a couple of amendments he'll be proposing. That's on December 18. We said: "Fine. Let's see them so that people can understand them." We asked for them to be tabled. They wouldn't table them.
We were in Thunder Bay at 9 o'clock Wednesday morning insisting that the amendments be tabled, and the government gave us the same old song and dance. "No, we're going to wait till all this process is over before we table any amendments." That's what they told us at 9 o'clock. And at exactly that time, about 1,200 kilometres away, the government was tabling amendments in the other half of the committee.
So out of one side of their mouth, they're saying "We're not going to table any amendments until we begin clause-by-clause." Out of the other side of their mouth, they're tabling amendments in Kitchener. This is serious. You're misleading people. You're saying you won't table the amendments and then you're tabling the amendments. This is a shame.
Just yesterday, we were in Ottawa. We were told we would be getting some amendments tabled at 1 o'clock. It happened there was a warden presenting at 1 o'clock, and the amendment that they were going to table wouldn't have met with the warden's approval, so they waited till 2 o'clock to table the amendment. The warden presented, left, and then they tabled the amendment indicating they weren't going to accommodate the warden's concerns.
What we find in this process is an embarrassment to dealing with major problems of people in this province. For everyone that presents tonight, this bill has major implications, for every organization: for the chamber, for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, for the social planning council, for the mayor, and certainly for the police organizations. You're going to give them -- snap -- that much time.
Frankly, embarrassingly enough, we probably will have virtually no time next week in clause-by-clause to deal with your issue. Why? Because it's schedule Q. Why is it schedule Q? Because they don't want much discussion on it. It will go schedule A, schedule B etc. It's schedule Q, so that on Friday there will be virtually no opportunity for discussion and debate.
You're dealing with these people's lives. You're dealing with the level of police services. In this bill, it gives the arbitrator the right to determine service levels. Well, the member shakes his head, but I guarantee you they'll have to set up some amendment to fix this bill, because it does do that right now. You want to deal with something that important in one hour or two hours of debate. You can see, when the member said earlier that each party selects who can be on, yes, we want to have 12 groups on and they give us three spots. Who do you choose? We think everybody should have had an opportunity for input on this bill.
So you're seeing, ladies and gentlemen, the full face of the Conservative government here and how it chooses to deal with the public. They're trying to ram a bill through. We now have 130 amendments. We are going to have a total of 40 hours to discuss this whole bill, probably 200 amendments, and to deal with people's lives next week. I guarantee you this government will ram this bill through on January 29, and I think with fairly little idea of what in the world they are doing.
So I'm sorry to take the time, Mr Chair, but we will hear everyone tonight. We will stay until each group has had its full half-hour. But I think the groups here in Peterborough, and some will be supporting this bill, should understand what they're supporting, both in content and process. It's an embarrassment on both sides to this government.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Phillips. Now I'll put the motion.
Ayes
Phillips, Silipo.
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we can start with our deputants this evening. The first deputant we have before us is the police association. Gentlemen, welcome. You have half an hour this evening 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 a response, questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you'd introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr John Moor: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just before our clock starts running on our half-hour, I'd like to ask if we could be told how we could get copies of those amendments and, if we can get copies of them, where we can get them.
The Chair: Through the Clerk's office, Monday morning.
Mr Phillips: Same time we'll get them.
Mr Moor: Thank you. In regard to the introductions, with your concurrence, Mr Chairman, each individual at the table will be speaking after myself, and they'll introduce themselves as they make their presentation.
Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. My name is John Moor and I'm the president of the Police Association of Ontario. I'm also a sergeant with the Windsor Police Service and the president of the Windsor Police Association. I'm accompanied here today by several of my colleagues. I've provided a list of the speakers to the committee, with the clerk.
As the committee may recall, we appeared before you one week ago today and we expressed our anger at that time over the abandonment of the promise made by Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative government to guarantee police funding. We spoke at that time of the promises that had been made prior to the election and commitments made by the Premier to guarantee funding for law enforcement and to increase safety within our communities. We told you how we felt betrayed by the cuts to the municipalities announced on November 29, combined with the measures included in Bill 26, and the impact these measures would have on policing and public safety. We told you that the proposed amendments to our arbitration system were both unwarranted and inappropriate.
1740
In the period of time since the cuts were announced, we have met with the Premier and on separate occasions we have met with six different members of his cabinet. All those members appeared genuinely interested in our concerns that we were putting forward, but to date none of them have provided any signal that they are prepared to change their course. The only suggestion that we have been given is that we prepare a list of amendments for the government's consideration. As a result, we find ourselves before you here again today for the purpose of presenting you with that list of proposed amendments, to elaborate the concerns we identified last week, and to provide more evidence, evidence that we hope will satisfy this committee that there is a crisis looming in policing in this province at the very hands of the government that promised to provide more support and priority for the police.
Our presentation today will focus on several issues. First, Paul Walter will discuss the elimination of early retirement as a tool to assist police services in restructuring their organizations. The continuation of these provisions would have assisted police services in further reducing staff in the senior levels while maintaining or preferably increasing the front-line younger officers who still possess the confidence to do their jobs and make a difference.
We will then call upon several police association representatives from various communities in Ontario to speak about the current erosion of police activity within their communities, combined with the projected impact of the budget cuts.
Brian Adkin of the Ontario Provincial Police Association will review the problem with duplicity in police oversight.
Finally, we will review our specific proposals to amend Bill 26.
I'd ask Paul Walter to elaborate now on the issue of early retirement for police officers.
Mr Paul Walter: Good afternoon, Mr Chair and committee members. My name is Paul Walter. I'm the president of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association.
I want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that there is one important item that has to date been all but ignored in the public discussion surrounding Bill 26. I'm referring to early retirement benefits for police officers. Unless this issue is addressed appropriately and addressed immediately, it will not be possible to properly manage the very limited police resources that exist in this province today.
Virtually all municipal police officers and municipal workers make pension contributions to the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, most commonly referred to by its acronym, OMERS. The only exclusion are those employees who belong to the municipal plans which remain in effect for employees hired before OMERS was introduced.
Under the OMERS plan, the normal retirement age for most employees is 65. This is known as NRA 65. There is one important exception made for police and firefighters. In recognition of the fact that these two professions, but especially the police, particularly in my view, perform far more rigorous and demanding duties than the average municipal worker, the normal retirement age for police and fire is 60, or NRA 60. In other words, as a matter of long-standing convention, the police can retire substantially earlier than other employee groups.
It is important, therefore, for this committee and the provincial government to understand that historically police officers have always been able to retire earlier than other groups in society. It is equally crucial for you to understand that historically police officers have paid higher pension contributions than others in order to finance this improved pension benefit. There is a section on page 5 and part of page 6 that describes the OMERS basic plan, and you can refer to that. I won't go into the detail.
In tandem with the social contract, and to facilitate downsizing, the prior government introduced the OMERS supplementary type 7 regulation in spring 1993 for early retirement benefits. As is the case with all supplementary benefits, employers could opt into the type 7 benefits upon agreement with the employees and their bargaining agents. The benefits allowed for the minimum retirement age to be reduced by five years, the retirement factor to be reduced by 10 points, and the normal retirement age to be reduced by five years.
Initially, the type 7 failed to recognize the historical treatment afforded to police. At the risk of oversimplification, since there are a number of combinations of options available under the type 7, suffice it to say that the most important early retirement benefit made available was an 80 factor, minimum age 50 provision. While this was of great benefit to NRA 65 members of the plan, it was of absolutely no use to the police officers in this province, since they could already retire at age 50 after 30 years of service.
When the shortcomings of the type 7 were explained to the NDP government, the benefit was improved somewhat to accommodate the special position of the police and to recognize that historically the police have always been able to retire earlier than other groups. Again at the risk of oversimplification, the type 7 was amended to enable police officers to retire under a 75 factor, provided they were at least 45 years of age.
Many employers, municipal and police, utilized type 7 as a way of achieving permanent savings to deal with their social contract and expenditure control reductions. Indeed, the demand has surfaced from employer and employee groups alike to continue the type 7 provisions beyond the conclusion of the social contract to deal with anticipated funding concerns. The board of OMERS has recommended this extension to the province for both NRA 65 and NRA 60 members.
As we understand it, however, this government intends to provide for the future availability of the type 7 benefit only to NRA 65 members of OMERS. In other words, the 75 factor that has previously applied to police officers in this province is to be abolished. This is totally unacceptable to police officers throughout the province, particularly since what they really need is the ability to retire after 25 years of service, regardless of their ages. This is a benefit afforded to many police officers across the country and it is already in place in Metropolitan Toronto for officers who were hired before July 1, 1968.
In the present policing and budgetary climate, there are compelling reasons to improve early retirement benefits for all police personnel. For example, there has to be a much greater turnover of police personnel, since police forces everywhere are aging fast. In that regard, it is interesting to note that the average age of officers on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force now exceeds 42, whereas the International Association of Chiefs of Police has estimated that the optimum average age for a police force is 28. Furthermore, an infusion of younger officers, with a corresponding decrease in the number of older officers, is a far more cost-effective way of providing policing services to the people of Ontario.
It is absolutely crucial that a 75 factor be made available to police officers under this government's extension of the OMERS type 7. There can be no rationale, historical or otherwise, for allowing other groups to have the 80 factor while yet denying the police a comparable reduction to a 75 factor.
The nature of the cuts being contemplated for police services will undoubtedly result in the need for some police employers to reduce staff. Surely this government would prefer that older officers be provided the opportunity to end their careers with the dignity of early retirement as opposed to the layoffs of younger, more able-bodied personnel.
A compelling but unfortunate explanation for this oversight is that it is deliberate. AMO and the PSBs, the police services boards, have long opposed better pensions for police and have long advocated the kinds of arbitrary and unfair restrictions on the interest arbitration process that have found their way into schedule Q.
It has been suggested that this government has listened to those interest groups to the exclusion of the men and women who actually keep this province safe. We do not take this insult lightly. If this government is truly serious about public safety and law-and-order issues, it will cease treating rank-and-file police personnel with indifference. It will listen to their views with an open mind and stop making public policy behind closed doors. If anything positive is to come out of the Bill 26 fiasco, let us hope, at the very least, that in the future the government will show greater respect for the system of responsible government that it is sworn to uphold. Neither we, as police officers and civilian support staff, nor the public we serve will accept anything less.
1750
Mr Paul LaCourse: Good afternoon. My name is Paul LaCourse and I'm the administrator of the Halton Regional Police Association. I am here today to inform you of the concerns of the rank-and-file police officers and civilian employees of the Halton Regional Police Association. We police an area served by four Progressive Conservative MPPs, including committee member Mr Young.
Mr Young, previous funding cuts resulting from the social contract and expenditure control plan have already drastically reduced the level of police services provided in Halton region. We have seen a reduction in the hours police stations are opened for the public. Citizens who are in distress in your community can no longer expect to seek refuge at their local police station, for they can expect to find the doors locked if they arrive after 5 pm.
Clearly, funding restrictions have had a major impact on the ability to hire needed police officers and essential civilian staff such as dispatchers, who are both the police officers' and the public's lifeline.
A 1990 Ministry of the Solicitor General study into staffing levels concluded the Halton Regional Police Service should have 447 police officers. The 1996 budget allows for 307 police officers and our current complement is 297 police officers -- 150 short. The evidence is overwhelming that the Halton Regional Police Service is severely understaffed. In fact, the number of available police officers on any given day or night is lower right now than it was back in the 1980s.
In Halton, crime is not decreasing and violent crime is on the increase at an alarming rate. Our institutions have been liberalized to the extent that we now need police presence in our schools.
Further funding cuts and further reductions in staff will have an increased impact on both police and public safety. If the police can't protect themselves, they can't protect the public. I'm sure this is not the type of community safety you expect for the members of your community and your family. It's certainly not what we expect from this government.
The taxpayers aren't angry with police personnel who deliver a service so vital to this province. They know the job is not getting any easier. Citizens are, though, angry at politicians and bureaucrats who rearrange the furniture without solving the problems.
We understand the fiscal difficulties the province is presently in. However, this government made a promise that policing would be a priority. We urge you to live up to your promises and maintain funding for police services in this province. Bill 26 as it stands is not responsible governance, as it clearly reduces a service which is so vital and necessary.
Mr Stu Campbell: My name is Stu Campbell. I am the administrator of the Peel Regional Police Association. I'm here on behalf of 1,500 front-line police and civilian members of our association. As members of one of the largest municipal organizations in the province, our members have requested that I deliver a strong message to Premier Harris and the Progressive Conservative government. We also have a number of Progressive Conservative MPPs in our community, including Mr Sampson.
Our members, like many others in the police community, believed Mr Runciman when he stood before our membership and campaigned on a law-and-order campaign with protection for police budgets. This occurred not very many months ago, yet now we have learned that the hit on the Peel Regional Police will be in excess of $1 million this year. We do not believe that this reflects protection or the type of guarantees promised on the election trail. We do not believe, Mr Sampson, that this reflects the platform that you presented to the citizens of your community when you were elected.
On a regular and recurring basis, our members face angry residents who want not less but more police on the streets. As the attached newspaper clippings at the back of the booklet demonstrate, the citizens of Peel want no more cuts to the budget. Demands are increasing as the population grows in Peel, and plans to build a new police station for the citizens of Malton were just recently axed due to budget cuts. The citizens of Malton were understandably upset by this announcement.
We in Peel cannot meet the demands for policing our community at present, never mind the additional extraction of $1 million from our budget. The per capita cost for policing in the region of Peel is an efficient $148.32. When this figure is compared to the per capita cost in 1992, there is only a 3.7% increase.
Wake up, Premier Harris. We have been doing more with less for years and our citizens are no longer prepared to wait longer and longer to receive police services. The citizens of Peel in attendance at the community meeting on Tuesday, January 16, numbered over 400. Their message was simple: They want more police on the streets and sufficient staff to deal with their concerns. They want protection for their families, not budget cuts. They want the types of things, Mr Sampson, that your government promised and is now failing to deliver.
These citizens are outraged at the cuts which are being felt at the front-line police personnel level. Rest assured that our members will be clearly informed that they do not have to make excuses to citizens in Peel when they are going from call to call and cannot keep up with the volume of calls for service. They will be counselled that this responsibility rests with you, Mr Sampson, and the Mike Harris government.
As crimes to persons and property increase on a dramatic scale, the very citizens who elected this party into power are realizing they have become sacrificial lambs. The platforms this government promoted are not being adhered to. Bill 26 will castrate police services and have long-range social impact for all citizens of this province and cannot be allowed to proceed.
Just as an add-on, prior to attending this meeting today I generated computer stats of the number of priority 1 calls and priority 2 calls in the region of Peel that police officers could not attend to because they weren't available, they had other calls to attend to. Over 14 days, the first 14 days of this year, we had 142 priority 1 calls that could not be attended to by a police officer; we had 613 priority 2 calls that could not be attended by a police officer.
I'll just give you a quick definition of what we consider a priority 1 call: Immediate mobile dispatch; patrol officer dispatched on receipt of call. The criteria which would indicate the need for immediate dispatch would be situations that actually or potentially produce serious bodily harm, injury or death to any person; a peace officer requires immediate assistance; immediate potential for property damage or injury to another; crimes are in progress, the suspect is present and is likely to repeat the offence or flee to avoid apprehension. Just to reiterate those numbers: In a 14-day span, 142 priority 1 calls with no officers available to attend; 613 priority 2 calls. It's not acceptable. We're not going to accept it. It's 10 calls per day, and if that continues, somebody's going to get hurt, somebody from the public or one of our officers.
1800
Mr Mark McConkey: Good afternoon. My name is Mark McConkey. I'm a director with the Durham Regional Police Association and a 29-year front-line officer. Mr O'Toole is the MPP in our area. The members of the Durham Regional Police Association are greatly concerned with the ramifications of Bill 26, in particular the reduction in transfer payments to the municipalities. If these reductions go ahead, the impact on the police budget could be devastating and would have a severe impact on police services in Durham region.
The only way we can see these reductions not taking effect would be, first of all, if the provincial government holds true to its election promise that, "Funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed." The other alternative might be tax increases which, in these difficult times, we would be reluctant to see.
Prior to the provincial election, our police association held a political forum. We asked point-blank questions to the politicians and their responses were what we based our support on. The Progressive Conservative Party campaigned on a Common Sense Revolution. To directly quote from Mr Harris's blueprint, page 27 of volume 3, New Directions, under the heading of "Police," it categorically states:
"While the support of the public is essential for police to fulfil their duties, the financial and moral support coming from government is equally important. The level of financial support determines the type and extent of services police can offer, while the moral support offered by government is key to determining police morale and effectiveness."
Well, Mr O'Toole, if this reduction in transfer payments is a demonstration of the kind of financial and moral support the Harris government is offering, we feel we have been financially stabbed in the back. Our trust in your government to honour its commitments has been badly misplaced. We ask that Bill 26 be amended to reflect the provincial government's promised commitment to ensure funding for police services.
We in Durham region, like many other municipalities across the province, can tell personal tales of how important the police are in a community. Etched in our memories is the terrible night of October 20, 1994, when two of our officers, along with myself, were gunned down during a bank robbery in Port Perry, Ontario. You just have to look at my face to see a result of that night. I'd also like to note that two civilians were also wounded and two elderly persons were held hostage that night. It is a night we will never, ever forget. I am lucky to be alive, to be here talking to you. I owe my life to the speedy response of my fellow officers and officers from other police services and members of the community who rushed to my side. They were there when I needed them most. I'm one of the lucky ones. There are other officers in the province who have not been so lucky.
I shudder to think what possible cutbacks to our police services could bring to our community. I am thankful that when I needed help, it was there for me. Hopefully, it will still be there in the future for us all.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. There's time left for the witnesses. We'd like to hear them.
Mr Brian Adkin: My name is Brian Adkin and I'm the president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association. We are aware of the tough choices which your government will have to make. We need you to collectively make those decisions that will provide our police forces with increased funding and front-line personnel. There are ways in which you can achieve the savings without cutting police budgets.
This government promised to guarantee funding for police and to reduce the red tape. Why then are we being told that police budgets are going to have to be cut?
Police officers are undoubtedly the most overregulated occupation in the province. Decisions made by police officers in fractions of seconds are investigated, reviewed and dissected over months and years by numerous agencies such as the special investigations unit, the police complaints commissioner, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and the board of inquiry. In addition to these regulatory bodies, police officers are also reviewed on a daily basis by the court systems. Police forces are also required to maintain investigators to perform complaint and internal discipline investigations.
These agencies continue to flourish and costs continue to accrue. Is this really the best use of public funds? While there is a place for the SIU, we have to ask you to examine the funding of these oversight bodies with a microscope. Their responsibilities should be limited to all but the most extreme of cases.
The oversight philosophy emanated from the 1980s, at a time when special-interest groups felt they were required. However, when police budgets are being reduced and attacked, we can no longer afford such a luxury. What was viewed as a simple process has become very complex and time-consuming. The legislation for these agencies must be reviewed and changed. The funds currently allotted for these agencies must be reduced and returned to actual policing.
The citizens of Ontario are not aware of the onerous nature and high costs of police oversight. They do not understand the time and dollars expended by investigators to investigate these often frivolous complaints. Complaints about how officers gave out traffic tickets and how the officer was perceived to look differently at a violator should not be the subject of investigations. Police forces are capable of looking after these types of issues and resolving them at a very practical, economical level. Areas of responsibility between these agencies must, at a minimum, be streamlined to prevent the duplication of tasks which frequently occurs.
It's time to return the basics of police service back to the customers, to the people of Ontario, who need reliable policing and safe communities. They do not want their money spent on thousands of unfounded complaints against police; they want it to be used to protect the public at a time when they need to be protected. This area is the police service boards' responsibility, and we need the government to give this authority to them.
Another glaring example of poor investment is the recently published report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Justice System. This project reportedly cost $5 million. It was two years overdue, and is the result of a study by persons predisposed to the predetermined conclusion. The citizens of Ontario did not get value for their money. The citizens of Ontario are not safer as a result of this report; in fact the report advocates that police be tied up in more red tape, red tape that the Harris government promised to reduce. While this commission on systemic racism may not be a term known to every citizen, such names as Linda Shaw, Paul Bernardo, Todd Baylis and Alison Parrott are.
The police role in society is one which touches all aspects of rural and urban Ontario. When people work, when they travel, when they shop, the police are involved. We are an integral part of the business environment at all times. We are charged with keeping areas safe.
Mr Moor: In conclusion, we are not overreacting to the financial statement and Bill 26. There are many, many more examples we could give, such as Niagara region, where it has been requested that the police budget be reduced by $3.75 million this year, or in Mr Tascona's riding, where the Barrie Police Services has been operating with a police-to-population ratio of 1 to 857, compared to the provincial average of 1 to 620. Members of the Barrie police association are here today, Mr Tascona, and they share our concern that you and the Mike Harris government have not kept your commitments to nor your promises about public safety.
As I said at the start in the opening address, we hope to bring evidence before this committee, and especially the government members, that a crisis is looming in this province, a crisis in policing that is only going to get worse if you continue down this path with Bill 26. We would implore you to make the necessary amendments to Bill 26 to keep your commitments to the people of this province and the police officers who are in this room today and out policing the street while we're sitting here.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. We've effectively exhausted the time, but I will allow a response from each of the caucuses.
1810
Mr Phillips: I can understand the anger. I don't think there is any question, during the election you were given a very solemn undertaking by the government. Frankly, I think a lot of police officers in this province supported the government for that reason. I carry this around with me all the time, which is their document, and it's very clear. It says:
"The people of Ontario are rightly concerned about community safety in our province, particularly the increasing incidence of violent crime. That is why funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed."
There was a very solemn undertaking to your organization of that and, frankly, it's been broken. What happened was -- and there's no doubt of this -- the government went to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and said: "We're going to cut your funding in half, cut your grants in half. What can we do to stop you from complaining too much?" And they said, "Well, let us raise fees, licences, and let us deal with the police organizations by putting the cuffs on the arbitrators." The way this bill is written exists nowhere else in Canada, for arbitrators. It existed once under wage control plans in two provinces and then went out because it didn't work.
So I understand your frustration, and what you end up with is a process that, in my opinion, doesn't represent fair bargaining for our police organizations and, furthermore, in my opinion, allows the arbitrator to make decisions around servicing that will impact on the safety of the public.
I understand your anger tonight and we will do what we can to restore fair bargaining, particularly fair bargaining for your organization, and to ensure that they treat your organizations fairly. Frankly, I wish I could hold out a lot of hope that we'll be successful. I think they've made some commitments to municipalities around your area. You weren't at the bargaining table, somebody else was, and you were bargained away.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation, and thank you particularly for going beyond the presentation that you gave to us last week. What I found the most useful was that you took the presentation -- as important as the one last week was -- one step further by giving us not only a sense of some additional issues that you feel need to be addressed, but also with the broad number of examples that you've used, giving us a fairly good sense of what you see happening across the province, in a way. That's quite useful for us as members of the committee, both government and opposition members, to see.
I think, like Mr Phillips, I would not hold out a lot of hope that some of the basic issues that you are raising are going to be addressed, but hope springs eternal, as they say, and I think we need to keep looking at this. I don't know if in the amendments Mr Sampson presented to us tonight some of these issues are addressed.
I see also in your amendments that you are, in effect, also attempting to tone down, or to accommodate, it seems to me, what the government may be interested in doing. If time allowed, I'd be interested in pursuing a little bit more the suggested amendment that you're making to the arbitration positions because it seems to me that, even with that amendment, it would still pose some dangers for the members of your association. But, as I say, perhaps outside of this committee we can pursue that point.
Mr Tascona: I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I've had a chance to go over the amendments. I have some familiarity with police service labour relations and I certainly say this, with the OMERS type 7, that's something that certainly should be looked at. I thank you for bringing that forth.
With respect to the other areas of your amendments, certainly I recognize what would appear to be the primary concern, and you're trying to make that point, is in terms of the funding. I'd like to say, though, that schedule M and Bill 26 doesn't change the appeal process. We certainly haven't given municipalities power to take over a police services board. We haven't given them power to make any appointments.
But I recognize your concern in terms of the way you've drafted the amendments, in terms of the concern, and I know from my own riding of some statements that have been made, which I don't share, by certain elected officials, but that's something that will have to be shored up and it will be shored up.
With schedule Q, I appreciate your comments. They are right on point. I don't share the scaremongering of my friends in terms of what schedule Q means. You've made responsible recommendations. I know where your concerns are and I can tell you that the government will look at those. Certainly we have looked at them from what you presented the previous week and I thank you for your presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee. We appreciate your time.
WHITBY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Whitby Chamber of Commerce come forward.
Interjections.
The Chair: Committee members, we're not in a recess. Perhaps we could get moving -- order, please -- so we can hear the next deputants.
Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have one half-hour this evening 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 or responses from the three caucuses. I would appreciate it if for the benefit of Hansard and committee members you'd read your names and organization into the record at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Allan Faux: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Allan Faux and I'm president of the Whitby Chamber of Commerce. The Whitby Chamber of Commerce is pleased to present the submission to this committee on general government for its consideration. I'm here tonight with two members of the chamber. Deb Sweetman is chairman of the government relations committee and our resident expert on matters of a legal nature, and we'll discuss the issues outlined in Bill 26 on municipal government. Marc Kealey is also a member of our government relations committee and is extremely knowledgeable on government relations and is the chamber's resident specialist in health care. He will comment on some of those schedules included in the bill.
To give you an overview, the Whitby Chamber of Commerce, with over 500 members representing well over 1,500 employees, is very active in government relations and has endeavoured over the past years to be an active participant in the process afforded us by our government to express our views, regardless of perception and without prejudice, for the benefit of our membership.
We'd like to point out that in 1995 Ontarians overwhelmingly voted for change, a change where the will for restructuring is larger today than it ever has been. The people of this province have given the government a mandate to pursue this change, and the promise we have been given is that government will get out of the business of competing with the private sector. The pith and substance of Bill 26 captures that promise, and we would like to offer some comments for the committee's consideration.
Obviously, the purpose of Bill 26 is to embrace a new culture of fiscal conservatism while promoting an environment of economic stability through a restructuring and a streamlining of what in reality government should provide to the people of this province.
1820
Obviously, at first blush, this is very ambitious and we recognize that it's a radical step to which all Ontarians must adjust, and some may point out that it may seem unattainable. In our view, and as an organization committed to business development, growth and prosperity, we feel that the tenets of Bill 26 are not unattainable. However, we have some concerns, some serious and some minor.
First of all, we'd like to comment on schedules A through D. The Whitby Chamber of Commerce endorses the amendments to those acts and further wishes to add that under schedule A, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, every attempt be made to explain clearly and publicly the role or roles of those employees who command salaries of over $100,000.
With respect to schedule E, amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act of 1993, wherein the government wishes to introduce an electronic toll system on highways designated as toll highways: The Whitby Chamber of Commerce has a concern that the government has not made a clear definition of what will or are deemed toll highways. In fact, our belief is that the government may arbitrarily designate highways as toll roads under the amendments of subsection 1(1) of the Capital Investment Plan Act. We're concerned too that disputes will arise and that a hearing will no longer be a right of an alleged violator of an unpaid toll. While we agree that the system is currently overcrowded as is, we maintain that electronic systems are always subject to error and removing the right to a hearing may provoke further aggravation for the government.
Further, it is our view that the tolls proposed should be designated to new highways only and surpluses from those toll roads should be put into a fund for the specific purpose of road maintenance and not general revenues. We want accountability.
Durham region is one of the fastest growing regions in this province and we have a terrible problem with major traffic routes to the west. The new Highway 407 is a classic example of a toll road designated highway and the 401 should not be targeted for designation.
Mr Marc Kealey: The Whitby Chamber of Commerce also believes that health care in the province of Ontario has reached a stage when affordability must come with a price. The amendments to the various acts in this schedule are aggressive and describe changes that are inevitable. However, the Whitby Chamber of Commerce has some concerns with the following:
Amendments to the Independent Health Facilities Act: It's our chamber's belief -- and we more or less question the motivation behind this amendment. It is our view that disclosure of patient information of any kind, except to the usual sources within the patient's right under the Canada Health Act, is an invasion of privacy. Further, if the intent is to reduce fraudulent claims to OHIP, perhaps the Ministry of Health could move quickly to out-source the OHIP system and/or provide a onetime capital investment to install the information systems to transport patient information across the system in a secured environment. We suggest that the government move immediately to redeveloping a smart card as a replacement for the current system, which we all know is fraught with fraud.
We'd also like to comment on the amendments to the Health Insurance Act. It is our belief at the Whitby chamber that medical services should be standard across the board. To vary the level of fees paid on the same medical service but in different locations is neither equitable nor realistic. We recognize that additional costs may be incurred at some locations as a result of transportation needs or lack of service, availability etc, but these costs are considered over and above the service being provided and we suggest that an alternative fund be available through other sources to remedy this issue.
At the same time, we find it very interesting that Bill 26 moves quickly to pass costs on to school boards and municipalities, suggesting that, for all intents and purposes, user fees could be established to pay for certain services, like the collection of garbage. It's curious that the sweeping changes being sought under this bill would not include a revenue generator for simple non-threatening health care services that may otherwise have been an extra burden on the system. From our perspective, it would appear that hospitals, for example, might applaud the opportunity to generate this kind of revenue.
Further, in the proposal it is suggested that a limit be placed on the number of physicians in any given area. The decision to proceed with this amendment should be done so in consultation with factors like growth, anticipated growth and community input, and not by the Minister of Health alone.
Also, it is our view that incentives are required to attract physicians to remote and rural areas, not in a manner we consider negative such as we perceive through this amendment. It is our hope that the committee considers amending this portion of the schedule to achieve relocation incentives through means consistent with the promotion of economic prosperity, perhaps tax incentives and guaranteed income amounts.
The chamber of commerce in Whitby believes that steps should be taken to ensure that Ontario remain an attractive place for new physicians to practice and those currently in practice. Perhaps one way to provide this may be to reduce the number of medical schools across the province. At this particular point, Ontario hospitals, for example, are under intense pressure to either merge or close, and it is our suggestion that perhaps this could happen with some of the medical schools in the province currently in existence.
I wish to comment on the establishment of a Health Services Restructuring Commission and that at the outset we think this is a very noble attempt. We believe and endorse that regionalization and restructuring must occur to attain the precepts of the government's agenda, which is efficiency and economic prosperity.
Further, we believe it is fundamentally impossible for local governance, for example, to think regionally and act locally. To put this degree of pressure on any individual in a volunteer capacity as a hospital board member is tantamount to public flogging. It has been proven across the country that restructuring hurts and reactions, even if hostile, may be negative. This process has and will have serious effects on those who are in a voluntary governance position, like a hospital board. It is therefore agreed upon at the Whitby Chamber of Commerce that the commission functions be to move in and create the change where the likelihood of change could not occur if there is a negative reaction.
It is our view that the establishment of the Health Services Restructuring Commission have a sunset clause attached to it, and we're pleased that we're getting some information back from our sources that that may be looked at from a four-year perspective, so we're quite happy about that.
We believe that a predetermined time frame be attached to the commission and that the sunset clause close down the function of said commission in a reasonable passage of time.
Ms Debbie Sweetman: The Whitby Chamber of Commerce has demonstrated leadership in its understanding and participation in the restructuring of regional and municipal government. From the outset of the establishment of a GTA ministry, an advisory body to the former government, the Whitby Chamber of Commerce was at the table suggesting that disentanglement was the order of the day. We also encouraged the provincial government to accept that, in terms of local airport authorities, a seat from Durham region should be appointed. It was our contention that Pearson airport serves the entire province and is not the domain of Mississauga.
Under Bill 26, the government has asked for sweeping powers to amend the way regions are governed. This chamber of commerce heartily endorses the development of a GTA council. We concur that there is a need for avoidance of duplication of service and the creation of greater efficiency, but not at the expense of taxpayers in high-growth areas. There's a terrific amount of room for improvement in the delivery of services. We at the Whitby chamber believe that the market value assessment program implied in the Golden report would severely hamper the efforts of regions like Durham to attract industrial investment. The taxes that would be charged under a GTA MVA system would be prohibitive.
We agree that leadership must be taken. Perhaps the first step would be to disband Metro council altogether. Its antiquated jurisdiction provides no catalyst in high-growth areas like the outlying regions of Durham, Halton, Peel and York. In fact, we contend that a GTA government would likely be comprised of representatives from each of the regions in the GTA and that services such as road and sewer maintenance, snow removal etc, currently provided ineffectively by individual communities, should be contracted out.
We also propose that if a GTA body is established, greater emphasis must be placed in infrastructure in high-growth areas like Durham.
1830
Mr Faux: A brief comment on schedule Q: The Whitby Chamber of Commerce believes that arbitration at all costs is one of the reasons we have become as inefficient a province as we currently are. It is our belief that arbitrators in the past appear to have been the most unenlightened when adjudicating a decision. We wholeheartedly endorse the decision of the government to include the employer's ability to pay in the criteria allowance for arbitration.
We do thank you for the opportunity to address our concerns and offer our views on this important piece of legislation. We will continue to monitor the situation at Queen's Park for the benefit of our membership and we encourage this government to continue seeking public input during the change in environment which is currently going on, not only here but globally as well.
It is our hope that Ontario will once again regain the prominence as Canada's engine, and that spells prosperity through efficiency as we head towards the 21st century.
The Chair: Thank you. We have just over four minutes per caucus for questions, starting with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you for the presentation. I can't help but note that of the three sections you support without changes, because I think, as I've looked at it, there are only three sections in here that you support without any changes, one is what we would call a routine bill which allows the government to borrow money to continue running its business, certainly non-controversial. The other two are budget measures that were presented by the previous NDP government. I just wanted to note that for the record.
Although you support generally what the government is doing, you do have a number of concerns, clearly, that you outline in your presentation. I think that's important for us to note as well, because it's been typical also of the kinds of presentations we've had from other chambers of commerce or boards of trade, as I'm sure you know. What people have been saying to us, even as they support clearly the government's action, as you do, it seems to me generally is that there really are pieces here that warrant some tidying up and in some cases some basic changes.
You are obviously concerned, because you say you are, but can you talk a little bit more about your concern around user fees? I'm sure you know about the changes that the government has proposed on municipal taxing powers. Those will be limited now by the amendments, which we're happy to see, but it still will be possible for municipalities to charge any number of fees. Some groups I think, including some chambers, it's fair to say, have said, "Call these things what you will, they're all taxes, and anything that increases the tax burden locally is not going to be of any help." Can you just talk a little bit more about your chamber's position on the broad powers that we see in this bill with respect to user fees, and I don't think that you touched on this, but licensing fees as well, because that's also something that's in this bill.
Mr Kealey: I think I'd like to take a stab at your question, Mr Silipo. I understand your implication. It's no longer a given that any chamber of commerce would come in front of a government committee like this and be automatically labelled either a conservative or a right-wing lobby group, so I appreciate your comments.
Secondly, in terms of a user fee, our chamber believes and our membership believes that there ought to be more private-public joint ventures. In terms of the burdens against the taxpayers, you're right. The threshold is, like, this big. We don't have room for any more taxes, and I agree with your comments.
By the same token, in terms of user fees for municipalities, I suppose that one thing we would wholeheartedly endorse ourselves is that municipal governments also take the responsibility of entertaining more private-public joint ventures. Water and waste water, sewers, would be perfect examples. Those are classic examples of areas where we could save a tremendous amount of money for the public sector. We applaud this government for saying that they have to get out of the business of competing against the private sector, and I think in a lot of ways it's a tenet of not only this chamber but many chambers that the private sector ought to have a role in a lot of functions currently being done by the government.
Mr Silipo: Do you automatically assume that by privatizing some of these services -- you mentioned water service -- they would be cheaper? I'm not trying to controversial.
Mr Kealey: I do, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Okay. Then I hope you take a look at some of the things that some of the utilities have been saying to us. We've had example after example given to us of experience in the United States, let alone in Great Britain, where services like water services, I believe, and hydro services have been privatized and they end up costing people more.
Mr Kealey: If I may, I think your comments are well taken. I have a little experience in this, not only here but internationally. The tendency in a lot of areas, when they're creating water pumping stations, is to build Taj Mahals so that somebody's name can be on a plaque and they can have this marvellous ribbon-cutting ceremony. They're plants, for all intents and purposes, and the private sector is very conversant in how to save dollars. I think it's an important tenet that we uphold as a chamber.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you very much for your presentation. I just wanted to draw your attention to the designation of toll roads. Your view is that there should be no extension beyond new highways, and what you're saying is that the 401 would not, in your view, be the proper route to go as a toll road, right? I think if you refer back, there are already existing statutes that prevent that from happening.
Mr Kealey: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: So you're satisfied.
Mr Kealey: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: I know this isn't the health component, but you did make a number of references and I take note that you said that there's perhaps fraud in the system. You referred to the smart card. Do you think the requirement for there to be a proper system of audit in the health care system, both of doctors' billings and other practices, is an appropriate step by this bill?
Mr Kealey: Do I think it's an appropriate step?
Mr O'Toole: Yes.
Mr Kealey: Yes. Any measure that's going to reduce fraud is appropriate.
Mr O'Toole: You're very familiar, I know, Marc, with the district health council's report on the importance of restructuring health care to find the dollars to address, as has been mentioned, as you all mentioned, the high growth of Durham region, and I support that wholeheartedly.
As far as the comment on the GTA is concerned, that report has just been received. How do you see that? I'll ask you the question. It's maybe not in the scope of this committee, but for the record, do you see the Durham region as part of the GTA or not?
Mr Kealey: If I were to speak on behalf of the chamber, I would probably get my head pounded in, but speaking on behalf of myself, I can tell you that the GTA does include Durham region.
Mr O'Toole: All of Durham region?
Mr Kealey: All of Durham region.
Mr O'Toole: Very good. Thank you.
Mr Tascona: I just want to deal with schedule A, which I believe is at pages 2 and 3. I'm not really clear. I understand you endorse the schedule A approach with respect to salary disclosure in the public sector, but I'm not really sure what you mean by "...that every attempt be made to explain clearly and publicly the role(s) of those employers' records (employees) who command salaries of over $100,000." Could you just clarify that for me, please.
Mr Faux: Sure. The intent there is that there be supplementary information with respect to roles and responsibilities and not just a laundry list of employees earning over $100,000. To manage a board of education or to be the chief administrator at a large municipality, obviously there are a number of roles and responsibilities, and I think there should be some attempt to delineate what those roles and responsibilities are. All too often you can take a look at a salary and say, "Well, if it's over $100,000, it's grossly inflated and should not be allowed."
Mr Tascona: If you do that, would you do it by saying this is the job title?
Mr Faux: I think you'd need to go farther than job title, because job titles are really a dime a dozen. It goes farther than that, so some more disclosure, as opposed to just a one-line disclosure.
Mr Tascona: Disclosure with respect to the role within the organization.
Mr Faux: Yes.
Mr Tascona: With respect to schedule Q, you made some comments with respect to the process. Are you in favour of the criteria as they are or do you believe they should be strengthened?
Mr Faux: The criterion with respect to just the ability to pay?
The Chair: Mr Tascona, we've come to the end of the government caucus time. I apologize for interrupting.
1840
Mr Phillips: The area I'd like some comment from the chamber on is the licensing area, which I think you didn't comment on in your brief, but it probably is the area that has the potential for the biggest impact on your members.
The way that at least the Kingston council has read the bill it would permit, for example, in establishing a licence, that they could charge a cent a litre for gasoline -- on the licence; this isn't on the fees -- or $1 per night per occupied room, or $1 per litre for alcoholic beverages, and that the way they would ensure that was collected, their interpretation is that as long as you comply with that -- maybe your licence fee's $1 a year; if you don't comply, it's $10,000 a year.
The government's proposed an amendment in it, but as I read the bill, it outlines virtually unlimited powers in setting licences, and it goes on to say, "If there is a conflict between a provision in this part and a provision of any other section of this act or any other act, the section that is less restrictive of a local municipality's power prevails." I know that's all kind of legal jargon, but my interpretation of that is -- and let's recognize that municipalities have their backs to the wall right now -- that at least it gives councils the flexibility to do what the city of Kingston thinks.
I realize that you probably have a really good relationship with your local council, but we're passing a law for the whole province here. Is that the chamber's interpretation of what would be permitted under this in the area of licences, and aren't we simply giving the right to impose almost unlimited taxation for municipalities, if that's the correct interpretation of the licences?
Mr Kealey: Mr Phillips, I appreciate your comments. As a chamber, with the offloading of some services on to municipalities -- and we listened to Ernie Eves make his comments in the Legislature when he read his economic statement -- we were fearful, and we said it right on the evening when the economic statement was read, that there may be -- how do I say this? -- an ability or an opportunity for municipalities to raise money or raise revenues through this kind of a licensing fee in lieu of being funded properly.
My message, and I think that the chamber is in agreement, and so are all the chambers in Durham region, is that we're a high-growth area. We're a high-growth area that ought to be funded differently than we are currently.
Mr Phillips: If I might, there are two issues here. One is, does it permit that? The second thing is, should it permit it? Frankly, you'll get an awful lot of legal interpretations around the province, because this is a flawed process we're going through; we're kind of just guessing: What do you think? What do I think? But many people would say it does that.
So essentially, it may include almost unlimited flexibility of taxation, under licences, for municipalities. The ability to set your own licence is almost unlimited, and wherever there's any other act that imposes, this act overrides it. If that is permitted, do I interpret the chamber's view as, "That's fine; it should permit that," and you're not worried about it?
Mr Faux: The chamber's view across the province is the same as Kingston's.
Mr Phillips: I was curious about your concern on more private sector. I was interested, the day the fiscal statement came out, that the Deputy Minister of Health, when asked, "How will hospitals make this up?" I think said, "Well, they've got laundries and they can do laundry for local hotels and they could even perhaps start to cater service club meals." It was strange to me, the sort of, "Rotary meets every second Tuesday at the Scarborough General Hospital." Does the chamber have any concerns at all, as public organizations cut back on their funding, that they will look to alternative sources of revenue that attack the private sector? Those will be two examples where the deputy said, "Why don't you do that?"
Mr Kealey: I wear several hats, and in one of my hats I'm a vice-president of a hospital. I think it's very interesting that Margaret Mottershead says we should also become laundromat services. Notwithstanding that, I think it's very important that people understand that hospitals are severely limited as to how much revenue they can generate. Those are things we've been looking at for a long, long time. We applaud the efforts of the government to suggest that we can generate revenue.
The Chair: We've come to the end of your half-hour. I want to thank all of you for coming forward today to make your presentation to the committee.
PETERBOROUGH CHILD CARE FORUM
The Chair: May I please have a representative from the Peterborough Child Care Forum come forward.
The Vice-Chair: I welcome you to the proceedings. Just identify yourself to the committee and for Hansard, please.
Ms Sheila Olan-MacLean: I'm Sheila Olan-MacLean, president of the Peterborough Child Care Forum. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak this evening.
Many sections of Bill 26 will have serious implications to the types and amount of services for Ontario children and their families. This evening our presentation will focus on the impact of this legislation on early education and child care programs in Peterborough city and county. We do not purport to have identified all of the implications of this vast and sweeping legislation, but hope to draw attention to the many key points that demonstrate how this legislation will dismantle supports for young children and their families in Peterborough.
Since the July 21, 1995, economic statement, this government has taken a number of steps to distance itself from the responsibility for the education and care of young children. These steps have included cancellation of the early education pilot project; review of junior kindergarten; cancellation of the Jobs Ontario Training program; reduction of the Jobs Ontario child care subsidies from 100% to 80%, conditional on the 20% being picked up by the municipality; cancellation of startup funding for child care and child care subsidies to child care centres already constructed in new schools; cancellation of planned child care centres in new schools; a 5% cut to parent-child resource centres; elimination of the child care program development fund; cuts to programs which support the integration of children with special needs in child care programs; elimination of pay equity; elimination of child care support and planning organizations; cuts to social service agencies, school boards and post-secondary institutions. Those are to name a few.
I'd like to address the cuts to municipalities and their impact on the child care system. Bill 26 contains a 47% cut to municipalities over two years. The city of Peterborough has been levied an additional $1 million in cuts due to its urban characteristic. Child care is a discretionary service. The 20% municipal contribution to child care subsidy is key to accessing the 80% provincial share. You figure it out. This government cannot sit back and pretend that these cuts will not have serious, if not devastating, implications on our child care system.
High rates of unemployment and high use of both general welfare and family benefits in the city of Peterborough made it eligible for special relief rates prior to July. In July, those rates were eliminated, along with the full funding for the designated Jobs Ontario spaces. Although the government promised assistance to the municipality to continue the child care spaces, the follow-through came too late. Intake was cut off and we now have over 200 families waiting for child care subsidies. In addition, over 100 families have left the system with no hope of re-entering.
In the Peterborough area, approximately 50% of families accessing Jobs Ontario child care subsidies had in fact found jobs. They had beaten the cycle of unemployment. They were off the system and making their own way. The next chapter of their life story depends on getting and keeping quality child care while they work. Only those who can afford full day care fees will have this luxury if this government does not act quickly to ensure that child care subsidies are not lost.
Another impact of the cut to subsidies in this area is the vacancy rate in our child care program, now at 20%. This has resulted in the layoff of 20% of the staff, wage cuts and the potential closing of many of our centres, and still this government claims it's not cutting child care funding.
1850
Next I'd like to address the elimination of proxy pay equity. On average, proxy pay equity has paid out $1,200 per staff in non-profit child care programs. This funding was first capped in July 1995. It is eliminated in Bill 26. The elimination of proxy pay equity has far-reaching implications for the 99% of child care staff who are women. In a 1994 Peterborough county-city child care survey that was done, the average wage of a fully qualified early childhood education staff was $12.50 per hour. The wage subsidy grant accounts for $4 per hour of this wage. It is the existence of the pay equity and proxy pay equity legislation that has supported the continuation of this funding.
Funding for junior kindergarten: This has been funded 100% by the province. These programs have been in existence here in Peterborough since the early 1980s. They are the only universally acceptable early education opportunities for our children. The benefits of early learning have been researched and documented extensively in North America. Head start programs have shown that all young children, but especially those from at-risk environments and with disabilities, make gains in the early years which cannot be surpassed with expensive remedial programs in their later years.
It is widely acknowledged that the children of today will require extraordinary job skills and knowledge for employment in the future economy. A solid foundation in education is imperative to ensure that all of our children get every opportunity for success and becoming a contributing member of our community. This is not the place to cut.
When we look forward to the future of child care, we understand that Ms Janet Ecker has been charged with the review of child care and making recommendations to cabinet.
Quality child care options are necessary for families with parents who are working or who are in educational programs. Quality child care, however, is also necessary for families to support the development and wellbeing of the children within that family. We can make a choice not to support, but we do so at great risk to our future. The children we abandon today will be the children caring for us in our senior years. The compassion and caring that we demonstrate will come back to us. Do we teach children to care by not caring? No. This is not the place for cuts. We cannot afford cuts to the child care support system.
We do concur with this government that a range of affordable and quality choices for families is required and that there are ways to simplify the existing system. Locally, the Peterborough Child Care Forum, whose funding was eliminated by the cuts to the program development funding, has begun to meet with the local chamber of commerce, the municipality and independent and non-profit child care providers to explore new models and new ways of meeting the child care needs in this community. Within a short period, we will have a comprehensive community plan to address the barriers which exist in our present system. It is imperative that this government allow for this type of planning. It is also imperative that the existing system provide stability during any transition.
"It takes a whole village to raise a child." This proverb fits with the direction of this government, or the direction that it says it has, and it fits with the direction of the Peterborough Child Care Forum. However, the legislation, policies and actions of this government threaten the ability of this village to care for its children. Stop the cuts that are affecting child care. Tomorrow will be too late.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation. At this time the three caucuses have an opportunity to discuss your presentation. We'll start off with the government, and we have seven minutes per party.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you for your presentation. I don't think there's a person on either side of this table who wants to not try to protect children as best we can, but when I look at your introduction and I look at some 12 programs that are dealing in that, do you not think there's a fair bit of duplication in child care? If I look at this type of thing, I think what it says is that we've got to try doing better than what we have done in the past because we can't afford to do -- I look at some of these, the cancellation of Jobs Ontario Training: The provincial auditor had said that it didn't work and it was too costly. That just happens to be one. We haven't eliminated pay equity; we've capped it.
I guess I go back to my first question: Do you feel that there is not some duplication when I look at some eight or 10 programs that you said we have cut?
Ms Olan-MacLean: I think when we look at that there's over 200 families in Peterborough waiting for child care subsidy and that aren't able to access our child care system, I don't see that there's any duplication there. Certainly, in child care we don't have the kind of duplication. We don't have the luxury of duplication, as you say, that a lot of areas have. We have very slim administration. No, I can't agree with you.
Mr Stewart: Well, it just seems to me that there are a lot of programs, as I look through them, that must be doing the same thing.
Getting back to the 200 families that are waiting, I understand in many areas in this province there's no capping of the amount of dollars you can make to get a subsidy. Recently I had access to a family that's making $62,500 and they're getting an 80% subsidy. Do you believe that that is what should happen, or should we not be looking at making sure that the folks with low incomes are getting the subsidies that they require?
Ms Olan-MacLean: I think we can talk about individual cases where there may be, for whatever reason, circumstances that make it that someone making $62,000 a year -- I know in the city of Peterborough that would not happen because they do have a much lower threshold on their income.
Mr Stewart: No, that is happening in Peterborough.
Ms Olan-MacLean: In the city of Peterborough?
Mr Stewart: Yes. I guess my concern is --
Ms Olan-MacLean: I know that it can't possibly happen because they have income thresholds.
Mr Stewart: Well, it is, but I'm not about to argue about it. I guess my concern is, there are a lot of people out there that need day care and can't get it because we are subsidizing higher-bracket people, and it's my understanding, in my mind, that the low-income working poor should be the ones to get these spaces and they're not.
Ms Olan-MacLean: It's my understanding that under the Canada assistance plan, I believe that the threshold, the highest amount that you can make is $60,000 per year before you're cut off subsidy. At that point, it's a -- I'm not sure how you call it -- but anyway, if you're making $30,000 you may get 80% of your subsidy paid, but by the time you get up to $60,000 you're getting zero. So I don't understand how that person could possibly meet the criteria for funding.
Again, I have to say that even if that were happening it would be an anomaly. I think if we keep chasing the anomalies and chasing the individuals who may squeak through the system or, for whatever reason, find a way of getting around the system, we're going to spend all our time doing that and there's going to be a lot of those people in the middle that are going to lose out because they're the ones who need the system and they're not going to be able to access it.
I agree, there are lots of people who can't access it and we need to find better ways of getting them access to the system and we also need to deal with those anomalies, but let's not spend all of our time on it.
Mr Stewart: I think that's the idea.
Mr Young: I just wanted to comment. Thank you very much for an excellent presentation, especially your comments that a range of affordable and quality choices is required, and partnering with the chamber of commerce and the municipality to explore new models. I will personally pass your presentation on to Janet Ecker. I think I'm going to see her tomorrow. So we will follow up with that.
Ms Olan-MacLean: Thank you very much.
Mr Sampson: What's the time?
The Vice-Chair: We have a little less than two minutes.
Mr Sampson: I was going to ask whether you'd give us a glimpse of what the Peterborough Child Care Forum has been able to come to grips with so that we could add that to the documentation that we can present to Ms Ecker.
Ms Olan-MacLean: I'm sorry, what was the first part of the --
Mr Sampson: If you could give us a glimpse of -- you said that the Peterborough Child Care Forum has worked with the chamber of commerce and other parties on coming to grips with this issue.
Ms Olan-MacLean: Yes, and actually those meetings have just begun. One of the things that we do recognize is that independent caregivers have not had access also to the support to child care of other licensed child care programs. We want to make sure that in Peterborough city and county all children have access to quality child care. We want a partnership with all of the different people who would have an interest in that. That includes parents who use different kinds of child care as well as different kinds of child care providers, both independent and non-profit, as well as municipalities, chamber of commerce, because we believe it's for the betterment of our community as a whole.
1900
Mr Phillips: I want to pursue a little bit of Mr Stewart's comment, because he's made it at least twice, if not three times, about this is why we've got to get at the child care thing, because there's this abuse going on, I gather.
Mr Stewart: I didn't use the word "abuse."
Mr Phillips: You've indicated the reason why you've got to get after this thing --
Mr Stewart: I didn't use the word "abuse," Mr Chairman, on a point of privilege.
Mr Phillips: What were you implying, then, when you said that there are all these people making --
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: No. You were implying all these people making $60,000.
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: Well, you said it in at least three communities when child care people have been before us, dragging out this case that you've got, and I gather you've got many of them -- but I just ask the people who know. Could you help us a little bit on how that could be -- I know you've just partially explained it -- that someone making $60,000, that Mr Stewart's very much aware of, could be getting an 80% subsidy for their child care?
Ms Olan-MacLean: Again, I can't explain how that would ever happen. I think the other thing we have to take into consideration is that a family who makes $60,000 a year, one third of that comes off in taxes. The second thing is that if they were to have three children, their child care costs would be over $20,000. The third point that I'd like to make about that is that according to the subsidy system, and I've been in the child care field in Peterborough for over 20 years -- I hope I know a little bit about it, but I'm not saying that I know everything. I cannot understand how a family with that kind of income would -- although if you look at the economics of it, I'm sure that they could certainly use the funding.
Mr Phillips: This is one of our challenges, I think, that the government essentially is saying to people on social assistance, "Get out and get a job." One of our challenges is, frankly, when you look at the government's fiscal statement that they have put out -- I've got it around here somewhere -- it's saying there are going to be more people out of work in the province of Ontario in 1996 than there were in 1995. That's what they're saying. Then they say in 1997 there are going to be more people out of work than there were in 1996. So two and a half years into this revolution, we're going to have more people out of work in Ontario, according to them -- these are their own figures -- and yet they want people on social assistance, as we all do, to find a job.
I'm wondering if you can be a little helpful to us and some of the people you work with. As they try and find a job, and many jobs right now do not pay a lot of money, obviously, how does perhaps a single mother who finds a job at something slightly above minimum wage also accommodate looking after her children?
Ms Olan-MacLean: Unfortunately, the state of affairs right now is that there isn't the child care available. There are very few options for parents. I have to think of the horror stories that I've heard since September about young mothers coming into the subsidy office and being told, "I'm sorry, there's no child care subsidy." These young mothers are going back to school. They've got jobs that they need to go to. There is no child care. There are many, many cases where they have had to quit their jobs, quit school, in order to look after their children, and that is an unfortunate state.
Mr Phillips: One thing that's disturbed me -- and I hope it's in your area and I apologize if it isn't. But the government launched a big campaign to go after welfare fraud and the minister sent out a letter saying to people: "Take this notice and post it on public buildings in your area" -- those were the words that he used -- "to help stop welfare fraud." A toll-free number's been set up to take calls about suspected welfare fraud, if you suspect somebody.
The Provincial Auditor told us that tax fraud was a problem that was at least 10 times bigger than this particular problem. Our point was if tax fraud -- which is, by anyone's account, every bit as serious as welfare fraud -- is 10 times bigger, why aren't they sending letters out to the business community to post similar posters around Peterborough and a hotline to go after tax fraud? I don't mean to bait them, but part of their fiscal problem is tax fraud, and there's an all-out attack on welfare fraud and all-out silence on tax fraud.
Have you any experience with this program and can you give us any indication of what's happened here in Peterborough with the posting of these bulletins?
Ms Olan-MacLean: No, I'm sorry, I don't. I don't know.
Mr Phillips: It's beyond your area. I appreciate that.
Ms Olan-MacLean: No, but I do think that it's indicative of the type of leadership in this province. You can spend all of your time polarizing people, putting people on one side or the other, or you can try to bring people together to have a better province.
Mr Phillips: Do I have any more time, Mr Chair?
The Vice-Chair: I think you're almost out, but continue.
Mr Phillips: Just very quickly, you did mention fees and we heard the minister, Al Leach say that he knows there are going to be fees put on libraries and --
The Vice-Chair: We're out of time, Mr Phillips. Mr Silipo.
Mr Phillips: Sorry.
The Vice-Chair: You don't want to eat into Mr Silipo's time.
Mr Silipo: Mr Phillips wouldn't want to do that. If I knew the rest of the sentence, Gerry, I'd continue it.
Thank you for the presentation and thank you particularly for pointing out to us and reminding us about the effects of the government's actions on children. I think as I look at the first page particularly of your presentation where you list all of the cuts and all of the steps that the government has taken, it's just staggering, and each one of those lines is something that we ought to be spending a great deal of time discussing and going into because each one of them significantly reduces our ability to take care of and to educate well our young people. I guess because of the time, I just want to focus in on a couple of things.
The Jobs Ontario subsidies is one of the areas that you mention. I certainly recall as the minister responsible for the child care system for a couple of years in the province when in 1993 we expanded the Jobs Ontario subsidies criteria to take into account people who were involved in some kind of a training program of their own as opposed to just those who were in the government-sponsored training program. We managed as a result of that to respond to the needs of some 8,000 people in the province in a space of about six months. That was the number of subsidies that we added in about a six-month period, which I don't think has ever been done before or certainly since in anybody's memory, and I think that was a clear indication of the need that was there.
I was particularly interested in your statistics here in the Peterborough area in so far as 50% of the families who were using those subsidies had in fact found jobs. Mike Harris has talked a lot about giving people a hand up. That's exactly what Jobs Ontario Training and Jobs Ontario Training child care was doing. It was providing people on welfare, people on unemployment insurance, people who were unemployed and people who were working but getting very little in the way of money an ability to get themselves off welfare, become more independent by providing, in the case of young mothers particularly, child care subsidies. The elimination of that means, it seems to me, that that's going be harder for people to do. That's what I think you're saying you're finding here in Peterborough.
1910
Ms Olan-MacLean: It's actually not only harder, but it's impossible at this point in the city of Peterborough.
Mr Silipo: I find it really flabbergasting that when the government members talk about some of the problems -- and we know there are problems -- in the child care system, here, like in many other areas, they've taken the sledgehammer approach, "Let's just take out the support we're providing to women and families to be able to take of their young children," because there may be some problems such as the ones Mr Stewart talked about.
It's typical and it's also frightening to hear Mr Stewart and others say things like, "This bill does not eliminate pay equity," because it tells me that even at this late stage in the process, government members don't know what this bill contains. This bill takes away the pay equity rights of some 100,000 women. Women who work in child care will no longer be getting pay equity protection once this bill is passed. Women who work in nursing homes, women who work for children's aid societies, will no longer be covered by pay equity. That's what removing the proxy pay equity does.
I don't know how we can make these folks understand that, but that's what this does. You would expect them to at least have the decency to say, "Yes, we understand that's what it does and here are the reasons we're doing it," but we haven't heard that. They didn't even have the decency to have the Minister of Labour, the minister responsible for that legislation, ever come before the committee. We've asked for her to appear next week -- I'd be interested to see if she does -- to explain to us why they are doing this. The only explanation we've had is, "We need to return pay equity to what it was originally intended to be."
I always thought the point of pay equity was to ensure that women were paid comparable to what men are paid for jobs of comparable value. That's the whole point. The reason we brought in proxy pay equity -- and I know something about it because I was responsible for pulling the previous government's efforts together on that -- is because we knew that the previous legislation had left out many women who work in predominantly female-dominated sectors, where you couldn't find immediately a comparator in the same workforce, so you had to go outside to a similar and still public employer to be able to make that comparator.
One of the things that strikes me in your presentation, because we've heard it from a couple of other places when people have talked to us about child care, is that as it applies to the child care sector, there is a double worry. There's not only that elimination of pay equity, which in and of itself is a problem, but that also begins to pose a danger to the wage enhancements for child care workers, who, we need to remind government members, are among the lowest-paid women working in the public sector anywhere in Ontario.
Ms Olan-MacLean: I'd like to add that the 3% towards the pay equity wage does very little. Even with pay equity legislation in place, it was going to be 2030 before many of the child care providers in this area were going to achieve pay equity rights.
Mr Silipo: Another thing that is striking as we look at the government's actions on all these fronts is that while they claim that all these actions need to be taken to bring the deficit down, we are seeing that the biggest cuts are going not towards reducing the deficit but are going towards providing the 30% tax cut. When you look, for example, at the people who are being served -- who were being served -- under the Jobs Ontario child care subsidies, they're not the ones who are going to benefit greatly from that tax cut. In fact, any benefit they get will likely be more than taken care of by the additional fee they have to pay for child care.
The Vice-Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we are out of time. Thank you for your presentation.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS
The Vice-Chair: At this time, we have the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
Dr Terry Quinney: Good evening. My name is Terry Quinney. On behalf of Ontario's largest and oldest conservation organization, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, we thank the committee for the opportunity to address you this evening. Our president, Terry Smeltzer, and executive vice-president, Rick Morgan, send their regrets not being able to join me here this evening.
I will not read our presentation in its entirety. We know full well that your schedule is very tight. I will be reading highlights, but we ask that prior to your line-by-line consideration of the bill, you read our presentation in its entirety with reference to the sections of the bill that we'll address tonight.
Several sections of Bill 26 fall within the conservation mandate of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. We're here tonight to endorse some of those elements of 26; others, we believe, need modification or the provision to us of additional information before we can support them. We'll be commenting tonight on the Game and Fish Act amendments, the Public Lands Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Forest Fires Prevention Act, the Mining Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
First, with relevance to the Game and Fish Act, the government of Ontario is proposing, for the first time, a special dedicated account for hunting and fishing revenues, and an associated advisory board that would advise the minister on financial matters pertaining to this special dedicated account.
I think committee members are aware that millions of Ontario residents go fishing each year and almost three quarters of a million who hunt as an important part of their cultural heritage, and that expenditures by these residents on fish- and wildlife-related activities exceeds $5 billion each year and sustains over 100,000 jobs. It turns out that anglers and hunters are paying almost $40 million each year to the Ontario government in licence revenues alone.
Before this proposed amendment, it was impossible for the public to know or track government spending on fish and wildlife management. During the 1995 provincial election campaign, our organization sent a questionnaire to all candidates in all parties, and we asked candidates, "Do you support earmarking revenues from fishing and hunting licence sales to be returned directly to the Ministry of Natural Resources fish and wildlife management budgets?" We were delighted that all candidates who provided a definitive answer to our question responded yes.
The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters endorses this government of Ontario initiative which will, for the first time, earmark revenues for fish and wildlife management from fines, fees, royalties etc paid under the Game and Fish Act. We'd also like to request that all revenues associated with the sale of non-resident crown land camping fees and all revenues that government receives associated with the rental and lease fees levied on crown water lots also be earmarked for this special dedicated account.
We support the Minister of Natural Resources' announcement that funds held within this account can be carried over from one year to the next. We'd ask, in fact, that the amendments to the act include specific reference to this carryover of funds, in order to formally recognize the importance of the fund but also to provide the ability of that fund to support multi-year projects.
1920
The establishment of an advisory board will ensure that the minister receives appropriate advice on financial matters and is consistent with our organization's earlier recommendations to government. Finally, with more than 74,000 members across the province, the OFAH being the largest voice of Ontario's hunting and angling public, we'd request that representation on that public advisory board be commensurate with the size of our constituency.
Moving to the Public Lands Act, the government of Ontario is proposing amendments to the Public Lands Act that will remove the blanket prohibition of various works without a permit. The proposal is that permits will be required only for certain works that are to be prescribed by regulation. The regulations have not been put forward at this time for review, so we really have no indication which activities will be subject to review and permission by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The OFAH is concerned that the proposed changes to the Public Lands Act may not provide sufficient protection of important fish and wildlife habitat, especially when proposed changes to the Planning Act that are now under consideration and the associated provincial policy statements relating to natural heritage items are considered as well.
While the current level of environmental protection measures in the province may include needless duplication that obviously warrants correction, sensitive habitats must continue to be protected through mechanisms like the Public Lands Act. Removal of this protection could affect the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat. This could occur in situations where MNR staff are attempting to limit ongoing problems -- degradation of the environment -- solely through enforcement rather than proactive protection. We can visualize situations where fines can indeed be imposed upon lawbreakers, but once habitat is lost, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to restore.
In this regard, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has detailed our concerns with the proposed amendments to the Public Lands Act and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act to the Minister of Natural Resources. We've included that as an appendix to our presentation for the committee, and that appendix represents a January 16 letter to Minister Hodgson from our president and executive vice-president. Until we receive an appropriate response from the Minister of Natural Resources, the OFAH must withhold its support for these new initiatives under the Public Lands Act.
With regard to changes to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, our comments are very similar to those I've just made with reference to the Public Lands Act. Again there is a proposal to remove the requirement for a permit application in a number of circumstances. The potential risk of damage to things like fish habitat must be recognized in any proposed changes to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act in the same way as I've described for the Public Lands Act.
Our comments on the Forest Fires Prevention Act are brief. As committee members know, currently fire permits, travel permits and work permits are required under this act. The proposed amendments repeal these sections from the act and will create regulations that control or specify requirements to carry on these activities.
It appears to us that there are no significant fish and wildlife implications relating to these proposed amendments, and we fully expect that the level of preventive measures presently in place to limit the potential to start forest fires will be continued. Therefore, we support the Ontario government's efforts to improve efficiencies, and we can offer our support for these proposed amendments and would be pleased to assist the government in the formulation of associated regulations.
With reference to the Mining Act amendments proposed by the government, again our comments will be limited to those which fall within our conservation mandate. The proposed amendments to the Mining Act, from our perspective, deal with requirements relating to the rehabilitation of mine sites. In addition, a provision is made creating a special-purpose account for funds collected as a trust towards rehabilitation of these sites, and the crown will have the right to access those funds for rehabilitation work if the proponent doesn't conform. Finally, there's a new section of the act which would provide immunity to the crown and its employees from proceedings that arise from claims of regulatory negligence relating to the filing, approval, review and acceptance of closure plans -- in other words, the removal of some crown accountability -- and we have some concerns there.
Since many of the proposed amendments to the Mining Act are actually facilitating appropriate site rehabilitation, the OFAH does support these amendments, but we do want to add an important caveat, that is, that we don't believe the crown should remove its accountability, that responsibility for ensuring against regulatory negligence. In other words, these aspects of crown accountability that are currently present must be maintained.
With reference to the Conservation Authorities Act, the government of Ontario is making several proposed changes. These include a mechanism for voluntary dissolution of a conservation authority; removing cabinet's power to appoint members to conservation authorities; giving the Minister of Natural Resources power to require that flood control operations be carried out by conservation authorities or municipalities; removing requirements for provincial approval of conservation authority projects and land dispositions if the project or land doesn't involve provincial funding; and revising the system for levying conservation authority administrative and maintenance costs against municipalities and restricting the levies to maintenance costs relating to flood control.
If conservation authorities are to be dissolved, in that scenario there is the potential, in our minds, for the deregulation and associated loss of protection that is coincidentally afforded to large amounts of important wetlands and other important fish and wildlife habitats specifically through the administration and enforcement of fill and construction regulations that are, again, currently within the mandate of conservation authorities. I'll return to that when we propose some recommendations.
1930
Also, as you know, conservation authority resource management programs and lands that conservation authorities own provide a valuable service to local residents and in fact all Ontarians in terms of things like access to waterways, forests, parklands and other recreational areas. Some of these properties were acquired with provincial funding, while others were donated to authorities, donated in many cases with the understanding that they'd be maintained in public ownership for the benefit of these watershed residents.
Many of these lands that conservation authorities own contain significant fisheries and wildlife habitats, and yet according to the government proposals as written, it looks like they may be disposed of by authorities themselves in order to maintain themselves financially or by their member municipalities if an authority ends up being dissolved. So we would like to ask the government to seriously consider our suggestions with reference to the government's changes regarding the Conservation Authorities Act.
We begin with this very important point: that those fish and wildlife values that are currently managed by conservation authorities, and associated recreational opportunities like fishing, like hunting, not be lost, that they not be jeopardized by any form of government restructuring.
Existing fill and construction regulations, which are currently enacted and administered pursuant to section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, we believe have to be fully and consistently enforced across the province and, more particularly, across watersheds as currently defined by Ontario conservation authority boundaries.
So one of the main points we are trying to make to the committee tonight is that when appropriately and consistently applied, there are elements of the existing Conservation Authorities Act, the existing Public Lands Act and the existing Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act that are in fact successful mechanisms that are helping to protect fish and wildlife values in this province, and that these important elements not be lost in restructuring. Accordingly, an additional suggestion that we're going to make is that the Minister of Natural Resources not only be enabled to require flood control operations, but also that the minister be enabled to require that fill and construction regulation and administration and enforcement be carried out by conservation authorities or municipalities.
Additionally, the administrative costs associated with the fill and construction regulations, for example -- that's administration and enforcement -- must continue to receive provincial funding, and the ability of a conservation authority to levy its member municipalities for this service regarding fill and construction regulations should not be removed. Again, why not? Because habitat protection and public safety benefits that have occurred through the use of this mechanism, fill and construction regulations, are too vital to be lost.
Finally, here under the Conservation Authorities Act, we very strongly believe that publicly accessible conservation authority lands must remain publicly accessible regardless of government restructuring, that disposition of any conservation authority lands then should be subject to the approval of the appropriate minister of the crown even if that ministry or the provincial government will not financially benefit from the sale of that land.
Finally, our comments on Bill 26 with reference to the Ontario government's proposed changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Here we see that Bill 26 proposes that mandatory fees be prescribed by regulations. Furthermore, the proposed amendments are going to grant wider discretionary powers to heads of institutions.
The fact of the matter is that the wide discretionary powers of institution heads under sections 12 to 22 in this act have already not lived up to the original objectives, in our minds, in making records more available to the public. In fact, over the last several years, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has received certainly less than satisfactory response to our requests for public information. In some cases we've had fees imposed on us ranging anywhere from $200 to over $4,000 in our attempts to retrieve records. In cases like this, we perceive them to be actually roadblocks to the public in obtaining access to information.
Our point is very simply that the amendments to the act are going to make the process even more difficult and expensive for the public, and we'll give you a couple of examples: Under the act, fees are going to apply to requests, appeals and record retrieval. The costs involved in record retrieval alone will eliminate the act as a tool for the general public and other institutions that don't have the funds to go through the process.
With reference to these wider discretionary powers for heads of institutions, the sections regarding frivolous and vexatious requests -- that is, the sections of the amendments -- are going to give even more discretionary powers to bureaucrats to exempt materials from release to the public.
The fees prescribed -- we're suggesting a very modest fee; in fact, a maximum of $5 fee for requests -- are going to limit, in our opinion, requests to government by those who are serious about getting this information. So we're requesting that the fee be a minimal fee, that it not be a barrier to the public obtaining information through this act; secondly, that there must be some kind of appeal mechanism made available to the public when they disagree with these heads of institutions. We believe that appeal mechanism should be free, that again the cost of an appeal shouldn't be a barrier to the public obtaining that information.
With that, we thank you for your attention this evening.
1940
Mr Phillips: I very much appreciate a very thoughtful brief. It's a bit unfortunate that it's 7:30 on a Friday night. It's almost a comment to the group, and that is that, I say in all sincerity, the process is out of control right now. Next week we've got 120 amendments. I've no idea whether the government's going to try to accommodate your concerns or not. I don't see anything in the amendments yet, but we've just got another 60 of them. In my opinion -- this is, I hope, not overly partisan -- I just don't think it's any way to treat the serious issues that you've brought forward tonight, to be trying to deal with it in this kind of runaway fashion, and hardly time, frankly, for your concerns to be considered. I can assure you we will.
One question I had for you is, the minister indicated that they raise about $44 million from the licence fees but spend about $66 million in the area. Is it your expectation that the government will continue to spend the $66 million and supplement the fund by the $22 million, or is there any expectation they're going to try and increase the licences to fully recoup the costs that they've got there?
Dr Quinney: I'll answer the latter part of your question first. We have the government's assurance that licence fees are not to be increased in the foreseeable future, number one. Number two, as you know, all of society benefits from healthy fish and wildlife and the environment in this province, and as a result, we fully expect that the government of Ontario, on behalf of Ontario residents, will continue to provide the funds necessary for the wise management of fish and wildlife on top of those dedicated revenues that should go to those extra areas where anglers and hunters have been paying for them for some time.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. It's really very wide-ranging in terms of giving us a good sense of your association's views. Like Mr Phillips, I guess I also regret that this process doesn't give us enough time to deal appropriately with some of these issues, and hopefully this is something that the government will take into account as it looks at either amendments or perhaps another way to deal with this part of the bill.
One of the things that I'm interested in your views on is to ask you this: Is there anything in the various sections that relate particularly to questions of wildlife and fish habitat and all of the other things that affect on that which you think needs to be dealt with in the kind of time line that the government has set? In other words, would you have any problems with these portions of the bill being taken out and dealt with with a little bit more time so that your concerns and, I can tell you, those of other organizations that have talked to some of the same issues that you have could be more adequately dealt with over a little bit more time than what unfortunately this process allows us?
Dr Quinney: Mr Silipo, I'm certainly going to disagree with you with reference to trying to slow down amendments to the Game and Fish Act. Those amendments are very progressive and they are ones that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has worked years and years to try and achieve, and fortunately the present government is going to move quickly on those amendments, and it should.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you, Terry, for your very thoughtful presentation and thanks to your organization for working so hard in the area of conservation and particularly not looking to government for a whole lot of support in the past, just going and doing your thing.
The area that I would like to explore with you a little bit has to do with the conservation authorities. The Ministry of Natural Resources, municipalities -- you might even extend that into the Ministry of Environment and Energy and so on -- there seems to be some duplication there, and we're reducing funding to conservation authorities.
During the campaign there was an awful lot came forward about conservation authorities not being very flexible and being very authoritarian. Maybe that comes from their name, no pun intended. How do you see it? Do you see the Ministry of Natural Resources could look after or municipalities could look after the activities of conservation authorities? Do you see duplication there?
Dr Quinney: There definitely has been duplication and there remains duplication. Our organization has been very clear that, ultimately, responsibility for fish and wildlife management in this province should lie with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. So, yes, there is duplication that should be corrected, the streamlining should occur, but as we've tried to point out, let's by no means throw out the good along with the bad. The conservation authorities have developed certain very successful mechanisms to protect fish and wildlife. Let those remain in place.
The Chair: Thank you for coming forward this evening and making your presentation to the committee. We appreciate it.
JENNY CARTER
The Chair: May I please have Jenny Carter come forward. Good evening and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have one half-hour this evening 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, for the benefit of Hansard and committee members, if you'd introduce yourself at the beginning of your presentation.
Ms Jenny Carter: Thank you for this opportunity to take part in the hearings on Bill 26. My name is Jenny Carter. I just want to remind everybody that these hearings were only granted after quite a struggle. I'm a little concerned that presentations to this committee are mostly on behalf of interest groups. Peterborough is alive and well as a community, and we want it to stay that way, so I am here as a citizen of Peterborough and of Ontario.
Nothing in this bill will benefit any identifiable group in our society, let alone the community as a whole. On the title page, Bill 26 is described as 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. Getting rid of the deficit and improving the economy was the Conservatives' big electoral ploy and the excuse for their cutting and slashing. But that is not how it works.
During the election campaign, the Tories said they were going to create jobs and revive the economy by putting more money in consumers' pockets through tax breaks -- I remember Mr Stewart saying that -- thus helping business to create jobs. What they have done so far is the exact opposite. They have taken huge sums out of the pockets of welfare recipients, whose money goes directly to local landlords, grocery stores and so on, and they have not yet given any tax rebates. Money circulating in the community has been cut back, business has suffered and jobs have been lost. Ask local retailers about this Christmas. Even if the tax rebates materialize, they will not compensate for the damage already done, because that money is less likely to be spent locally or quickly.
Tax breaks make utter nonsense of Tory claims to be imposing hardship on the people of Ontario in order to get rid of a crippling deficit. Six billion dollars in cuts plus $6 billion in tax rebates equals the deficit we had before plus a damaged society and a damaged economy. To take from the poor to give to the rich is obscene. The great Canadian writer Margaret Atwood summed it up beautifully in her Christmas satire in the Globe and Mail, Dickens's A Christmas Carol turned back to front. Scrooge starts out as benevolent and turns into a community-destroying monster. The business section of the same paper carried a deadly serious article saying that to be like Scrooge is actually a good thing. Perhaps we should abolish Christmas, with its message of peace, love and goodwill to all men. It seems to be out of fashion. Just let Tiny Tim die.
If the NDP government had been re-elected, it would have got rid of the deficit in a very few years because, by spending wisely to keep the economy healthy, it would have kept government revenues flowing. There is no virtue in cuts that destroy the revenues of the future. This is why the Tory argument that they're doing all this for the good of our children is particularly galling. The 40% of welfare recipients who are children are never going to thank this government for anything. Nor are the children denied a decent education, for the Tories lied when they said classroom education would not be affected by cuts. Children denied proper health care, decent housing and who see no prospects for decent employment, however well they may do at school, may be damaged beyond repair and become a cost to society.
1950
Have you seen recent reports in the Toronto Star? Yes, welfare rolls are down, but for the first time whole families are among the homeless. Welfare doesn't pay the rent any more and jobs aren't there. Are these people to sleep on the street or, as usually happens, to be housed in a motel at much greater cost to the taxpayer than if their welfare hadn't been cut? Landlords also suffer. They're losing tenants.
A good businessman knows he has to spend money to make money. The same is true of government. But unlike business, a democratic government exists to serve its citizens and raise money to provide a necessary framework for their lives. To cut spending on education, health, social services, law enforcement, legal services, environmental protection, roads and transit services, access to information, and the democratic structure itself below necessary minimal levels is not fiscal wisdom, but betrayal of the public.
This bill is supposed to give the government the tools to do the job of restructuring our economy. Rather, these tools will destroy the economy and the quality of life of millions of people with it. Let's look at some local examples. We have in Peterborough an organization called Peterborough Green-Up. It makes home visits and advises citizens how to modify their homes to reduce fuel bills and water use, and thus live more cheaply and comfortably. Government funding was to be phased out as the group became self-funding, but now huge unexpected cuts made without consultation are putting Green-Up in jeopardy. This is a typical Tory cut, because Green-Up is an economic plus, not a minus. To quote from an article by Green-Up's Ben Wolfe:
"The saddest and most pathetic aspect of the decision" to cut Green-Up's "funding is that it was made in the name of fiscal responsibility -- yet it takes only a simple calculation to show that the income and sales taxes the government collects as a direct result of green communities activities are greater than the provincial contribution to the program. This is the case because Green-Up and projects like it generate a steady flow of local spending and employment. Across the province, the average household chooses to spend more than $1,500 following green home visit recommendations -- entirely unsubsidized. This spending has many spinoff effects. It permanently reduces local costs, and strengthens local economies by taking dollars that were leaving the community to pay for energy and making them available to spend at home instead. But on November 28, the bean counters had their way. An ideological belief that any cut is a good cut has taken the place of cost-benefit analysis, community consultation and common sense."
When I was at Queen's Park, we were very proud of Green-Up because of its exceptional staff, whose energy and commitment came very cheap to the public. It was seen as a model for similar ventures around the province.
In like fashion, the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority is to be reduced to a flood control body only. Yet this democratic, minimally funded organization has been doing wonderful things for its area. With help from the Scout movement and others, they plant trees -- thousands of trees. They have improved local water quality, particularly by working with farmers on the Indian River. By acquiring and conserving land, they enhance the recreational facilities of the area and aid tourism, which is vital to the future of this area, boosting the economy far beyond the value of the money spent. Volunteers who work with this and other defunded organizations will no longer be able to make a contribution. Closed parks or hefty user fees will keep tourists away.
Reasonable cuts can be handled, but beyond a certain point they're self-defeating. A recent Globe and Mail article described our mayor as a loyal Conservative, although he told me the other day that they didn't check that out with him. But he and his aldermen and staff were shocked by an unexpected extra $1-million cut in their finances after they had already planned for an expected 23% cut. They can't serve the public properly on that basis. I don't envy the municipalities, school board trustees, university and college presidents, librarians and library boards, hospital administrators and countless others who are being forced to use the so-called tools provided in this bill.
Drastic cuts are a recipe for squabbling and recrimination. We already have had factions writing to the local paper as to whether a branch library should close or all money be spent to keep the main library going. Sir Sandford Fleming College is talking about closing down a much-needed swimming pool. Trent University is going to have to raise its fees, so university education will again become a privilege of the rich. Such decisions should not have to be made. We must remember that they're being imposed by the Harris government and are not the fault of hapless intermediaries.
Perceived "soft" things like cultural groups are particularly liable to be cut. Yet small grants go a very long way in the fine cultural community of this area and, believe it or not, here too the economic benefits to local business and employment, and ultimately to government revenues, far outweigh the original expenditure. I think of the Fourth Line Theatre's success with the Cavan Blazers, for example. Scrooge, in Margaret Atwood's Christmas Lorac, shouts, "I'm as merry as the Tories when they've destroyed all the arts organizations, and thus done away with the $11 billion in revenues they generate!"
When I was MPP for Peterborough, government spending on roads, bridges, public housing and other ventures such as the Ministry of Natural Resources building helped keep local businesses going and local people employed, while securing our future. Everyone wanted the MNR to come here. The project proceeded with wonderful smoothness and efficiency. I'm proud of the building, which adds dignity to downtown Peterborough. The media kept a hawk-eyed watch on the project and would have been quick to challenge me for any failure to deliver. Now we hear that the number of MNR staff coming to Peterborough may be drastically cut from the original 700. This could make nonsense of the money already invested in this project and deprive Peterborough of a much-needed boost.
When the NDP was in power, Highway 115 was completed, St Peter's high school was built, the downtown got a facelift, needed changes and additions were made to our hospitals, pay equity agreements were honoured. Showplace Peterborough, the twin-pad arena and yes, the problematic parking garage which may not now be needed were funded. Crary Park had a facelift. Disabled access to many buildings became a reality. Jobless people had the support of Jobs Ontario with its free day care spaces. We built the wonderful, award-winning, new Trent Daycare Centre. Tories want children to stay home with their mothers, so is this another investment that will now go to waste?
I used to spend a lot of time at openings. I think Gary Stewart will have an easy life unless closure ceremonies come into vogue.
Bill 26 is a monster. It will not solve our economic problems. Much of it has nothing to do with the policies set out in the Common Sense Revolution, or even directly contradicts them. The Tories knew that people felt government was not sufficiently responsive to their views, so they talked of referendums. For example, communities thinking of having a casino would hold a referendum. Ontario law has provided for years that before a municipality can turn its electric, water or sewage utility over to a private company, there has to be consent of the citizens. For this kind of change to community life, which is hardly reversible, the city has to call a referendum. Yet tucked away in this bill are sections repealing the referendum provisions. Why didn't the Tories campaign against referendums in the election, if that's what they intended? We are proud of our utilities commission in Peterborough. It does a fine job and has no debts. As one alderman has said, the threatened privatization would be a theft from the public. It runs one of only two properly run zoos in Ontario, open without charge to its owners, the public. We want to keep it.
2000
Schedule L of the bill is short but sinister. It will take away certain pension rights from Ontario public servants whose jobs are about to be eliminated by the Tories. This needs to be thoroughly investigated and publicly discussed.
Schedule M of the bill gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs power to force through municipal restructuring without any public involvement. Also, the minister gets total power over the portion of funding the province picks up for transit operations and transit capital projects. Peterborough's buses are essential to many of the less affluent members of the community, the old, the young and the disabled. The city has already decided to raise fares, due to government cuts.
Can you imagine user fees for police and fire services? What would that do to our sense of being a fair, decent community? Such fees are possible under this bill. So are cuts in the provision of these and other essential services, such as classrooms and hospitals, and cuts in the pay of whatever workers remain. It seems the services rendered by public servants are not valued by the Tories, or perhaps the ultimate goal is to render them ineffective as an excuse to privatize them. The taxpayer will then have to finance profits as well as the cost of the services, and democratic input and control will be lost. Early retirement of senior police and firefighters has given Peterborough taxpayers a reprieve, but this is a temporary solution.
There is increasing public awareness of the necessity for environmental controls, and much headway has been made. The Common Sense Revolution did not say that the Tories planned to gut environmental protection. But Bill 26 abolishes the current procedure whereby government specialists approve an environmentally sound closure plan before a new mine is allowed to open and the company has to provide cash and letters of credit to deal with any future problems. It simply is not good enough to allow a company to approve its own plan. In schedule N, this bill repeals the requirements for permits for dams and for work permits for logging, mining and other activities in some circumstances. There has been no consultation.
There's nothing in the Common Sense Revolution about rolling back pay equity rights. Yet this omnibus bill includes a section that strips the right to fair pay from about 100,000 of the lowest-paid women in the broader public sector, in such areas as day care, libraries and nursing homes. Schedule J scraps the proxy method of pay equity. Legislation resulting from extensive hearings is being scrapped with no consultation at all. Again, the weakest, especially women and children, are being called upon to make sacrifices in order to reduce a deficit which they did not create.
Finally, I would like to mention schedule K, which limits freedom of information rights. Fees are to be raised. It will be easier to deny requests for documents and harder to win an appeal. The government says it wants to curtail frivolous or vexatious requests. Only people with plenty of money or access to lawyers will be able to learn what the government is doing. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario says this legislation threatens the fundamental right of people to know what is happening in their government. This is serious stuff and threatens the roots of democracy. We cannot allow it to slip through, buried in the belly of this monstrous bill.
No presentation could cover all the problems with this bill. Not only will it fail in its alleged intent to promote economic prosperity, but it will do the opposite. At the same time, it gives arbitrary powers to government and shows contempt for public opinion and the welfare of the people of Ontario.
In conclusion, I want to say that when I was MPP, copies of government legislation were available in my office free. This service has been discontinued by Gary Stewart's office. This is symbolic of the anti-democratic approach of this Tory government.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Mr Silipo: Thank you, Jenny, for being here. I will say shamelessly that I wish you were sitting around this table other than as a presenter.
Ms Carter: So do I.
Mr Silipo: You've certainly given a fairly broad analysis of the bill, and I think one of the things we know is there very much as part of the backdrop to this is what the government is doing around the tax cut. That really is what is driving the agenda to make the kind of severe cuts that they are making in many, many services, as you've outlined, throughout the province.
They say that the cost is about $5 billion, we think it's closer to $6 billion, but even if it were the $5 billion, they are cutting $5 billion more in order to be able to then take that money and provide it, through a 30% tax cut, to the people in the province. While certainly the government is correct when it says many people will benefit specifically around the tax cut, we also know that the people who will benefit by far the most are the 15% of taxpayers who earn over $85,000. They will gain something like 41% of that $5 billion, or over $2 billion, and the other 85% of the population is going to have to share the balance. At the same time, it's people in the middle- and lower-income levels who are of course going to be hit the hardest with new user fees and other various costs, so that they will probably see any benefit from the tax cut disappear.
I guess the only question I have of you in that is, because I know that you're still very active in the community, do you see that people are beginning to see through the kind of charade that we are seeing from the government in terms of saying that all of this has got to be done because of the fiscal bottom line when we know that's not why they're doing this?
Ms Carter: I don't think it's as widely realized as it should be, but hopefully the realization is coming. It's very ironic, because the argument is that tax cuts are going to boost the economy, that more people will have money to spend in their local areas and that this will be good for business and so on. But actually, the reverse is the case, that if you cut the incomes of lower-income people, this has a far more deleterious effect on the economy, because those people spend locally, they spend all the money they get, whereas if you boost the higher incomes it's quite likely to go to Florida or be spent on something that doesn't go around in Ontario and includes the economy we have here. This argument that tax cuts are going to grease the economy is quite invalidated by what is happening to people at the lower end of the income scale.
Mr Stewart: My name was mentioned a couple of times. I would like to suggest to Mrs Carter that the election is over and I think we should get on talking about Bill 26. I have difficulty asking questions because you didn't address much of Bill 26. But what I'd like to ask is, do you realize that 87% of the working population in this province make less than $50,000 a year? If you don't realize that, if you're saying the tax cut should not be done, then everybody making $50,000 or less, including the working poor, including the people that you're telling us don't make very much money -- you don't want them to get a tax break.
Ms Carter: Sure.
Mr Stewart: Oh, you want them to get a tax break? You said "sure" so I assume they'd want to get a tax break. Do you feel we should continue to spend the way we have in the past and continue to increase the debt and the deficit? When do we finally stop to get out of it?
2010
Ms Carter: I don't quite see what we have here that's going to achieve that objective.
Mr Stewart: You kept talking about how any type of cuts we've had and giving the local municipalities some autonomy was wrong. I'm saying to you, do you feel we should continue to spend the way we have in the past and constantly increase our debt and our deficit? How can we get things under control if we're going to continue to do that?
Ms Carter: What do we have here that is going to help in that situation?
Mr Stewart: I'm asking you a question, ma'am. I'll go to the next one, a little different one. You suggested that children should not be with their mothers.
Ms Carter: What? Oh, come on.
Mr Silipo: Come on, Gary, you can't make it up.
Mr Stewart: No, I'm repeating what the lady said. I'm just asking some questions. If you're going to make a comment about things, you must be able to give another rationale or another alternative, and that's all I'm asking for. That is my concern. Of course, the final one --
The Chair: Mr Stewart, you've come to the end of your time. Let's move to Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: I want to follow up on that a little, Ms Carter. Nice to see you, by the way.
Let's understand what the Common Sense Revolution is all about, and these are their own numbers. What they have to do is to cut spending by $8 billion, so we're seeing that all across the province now. Why? To find a $5-billion tax cut. What we hear from the government members is that we have this terrible deficit that everybody must focus on, and it is an important deficit and we must focus on it, so we've got to fight the deficit battle and that's why people are being cut. But for every $8 that's cut, $3 goes to the deficit, $5 to the tax break.
I used to be a businessperson, too; I had 300 employees, I ran three companies. I understood this stuff. But if I had a huge deficit problem, there's no way my bank would allow me -- and this is what they're going to do: They are going to borrow $20 billion over the next five years to pay the tax break. You are all going to pay $5 billion in interest to pay the tax break. These are the big business people who really know how to run things. They are going to borrow $20 billion over the next five years, and these aren't my numbers, they are their numbers.
Mr O'Toole: They've been running it for 10 years.
Mr Phillips: Now they're starting to heckle me because they don't like the message. Remember they just said to Mr Silipo: "Must be quiet, must be quiet." These are the facts; these are your own facts.
Ms Carter, you probably have lots of people who come up to you in the street. Is this how you would run a business: borrow $20 billion when you say you're bankrupt, pay $5 billion in interest, to give a tax break, and $2 billion of that tax break goes to people making more than $85,000 a year? Is that good social policy? Also, is it good business policy?
Ms Carter: I wouldn't think so.
Mr Phillips: I agree with you, and I look forward to the chamber's presentation. They're business people, they know we have a huge deficit problem, but I wonder if they're supportive of borrowing $20 billion to pay for the tax break, or, as Standard and Poor's say, the tax break can wait. We'll see.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Carter, for coming forward and making your presentation.
GREATER PETERBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: May I have representatives from the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce come forward, please.
Mr Don Frise: Good evening and thank you for inviting us this evening. My name is Don Frise. I'm the general manager of the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, and with me this evening is our current president, Paul Peterson.
I'd like to spend a few minutes telling you a little about ourselves and then I'd like to make a few general comments and then get into specific comments on Bill 26 on a section-by-section, schedule-by-schedule basis.
The Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce is a non-profit business association. Now in its 107th year of operation, the chamber has grown to more than 1,000 members in the greater Peterborough area; in fact, our members employ approximately 20,000 people in this area.
Although the projects of the chamber have changed over the years to meet the needs of the community, the purpose of the organization has remained constant. The major objects of our association are to work for a strong local economy and to support the free enterprise system.
In essence, the chamber of commerce is in the wealth creation business, not the wealth distribution business. We believe that before you spend it, you first have to make it. As business people look around the world, it has become abundantly clear that if we want to provide social services to help those who are less advantaged, we must first provide an environment that allows us to generate revenues to pay for these services.
Members of the chamber of commerce come from a very broad grass-roots cross-section of the community. Some of your presenters tonight have talked about special-interest groups and so on. Yes, we do represent free enterprise, and yes, we do represent business, but our members include manufacturers, those in the hospitality and tourism sectors, as well as those involved in retail, construction, agriculture, the professions, and we also have many non-profit associations that are members of our organization. They're the people who are volunteers in the community, they're the people you see at church, they're the people you meet in the grocery store, they're the people in your neighbourhood. We have a lot of those people from our community as members.
However, today our typical member comes from the service sector and has an average of 10 employees. Those we represent are very much the sector that all levels of government have told us over the last 15 years have been creating over 85% of the net new jobs in our country.
Polls done of our members over the last few years have consistently shown that the number one barrier to business growth, according to them, has been the debt and deficit. However, running a very close second has been a constant concern about red tape and non-monetary barriers. Several years ago, over a two-to-three-year period, more than 500 business leaders from across the province were brought together to work out a plan that we eventually called An Agenda for Renewal.
Somebody said to me the other day, "Oh, the chamber has all the answers, doesn't it, Don?" I said, "No, we don't have all the answers." But we have access to some of what we think are the best minds in the province, in the country, and we're able to bring them together to provide advice to organizations and committees like yours, and we hope you'll take it at the value we place on it at least.
The message presented to the government of the day was quite clear. It stated that to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the province and to renew growth in the private sector, it was necessary to tackle the debt and deficit through the reduction of the size of government and a narrowing of the focus of government services to those things that government must do and can do well.
Ontario's government of today has shown some real initiative in working towards a reduction in government spending. we understand, unlike some others, that Ontario's budget cannot be balanced without a reduction in spending in a broad section of provincial programs. We understand that this will unquestionably cause hardship among those affected. That's one of the reasons why over the last few years we, not only at the provincial and local levels but federally -- if you're going to cut spending, the first question that always comes up is, "Where do we start?" and we've said we will be willing to go first. We'd like you to cut all the subsidies to business over a period of time and in an organized fashion so we can see it coming, as long as you're going to use it to control the deficit and hopefully at some time in the future to start addressing the debt.
2020
We also understand the need for quick action, not only to curtail the rapidly rising rate of growth of our debt but also to ensure that there's enough time for the strong medicine to take effect before the next election. There's no point in getting halfway across the stream and then turning around and trying to row back where you came from. We realize that what you have to do is get to a position where some of the measures you're taking will take effect before the next election occurs.
For these reasons, the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce supports the government's initiative to act quickly and decisively to change legislation to allow the measures that must be taken to balance the books. For this reason, we're generally supportive of Bill 26. However, at the same time, we feel it's imperative that this legislation, like all other legislation, must be capable of standing the test of time. With this in mind, we attempted to review the many changes being proposed, and as a result of that review, we do have some comments we would like to share with you this evening.
Perhaps the greatest concern is that there are areas where we believe the changes being proposed may result in more red tape and a more complex environment for business in the province. Second, there are areas where we believe that democratic principles maybe at stake. Third, there are areas where it appears that the government may have forgotten that there is only one taxpayer and that by passing down the ability to tax and set fees at a lower level, we're not reducing the size of government but rather increasing it and quite possibly reducing the effectiveness of the tax collection system. We realize that the more effective you are in collecting the money you need to operate the province, the better off we're going to be and the less we're going to have to pay.
At this time, I'd like to comment briefly on a schedule-by-schedule basis on some of the things we noted.
Schedule B calls for a 2% tax on uninsured benefit arrangements. The backgrounder indicates that this change is proposed so that all benefit plans will have equal taxation. Although we're not opposed to treating all plans equally, we would argue strenuously that there shouldn't be a tax on benefit plans in the first place. We think it's in the best interests of the government and the citizens of Ontario to encourage business to provide benefit plans for their employees so that when employees require services, they do not have to rely on programs funded by taxpayers' dollars. We would also argue that this is a payroll tax and that payroll taxes kill jobs in the province. For this reason, we would ask that the whole concept of tax on benefit plans be reviewed at some time in the future.
Schedule E, subsection 43(1), talks about legislation to establish the electronic toll system on Ontario highways. It's interesting that 407, currently under construction, bears an amazing resemblance to one of the roads outlined in a report written here in Peterborough several years ago titled the Ontario Motorways Network. One of the things proposed in our presentation at that time was that toll systems should be used for new parallel systems of highways, like 407, to be built in the province. In fact 407, although we didn't call it that, was only one of three or four highways that we envisioned being built across the province.
There was a question asked earlier about the toll systems. The keys here were that they were parallel systems so the public had the right to choose between a toll highway and a non-toll highway. The other thing was that it was only going to be on new highways that were to be built and in fact, at the point where the highways were paid for, the tolls would be removed, along with toll booths, similar to the Burlington Skyway and other things we've done in this province in the past.
To change to electronic tolls certainly sounds like an improvement, both from the government's and the public's point of view. However, 43(2) states there will no longer be a right to a hearing on a disputed toll. We suggest that in this case, as in all other cases, there always has to be a reasonable basis for taxpayers to appeal items such as tolls, particularly when the system is new and particularly when it's electronic. We believe it's critical to reassure the public that Ontario is not leading towards 1984.
We note that schedule F authorizes the Minister of Health to revoke the licence of a private hospital if the minister is of the opinion that it's in the public interest to do so. We don't have any details of what is actually covered in the legislation under schedule F, and unlike our counterparts from Whitby who were here before, we don't profess to be experts in the health care field. However, as supporters of the free enterprise system, I think you'll understand that we're very concerned any time legislation is proposed that would allow one person to close down a private sector operation simply because he thinks it's the right thing to do. As I say, we don't have a lot of details on this section of the act, but we caution you to think it through clearly before the final draft is approved.
Schedule H, amendments to the Health Insurance Act and Health Care Accessibility Act: Again, we don't profess to be experts in the health care field. However, one of the things we bring to your attention is that our area, particularly the rural area that surrounds the city, has experienced recurring problems with attracting and retaining a sufficient number of physicians over the last few years. We would applaud any reasonable steps the government might take to alleviate some of the problems we've experienced.
Schedule K talks about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As we read through the summary, we see under item 2 that the "head of an institution who receives a request for access to a record or personal information may refuse the request without any further obligation if the head is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request is frivolous or vexatious."
We believe that in a democratic country like Canada there has to be an appeal process for requests of this nature, even if the head believes they are frivolous or vexatious. We also believe that any fees set for processing a request for information must bear some resemblance to the actual cost of providing service. If these principles are not safeguarded, it's quite possible that discriminatory methods of dealing with requests for information may creep into the system.
The last item we would like to deal with is schedule M, amendments to the Municipal Act and various other statutes relating to municipalities, conservation authorities and transportation.
The chamber applauds the attempt of the Ontario government to give greater flexibility to the municipalities in dealing with their day-to-day operations. We believe this is necessary if we're going to allow municipalities to become more effective in the way they do their job. At the same time, we note that municipalities and local boards are given broad powers to impose fees or charges for any services or activities provided by them. In addition, the local municipality may, by bylaw, provide the licensing and regulation of any business carried on within the municipality.
We note on review of the text to schedule M that the proposed legislation contained under 220.1(2) allows a municipality and a local board to pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons, and 220.1(3) states that a bylaw under the section may provide for -- and I haven't given you all of them, but just three:
"(a) fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue;...
"(d) different classes of persons and deal with each class in a different way; and
"(f) the exemption, in whole or in part, of any class of persons from all or any part of the bylaw."
Under 257.1, the municipality is also given considerably expanded licensing powers.
For many years chamber members in Canada have been working towards removing barriers to trade between the provinces. We're concerned that by allowing municipalities to set myriad new taxes and licences and by allowing them to treat different classes of people in different ways, we may end up by layering in new barriers to trade within our own province. At the same time, we would question whether we won't, along with the reduction in spending at the provincial level, get a corresponding increase in taxation at the municipal level. We're concerned that because of the new structure imposed, red tape and bureaucracy will very probably increase and the efficiency of the collection process will decline.
In addition to these concerns, we note that under 220.1(9), "If a municipality or local board has imposed fees or charges under any act, no application shall be made to the municipal board under clause 71(c) of the Ontario Municipal Board Act on the grounds the fees or charges are unfair or unjust." Again, we believe there should be some recourse if people don't agree with what's happening.
We're very much aware that municipalities across Ontario are struggling to provide the services that their constituents demand while at the same time coping with declining revenues. Municipal governments in the area served by the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce have performed admirably over the last few years in meeting these challenges. However, given new opportunities to license and to tax, we are afraid that the temptation to venture into these areas will be too great to resist.
Although we believe in fee for service, we must insist that legislation require that any fee for service be directly related to the cost of providing the service; otherwise, all we will accomplish is to download taxation, bureaucracy and red tape to a lower level. As I said to somebody just earlier, it's a little bit like taking a balloon filled with water. If you squeeze it at the top it just comes out the bottom. Definitely, if that's the situation, we aren't achieving the ends that we at least think you should be setting out to accomplish.
2030
This will be doing nothing to help accomplish our objectives, which must be to bring the deficit under control through a reduction in spending to create a climate in which the private sector can create jobs and therefore hopefully increase revenue for all levels of government.
In conclusion, (1) we applaud and support the government for its efforts to quickly get spending under control and urge the stated course towards fiscal responsibility; (2) we are concerned that some changes proposed in Bill 26 may violate our sense of democratic principles; (3) we're concerned that some of the changes may result in an increase in trade barriers, bureaucracy and red tape; and (4) we're concerned that some of the changes proposed will merely shift taxation from the provincial to the municipal level and may result in an overall increase in business taxation.
Finally, Peterborough is a very environmentally conscious area and certainly we have a very great recycling program going on here, but we would suggest to you that government at this time might look at an additional set of 3Rs that it would apply to Bill 26 and ensure that it passes the test in all regards. The 3Rs that we would suggest in this particular case would be reduce, refocus and restructure: reduce the size of government, refocus your priorities to essential services and restructure operations for optimum efficiency.
The Vice-Chair: At this time each caucus has roughly four minutes and we'd start with the government.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for a very interesting and informative presentation. I have to just sort of pick up on one theme. Perhaps the conclusion is a good place to start: "reduce the size of government, refocus priorities to essential services, restructure operations for optimum efficiency." That sort of sounds like the starting point for Bill 26 technically. Your input, although it's not absolutely perfect in all alignments -- that's really the intent of the restructuring act, 1995. As a solid caucus person and representing an area of growth -- I'm from the Durham East area -- I support much of what you're saying and much of what we're doing.
I'm hearing from people in my riding of Durham East that people all over Ontario are fed up with being taxed and having a sense of powerlessness and no accountability. In fact, we're asking a lot of tough questions of all the service providers, right from health care to fire and police, and all of the services in between. Yes, I think really the points you've made about small business -- indeed that's an accurate statistic. That's the future for this province.
In conclusion in my opening sort of comment, I'm proud to say that I'm on the caucus committee on the red tape review. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that committee that's chaired by Frank Sheehan. He's formed an advisory committee that's made up of all sectors. They indeed have a serious objective: to set about a template to indeed respond to both the ministry's ability to provide reduced regulation and administration and the business sector to be able to determine for them what would help them and give them the tools to empower them to do that to get the economy going.
With that in mind, I would just ask you a simple question. Given the need and the time line of a political sort of agenda of change, do you feel that the meeting process has been as democratic? I might draw to your attention previous legislation of omnibus nature by previous administrations; Bill 175, Bill 163, a number of pieces where there wasn't near the input that this committee has given to the public. What's your response? Do you think this process has benefit and merits -- what your bottom-line interests are?
Mr Frise: I think we tried to state it as best we could in the presentation we made to you that we understand the urgency, the need to act as quickly as possible. We aren't legislators. We aren't skilled in preparing legislation and putting it into effect. I guess all we're saying is that we have to make sure that whatever legislation goes through is going to work not only for 1996 but well into the next century. The process that you've gone through in going out and getting consultation is very important, and we really appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.
But ultimately, somewhere along the line, you as the government have to make the decision as to what you're going to do and where to go, and I think sometimes it's better to act decisively than to do nothing at all. So I would suggest that yes, we think you do have to act quickly, but I'm hoping you're also going to act prudently and make sure that all of the input you've received back -- I don't know much about the amendments that are being proposed, but I guess it's reassuring to me as a presenter to hear that at least you're proposing some amendments, because we've got the impression over the last few years that when we've gone --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, we're getting into the opposition time.
Mr Phillips: I really appreciate the chamber's presentation. I think it's very balanced. It represents a chamber that I think takes into account the community. I don't find it a presentation that doesn't reflect the broad concerns of the community, so I compliment the chamber. You've done a lot of work on this thing as well. Whoever runs the chamber, I take my hat off to them. You've got some good recommendations in here. There's very little time to debate them, unfortunately.
On the toll roads, by the way, I think the government's intent is to sell the toll roads. It isn't just that there is no appeal; there's a provision there that they can put a lien on your house, your car or your business. It's all designed to sell the 407 off lock, stock and barrel, with an absolute ironclad guarantee of revenue. I don't think you're going to get that changed.
Schedule B, you're one of about three groups that have commented on schedule B, and it's an interesting comment you make. Again, they won't change that, because it's already built into the revenue, but it puts them into a bit of a tough spot to have to implement a dreaded NDP tax law that they hated that's in this bill here.
My question, I guess, is on your comments on schedule M. Frankly, we're all having difficulty in knowing what the intent is on the licensing fee, because I have a feeling that they've told the municipalities one thing and they may be telling the chamber a slightly different thing. But here's my interpretation of the licensing fee thing, and actually the city of Guelph -- or city of Kitchener today -- or city of Kingston -- sorry, we've been to so many places. The city of Kingston, I think, explained that it is their understanding that they could put a licence on hotels, service stations, various alcohol sales places, that could be the equivalent of a cent a litre on gasoline or a dollar a night for hotel rooms or a dollar a litre for alcoholic beverages, and if the licensee doesn't pay it, they simply increase the licence fee the following year; they say from $1 a year to $10,000 a year.
There's a part in the bill that says any section of this act that conflicts with a section of another act, the section that favours the municipality will override. So I guess I'm interested just to know whether the chamber has had a chance to look at the licensing provision, whether my interpretation of it is your interpretation and whether you support that.
Mr Frise: We haven't had a chance to really go through it thoroughly. Even schedule M is quite a detailed section. There's a lot of information in it. But as we've gone through it, certainly there's enough in there that we are concerned about it. I think we're more concerned even that different municipalities may set different taxes and different licences, and they may treat constituents and non-constituents in different ways and by doing that create trade barriers within the province. So I think that's where our concern comes from, number one. Number two, it may not be a cost-effective way of collecting taxes because, in fact, instead of taking it at this level, it may be taking it out at a number of small levels across the province.
Just as an example, we run the motor vehicle licence bureau in Peterborough. We've done that for over 75 years. We collect money for the Treasurer of Ontario and place it in his bank account on a daily basis at a rate of less than 3% of gross. We think that's a pretty effective way to collect tax dollars, and we think that's the kind of test that should be put to any new tax measure: Is it going to be effective? Is it going to do the thing you want it to do, get the money in in a very cost-effective way so it can be used for the social programs that the people of the province want you to spent it on?
The Vice-Chair: Sorry to interrupt. Mr Silipo from the third party.
Mr Silipo: Thank you for the presentation. Just to touch briefly on a couple of the points that you made. The reduction of red tape -- I just wanted to say to you that I think you're absolutely right, that's something that needs to be done. I was happy that we were able in the previous government to make some moves in that direction, as you know, with the project that we called Clearing the Path which simplified greatly the registration of new businesses, and we're happy to see the present government continuing what I think is the logical next phase of that, which is the reporting mechanism for businesses, and indeed any other changes that can be made that simplify. All of those relationships between business and government I think need to be supported and need to be worked on.
2040
I wanted to focus particularly on your reminder to us about the fact that there's really only one taxpayer. I think even Mr O'Toole, if I took down his words correctly, said, "People are fed up with paying taxes." This is where I guess we continue to raise the concern that I think you raise this evening, if I've heard you correctly, which is that we need to be careful, as we provide municipalities with these broad powers to establish user fees, that we're not simply substituting one set of taxes at the provincial level for another set of taxes at the local level because, as you said, that creates a problem for businesses in terms of the internal trade barriers. I would suggest it also creates a problem for people other than businesses, as well, for individuals who have to then pay those fees.
I just wonder if you could comment a little bit further on that basic principle in terms of what needs to be done to ensure that the provincial government is not just simply shifting its responsibility to the municipalities.
Mr Frise: One of the things that -- fees for service, and certainly don't get us wrong. We believe that in many cases a fee for service is a very appropriate way for government to go, but we think there should be some direct bearing on the fee charged and the actual cost of providing the service. As long as those kinds of things are in place, that could be a real safeguard, that completely out-to-lunch type of rules and regulations and licences didn't come into place.
But quite honestly, I don't think we're experienced enough in the operations of a municipality to really comment well on that. I think that what you have to do is talk to the people at the municipal level and find out from them how they can do those things to try and safeguard the things we're concerned about while at the same time allowing them to do what they need to do.
I would suggest that most of the flexibility that should be going to the municipality is more the way they actually do the job than new powers to tax. Let them get the job done in a more effective way by some of the other provisions that are in there, talking about one lead organization within the municipality perhaps looking after the services for all that area. That makes sense. Give them more flexibility in the way they operate.
We've heard for many years that school boards and local municipalities are hamstrung because the province tells them what they have to do and then it says, "But we aren't going to give you the money to do it." So I think what you have to do is unleash them -- and again this is from a rather uneducated person when it comes to how you run a municipality -- by letting them be more effective in running the municipality. They're the experts. They know how to do it. Let them do it.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation.
PETERBOROUGH SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL
PETERBOROUGH COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
The Vice-Chair: At this time we have the Peterborough Social Planning Council to present. Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the proceedings. Could you just identify yourself and the other individual with you for the Hansard and the committee, please.
Ms Jacqueline Powell: My name's Jacqueline Powell and I'm the executive director of the Peterborough Social Planning Council and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the board of directors of that agency. With me is Floyd Howlett of the Peterborough Coalition for Social Justice.
The Peterborough Social Planning Council is a voluntary, independent, community-based planning agency with the following mission: "Through research, community development and public education the Peterborough Social Planning Council works to build a strong community."
As our mission states, we believe in community and in the importance of strong, healthy communities. We think that a strong community enables all of its citizens to have a good quality of life. We believe that Bill 26 will detract from the strength of our community and other communities in Ontario and will jeopardize the quality of life of many Ontario citizens. We see serious problems evolving for a large number of individuals and for our community as a whole. Our presentation centres on three points: the process for the passage of Bill 26, the fairness of some of the facets of the bill and the accountability of government to the people of Ontario.
First, concerning the process for the passage of Bill 26. We are pleased that an agreement was reached for consultation on the bill, and particularly for meetings such as this one in Peterborough, and we're appreciative of the fact that the Peterborough Social Planning Council was allowed time on your agenda. We are concerned, however, that the time for consultation is insufficient, given the size and complexity of the bill. The Toronto Star indicated that 1,289 requests were made for only 367 spaces. If this is accurate, less than one third of those groups and individuals requesting a hearing will actually be heard by the committee. Social planning council is one of over 30 independent, community-based social planning organizations in the voluntary sector in Ontario, and as such, we have extensive experience in community consultation. One of the things that we've learned is that an inclusive process is essential to a fair and open consultation. Indeed, the present government's own Common Sense Revolution document states, "Our commitment is carved in stone -- a 20% cut in non-priority spending in three years. But how we get there will be discussed in partnership with all Ontarians."
Over the past few days, modifications to the original Bill 26 have been proposed. These important changes, which have been requested through the consultation process, point to the importance of thorough consultation. Such changes are what consultation is all about.
We recommend, in the light of the complexity of Bill 26, the high degree of public interest and concern about the proposed bill, and the promise of this government to discuss spending cuts in partnership with all Ontarians, that the consultation period be extended for at least an additional month.
The second point we would like to make tonight concerns the issue of fairness of the provisions of Bill 26. We are deeply concerned that this bill opens the door to regressive forms of taxation, which will hurt large segments of our population by making programs and services inaccessible to them. It is clear that many of the services provided by municipal government are essential services and are critical to the quality of life that we value so highly.
Subsection 220.1(2) states:
"Despite any act, a municipality and a local board may pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons,
"(a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;...
"(c) for the use of its property including property under its control."
And in subsection (3),
"A bylaw under this section may provide for,
"(a) fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue;...
"(e) different classes of persons and deal with each class in a different way."
These provisions, in hand with the reductions in provincial funding to municipalities, which for the city of Peterborough amounted to a staggering 36%, will work against the very rationale for the establishment of municipalities. The central premise of municipal government is to ensure the provision of services which allow a decent quality of life, including waste disposal, public health, roads, libraries; in general, to make available to everyone the information and services which they need to maintain their quality of life.
Coupled with massive cuts in provincial transfers, a consequence of Bill 26 as it now stands is to diminish the capacity of municipal government to provide services and programs to all of its residents, to a situation whereby only the affluent will be able to pay for what they need, while many people are left without. This situation quickly leads to a dichotomy between haves and have-nots, those who can afford the services and those who cannot.
What we will be left with is a fragmented society, one which more closely resembles that of our neighbours to the south where, in Washington, DC, well-known journalist and author Linda McQuaig writes that on a drive though Anacostia, the sprawling ghetto in the southeast corner of the US capital, "We were quickly engulfed by the dreary remains of the once-viable working-class neighbourhood. There were abandoned cars and boarded-up houses and people with helpless, vacant looks. Driving deeper, the scenes grew grimmer. As we drove by block after block of dirty, low-rise housing projects, with walls smeared with graffiti and broken windows covered by wire mesh, I was struck by the realization that this descent into filth and degradation was happening in the richest country in the world, only minutes from the gleaming monuments to US democracy."
Many of us have witnessed these same scenes as we've driven through the United States, and this is not the kind of country we want to live in. But this is the destination of Bill 26 and the accompanying spending cuts of the provincial government.
2050
We question the fairness of forcing municipalities to either eliminate needed services or pay for services which everyone needs through the imposition of user fees and additional taxes. We think that such fees and taxes will result in significant hardship for many residents of Peterborough, including seniors living on fixed incomes, and also the working poor.
Peterborough is a community which will be particularly affected by this approach, since the census indicates that 16% of the population in the county of Peterborough is comprised of seniors, compared to the provincial average of 12%. In addition, at 37% we have a higher percentage of low-income individuals in the city of Peterborough than the provincial average of 31% as well as a higher percentage of low-income families at 13%, compared to 11% provincially.
While the bill allows for exemption from fees and taxes, the history of means testing is that it is also divisive. We believe that charity is no substitute for social justice. The Common Sense Revolution promised low-income Ontarians dignity and hope, not charity.
We recommend specifically that the provincial government reconsider the proposals of Bill 26 which would empower municipalities to impose additional fees or taxes for services or activities in view of the regressive nature of such fees and taxes and we urge the government to reconsider the drastic spending cuts it has imposed on local governments, boards and agencies. We are on record as opposing the government's proposed reduction of income taxes as inappropriate and untimely. Our fiscal problems were not caused by poor people and the burden of solving these problems should be shared equally and done in a progressive fashion.
Further, we recommend that the provisions concerning the imposition of user fees should be the subject of intense debate and discussion through further consultation, in order that we may identify creative alternative ways of paying for the provision of necessary programs and services, in a manner which would not lead to further fragmentation of society.
Our third and final point pertains to the accountability of government. When we think of the system of democracy as it is practised in Ontario for generations we think of a century or more of political traditions, cultures and values. These traditions start with periodic elections, public debate, ongoing consultation and accountability for decisions. One of the traditions of political accountability in the province is the ability to see what the government is doing and have input to government decision-making processes.
It is important to acknowledge that government does not always get it right the first time and therefore government should be open and accountable to public scrutiny. We find in Bill 26 strong moves in the directions of centralization of power in the hands of cabinet and additional barriers to the openness of government. For example, the bill proposes enhanced powers on the part of government to amalgamate municipalities, annex a locality to another municipality or engage in other restructuring without legislative change or input from the public.
As a second example, in the area of the privatization of public utilities, Bill 26 amends the Public Utilities Act to allow a municipality to waive the requirement to obtain the assent of electors for such a move. We feel that at the municipal level this provision removes opportunities for citizen involvement in decision-making and is therefore detrimental to the maintenance of a strong and healthy community.
This bill seems to presume that the end justifies the means. In other words, because we have a large deficit which must be eliminated, it's okay for government to grant itself new and sweeping powers. The spirit of this bill seems to be saying that, in order to accomplish deficit reduction, governments may now act without the check of open public scrutiny.
There have been moments of crisis in our national history when our government has acted as if the ends justify the means. Whenever this has happened, we have regretted it. For example, wartime internment of the Japanese in Canada was carried out in the full belief that the ends justified the means. We have since lived to deeply regret these actions.
In general, measures which limit the involvement of citizens in dialogue and ongoing consultation with government should not be introduced, as they limit the accountability of government and the practice of democracy as we have come to know it in Ontario. We recommend that the government reconsider the provisions of Bill 26 which grant additional powers to government to carry out restructuring. The centralization of power is not acceptable. At a bare minimum, the bill should be amended to include a sunset clause concerning these restructuring powers. We recommend further that the bill be modified to remove the opportunity for municipalities to waive the requirement to obtain the assent of the electors for the sale of public utilities.
In conclusion, we urge the committee to consider the underlying presumption of Bill 26: that it is necessary to fundamentally restructure the way government functions and the way that we pay for government programs and services. We believe that it should be possible to put our fiscal house in order without taking the drastic steps which are included in Bill 26.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Howlett, if you'd like to proceed.
Mr Floyd Howlett: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. As was mentioned, I am the chairperson of the Peterborough Coalition for Social Justice. This is a coalition of community organizations and individuals committed to working together for the elimination of injustice and the enhancement of the social, economic and environmental life of the community and the nation. The Peterborough social planning council is one of the member groups of the coalition.
As a social justice organization, we propose to examine the provisions of the proposed omnibus Bill 26 under the following headings: Are they democratic? Are they fair? Are they necessary? and then add some recommendations.
First of all, are the provisions democratic? In order to assess the democratic nature of a government's actions, we need some understanding of the role of government in a democratic society. We believe that one of the primary roles of governments is to enhance the livelihood of all citizens. Because of the competitive nature of society and unequal bargaining power, one party is often able to exploit another. So one of the roles of government is to protect the weak against the strong and to provide collectively goods and services essential for human development.
Basic among these are the rights to food, shelter, education, health, recreation and culture. Although Bill 26 may not deal with the collective rights to goods and services directly, it does provide the framework under which massive cuts to welfare, education, health, culture and the environment have been already made and are looking to make further cuts. In this respect, it would seem to be the very opposite of democratic.
Democracy also has to do with who holds power and how this power is administered. In a true democracy, power resides in the people and governments are the servants of society. The people's voice needs to be heard not only at election time, but whenever major changes are being made that affect the nature of society there needs to be consultation with those who are affected. The attempt to fast-track Bill 26 not only before the general public had a chance to know its contents but even before the Legislature had had a chance to digest it does not speak well for the democratic nature of this government.
2100
One phrase that keeps recurring throughout this document, which appears to me to be very anti-democratic, is this: "if the minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so." This suggests that the minister has no obligation to consult the constituency or to enter into democratic dialogue.
I'd like to consider democracy and downloading. The downloading of costs of welfare, education, health etc from the province to the municipalities while at the same time offering them the right to impose certain fees and charges far from compensates for the provincial government assuming its full responsibility for equitable standards across the province. The ability to raise major sources of revenue to meet basic human needs through income taxes and corporation taxes belongs to the province and cannot be administered locally.
One of the most ominous sections of Bill 26 and of particular concern to the citizens of Peterborough is one that Jacqueline has already mentioned, which comes under the Municipal Franchises Act. This provision, which eliminates the need to obtain electors' assent before exercising any power under the Municipal Franchises Act or any other act, leaves the door wide open for the takeover or the privatization of the Peterborough Utilities Commission, even against the wishes of the electorate.
Next, are the provisions fair? Bill 26 is not fair when it takes away pay equity rights from about 100,000 low-paid women in such areas as day care, libraries and nursing homes.
Bill 26 is unfair when it deregulates drug prices and when it gives powers to municipalities to establish a wide range of user fees. User fees, as has been mentioned before, are simply further taxes which hit the poorest segment of society most of all.
Bill 26 is unfair when it eliminates all funding for educational and recreational conservation authorities and allows municipalities to abolish conservation authorities and to sell off their land. Conservation authorities are among rural Ontario's biggest assets.
Bill 26 is grossly unfair since it supports a program to reduce benefits for the poorest members of society and promises to give a 30% income tax break which will primarily benefit the rich. There is no guarantee that those who receive large tax reductions will invest it in capital projects or in local consumer goods. They are just as likely to use it for a holiday abroad or invest in tax-free RRSPs, which by the way the higher-tax-bracket people are able to buy the most.
Are these provisions necessary? This is a question that I haven't heard asked or answered tonight. The rationale for Bill 26 is said to be "to achieve fiscal savings and promote economic prosperity through public sector streamlining and efficiency." However, it is doubtful that the fiscal savings will really promote economic prosperity. In a study done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives it has been shown clearly that "cutting government spending lowers national income, which in turn lowers employment. A drop in government program spending of $1 billion leads to the loss of between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy."
But there are alternatives. There are alternatives which could at the same time reduce the deficit, preserve our valuable social programs and eliminate the need for the imposition of user fees at the municipal level. We hear repeated often that taxes are too high. It's true that average working Canadians are paying their fair share of taxes, but wealthy individuals and profitable corporations are not. If they were paying equitable taxes, the deficit could be quickly and completely wiped out. For instance, over 98,000 Canadians with annual incomes of over $100,000 take advantage of tax loopholes so that they pay no income tax. The proportion of federal tax revenue collected from corporations dropped nearly 200% between 1961 and 1994, from 20% to just 7.2% at the present time. There should certainly be room there for higher provincial taxes on profitable corporations.
Many argue, of course, that raising taxes on corporate profits would drive companies out of Canada. However, 23 other countries have higher corporation taxes as a percentage of GDP than Canada. Even the US has an inheritance tax and a minimum corporate tax rate.
Someone has spoken tonight already about the legacy for our children, and we hear the government talking about the terrible legacy we are leaving to our children in the form of national debt. But a much worse legacy, if we continue to diminish the role of government in our lives, is a society in which millions do not have jobs, a society in which resources are distributed in an obscenely unequal manner, a society in which the standard of living of the average family continues to decline, a society without a sense of its collective responsibility and a society in which the economic élite is ever more able to defend itself politically. This would be an unjust and irresponsible legacy to leave to our children.
Now briefly I'd like to make seven recommendations:
We recommend that the provincial government, in order to become more democratic, initiate consultations with affected parties before introducing legislation and that it provide for province-wide hearings on issues that involve major changes in policy.
We recommend that the government amend the section of Bill 26 which would allow the minister to make decisions on the basis of the minister's opinion of what was, as was said, "in the public interest."
We recommend that the government reverse the downloading of costs for welfare, education, health and environmental protection on to the municipalities and establish provincial standards, adequately funded by the provincial government.
We recommend that the government amend the provisions in Bill 26 which would eliminate the need for electors' assent for the takeover or the privatization of municipal commissions.
We recommend that in order to establish fairness, the government amend the section dealing with pay equity, that it restore these rights, continue regulation of drug prices and restore funding to conservation authorities.
We recommend that the government abandon the proposed 30% tax reduction and assign the funds to more adequate funding for welfare, education, health care and the environment.
At the same time, we recommend that the government initiate a study of fair taxation and alternative sources of revenue to meet the fundamental needs of Ontario's citizens.
2110
The Vice-Chair: Each party at this time has one minute, and we'll start off with the opposition party.
Mr Phillips: It's tragic we have one minute to ask you a question on something this important. I hardly know where to begin.
The government has cut municipal grants by 50% and then it struck a deal with the municipalities and said: "Well, if you'll keep quiet, we'll give you the right to set unlimited fees on virtually whatever you want. New licensing power. We'll fetter the arbitrators." Then they'll say, "We trust the municipalities; they'll do what's right." I trust the municipalities too, but in the end the mayor of Peterborough has a choice: You cut services or you put a bunch of new fees on.
I guess my question to you is, how would an area like Peterborough accommodate a substantial cut in grants but still wanting to maintain some of the essential services here for social services?
Ms Powell: I guess we anticipate there's going to be considerable hardship as a result of those cuts, particularly if user fees are implemented to make up the difference. We talked about the percentage of low-income people and seniors, and those people are going to be affected. They are not going to have the services they need. That's the kind of future we envision with this bill.
The Vice-Chair: Sorry to interrupt. Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentations. I too wish we had more time, but I think in another way you've really covered all of the essential points that strike at the heart of what the government is doing. I think particularly in your presentation, Mr Howlett, you make the point that really what this is about is not so much dealing with the deficit. If it was that, we may disagree with the government, but at least there would seem to be some logic to what they're doing. But the basic reason why they're doing what they're doing is to pay for the 30% tax cut, which is not going to benefit the average Ontarian. It's going to benefit much more proportionately, largely so, the richer citizens among our society.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you for your presentation. I can understand our difference of opinion on user fees and what they will or will not do for municipalities. I'm a little concerned on your position of being opposed to the restructuring. Recognizing that municipalities have functions to do in providing services and they also spend a considerable amount of money on administration and governance, it would seem to me that it would be advantageous to all concerned that we have a system in place that would allow the municipalities to look at reducing the cost of that structure. I wondered why you would put forward a proposal to say we should not get involved with that because we're somehow endangering democracy in that.
Ms Powell: I guess it's more the how of doing it; in other words, without sufficient citizen involvement in it, without processes that allow municipalities to participate as partners in that. I understand some of the amendments actually speak to that. I haven't seen them yet, so I can't comment on them, but I think it's very important that there be citizen involvement in the decision-making all along the way and that it not be done simply as a move by cabinet.
Mr Hardeman: You're not opposed to restructuring then.
Ms Powell: No.
The Vice-Chair: Sorry to interrupt. We're out of time. I thank you very much for your presentation this evening.
SKI TELEMARK LTD
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Ski Telemark Ltd. I thank you for coming this evening. Could you just identify yourself for the committee and Hansard, and you can commence at any time.
Ms Holly Blefgen: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and the standing committee on general government. My name is Holly Blefgen and I'm president of Ski Telemark Ltd.
On behalf of my company, Ski Telemark Ltd, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you at this hearing. I have come to deliver my oral presentation in an advisory capacity in hopes of providing an alternative, a more global economic perspective on Bill 26 and proposed amendments to several provincial statutes that will have a detrimental effect on Ontario's environmental protection.
I hope this committee will review the information contained in this brief and seriously reconsider the implications of Bill 26 in order to prevent loss of conservation lands to privatization; continued protection of our lakes, rivers and lands; and effective management of habitat and species populations for conservation of biodiversity of Ontario's wildlife prior to the third reading of Bill 26 on January 29, 1996.
My company is a small business, established in 1985 and incorporated in 1990. Ski Telemark consults and specializes in the design, marketing, management and delivery of quality outdoor education and promotional programs and services for domestic as well as international corporations and clientele.
In particular, Ski Telemark's primary business is the establishment of two-way tourism and trade between North America, Japan and Asia. The operations of Jitensha Cycling, in conjunction with Tokyo Tours Ltd, an Ontario-certified travel agency, provide specialty and custom tours for groups, businesses and individuals travelling to Japan and Asia; and Ontario Outdoor Adventures, a division of Ski Telemark, manages and delivers a specifically designed tour program for Japanese clients visiting Ontario. Currently, Ontario Outdoor Adventures is uniquely positioned in that our summer program is capable of retaining Japanese clients in Ontario for six nights and seven days and has recently been requested by the provincial government to act as the receptive tour operator for all inbound Japanese traffic interested in undertaking any type of outdoor recreational activity or green tour throughout Ontario.
With 10 years of product and market development targeted at the Japanese marketplace, Ontario Outdoor Adventures has established and collaborates closely with many partners, including Ontario's Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism; Ontario's tourism office in Tokyo; FedNor and NODA tourism funding agencies; the federal government's Canadian Tourism Commission; the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo; and highly respected Japanese travel agencies and affiliated travel and outdoor businesses in Canada and Japan. Our business has also recently been contracted by FedNor to train and market tourism business partners, including municipalities, in northern Ontario for their preparation and entry into the Japanese marketplace.
In my presentation tonight I would like to address briefly the following topics as they relate to tourism and land use decisions: first, an historical overview of Ontario's visionary leadership in the process of creating, developing and protecting the public lands, water and wilderness areas as we know today; secondly, the significant role Ontario parks, conservation lands and wilderness areas play in our natural and cultural heritage and its utilization in tourism initiatives; and finally, the current and future economic impact of tourism involving Ontario's park system, conservation lands and water, and the incumbent wildlife.
Over a century ago, our province commenced on a visionary approach to the protection and preservation of public lands for the benefit not only of renewable resources for economic prosperity -- for example, logging -- but also for the betterment of health and recreational opportunities for the people of Ontario. In 1893, Algonquin Park became Ontario's first national park as a result of logging baron Booth's financial interest in the maintenance of the Algonquin highlands, and the foresight and efforts of civil servants James Dickson and Alexander Kirkwood in the concept of Algonquin as a "forest reservation and park."
The park was officially established in 1893, when the Ontario Legislature passed the Act creating Algonquin Park as "a public park, and forest reservation, fish and game preserve, health resort and pleasure ground for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of the province."
In 1913, the first Parks Act was passed, providing the province with the means to set aside crown land for park purposes if it was deemed unsuitable for settlement or agriculture. By 1945, seven provincial parks had been established, and with the passage of the Provincial Parks Act in 1954, marked expansion of the provincial park system occurred with the ability to purchase private lands. Also during this period, in response to southern Ontario's ineffective management of land and water resources, the Ontario government once again recognized the need for environmental resource management and it created the Conservation Authorities Act, which came into effect in 1946, empowering conservation authorities to develop flood control programs that involved floodplain management, land acquisition and reforestation.
Today, with the recent creation of Parks Ontario within the Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks Ontario manages 265 provincial parks, representative of 6% of Ontario's land and water resources, and 38 conservation authorities managing 102,711 square kilometres of the province's land and water areas, located primarily in southern Ontario's densely populated regions. The concerted efforts and legislation of previous governments and the insight of concerned citizens' groups have endured and must continue to guide us into the 21st century.
The people of Ontario have benefited in many ways by this wisdom, through the enhancement of our quality of living, access to year-round recreational activities, protection of our natural heritage and wildlife, with the understanding that these environs would continue to be protected and offer sustainable development for the environmental, social and economic wellbeing of future generations. Hence, the currently proposed amendments in Bill 26 impacting on the environment of parks, public lands and conservation authorities will be unable to guarantee this expectation for future generations and will unwisely create distrust and misgivings with the general public towards the government.
2120
In the protection and management of Ontario's land, water and wildlife under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural Resources, conservation authorities and other non-profit organizations, such as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, these provincial organizations and their respective staff have become and are formidable leaders in environmental protection, conservation, stewardship, wildlife and watershed management in Canada. Currently, these organizations are being contacted for their expertise and services throughout the world. It would be shortsighted by the current government to dismiss these organizations' input and recommendations in the proposed amendments affecting the Conservation Authorities Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Game and Fish Act, the Public Lands Act and the Mining Act, included in Bill 26.
These historical achievements and outcomes have placed Ontario in an enviable position. For tourism, Ontario offers a unique world-class system of parks and conservation lands, an abundance of wildlife, a heritage of environmental integrity, excellent year-round recreational opportunities and services that are ready to compete for tourism dollars and market share, both domestically and internationally.
On the domestic front in 1993, provincial parks recorded over 8.4 million visitation days, generating a total of $16.3 million in permit sales alone, the primary visitor, 90%, being from Ontario and other Canadian provinces. The Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario also reports that in 1990 recreational opportunities enjoyed in conservation lands drew a total of 5.165 million annual daily visitors and generated $13 million in revenue. Despite the lack of more up-to-date statistics, nor an economic measure and record of benefits garnered by communities surrounding these areas, and the lack of tourism marketing campaign of Ontario's wilderness and outdoor recreational opportunities, the potential for tourism development and economic prosperity for Ontario is limitless.
Using Algonquin provincial park as a model, Algonquin's wilderness has captivated the minds and hearts of millions of Canadians and visitors from around the world. The park has inspired artists, writers, scientists, photographers, canoeists and campers and instilled a strong sense of our cultural and natural heritage. However, not until 1989 did Algonquin Park's goal statement reflect the commitment of the Ministry of Natural Resources to have Algonquin Park contribute to the economic life of the region through tourism. This revised goal and the construction of two major facilities, the new visitors' centre and logging museum for Algonquin's 100th anniversary celebration, increased visitation by 38% from 1992-93, with a 5% increase in visitors exceeding 880,000 in 1994. On average, the day visitor group expended $205 per day.
With regard to the promotion and marketing of Ontario tourism internationally, it has been identified that travellers from Europe visit for the following reasons: to enjoy natural or vast "authentic" wilderness; outdoor experiences; to view key sites and cultural events. For Japanese travellers, their interests are in new experiences, cultures, heritage and the environment, with preferences for nature and wildlife.
To address these markets, the province's current marketing strategies, directed at the European and Japanese marketplace, emphasize the following:
-- To increase awareness and build Ontario's image as a high-quality, unique, safe, year-round destination;
-- To position tourism products and experiences unique to Ontario through the message of "Only in Ontario";
-- To develop and offer products specific to soft adventure travel, including FIT tours, which are independent tours, resort/lodge/inn stays, canoeing, wildlife viewing, fishing and native experiences.
In 1994, these primary markets of Europe, which include the United Kingdom, Germany and France, generated $510 million, 4.4% of Ontario's travel revenue. Of the European market, Germans spent the most in travel to Ontario, an average of $797 per person, per trip, with an average stay of 7.8 nights. The Japanese incurred $151 million on travel to Ontario, staying an average of 4.2 mights and spending $631 per person, per trip. Most significantly and for the first time, Ontario received 37% of all Japanese visitations to Canada, a total of 238,000 visitations, the largest share of any single province, with British Columbia second with 35% of total Japanese visitations.
It was projected for 1995, a 10% increase from Japan to 270,000 visitations, with a generation of revenues at $170 million. Japan is Ontario's second-largest overseas market to the United Kingdom and the fastest growth potential. From these findings, it clearly illustrates international markets' growing demand and interest for enjoying and visiting Ontario's great outdoors.
As for federal government initiatives, Ontario and its respective tourism suppliers were recently approached to participate as partners in the Canadian Tourism Commission's Canada Adventure Program for the American marketplace. As stated, the opportunity read as follows: "We intend to exploit the burgeoning consumer interest in travelling in a natural setting by more aggressively marketing Canada's sought-for assets. More than any other country Canada has the adventure product that this market is looking for: pristine, spacious, uncrowded beauty; safe, close, foreign and great value; reputation for environmental integrity and social consciousness; product for both soft and hard adventurers."
The American marketplace, represented by the eight closest states to Ontario's borders, generated $1.876 billion in travel to Ontario, representing 16.4% of Ontario's total travel revenue for 1994. Overall, the total travel revenue for Ontario was $11.44 billion, with a projected goal of $11.83 billion for 1995.
The relevancy of these facts and figures, however, must also be kept in the context of tourism development in Ontario. Until recently, Ontario's tourism and marketing efforts have been focused primarily on Niagara Falls, Toronto and Ottawa, and tourism revenues have been considered a minor player in Ontario's economic outlook as well as in Canada's tourism industry. Ontario has also been isolated from 25 years of federal government initiatives directed at overseas markets actively promoting and marketing "Big Nature," "Outdoor Canada," in reference to British Columbia and Alberta.
In light of this information, tourism for Ontario is and will become an integral player in Ontario's economic bottom line, and whose industry will provide prosperity and job creation for today and tomorrow. The following statements from an article featured in the Globe and Mail on January 4, 1996, headlined "Tourism Getting New Respect in BC," effectively addresses a similar situation that has arisen for Ontario:
"Today, British Columbia with its adoption of the `Super Natural' image has brought much wealth to the province and is considered one of the leading growth industries for BC, generating a total revenue of $6.314 billion in 1994. However, for tourism to grow, BC is seriously recognizing the need to sustain the product. Therefore, protecting this product image that has been promoted worldwide requires that the economic value of tourism must be considered in land use decisions. Currently, BC's NDP government has recognized the value of leaving the environment in its natural state and that it has to set up a sustainable base for the forest industry. They have also created more than 100 new parks -- "in the last four years -- "including vast tracts in remote corners of the province and smaller areas within the sites of city centres."
In comparison, tourism to Ontario also offers a "super natural" environment, with outstanding recreational, cultural and tourism-related activities. However, Ontario to date has been able to maintain the product within our provincial park system and conservation lands, achieved through a remarkable visionary process conducted over this past century. Now, like British Columbia, it has become inevitable, however, that Ontario must take the next step and incorporate the economic value of tourism in land use decisions.
In my concluding remarks I reiterate the facts. The province of Ontario proudly possesses pristine, spacious, uncrowded beauty, offers safe, close, foreign and great value, a reputation for environmental integrity and social consciousness and can provide products for both soft and hard adventures.
These assets that many Canadians take for granted are being threatened. With the introduction of Bill 26, Ontarians will see the systematic annihilation of conservation authorities, the erosion of our natural areas and wildlife, with an overall decline in environmental integrity.
2130
Bill 26 states that the funding to conservation authorities will be further reduced, by 70%. It is evident that the government wants to restrict conservation authorities' involvement in the land to strictly flood control capacity. Our wildlife and ecosystems are threatened, and only those with a vested interest in commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife will sit on governmental advisory committees.
Bill 26 does not allow those with knowledge and experience about our environment to contribute expertise on resource management. Our lakes, heralded the world over as clean and pure, are also in jeopardy through the implementation of amendments which no longer require permits for all works on lakeshores, rivers and streams. Habitat of aquatic species will be jeopardized, thereby having detrimental affects on the food web.
Finally, the economic reality of these changes wrought by Bill 26 will not only have negative impacts on Ontario's environment; it will also lead to massive financial decline in tourist-generated revenue for the province of Ontario. As an impassioned Canadian and as a citizen of this province, this bill represents the loss of the public's sacred trust, and a loss of our natural heritage and our identity as people and as of this country.
In conclusion, I request of this standing committee on general government their serious rethinking of the proposed statute amendments in Bill 26. I would appreciate a reply to this presentation and a receipt of Bill 26 prior to its third reading on January 29, 1996. Please, please, consider the economic value of tourism in land use decisions.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much, Ms Blefgen. Here's an interesting observation: Yours is the 194th of 195 presentations that this part of the committee will have heard, and it's after 9:30 on Friday evening. You have provided us with an analysis that no other presenter has provided us, because I think that while a number of other people have spoken to us about the value of our environment and the need to protect it, you have clearly given us an additional set of analyses on that with respect to the economic value, as you put it, of tourism and ecotourism and the value to the province as a whole as a result of that. I appreciate it as a legislator and I appreciate it particularly in my role as critic for the NDP for both Economic Development and Tourism.
If for no other reason than the reasons that you've given, it seems to me that it would be incumbent upon the government to realize that it should go slower on some of the changes that affect conservation authorities, that affect the environment as a whole, as you've outlined, and to realize that if they're not convinced by the environmental arguments, they ought to be convinced by the economic arguments, which they seem to be so wedded to. So thank you for the presentation.
Mr Galt: Thanks for the presentation -- very well-informed and one with a lot of concern in giving some good recommendations. A lot of thought has gone into it.
I don't think there's any question here in Ontario, and Canada in general, that probably our future can be with things like tourism and our resources, and we need to better use and take more advantage of them. When I say "take more advantage," I don't mean to destroy, but to bring people in to see them through tourism. There couldn't be a better role for us to be playing here.
We explored it a little bit earlier, and it has to do with conservation authorities and their role. The Ministry of Natural Resources, and to a lesser extent we could toss in two or three other organizations, but the previous presenter was agreeing with the duplication there. We as a government would like to get away from as much duplication as possible. Do you see that their role could be played by Natural Resources rather than having two different organizations there?
Ms Blefgen: That's a difficult one. I think they all have a particular role because they each have their own expertise. I guess from a tourism point of view, though, and dealing with all these organizations, I have found that sometimes there's not enough communication between them. So I can understand the point that there is some duplication, maybe. I think in some ways, though, it could be done, in the sense that even the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism and the Ministry of Natural Resources -- and I rarely have heard maybe the conservation authorities all talking to one another.
Mr Galt: That's part of the problem.
Ms Blefgen: I think that's part of the problem. I think if you are looking at restructuring, there should be some kind of communication channels opened up, because it could do so many wonderful things for this province if that started happening. I am speaking here tonight because I have been the intermediary talking to all of these people and trying to say: "Can this be done? What do you think?"
Mr Galt: The other area might be environment. A tremendous number of people just automatically think that's an environmental concern or an environmental role, and in its broadest sense it is, but not in the discipline as we have divvied it up in the present Ontario government.
The other area -- just for a second, so I don't take too much time here -- relates to the 55,000 licences that were given out last year by Natural Resources for everything from building docks on. That must take a tremendous amount of time on behalf of the civil service. I'm wondering if we couldn't go more to establishing the standards, make sure they're well advertised in those areas and expect, by peer pressure and monitoring inspections, that that would be carried out.
Ms Blefgen: You mean, not have the government give out permits to people?
Mr Galt: Not having to develop this application. I went through a tremendous ritual over a small dock and I know it took up an awful lot of staff time. All they had to do was give me the standards and specifications and I would have built it that way.
Ms Blefgen: I guess, unfortunately, if everybody was just building a small dock, then that would be fine, but you get so many variations on that theme that it's very hard to address otherwise. If you don't have something in place to protect the environment in the fish habitat side, then I don't know what else you can do. I have seen things go on in my own cottage association area. At one time there were boat-houses; now they don't allow boat-houses any more. I think it can be streamlined, yes. I have just built a house in Hope township, so I know what one has to go through to get a permit, but it's a process that I think needs to be there and should be continued. But yes, I think maybe it could be streamlined a little more.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate your presentation. I think it's only now that people who are concerned about the environment recognize the tremendous change in the bill that impacts on the environment. I think they actually, when the bill was introduced, believed it was about fiscal savings and that it was what it said it was. Tonight we've heard two excellent presentations, one from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters which expressed many concerns about the environmental impact of all the changes in this bill, and now yourself. The problem, I think, you run into and we run into is that there's one more presentation and then this is going to be law, before most of the people who are concerned about the environment have even recognized the impact.
Ms Blefgen: I don't think many people know about the impact of this environmental bill.
Mr Phillips: That was going to be my question. You are obviously someone very interested in it, but just in terms of the groups and the individuals you talk to, is it fair to say that there's very little awareness of the environmental impact of this bill?
Ms Blefgen: Very little. People who I know in my own business haven't even come forth to say anything to me. I had to go out and buy information to put some of this information together. For example, on the bill, I had to go to the environmental law association to find out about it. I didn't even receive a copy of Bill 26.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate it. I would just say to you that there is no doubt that there were a few people at this table writing this bill -- the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was one of them; the mining companies were another -- but the environmentalists weren't there. I assure you, in my judgement, once people become aware of the trampling on the environment that's gone on in this, in the interests of them getting their tax cut, I think they will find they will have stirred up a hornet's nest. The problem is, it will all occur after this becomes law.
Ms Blefgen: That's the very unfortunate fact, yes.
Mr Phillips: That's why, as I think you know, we've said to the government: "Listen, there are some things in this bill that are so important to deal with fiscally, we'll deal with them on January 29. But the rest of it, let's have an opportunity for people who have spent their life in these areas to have some input into it."
Ms Blefgen: I agree. I only had less than one week to prepare this presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward this evening and making your presentation to the committee.
Ms Blefgen: Thank you kindly for listening. I appreciate it very much and I await receipt of Bill 26.
2140
COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH
CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the city of Peterborough and the county of Peterborough come forward. Good evening, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this evening to make your presentation. You may use that half-hour as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain response and questions from the caucuses. I'd appreciate it if, at the beginning of your presentations, you'd introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Doug Pearcy: I'm Doug Pearcy, the warden of the county of Peterborough, and to my right is Doug Armstrong, our CAO.
Mr Jack Doris: I'm Jack Doris, the mayor of Peterborough. We have our chief administrative officer, Ron Chittick, with us. Mr Pearcy, the warden, is going to precede me.
Mr Pearcy: I would like to cover a number of issues regarding Bill 26, particularly schedule M to the bill. The changes appear to give municipalities added authority to carry out their own functions. This is something that we have been asking for for a long time. It is disturbing to hear of some presentations made to your committee implying that local government cannot be trusted with these powers. For those who make such a suggestion, they should only think of how local government is formed. The elected members of local council are in direct contact with the electorate in every respect, different from the provincial and federal members who are not.
Having the ability to set charges and licence fees, the opportunity to raise money in other ways than property tax will give local government added flexibility. This option, although called user fees, is a tax upon those members of our community who use the service. It may not be the clear answer that is needed.
Our only concern with the proposals regarding user fees and licensing relates to the ability of the minister, by regulation, 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 municipality under this section must be outlined in the legislation.
We believe that the government, when considering the bill, should come to grips with the transfer payment issues and make it clear to municipalities what they can expect in ample time. We want you to ensure that local government knows now what it can expect this year. And when the provincial budget is set for 1996-97, we should know then what to expect for our 1997 fiscal year. We attempt to plan for a longer term. With shifts made in funding formula during the year, it can be extremely disrupting.
Peterborough county has considered reorganizing some of its local municipalities, to no avail as of yet. To accomplish this task, if needed, a more expedient method has to be put in place by the province. Section 25 of the bill deals with the issue. However, we are concerned that a body which may not be elected members could begin a proposal for restructuring. This we believe would not be in the best interests of local governance.
Sections 25.2 and 25.3 set out the general conditions for the appointment of a commission. Generally, this appears to be a reasonable approach, but we have some concerns with the notion that a commissioner can draft the regulation which would then be passed. The commissioner should be required to present the report to the minister, who could then prepare a regulation setting out the direction. It is important that elected persons carry out this responsibility.
Subject to the above concern, we believe that the principle outlined in the bill regarding restructuring of local government is appropriate.
The proposal regarding the migration of services is a welcome one. However, we believe that there may be some need to attempt to determine what services should be or could be provided by the upper tier. We are aware that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has stated, "It is vitally important that municipalities -- not Queen's Park -- determine which level of municipal government is most suited to provide a service."
Allowing municipalities to dissolve special-purpose bodies is certainly a step in the right direction. This will bring more accountability to the elected members of council; thus, the ratepayers will then know who is responsible. Consideration must be given as to who will provide the service previously delivered by each particular body. If the service is no longer needed, how will the clients or the customers be notified, and will there be any requirement to deliver the service by the municipality after changes have been made? Bill 26 should at least set some parameters for the provision of services by a former body.
We would like to inform this committee and hopefully the minister that Peterborough county has had a great deal of success in expenditure reduction over the past five years. Our staff complement has been reduced by 12%. Payroll has been reduced by 12.5% between 1991 and 1995. The county tax levy has not increased since 1993, in spite of implementing a very aggressive recycling program. In the past five years, the government of Ontario has hit us with the expenditure control program and the social contract targets, which we have met. These amounts were met by staff reductions and streamlining our methods of operation.
Within Peterborough county, the reduction in funding due to the Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act amounts to approximately $1.75 million. We do recognize that the Minister of Finance said that the cuts should not be offset by increases to property taxes. Service charges are another form of tax. We are very concerned with the ongoing requirement to deliver provincial programs and at the same time help to finance them. It may be time for the province to relieve some of the burden and let local taxes support local requirements.
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 the application of the regulations.
With respect to changes in the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, we have some concerns regarding those municipalities that have been excluded from the county road system due to their remoteness. We are aware of discussions that some provincial highways are to be transferred from the provincial system. It is going to be very difficult to accommodate all of these significant changes in a short period of time.
We would like to propose 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."
In summary, I, as the head of Peterborough county council, am not dissatisfied with the moves that the government is taking in the interest of reducing the debt of the province of Ontario. Local government will shoulder its share of the problem. However, we want it to be recognized that the fiscal problem in Ontario is not one of local government expenditures, but of provincial government programs that have either gone out of control or over budget.
We believe that Bill 26 should have a review provision built into it, sometimes known as a sunset clause. This will ensure that the legislation and what it was intended for is indeed considered in the light of the day. It is also important to be able to analyse just how well it has worked.
I will now defer to the mayor of Peterborough.
2150
Mr Doris: Good evening, Mr Chairman, and Mr Silipo and Mr Phillips and Mr Hardeman and your associates. I'd like to thank you for coming to Peterborough. There are two big events in Peterborough today. One is the hearings on Bill 26, and the other is that the largest Atom hockey tournament in the world is taking place in Peterborough. It started on Wednesday, 118 teams. I went down and participated in the opening exercise tonight and we were presented with a cheque for the palliative care unit at St Joseph's Hospital and a $20,000 cheque for our new community centre, and I wondered, was there a presentation to be made here?
Mr Stewart: We could use it.
Mr Doris: Members of the committee, I would like to thank you on behalf of city council for the opportunity to appear before you tonight to present comments on Bill 26. Bill 26 is an important piece of legislation for municipalities across Ontario. The province has announced reductions in transfers to municipalities of $657 million over the next two years, and municipalities will need some help to cope with such a significant loss of revenue. Bill 26 provides some tools for municipalities to use in making the necessary adjustments to budgets.
While the city generally supports the legislative amendments set out in Bill 26, we do have concerns with some of the proposals. Our concerns will be identified as I proceed with comments on the specific schedules included in this bill.
Schedule A: Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1995. We commend you for your recommendation that organizations which receive public funding will be required to disclose annually the names, positions, salaries and benefits of employees paid $100,000 or more a year, but the policy falls short. Under the proposal as presented, the corporation of the city of Peterborough would be unable to make public our senior staff remuneration. We have no one on our payroll making $100,000 or over annually.
Disclosing just the salary ranges is no longer acceptable to the taxpayers. They want to know precisely what our --
Interjection.
Mr Doris: This is the way you guys act in the Legislature; you're in Peterborough now.
Just disclosing the salary ranges is no longer acceptable to the taxpayers. They want to know precisely what our city administrator makes, our director of utility services, the director of community services, our police and fire chiefs. In fact, the taxpayer wants to know what each person receives in remuneration while on the public payroll.
Here in Peterborough, this subject has been a matter of constant public discussion and editorial comment. For years, the public has been saying they have a right to know precisely what we pay our employees. They want full disclosure, and Peterborough city council concurs with their wishes. The Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act should be amended to require municipalities to disclose exactly what each employee receives in the form of salary and benefits. The wages of those covered by collective agreements are made public. What is the justification for not disclosing the wages of non-union personnel? In the opinion of Peterborough city council, such justification does not exist.
Schedule J: amendments to the Pay Equity Act. Part III.2 of the Pay Equity Act sets out the proxy method of comparison to be used for public sector employees where a review officer finds that there is a female job class that cannot be compared to a male job class under either the job-to-job method of comparison or the proportional value method of comparison. Under Bill 26, part III.2 is repealed effective January 1, 1997.
The city of Peterborough has frequently been directed to provide comparative information to a number of outside organizations and other municipalities, some of which have been located in excess of 150 kilometres from Peterborough. The requests have resulted in city staff committing hundreds of hours of review and research time in order to properly respond, hours the city hall can ill afford to give.
It is proposed that schedule J to Bill 26 be amended to provide that municipalities not be required to provide information for the purpose of the proxy method of comparison effective January 1, 1996, or alternatively, that the information be provided on a cost-recovery basis.
Schedule K: amendments to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The city of Peterborough supports the proposed amendments to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The city has dealt with requests in the past which would certainly under the proposed amendments have been denied on the grounds of being frivolous and vexatious in nature. Staffing levels in all city departments have been reduced in recent years to deal with funding cutbacks. The city cannot afford to commit valuable staff resources to respond to freedom of information requests which are clearly frivolous and vexatious.
As indicated earlier, the city supports the introduction of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, but feels the act should be amended to require municipalities to disclose the exact salaries and benefits of all employees.
Schedule M amendments to the Municipal Act and various other statutes; restructuring: The city of Peterborough supports the sections of schedule M related to municipal restructuring. The city believes it may be possible to provide municipal programs and services more effectively and more economically with some revisions to municipal structure. The city of Peterborough and the county of Peterborough have acted quite responsibly in dealing with issues of mutual concern in the past. A number of joint boards have been established, including a home-for-the-aged board, the health unit and a tourism board. In addition, the city and county have established a joint steering committee to deal with the waste management master planning process.
The city has established a committee of council to consider Bill 26 implications, and the committee is prepared to meet with representatives of the county to review restructuring opportunities that may be of benefit to city/county residents.
We believe there is a need for the province to more clearly articulate the objectives of municipal restructuring. In this regard, it would assist the city in our review to have the minister establish the restructuring principles to be considered as set out in section 25.4 and to release regulations under clause 25.2(9)(b) at the earliest possible date.
In addition, the section dealing with the establishment of a commission, which may be composed of one person, needs some clarification. It is unclear under what circumstances a commission will be established by the minister, and the legislation seems to suggest that an order of the commission is final. It seems unreasonable for the report of a commission to be implemented prior to some form of ministerial review and endorsement.
Efficiency and effectiveness of municipal operations: Under section 83.1, municipalities will be required to provide the minister with information related to "the efficiency and effectiveness of the municipality's operation." In addition, under the proposed legislation, a municipality may be required to have the information reviewed or audited.
While the city appreciates the desire of the minister to ensure municipalities operate in an efficient and effective manner, the city is concerned that the requirements to provide, publish, review, audit and make the information available could be onerous and expensive. In addition, unless the information is fairly basic in nature, it is quite likely the information could be misinterpreted.
It is proposed that section 83.1 regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of municipal operations be deleted and that discussions be held with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Municipal Finance Officers Association of Ontario to review municipal reporting requirements.
Dissolution of local boards: The city of Peterborough supports the provisions of the bill related to the dissolution of local boards. The city feels that in these difficult times it is important for municipal councils, who are directly accountable for decisions regarding the expenditure of public funds, to have the power to dissolve boards and commissions. It is noted that under subsection 210.4(4), the power to dissolve local boards does not come into effect until the minister publishes regulations under subsection (7). The minister is urged to publish the regulations at the earliest possible date.
Fees or charges: The city supports the proposed amendments which would provide municipalities with the expanded authority to impose user fees or charges. User fees have been an important source of revenue for the city in the past, and as provincial transfers continue to decline, new revenue options will have to be considered.
Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act: The city has some concerns with the introduction of the Ontario municipal support grants. In Peterborough, the Ontario municipal support grant program includes the former unconditional grants and the conditional grants provided by the Ministry of Transportation. Premier Harris announced to municipalities last summer that they could expect a 20% reduction in funding for 1996. In November, the Ontario municipal support grant program was announced and municipalities were advised that funding would be reduced by 23% in 1996 and a further 20% in 1997.
The city was shocked when they were advised in early January that grants for 1996 would be reduced by 36%, or $1 million more than we had anticipated based upon the November economic statement. This situation is even more disturbing when you compare the city's 36% reduction with the examples of low single-digit reductions, and in some cases actual increases in grants, experienced by many municipalities across the province.
It is proposed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs allocate the reductions in transfers to municipalities in a fair and equitable manner in the future, and that specific reduction targets for 1997 be announced at the earliest possible date.
2200
The city of Peterborough can manage its affairs in a responsible manner under the new Ontario municipal support grants program. The program of block funding should be considered as unconditional in nature and, as indicated above, funding levels should be announced well in advance to provide municipalities with sufficient lead time to make whatever adjustments are necessary re budgets.
Suburban roads commission: The city supports the elimination of the suburban roads commission, as proposed in Bill 26. Suburban roads commissions were created to manage the main farm-to-market road system in counties where a separated town or city is found. The commission designates roads it believes should be placed under its jurisdiction for the joint sharing of construction and maintenance costs between the county and the separated municipality. All suburban roads, however, remain under the county's jurisdiction. Suburban roads commissions are now outdated, as the urban municipality no longer depends on the farm-to-market transportation of agricultural products to the degree it did in the past. Urban municipalities can argue that city streets are frequently travelled upon by county residents who come to the city to earn a living, as indicated by the fact that the rural areas in which the suburban roads are located are no longer primarily agricultural, but are predominantly residential and recreational in makeup. That statement is as related to assessments.
Schedule M, amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act: The city of Peterborough supports amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act. The local conservation authority has been acting in a responsible manner in dealing with funding cutbacks over the past years, and the board is working hard to deal with the funding limitations announced in November 1995.
Schedule Q, amendments to various statutes with respect to interest arbitration: Interest arbitrators are under no obligation to take into account a particular community's ability to pay the wage demands of unions representing firefighters, police and health care workers. In fact, interest arbitrators have had a completely free hand to make awards without any stated or required guidelines to be applied to their adjudication of monetary demands. In the past, the city of Peterborough has been ordered to implement extremely expensive interest arbitration awards, and we feel that equity has not always been done to the taxpayer.
The city of Peterborough supports schedule Q to Bill 26 and the proposed amendments to the Fire Departments Act, Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, Police Services Act, Public Service Act and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. The city believes that requiring interest arbitrators to follow the criteria enumerated in the amendments in making a decision or award will go a long way to restoring fiscal responsibility in compensation administration in the public sector, and in particular the municipal sector.
The city believes that the imposition of the criteria set out in subsections 5.1(1), (2) and (3) in each of the statute amendment proposals will ensure that employers will be able to tell it like it is to arbitrators in deliberations of wage adjudication. The criteria requiring arbitrators to consider the extent to which services may have to be reduced if current funding levels are not increased will require arbitrators to finally recognize and acknowledge the interests of the missing party at interest arbitration hearings, namely the taxpayer.
The city of Peterborough has rationalized its workforce for two consecutive fiscal years. City council has received a consistent message from the taxpayers of Peterborough: There is no room for tax increases. At this time, the government of Ontario continues to reduce the city's grants, which puts continuing pressure on the city's ability to afford to provide the services the taxpayer depends on. The economic situation of our province and this municipality dictates restraint in compensation awards.
The city supports the amendments to the statutes listed at schedule Q to Bill 26; however, we would ask the committee to carefully review the wording of the introductory paragraphs to each amendment. I am referring to the paragraph that states, "In making a decision or award, the board of arbitration shall consider the following criteria."
We respectfully submit that the proposed language should be further amended for clarification to ensure there is no mistake in the minds of arbitrators that they must consider and be bound to apply the criteria enumerated. Mere consideration of the criteria does not guarantee that the arbitrator will be bound to apply and act on data presented by employers with regard to ability to pay, threat of service reduction and the economic situation in Ontario.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee on behalf of the city of Peterborough for the opportunity to appear before you this evening, and wish you well as you consider this very important piece of legislation. Thank you very much, everyone, for attending here in Peterborough.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Stewart: It appears that various governments and municipalities, even though we've been criticized about restructuring and so on, are working well in this community, with both of you here tonight, and I appreciate both of you here.
I guess what we've heard over the last three or four days that I've been on these hearings is that the municipalities have been catered to by AMO at the expense of many people in the province and that you people, as municipal leaders -- and we're hearing that not only from the public but from various groups that have presented -- do not have the ability, and I use that word, the ability, to manage your own affairs. I have real difficulty with that because I believe the municipal level of government is the closest and most accountable to the people.
I would ask that you make some comment towards that type of accusation that has been going on over the last few weeks.
Mr Doris: I don't think there's any question but that in fact we here in Peterborough manage our own affairs in a most responsible manner. Our record of service to the public for a long number of years I think is one that has served our community well. We manage our funds well. We are very careful with the funds set aside with regard to servicing our debenture. We have a surcharge, for instance, that is self-liquidating, and that's how we were able to spend $14.5 million on our sewage treatment plant in order to clean up the Otonabee River and assist in its restoration. I think we can do it quite nicely.
Mr Pearcy: I also believe we can handle the problems with our debt. I spoke in part of my address about the fact that we've cut back staff, wages, all our costs of operations over the years, and we have not raised the levy since 1993. I think that's very responsible. I also think that those who criticize us and say that we can't run our business maybe don't know what kind of business we're trying to run.
Mr Stewart: It's amazing when you find that you gentlemen have kept your tax base, or the increases, to a zero point in the last number of years, yet previous Ontario governments have raised theirs 33% and 32%. I would just like to say that this is why we're having these hearings. There are hearings that our members are coming to daily, and I would suggest that many of the points that you people have brought up tonight, as well as the eastern Ontario wardens and the various other municipal officials, will be looked at and will be addressed next week as we go through clause-by-clause.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the chance to be here. Actually, it reminded me: I coach an Atom team myself and we're on the ice at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Mr Sampson: Right here?
Mr Phillips: No, no, in Toronto.
Mr Young: You'd better get going.
Mr Phillips: I will make a comment and then I'd like to ask a couple of questions. I think the mayor and the warden appreciate that the government had no intention of hearing from you. They wanted this bill passed on December 14. We would never have been in Peterborough; we would never have heard from you. I find it insulting that that was going to take place. As a matter of fact, it was less than two days ago that you weren't even going to be allowed to be here. So if one says they care about consultation and hearing important presentations from you, I just say to you that that was never the intention of the government. This bill would have been law on December 14. And then they accused us yesterday of unruly behaviour.
My compliments to the mayor and the warden.
They've already tabled some amendments, as you know. You may not have had a chance to look at them, but they have no intention of accommodating your request for the commission's report to not be final. It is going to be final. It will not do what you want it to do. It will be final and it will be implemented.
My question really is frankly to help me on the fees and licensing, because I know you understand it but I've spent three weeks at this now and I don't understand it. When we were in Kingston, the council there felt that the licensing provision did provide them with a chance to put fees on, for example, of a cent a litre for gasoline, in the licence -- not in a tax, in the licence.
2210
The provisions in the act say that wherever a part of this act conflicts with a part of any other act, the part that favours the municipalities will override all other sections. So even with the amendments the government has proposed, as you've looked at it -- you obviously understand this clearly -- does the bill provide you, in the licensing area, with that flexibility? I know you won't want to do it, but just in terms of the flexibility it provides you, do you have that flexibility?
Mr Doris: Mr Phillips, I haven't seen the amendments. I understand there are some amendments that have come out, but I was away today so I didn't get a chance to read them. But I will say this, that it wouldn't be the intention of the city of Peterborough to add any tax to gas.
Mr Phillips: I know that, but does it give you the option, is what I'm saying.
Mr Doris: It doesn't?
Mr Phillips: Does it?
Mr Doris: Well, I must say that it is -- has information come out, Mr Chittick, today, while I wasn't there?
Mr Ronald Chittick: Mr Phillips, it's my understanding that the minister has made it very clear that income tax, a tax on gasoline --
Mr Phillips: No, no, no. This is my problem. You're here supporting the bill, and I'm not sure you understand the bill, with all due respect.
Mr Doris: Oh, yes.
Mr Phillips: No. I don't think you understand that it doesn't change -- you've said you hadn't read the amendments. But my question is, does it permit, in the licensing side, the imposition as part of the licence -- not a tax, part of the licence, a tax in response to the licence?
Mr Chittick: In my view, it does not, but I'm certainly not an expert on these matters.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentations. Although there are a number of points that I don't necessarily agree with in your presentation, I wish we had more time to be able to go into some more discussion, because I think that's really what gets us to at least a more common understanding of different points of view.
I guess I would just add to what Mr Phillips said that there's another area where you're not going to be happy, and that is in the arbitration section, because the government has made some changes, and, Mr Mayor, you couldn't have read them today because they were only tabled with us at 5 o'clock or 5:30 this evening, so if you'd been in your office today, it wouldn't have helped you as far as knowing what the amendments were.
But the interesting thing on this one is that I think what the government's going to try to do is to tell you they've toughened this thing up because they've put in here that the arbitrator should also consider not just current funding levels but also taxation levels, so that the taxation levels will not be increased, but then they've put in a kicker which says, basically, "Nothing in this subsection affects the powers of the arbitrators." I think they'll try to say to the police and to the firefighters that those criteria are there but they don't count for much, and they'll try to tell you and other municipalities that they've really toughened this up and it's there.
I just raise that because it is, to me, a very classic example of the kind of -- well, "two-faced" perhaps is too strong a word, but it is late on a Friday evening. But that's the kind of approach that I think we've seen from the government, of not being prepared to be very upfront about what it's doing.
I guess I just come back to the question of taxation. Many have said, whether it's a user fee or whatever it's called, if it asks people to pay something for a service, it's a tax. I guess the thing that troubles me in what we're seeing is they're cutting grants to municipalities. Both of you have said that the cuts are more than what you had originally been told they were going to be, and the only avenue that you're being left with, beyond cutting services, is to increase user fees. Aren't your taxpayers going to see that as just being another form of taxation?
Mr Pearcy: Mr Silipo, I think that we consider user fees a form of taxation. If we have to impose them, it will be for the good of our municipalities, and I guess we'll be the ones that have to face the music if we do that. It's pretty simple, you know. To me it is, anyway. If we're going to do it, we may pay the price down the road.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, all of you, for coming forward tonight and making your presentation to our committee. We appreciate your time.
Mr Doris: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We wish you well in you deliberations.
Mr Silipo: Maybe Mr Sampson could answer my question, Mr Chair. I don't want to keep us here any longer than necessary, but I just wanted to know: We've asked, as you know, over the last couple of days about whether we could expect ministers to be in attendance next week. I just wanted to see if Mr Sampson had any kind of update that he could provide us with.
Mr Sampson: I wasn't going to answer your question but I'll -- the only answer I have now is that the request has been made to the ministers to participate in the relevant sections next week. Whether they show or not is something we are still working on, but the request has been made.
Interjections.
The Chair: On the same point?
Mr Phillips: On that point, yes, unless you're going to --
Mr Sampson: I'll defer to Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: I was given the undertaking that when the amendments were tabled, the ministers who had substantive amendments would be there. If that is not the case, I will have some difficulty with it.
Mr Sampson: Mr Chair, I attempted to uncover what that undertaking was, and the only thing I'm aware of is a letter that was sent by the clerk to the ministers. But as I said, the request has been made to the ministers.
On my point, Mr Chair, since this is the last of our road trip, I would like, I think on behalf of the rest of the committee, to thank the clerk and her support staff for an excellent job in supporting this committee's work on the road. I certainly want to thank you very much, Lynn, and the staff and roadies.
Mr Phillips: I echo Mr Sampson's --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please, in the room.
Mr Phillips: Yes. I'm going to say something about you. We need order.
The Chair: Order, please. I want to hear this.
Mr Phillips: I know I speak for our caucus, and I suspect for everyone, in thanking you, Chair, for a very balanced, fair and fine job as Chair. If you were the Premier, we would have none of these problems.
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr Tascona: What about the Vice-Chair?
Mr Phillips: The Vice-Chair did a good job, yes.
The Chair: I think as a good Chair would do, I want the last word. A quick housekeeping announcement: We catch the bus in about half an hour, as long as it takes to tear down.
As you have stated, my time as Chair of this committee has come to an end. We meet with the full committee on Monday. I would like to thank committee members for co-operation throughout these proceedings. A committee Chair can only be effective if committee members are good legislative members. Those legislative members on this committee are all excellent, and I want to thank you for your cooperation throughout the process. I would like to say I direct that to Mr Cooke, Mr Silipo, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Phillips, Mr Tascona, Mr Sampson, Mr Hardeman and Mr Young.
I especially want to thank the staff, the translators as well as Jim Petselis, Pat Girouard, Jerry Richmond and Lynn Mellor, who have carried out their responsibilities, I would say, in exemplary fashion throughout the whole process. I thank them for that. Together, this committee was one that I was proud to serve, and I believe that Ontarians would reacquire a lost respect for their assembly had they watched this committee over the last three weeks of hearings. I thank you all.
Interjection.
The Chair: Oh, you can't give me the last word, can you, Mr Phillips?
Mr Phillips: Just before Hansard shuts off, I'd like to make sure Peterborough recognizes that John Gerretsen was actually on council for 16 years and mayor for eight years, wasn't it? He was at every AMO meeting since --
The Chair: I believe that he has the North American record for chain weight as mayor.
Thank you once again. The meeting is adjourned until Monday at 9.
The subcommittee adjourned at 2217.