ALGOMA DISTRICT SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BOARD
MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL MANITOULIN
HIGHWAY 11 CORRIDOR MUNICIPAL COALITION
CONTENTS
Wednesday 12 August 1998
Northern Services Improvement Act, 1998, Bill 12, Mr Hodgson /
Loi de 1998 sur l'amélioration des services publics dans le Nord de l'Ontario,
projet de loi 12, M. Hodgson
Algoma Health Unit
Mr Guido Caputo
Dr Allan Northan
Algoma District Social Services Administration Board
Mr David Court
Unorganized Townships of Algoma District Social Services Administration Board /
Territoires non érigées en municipalité
du Algoma District Social Services Administration Board
M. Gabriel Tremblay
Municipality of Central Manitoulin
Mr Perry Anglin
TransCanada PipeLines Ltd
Mr Rick Johnson
Mr Richard Poole
Porcupine Health Unit
Dr Susan Kaczmarek
Highway 11 Corridor Municipal Coalition
Mr Jean Claude Caron
City of Timmins
Mr Victor Power
Mr Ben Lefebvre
Town of Iroquois Falls
Mr Mike Morrissette
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0920 in the Holiday Inn, Sault Ste Marie.
NORTHERN SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES PUBLICS DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO
Consideration of Bill 12, An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à offrir aux résidents du Nord plus de choix et de souplesse dans la mise en place de mécanismes de prestation des services qui tiennent compte de la situation unique du Nord de l'Ontario et à permettre l'accroissement de l'efficience et de la responsabilité en ce qui concerne la prestation des services à l'échelle régionale.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Welcome to the public hearings of the general government committee on Bill 12. I'd like to welcome you all here this morning.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Madam Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the members of the committee to Sault Ste Marie and Algoma district and hope that we have a productive morning and that the committee is able to hear the comments of local representatives of various communities about the services board legislation. I look forward to the opportunity to participate in the committee this morning.
ALGOMA HEALTH UNIT
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call Algoma Health Unit, Allan Northan. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 20 minutes in which to make your presentation. You may use all or part of that. If there's time available, we'll have questions from the caucus members.
Mr Guido Caputo: Madam Chairperson, committee members, my name is Guido Caputo and I'm a city of Sault Ste Marie representative on the board of the Algoma Health Unit. Currently, I am its elected chair. May I take this time to welcome the committee to Sault Ste Marie.
Dr Allan Northan, the CEO and medical officer of health for the Algoma Health Unit, and myself will share in this presentation this morning. It will be short, as we will focus on three key concerns. I will address one and Dr Northan will address the remaining two.
Area services boards should not fragment public health. In Algoma two DSSABs -- that's district social services administration boards -- have been announced, one for Sault Ste Marie and nearby northern areas, and a second for the rest of Algoma. The first DSSAB would have a population of approximately 90,000, and the second about 35,000. At present, the Algoma Health Unit serves the combined population of these two DSSABs.
Since area services boards are derived from DSSAB precursors, Algoma has the potential to have zero, one or two area services boards. Clearly, if there are any area services boards in Sault Ste Marie in the Algoma area, the health unit would be fragmented. Fragmentation will not enhance public health. Rather, it would detract from the quality of services. It is unclear how a health unit would function for a small, spread-out population of 35,000.
If I could also add, the Health Protection and Promotion Act that the health unit works under also requires that each health unit have a medical officer of health, so we would be requiring more medical officers of health.
Dr Allan Northan: I'll just carry on with the next two points. We will be brief, so we hope there will be an opportunity for some interaction.
The second point we want to make is that if Bill 12 is passed into law, public health should be an optional, rather than a required, component of an area services board. One reason for not including public health is the potential for fragmentation that Guido already mentioned. Just to add to what he said about fragmentation, it's been studied in terms of what is a functional population size for a health unit, and 100,000-plus is a functional population for an effective unit. What would happen if you had two area services boards is you'd end up with one board of about 90,000, which is minimally close to the 100,000, and another one way down at 35,000, which wouldn't be effective for running a health unit.
The second point, related to being optional, is that there isn't a clear fit for public health within the package of services you're asking to be required services of an area services board. I'm not really sure why public health is put on the "required" list. It just doesn't make sense to me. When I'm finished my presentation I would like to get some feedback from this group as to what reason there might be for a requirement of public health being part of an area services board. I could see that if perhaps there were 12 small health units in Algoma and you wanted to consolidate them to make two to fit the area services boards that would be here, but when there already is one health unit for the whole district, it doesn't make sense to break it up.
The third point we want to make is that health units operate under the Health Protection and Promotion Act of the Ministry of Health. That's Ministry of Health legislation. An area services board would function through legislation related to another ministry: the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. There is a potential for dysfunction if the public's protection provided by the Health Protection and Promotion Act comes into conflict with the direction provided through Bill 12.
What I'd ask as a second question to this group is, can the public be guaranteed their health will not be compromised by Bill 12? That is to say, the potential of conflict between two pieces of legislation by two different ministries could cause problems. I'd also like to hear a comment on that.
The two questions I put out are: First, why would this committee feel that public health should be a required component of an area services board, and the second one is, is there a guarantee that if this legislation goes forward and there were area services boards, there would not be a conflict between the Health Protection and Promotion Act and this piece of legislation, so that health would not be compromised?
The Vice-Chair: Following the rotation from yesterday, we will begin with the NDP.
Mr Wildman: I thank you very much for your presentation and for allowing us time to have an interchange.
I'd like to follow up on two of the three matters you've raised: the fact that there are two district services boards that have been imposed on Algoma, keeping in mind that there were discussions among the municipalities that led to the recommendation for that, and your concern that this might lead to the formation of two area services boards, which would then mean, you think, two health units.
Dr Northan: As I see the legislation coming forward now, yes.
Mr Wildman: That would mean two medical officers of health and a duplication of services when there is one health unit providing services and one medical officer of health for all of Algoma district now, including the city of Sault Ste Marie.
Dr Northan: Exactly. That's the whole fragmentation concern that I have.
Mr Wildman: The other one is the concern of the public's health being compromised. I won't follow up on the question you raised specifically about two pieces of legislation that could conceivably at some point be in conflict, but rather the question of funding. Do you foresee any difficulties in ensuring that there remains adequate funding, considering the other changes that are taking place provincially, with downloading of costs and services to municipalities?
Dr Northan: Funding is always a worry. I'm not really clear how the funding might be compromised, but as we've worked now as a district agency, we've got funding that really helps every person in the district; the whole population of the Algoma district is taken care of. If you have two pieces, I'd start to worry that one piece would cry poor and the other piece would be better endowed, so then you'd see within Algoma some services being better funded than others and therefore a division in terms of equal access to the equity of service. I'm not sure if you're getting at that, but that would be a concern.
0930
Mr Wildman: So the area that has 90,000 people, the current DSSAB, which includes the city of Sault Ste Marie and the area immediately north, as opposed to the area that includes 35,000 people, could conceivably end up with a situation where they would have better services than those that just serve the small communities.
Dr Northan: It's certainly possible where the funding base is 35,000, especially if that's an area that doesn't have a lot of financial base; it could be a problem. You're not protecting the average person by everybody pitching in; you're getting down to a smaller unit, and if that smaller unit can't foot the bills, it could create an adversity.
Mr Wildman: Chair, if I could just direct a question to the parliamentary assistant or to staff, is Dr Northan's interpretation, that if there were two area services boards there would have to be two health units, two medical officers of health, correct, or is that not your view?
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): No, in the government's view and the intent of the legislation -- I believe the legislation outlines that -- the area services boards, in their proposal to form the board, would have to point out how they were going to deliver public health services. To justify the existence of an area services board, it would have to be that they were going to be able to deliver it in a more cost-effective and efficient manner than it was being delivered in. I don't think it's realistic to believe that anyone would come forward and say that you could fragment the present boards of health into two boards with two medical officers of health, two administrations and propose that this was going to be more effective and efficient. The minister would have the opportunity to refuse to accept the area services board on that premise, that it was not going to achieve the goal of area services boards.
It would be quite possible to have the minister or the proposal propose to have the service of the present boards of health continue in their present form and have them provide the service of public health to more than one area services board. So even though they were responsible, they do not have to be self-delivering of that service. They could, in an area services board proposal, propose to have the public health services delivered in the same manner they are now by a district board of health, with everyone paying proportionately their share of the cost of doing that.
Mr Wildman: If I could just ask one other question, then -- I guess a two-part question. First, could the parliamentary assistant explain why on earth public health services should be provided in this way, rather than the current system, how he thinks this is going to be more efficient? Second, is it likely that since we now have in Algoma district two DSSABs, the ministry would move to one area services board if the municipalities voluntarily agreed?
Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure I could totally answer your question. First of all, as far as the ability of an area services board to find ways to more cost-effectively deliver the quality services that are mandated under the Health Protection and Promotion Act is concerned, I think it would be something where the local people would come up with a proposal to design for their local needs. They may be able to find a more cost-effective way of providing that quality service; they may not. If they cannot, then in an area services board they could continue providing it in the efficient way it is now being provided. That option is left for the local people to make a decision on how best to deliver. I want to re-emphasize that the obligation to deliver that quality service remains. They cannot take over the function of public health and then not deliver it, according to the standards of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.
Mr Wildman: Do you think an area services board could more efficiently deliver services in public health?
Dr Northan: Not as I understand it right now, especially if there were going to be two of them. I wouldn't see it as being more efficient.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I want to thank Bud for clearing up one thing I was going to clear up for you, and that's the one against two. But I do understand your concern about fragmentation. I understand your concern about the dilution of public health.
We heard a very impassioned and articulate speech yesterday regarding the gradual lowering of percentages of money that public health is getting because it's not dramatic, because normally there are not immediate results that say, "Here, look what we've done." We probably have to wait 10, 20, 25 or 30 years to reap the benefits of what public health does during its normal day. This is not a problem of this government or of this province; it's a problem that's endemic right across North America. It's a problem that all governments in the last 25 years are responsible for.
Regardless of whether your area services board decides on one or two or how many, or how they're going to propose to run public health, I think it's the obligation of everybody here and everybody in government regardless of their stripe to be concerned about public health, because it will only save us money in the long run. That's probably longer than I'm going to be here to see, but still, my children and grandchildren will be here.
How do we go about increasing the profile of public health? That's my question. How do we get public health back to where it's supposed to be? I think part of the fault has to belong to public health too.
Dr Northan: Yes. You can never put blame in one place; it's spread around. If you've got concerns, they have to be addressed by more than one area.
One concern in the political arena is the whole change in funding, where public health is a provincial and even a federal responsibility and interest. To put it down to the municipal level is certainly inviting the kind of thing Mr Wildman was suggesting of inequities across the province, where you've got some municipalities that have the ability to easily fund a service that is, as you say, going to pay out great dividends down the road, and others that are looking at things day by day and don't have so much money may decide to cut back on a service that doesn't seem as vital to them right in the here and now but will cause them problems down the road. So the funding source is one of the areas of concern. If it is provincial, there is probably more guarantee for equity across the province than municipal.
As far as your question about what public health can do to increase its profile, that's something public health is dealing with day by day. As you say, when the outcomes are down the road, it's much harder to get people as aware of the value of the service than when it's immediate. When we get a meningitis situation and somebody is well one day and not here with us the next, then people really value public health and vaccinations and so on, but when you talk about longer-term things like tobacco programs and so on, where if you can reduce the number of people smoking you're going to have great benefits down the road that are going to save money and add to the quality of life, they're not as tangible in the here and now. Trying to get people to understand that is one of the jobs of public health.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): A few very short questions to our presenters, and thank you very much for presenting. In a follow-up to Mr Preston's comments, if you want to raise the profile of public health, do you think making it a core service, as this act does, raises the profile or hinders the raising of that profile?
Dr Northan: One way of answering that is that in the past, many public health units had home care services, and governments felt that home care didn't have a high enough profile because it was mixed in with public health. As it got bigger, all three parties that were in government looked at home care and decided it should be pulled out on its own, under its own board, to have a higher profile. That was a decision that all governments thought made sense.
The same rationale is there for public health. If you put us into a bag with six other services, then you get lost and the profile is not as well supported as if you have what we have right now, an independent board that takes our issues solely and directs them. Mixing us into an area services board could detract from our importance.
0940
Mr Bartolucci: One final question before I turn it over to Mr Brown. If the government is to try to do this consolidation, do you think it would be better done in some workable and fundable form of an integrated health services model?
Dr Northan: Certainly integrated health services have been put forward in the last couple of years in particular, but even before that. Public health would be better integrated within health than trying to integrate it within services outside of health. There has to be integration of all systems, but if you're going to integrate within a system, we should be integrated within health in particular, not pulled out of health and put somewhere else.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Thank you for appearing, Dr Northan. I want to come back to the funding question and the possible inequities that I can see when you look at two DSSABs in this particular area or any area and the accountability questions that will come out of that, and also your responsibility to meet statutes that define what you need to do as a health unit that are provincially imposed and the opportunities for poorer service in particular areas because of the assessment, how much property tax there is to get out there, because what we're talking about is moving this health service directly to the cost of the property taxpayer. I think we sometimes miss that when we do this. This is not a municipality that's paying the bill; this is the property taxpayer who is paying this bill.
In structure, it would seem to me that the health unit would have to meet provincial statutes, would have to provide the service equally. So essentially the health unit board would have to impose costs that are appropriate to provide service to the whole district. Where is the accountability, then, to the DSSAB? How much of each bill do you send to the Sault Ste Marie one and how much do you send to the Algoma one? I think this is going to be a hugely interesting political situation at the local level.
Dr Northan: It could be. With a DSSAB we wouldn't have to, but if an area services board came out of a DSSAB, then yes, there would be that possibility. Right now it's per capita across the district, which means everybody contributes equally. If you start to break it up into the two pieces and somebody starts to think they don't want to pay as much as the other part because they don't have the property tax base or whatever the reason is, then we get into the kind of problem you're suggesting. I'm not sure how you resolve that so that you deliver the service as required by the Health Protection and Promotion Act so everybody gets their equal share. If they're not putting in their equal money, that does become a problem.
The Vice-Chair: We've run out of time. We appreciate the opportunity to hear your concerns. Thank you.
ALGOMA DISTRICT SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BOARD
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon the Algoma District Social Services Administration Board, David Court, director. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee. Please begin.
Mr David Court: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about the Northern Services Improvement Act. The board appreciates the government taking the time and expense to travel through the north for additional input. We also appreciate that this legislation resulted from extensive consultations undertaken by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The board also notes the significant input which the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association had in the development of the area services board concept.
We believe this legislation is key to the development and efficient delivery of a broad range of services in northern Ontario. This new legislation has the potential for far-ranging beneficial impacts on municipal governments and the users of government services in the north. The Algoma board supported the ASB study process in the local area both by resolution and by participation in a local feasibility study.
Nevertheless, the board is concerned about two features of the proposed legislation. The two areas of concern are the process for determining local support for the founding of an ASB and the process for raising municipal funds for the ASB's operation.
Determining local support: In the initial consultation meeting and in the consultation paper distributed in August 1997, it was made clear that the formation of the area services boards would be voluntary. On several occasions, it was stated that ASBs would only be created if there was a double majority support at the local level. Specifically, there needed to be a majority of the municipalities representing a majority of the population who supported the creation of the ASB within that particular proposed service area. The double majority rule has broad support at the municipal level.
A great deal of the support for ASBs is based on the establishment of these entities on a voluntary basis. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines and staff of that ministry have consistently assured municipalities that ASBs will only be formed on a voluntary basis. The Algoma board does not in any way doubt the sincerity of the present minister or the staff of that ministry. Our concern is that the act, as proposed, could allow successor governments to impose an ASB without a proper indication of local support.
Subsection 37(l) of the act states, "One or more municipalities or local services boards or the residents of unorganized territory may make a proposal to establish an area services board...." The proposal must be by a report which meets criteria set out in the act.
Subclauses 37(1)(a)(vi) and (vii) of the act state the report must contain:
"(vi) the degree of support of the municipalities and local services boards and the residents of the unorganized territory in the board area required to make a proposal to the minister to amend an order and the manner of determining that support, and
"(vii) other matters that the regulations require be dealt with in a proposal or that may be dealt with in an order."
Subclauses 37(1)(b)(i) and (ii) go on to state that the proposal must have "the prescribed degree of support...determined in the prescribed manner," but do not state what that degree of support is.
We believe the open-ended nature of this section of the legislation could lead to the non-voluntary establishment of ASBs. We believe the crucial issue of how local support is determined needs to be clearly articulated in the act. We do not feel that such a key component should be dealt with in the regulations, where it could be easily changed without the matter coming forward for full debate.
Since the legislation indicates that ASBs, once formed, cannot be dissolved at the local level, it appears prudent to have the ASB formation process above reproach. Such a powerful and far-reaching piece of legislation needs to ensure that establishment of an ASB is not done at the sole discretion of the minister or government of the day without opportunity for full public debate.
The other issue is taxation models. The local consultations put on by Ministry of Northern Development and Mines staff outlined several models for the raising of the funds to support the ASB for the delivery of services. These models included levying costs to individual municipalities and direct taxation of property owners. We fully understand that some areas clearly favour direct taxation while others may prefer the levy model. The levy model has been in place for many years for a number of services in the north, including homes for the aged, public health and district social services. The consultations led us to believe that the taxation model could vary from one ASB to another and need not be consistent across the north.
The legislation outlines two taxation models. One model is based on direct taxation and one is a levy model. We understand that either model may be chosen.
The board is concerned about any taxation model which would result in individual property owners receiving two tax bills. At a time when efficiency and streamlining of delivery are key issues, it seems counterproductive to establish any system which could see a property owner being faced with two tax bills. We appreciate the increased accountability inherent in direct taxation, but feel that other options should be explored.
We concur that a levy system based on a locally driven and locally supported cost allocation agreement should be an option for the ASB. The local member municipalities in the ASB area should be able to allocate costs for services based on locally agreed formulae. In this model, different services could be shared based on criteria which make sense for that particular service. These local arrangements should need a double majority local consent prior to implementation. In the absence of a double majority local consent, weighted assessment would be the basis for division of costs. This model would be similar to the recent amendments to the district social services administration boards act.
The other option that would result in a single tax bill would be the adding of taxation as one of the ASB services. In this scenario, municipal governments would determine their local funding needs and forward the request to the ASB for collection. The ASB would send out a single tax bill setting out which portion was for ASB services and which portion was for local services. There is considerable opportunity for cost saving with a single taxation entity for the ASB area. Unfortunately, subsection 42(5) does not allow for the contracting out of taxation services. If the ASB selects this funding model, it will need to set up its own system to do so. It seems logical to allow total municipal tax collection to be an ASB service.
Summary: Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input. Please accept these concerns and suggestions in the positive and constructive manner in which we present them.
0950
Mr Hardeman: Thank you, sir, for the presentation. First I want to go to near the end of your presentation, dealing with the taxation and the options put forward in the legislation, recognizing that this is a piece of permissive legislation, that area services boards will only be formed, both in places with no municipal government and those with municipal government, where they decide they want to implement one. They get to decide. As they do that, they will be asked to put forward a proposal outlining the area that's going to be covered by this area services board and how the governance of that area services board will operate, to make sure we have fair representation and accountability, and they will be able to put forward how they propose to pay for those services. That's where the government sees the options in place, whether it's by levy or whether it's by taxation. They would put forward that proposal.
Since either way the services will be paid for, do you not see that that proposal is appropriate, to let the local authorities decide whether it should be direct taxation or a levy on municipalities?
Mr Court: Absolutely. I think a lot of board members responded from a very personal basis. The problem is they just couldn't see a property tax system in which they're going to deal with two property tax bills. We discussed how we could avoid that, and one way to avoid it is the levy model. We're suggesting that another way to avoid it is to simply add taxation as one of the additional discretionary services under your list of services for the ASB. In that model again you would need double majority consent of the local municipalities to do this, but if there was double majority consent -- these bills can go either direction, if you like: They can go from the ASB to the municipalities or they can go from the municipalities to the ASB.
Mr Hardeman: I would suggest that if the proposal was coming forward to the minister and it was going to send two tax bills to the areas where we have municipal government, that would not meet the criterion of finding a more effective and efficient way of delivering a service. I don't think there is anyone in the north who would believe that two tax bills are cheaper to send than one. I would envision that in any application coming forward -- again, it's a local option -- that the proposal would be to have the area services board send out the tax bills where there is no municipal structure, to do that where there presently is no tax bill going out, and in the area where there is a tax bill that they would propose to add their levy onto that tax bill. Anything other than that I would see as contrary to the total reason why the local people would be wanting to set up an area services board, which was to find a more cost-effective and efficient way of delivering services.
When the local people put that in place I think they will find the most effective way of doing that would be, I would suggest, one tax bill. The bill is cognizant of that and encourages that as the process they would use, because it would be a cost-effective and efficient proposal.
To quickly go to another issue -- you were here, I take it, for the previous presenters -- the issue is partly with the taxation, part II, the issue of boards of health setting expenditures in a large geographic area. The cost of that will be attributed, in great part, to areas where we also have local government. Do you see a problem with the accountability? I want to say that I served for quite a number of years on a board of health and I think all people on boards of health are very cognizant of what they're doing and are doing a good job. But do you see a problem with accountability? How do the taxpayers hold the board of health accountable for their budgets?
Mr Wildman: Or the area services boards.
Mr Hardeman: Area services boards, incidentally -- I'm glad Mr Wildman mentioned that -- would be operated by elected officials, so they are accountable to the public. Boards of health are appointed.
Mr Wildman: Not in the unorganized.
Mr Hardeman: In the unorganized, the bill points out that they must be elected by the public, so they would be accountable in that way. So do you see a problem with the board of health issue?
Mr Court: I think it's broader than the board of health issue. As soon as you start to amalgamate any services, yes, you're going to get some efficiencies. Are you then going to have less local input and accountability? Yes, you are. The one comment I would like to echo from the health unit is that when I look at the range of services being considered, the one that jumps out in terms of "Why is it there?" is the health unit portion of it. The others are very much in the social service area and they are not in the health area.
When we got the initial Who Does What decision, we were expecting many things, but what we weren't expecting was 100% local municipal funding of public health units. That blew everybody out of the water, quite frankly.
Mr Michael Brown: You have raised some interesting points, Mr Court, and I'm really pleased you're here. I want to explore this taxation issue a little bit. Obviously, the bill that will come to municipalities from this cluster of services being downloaded to the property taxpayer will be significant. I hadn't really considered this before, frankly, but the amount of the levy that would come from the DSSAB in the organized municipalities would be considerable.
Mr Court: Absolutely.
Mr Michael Brown: It might be that local politicians in, say, Thessalon or Wawa or somewhere would really like you to send the tax bill out. The DSSAB, or an ASB following, may be the largest chunk of the taxes. There has always been this great debate heretofore about education being on the tax bill, with all the municipal guys saying, "Gee, we should have two tax bills, because education is the larger portion." Boards of education never wanted to do that. I'm wondering why you think a DSSAB might want to do that, or an ASB following.
Mr Court: I think the group of services in the DSSAB is not going to be a majority of the local municipal tax bill, but if you look at the ASB and you start adding in some of the additional services, you could very quickly see that the majority of the tax bill could be the ASB. That's why we're saying there is some value to this argument that if you're spending most of the money you should maybe be collecting it. That's why that second option we're talking about -- our only concern is that we don't want two tax bills. When the ASB is the major source of the expenditures, yes, maybe they should be.
Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate your comments on accountability. I think you're exactly right. Efficiency will mean less accountability to the local ratepayer, regardless of whether they're in an organized area or an unorganized area.
In your experience -- you're really in the social services field -- of the Algoma district versus Sault Ste Marie's, are you presently able to provide exactly the same services in the Algoma district as the Soo would be able to in their own configuration?
Mr Court: It's a very difficult question to answer, because in some respects we're actually able to provide a higher level of service in the district. Because there are fewer players in a place like Wawa, we can actually coordinate the services better there than they can be coordinated in a larger centre. You might get more in depth in some of the extreme levels of service, but in terms of coordination, I would argue you'll see greater coordination in Blind River than what you're going to see in many other places in Ontario.
1000
Mr Michael Brown: So what you're telling me is that bigger is not necessarily better.
Mr Court: No, and it's one of the upsides of being in small communities. If you're out of work and you need money you go into one door, and on one side of the room is HRDC services and on the other side of the room there is income support of a whole variety of services all working together. It's easier for us to do that in Blind River or in Elliott Lake, across from your offices, than it is to pull it off in the Soo, to be fair to the Soo. It's a lot more difficult to do here because of the numbers.
Mr Wildman: I want to thank you for your presentation. Just to deal with an aside first, let's deal with this issue of voluntarism. We all know that the government has imposed district services boards, DSSABs, and if the municipalities "voluntarily" want to form area services boards with wider powers they can do so. But whether or not they do, they're still going to have DSSABs, so there's voluntarism and voluntarism.
Also, I wish I had the same confidence the parliamentary assistant has in the discretion of the minister in ensuring that he will do everything right for northern Ontario. We've experienced that over the last few years.
It certainly is true that once you add in the health unit, public health and ambulance services -- nobody knows how much ambulance services are going to be -- it's going to be an enormous bill.
Having said that, I'd like to deal with the two issues you raise. I'd like to concentrate on one particular area, where you talk about determining local support and the double majority.
Don't you perceive a significant problem in determining support or lack of support in the unorganized territories? There's nobody elected in the unorganized territories who has a mandate to express an opinion on behalf of those residents about area services boards, is there?
Mr Court: No, and we've already run into that problem in the construction of the board representation on the district social services administration board. We have to have representation from the unorganized. What we have attempted to do is broad public meetings. But at the end of the day, it is not like a municipal election.
Mr Wildman: So you've brought in a person, a very good person who's worked hard --
Mr Court: Yes.
Mr Wildman: -- to try to represent the unorganized. But she is not elected by anybody in the unorganized community, is she, really?
Mr Court: The one we have now is a man, actually, a Mr Tremblay.
Mr Wildman: But previous to that it was --
Mr Court: Oh, for the discussion, it was a lady, yes. But there were public meetings called and we had as many people as we could get to a meeting. All those people from the unorganized elected from among their members.
Mr Wildman: But it was an ad hoc meeting, wasn't it?
Mr Court: Exactly. It's not a regimented process like you find in a municipal election. We're going to have to work on that. We're going to have to do something.
Mr Wildman: Yes. So whereas in the unorganized they do have representation on education boards, for instance, because they elect the trustee, they don't have anybody elected who has a mandate, either in the local roads board or a local services board, to actually say on behalf of the residents, "Yes, we agree with the proposal on an area services board," or "No, we don't."
Mr Court: I do know the ministry is looking at this, and I know that from our end we are working with Mr Tremblay, actually, to bring forward some suggestions on how we might do something similar so that there is a process that can't be --
Mr Wildman: And in terms of the double majority with the district services boards that were formed in this area, the double majority was Prince township and the city of Sault Ste Marie in this local one. It also includes all of the unorganized north of Sault Ste Marie, but the double majority was the two municipalities, essentially.
Mr Court: Yes.
Mr Wildman: OK. So I think there is a serious problem in determining how we find out what the people in the local communities in the unorganized territories think and how they're properly represented in this process.
The second one: On your taxation model, I understood the discussion and the reason for your proposal at the very end. But where you say here, "There is considerable opportunity for cost saving with a single taxation entity for the ASB area," and obviously, in terms of administration and collection and so on there would be, don't you think there might be some who would see that, if you had the option of the ASB collecting the taxes for everybody and then giving the municipalities their portion, I guess you'd also collect the education -- no, I guess you wouldn't because of the change in the education system. Besides the question of local accountability, don't you think there would be some who would see that as a step towards regional or county government?
Mr Court: Certainly when we and the board of course looked at the Northern Services Improvement Act, yes, they read it as the first stage in some sort of upper-tier government. It has many of the powers. It's going to be spending a significant amount of money. It's going to have a fairly formal election process, no doubt. When we start to try and draw comparisons between it and a county we're finding more similarities than dissimilarities, and the taxation would add to that as well.
Mr Wildman: Sure. It is the most important power of the government, surely.
Mr Court: That's why we want it as an option.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We've run out of time. Mr Hardeman has clarification.
Mr Hardeman: I just want to clear up the issue there's been considerable discussion about, the two tax bills and so forth. Sections 49(2) and (3) clearly define that the board sets the taxation rate required in the areas they would cover, and section (3) says, "The municipalities shall levy and collect the amounts required by the board and remit those amounts to the board." So there is no ability for anyone to send out two tax bills.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Court, for appearing here this morning.
UNORGANIZED TOWNSHIPS OF ALGOMA DISTRICT SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BOARD / TERRITOIRES NON ÉRIGÉES EN MUNICIPALITÉ DU ALGOMA DISTRICT SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BOARD
The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the Unorganized Townships of Algoma District Social Services Administration Board, Gabriel Tremblay. Good morning, Mr Tremblay, and welcome to the standing committee on general government.
M. Gabriel Tremblay : Merci beaucoup. J'ai demandé d'exprimer mon opinion en français. Alors, mon nom est Gabriel Tremblay. Je demeure dans le canton de Cobden, la partie du canton qui ne fait pas partie de Blind River.
Le 15 juillet, j'ai été élu pour représenter les territoires non érigées en municipalité qui forment le nouveau Algoma District Social Services Administration Board. Je représente présentement une population d'environ 2100 personnes.
Membres du comité, mesdames et messieurs, après avoir lu le projet de loi 12, Loi sur l'amélioration des services publics dans le Nord de l'Ontario, j'ai cru bon de faire une courte présentation portant sur ce projet.
1010
Je veux parler d'un point particulier, les services aux francophones de la région. Nous savons que la majorité des Franco-Ontariens demeurent dans le nord de la province. Depuis plusieurs années, les francophones profitent de plus en plus des services en français. J'ai lu dans le projet de loi 12 et j'ai remarqué qu'on ne mentionne pas, qu'on ne parle pas des services en français. Il est difficile pour moi d'aborder ce sujet dans une ville comme Sault-Sainte-Marie, qui s'identifie comme une ville de langue anglaise. Mais il appartient à vous, les membres du comité, de proposer des changements au projet de loi 12, des changements qui garantiront des services en français aux francophones du nord de l'Ontario.
À l'article 38 du projet de loi 12, je lis, "shall not derogate from standards for the provision of services imposed under any act."
Personnellement, cet article est vague et ambigu. Il est important d'intégrer un article à l'intérieur du projet de loi qui sera clair et catégorique et qui protégera les droits des francophones. Nous allons de l'avant en Ontario en ce qui concerne les droits des francophones, les droits des minorités. Nous avons fait un progrès remarquable dans les dernières années, et je suis fier d'être Ontarien. J'espère que nous allons continuer dans cette direction.
Ajoutons un article au projet de loi 12, un article qui démontrera aux francophones du nord de l'Ontario que le gouvernement de l'Ontario représente tous les Ontariens.
I would like to thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, and we'll begin with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Mr Tremblay. That's thought-provoking. We have seen -- I forget the number of the bill; somebody can help me -- where there was a great debate about providing municipal services in French.
Interjection.
Mr Michael Brown: That's right. It was an Attorney General's bill. I think it would be fair to say both opposition parties were quite adamant that the protection of minority language rights be included in that bill. One of the interesting things I don't think the government has considered very much is that their downloading of services to the municipal level, formerly services that were provided directly by the province of Ontario under Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, are now more and more being not only paid for but administered by municipalities. Whether the municipality is then under the same obligation as the province would have been to provide the service to Franco-Ontarians in their own language is somewhat questionable I think in a lot of our minds.
For many of our municipalities, as I'm sure you're aware -- you're from Blind River -- those kinds of services are available at the municipal level but often more informally than formally.
You bring something to us this morning that is very important, and I think we'll need to ensure that those services are available. There are large areas of northern Ontario where providing the service in French is important.
I don't really have a question. I'm just happy you brought that to our attention on behalf of the people in the unorganized. Do you have any idea, in the unorganized, what kind of increases in taxation this entire package of downloading is going to bring to them? I'm hearing horror stories through mine but nobody has actually been able to quantify it.
Mr Tremblay: I don't think I could answer that question. It is so vague and so indefinite presently that I don't know where we are going. Even at the level of the municipality, I don't know where we are going.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, I think it's even more confusing, though, to the people in the unorganized, which really have not much in direct representation or elected representation to deal with it.
Mr Tremblay: My concern today was especially the French. I represented at one time, many years ago, the town of Blind River on their home for the aged. I was not satisfied. I visited the home for the aged at that time and I could see some old people. I talked to them in French and it was said: "Shhh, you cannot talk that way, you are not allowed to here," and things like that. An old person does not even have the right to die in French.
I found that sometimes difficult. I know that in education we have been a lot better in services, but we had to fight constantly to get the policeman to come to our school and speak to grade 4 or grade 1 in his own language. We had to fight, we had to write letters to the province and so on to finally get those services. Now we have them. We are really going ahead, but we have to write it someplace, and it will be. We continue. We don't go backward. We have to stick to it and write it nice and clearly. Then those services will be provided to the French people.
Mr Wildman: Merçi pour votre présentation. I'll switch to English, Gabby. You've raised a very important question and I want to deal with it. Then I want to ask you something about the unorganized as well, if that's all right with you.
I want to deal with your comment at the beginning of your presentation about coming to Sault Ste Marie to make that presentation. All of us I think recognize that under Bill 8 the district of Algoma quite properly is designated for provincial services. Your community, Blind River, Elliot Lake, Wawa, White River, Dubreuilville -- particularly Dubreuilville -- have very sizable francophone communities and all of us recognize the importance of providing services in Ontario to francophone citizens in French as an official language of this country, and showing our neighbours in Quebec that we respect the rights of both anglophones and francophones in Ontario. Your reference to Sault Ste Marie is apropos, but I think all of us people of generosity understand the importance of provincial services being provided in French in areas where we have significant francophone populations.
Having said that, as my colleague indicated, there is a significant problem with this government's downloading in that they have not dealt explicitly and clearly with the question of services that were previously provincial services, which under the download, whether it's under this legislation or justice legislation or municipal legislation, become municipal services. The question is, will services that were required to be provided in designated areas in both languages continue to be provided in both languages if they become municipal services? If they will, how will the funds required for that be provided?
It's my view that the provincial government has an obligation to ensure that those services remain available in both languages and it's an obligation of the provincial government to fund that as a commitment to the unity of this country and, as well, as a commitment to the services of our Ontario citizens.
Having said that, I ask the parliamentary assistant directly if the government is prepared to accept the proposal of Mr Tremblay on behalf of the francophones of northern Ontario to put an explicit amendment to this bill which would not just not derogate but would state explicitly that services that were provided, such as public health and ambulance services, by the province in the past, and which were available in both languages under Bill 8 in Algoma district will continue to be available in both languages and the costs will be funded by the provincial government?
Mr Hardeman: Going through the public process of hearings on this bill to hear the parts of it that will work in the opinion of the presenters and the parts that need amendment -- we are here to hear those comments. I cannot speak as to what amendments will be put forward or how they will be written, but I can assure you that the comments being made by all the presenters will be taken into consideration as we go back and do clause-by-clause of the bill, to see whether changes need to be made or should be made and how they should be made. I can assure the deputant that his comments are being taken into consideration and will be looked at as to the appropriateness of making amendments to the bill.
1020
Mr Wildman: Can I add just one thing? Our experience under the downloading of justice services to the municipalities does not give me encouragement that the government will do this because they refused at that point to do that.
Having said that, I want to raise the other question, about the unorganized. I recognize that you are a municipal councillor of long service in Blind River.
Mr Tremblay: But I do live in the unorganized township.
Mr Wildman: Yes, I understand that; I was just going to raise that. Do you experience any difficulty in finding out the views of the people living in unorganized territories -- let's say, in Oba or in Missanabie or the areas like Ophir or Poplar Dale -- recognizing that you yourself live in an unorganized area near Blind River?
Mr Tremblay: Yes, it would be very difficult. I agree with you. But I don't know if it would be possible to travel in the region and ask --
Mr Wildman: Exactly.
Mr Tremblay: -- at that time maybe the board. We've just started the process, so I think it's impossible. I would have to travel and meet those people and listen to their concerns.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation and bringing forward this important issue as it relates to the francophone community in Ontario. I do recognize that the bill does not speak directly to French-language services as it relates to those areas of the province which are predominantly in the north and how that will change or not change in the bill as it relates to the provision of French-language services.
Mr Wildman just mentioned the issue of the government refusing to deal with the French-language services in the transfer of provincial offences to municipal responsibility. In fact, the government did deal with the French-language services in that bill. As the services will be transferred, that will be in a memorandum of understanding with the receiving party, which of course would be the municipal government. In the memorandum of understanding, in receiving those revenues, they must commit to providing the services in the language in which they were being provided by the provincial government. I think in that area it has been covered. It has not been done in exactly a consistent manner with what some of the members of the opposition would have wanted us to do, but we do recognize the needs of the francophone community and their rights in receiving the services in their language, so that is accounted for.
In the core services that are in line for being transferred to the area services boards, most of those services are presently delivered by municipal government. I would think in most cases, and you could correct me if I'm wrong, where the francophone population is there to a significant degree, the local government has been doing a reasonably good job in providing the services in the language of their population. I've had the opportunity to be in Blind River a number of times and the use of the French language is quite prevalent, not only in the population but in the municipal services that are being provided.
Do you see anything in Bill 12 that would suggest that municipalities or the people involved in providing these services will not do a good job of providing them in the French language, or is there anything there to indicate that the local people will not provide services in the way their population want them?
Mr Wildman: To be fair to Mr Tremblay, there is a historical argument --
Mr Hardeman: I'm not here on a historical mission. I'm here to talk about Bill 12. I'm just wondering, Mr Tremblay, if there's anything you see in this bill --
Mr Wildman: In the very recent past --
Mr Hardeman: Mr Wildman, it is my turn. I accept and appreciate your comment that there is nothing in the bill that promotes further use of the French language, but do you see anything that detracts from it?
Mr Tremblay: No, I don't see anything that detracts, but I would like to be sure that those services are provided. Putting it in the bill, what is wrong with referring to Bill 8 or whatsoever to make sure that those services continue to be given to those francophones? I would like to see some teeth in the bill that say, "Yes, you have to provide it." I don't want to leave it to the municipality. I want to see it as a part of the law: "Here is the law. You have to provide it. It is not a choice."
Mr Hardeman: I guess the reason I bring it up is I want to make sure that we're all on the same wavelength. The services that are presently being delivered by municipal governments, even though they're primarily funded by the provincial government, are not covered under the provincial mandate of the language being provided. The municipalities are providing them in the French language, and I'm sure they are in Blind River. Are you suggesting that this is an opportune time in the bill to say, "We are going to provide more French-language services," or, "We're going to obligate municipalities further in the language issue"?
Mr Tremblay: Neither. We are going to oblige the municipality to provide those services. I'm not saying that we want to increase those services. There is some amelioration to make in some of the fields. I know. I've been an educator for 30 years and often we had to write to the province and say: "Hey, that service is not provided to us. The OPP's coming to our school, he cannot talk in our language." We had to do that many times, write to the Attorney General. Why? We had to fight constantly for what was supposed to be given to us. We refused certain of their programs because they could not give them in our language to our children, to talk about safety and security to our four-year-olds. The poor kid comes from a French family and the officer talks only in English. We had to go back to the province and say, "No, he should give those courses or those presentations in French."
I hope at some date it would be a part of the law that you have to do it and we don't have to go back, that it would be a part of the bill.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming forward today.
MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL MANITOULIN
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on the Municipality of Central Manitoulin, Perry Anglin. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government.
Mr Perry Anglin: I'd like to thank you and all the members of the committee for this opportunity to address you on behalf of the council of Central Manitoulin.
I should also say that I've been asked by the heads of some other municipalities on Manitoulin to say that they endorse the brief you have in front of you and that I'm speaking for them as well. They include the municipalities of Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands, Assiginack, Tehkummah and Billings. Several other heads of municipalities have told me that they would recommend to their councils that they too are endorsing this and so we will confirm in writing to the committee the full slate of Manitoulin municipalities on behalf of whom I'm pleased to speak this morning. If my brief's a little long, perhaps you'll bear with me because I'm talking for five or six at least.
1030
Central Manitoulin is one of some 12 townships and six first nations that make up Manitoulin. Known as the largest island in the world surrounded by fresh water, Manitoulin is about half the size of PEI. It has a summer population approaching 50,000, with a year-round population somewhat less than a third of that number. Unlike the resource-based economy of the districts of Algoma and Sudbury, Manitoulin's economy is based largely on farming, tourism, and services to the many cottages located on more than 100 lakes.
Of greatest relevance to Bill 12 is that our incomes on Manitoulin are well below the provincial average, among the lowest in Canada, in fact, but our reliance on social assistance is also proportionately smaller than on the mainland communities adjacent to Manitoulin.
Bill 12 is part of a disturbing pattern of creating very large units for governing northern Ontario. This pattern threatens to reduce the level of services in northern Ontario and the ability of citizens to have a say in how they are served by government. For Manitoulin, this pattern includes:
First, diluting our representation in the Legislature by adopting the boundaries of a federal electoral district as large as New Brunswick.
Second, reducing our influence on our children's schooling by forcing us into the consolidated school board covering a huge region and dominated by urban Sudbury.
Third, impeding our input to health care planning through amalgamation of district health councils representing four territorial districts, an area so large that no one in it can relate personally to the health needs of its communities.
Fourth, extorting municipal amalgamation, which can be costly, by threatening to impose amalgamation arbitrarily.
Fifth, creating new regional governments in northern Ontario -- the subject today -- with powers to tax and deliver services previously delivered more efficiently by the provincial and municipal governments.
Granted, these changes have reduced the cost of stipends for our members of the Legislature, our school trustees and the councillors in amalgamated municipalities. The savings are minor, though, and insignificant as a proportion of program costs.
A corresponding cost has been to reduce good communication between citizens and their governments. Based on my own experience of working in all three levels of government in a senior capacity, I believe that good governments welcome good communication, and profit by it, rather than treating it as an expensive nuisance.
The provincial government has said that it wishes to consolidate services regionally in order to achieve administrative efficiency and to improve service. Unfortunately, area services boards under Bill 12 will do neither; nor will their predecessors, district social services administration boards.
I believe that it is widely understood by experts on public administration across Canada that new regional governments do not save money by delivering services more efficiently. Area services boards would in fact break up efficient, province-wide administration for programs such as police, ambulance, social housing and public health. Right now, the administration of these programs is tailored to efficient administrative districts, with common management and political direction from Queen's Park. In what you could call "deconsolidation," the government is creating 11 new governments in northern Ontario, and adding responsibilities, each with its own overhead costs, to about four times that number in southern Ontario. The government is then force-fitting all programs into the boundaries of the new regions, regardless of what makes sense for each program.
With social assistance programs, there are some modest savings that can be achieved by co-operative arrangements between local governments. We have already achieved this among six municipalities on eastern Manitoulin Island, a model that could well serve all of Manitoulin.
But our analysis demonstrates that by getting larger than that, administration becomes less economic, as civil servants have to waste resources administering each other, with multiple layers of management and other overhead costs.
It is ironic that delivery of Ontario Works, which calls for community involvement, is being moved further away from municipalities to new regional governments that will be dominated by distant bureaucracies.
To my mind, regional governments are so clearly uneconomic that it begs the question of why they are being imposed.
I think this government probably got into this almost inadvertently. It decided to centralize education and chose to transfer the costs of some other programs to municipalities. At that point, municipalities in southern Ontario insisted on more say about the delivery of programs that they would be paying for in whole or in part. So the government agreed to turn over administration, but only to regional governments, so that administrative costs, though higher, would not get completely out of hand. It also chose, however, to insist that Queen's Park continue to set minimum standards. All of this means, unhappily, that we have lost the efficiency of province-wide common management and the common sense that comes by keeping policy-making and program delivery together.
Unfortunately, the southern Ontario formula is being imposed in northern Ontario even though it makes very little sense for the widely scattered communities of the north, whose interests vary considerably and whose tax base is insufficient to finance their share of the present standard of service without provincial grants.
With little or no evident involvement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who should understand our circumstances, much of the programming for which we will collect taxes will be uploaded to regional government. These regional governments are driven first, astonishingly to my mind, by the Minister of Community and Social Services, primarily for Ontario Works, and tax collection -- the rest is, at the outset, largely bookkeeping -- and later under Bill 12, through area services boards, which will be determined by the Minister of Mines and Northern Development.
We are told that northern municipalities wanted regional governments, and would have a say in how they are created. From where I sit, neither statement is true.
The government has so far not honoured its stated policy on how the regional governments would be formed. The government stated this year, in Who Does What: Toward Implementation, "Municipalities and unincorporated areas in northern Ontario have the flexibility to choose their own partners and geographic boundaries for consolidation, as long as about 10 municipal service managers result."
It also said in that document: "The province will approve a consolidation arrangement if it is consistent with the policy and has the support of the municipalities and unincorporated areas involved."
Let me tell you what happened to us on Manitoulin, which is one of the 10 long-standing districts under the Territorial Division Act, and the only one, unless you count the district of Sudbury, that was denied an application for a DSSAB. Accepting the inevitable this past winter, the municipalities on Manitoulin worked to meet the government's stated objectives. The Manitoulin Municipal Association, representing all our municipalities, unanimously recommended that we apply for a Manitoulin-only DSSAB. Study groups we attended along with Algoma representatives and Sudbury representatives -- two separate study groups -- also concurred in a model that would have a Manitoulin DSSAB. In time for the deadline, Manitoulin municipalities, with one curious exception, voted for that model and with near unanimity confirmed a double majority for it.
The Manitoulin Municipal Association's letter in support of the Manitoulin application is attached to this brief. I really would ask you to read it and judge for yourself the reasonableness of its case.
At no time were we discouraged from making an application if we thought a Manitoulin-only DSSAB was affordable. Our analysis demonstrated convincingly that we could afford a DSSAB for Manitoulin, that we could administer it with less overhead than as part of a larger DSSAB, and that joining a larger DSSAB would mean for the people of Manitoulin, who already have below-average incomes, that they would be subsidizing higher welfare costs elsewhere.
No minister or official disputed that analysis. When we asked for meetings on our application, we were assured that there was no disagreement about the costs, that there was no disagreement about the numbers. We were granted no meetings, nor any reasoned reply to our attached letter of application. Instead, we were summarily informed by the Honourable Janet Ecker and the Honourable Chris Hodgson that they were unable to approve a Manitoulin DSSAB.
We were combined with the district of Sudbury, excluding the urban regional municipality of Sudbury. As I said earlier, our application and the district of Sudbury application were the only double majorities ignored, and there was no double majority anywhere for an option chosen, forcing us into a DSSAB with the district of Sudbury.
1040
A measure of the indifference to our welfare was that we were not even given a choice of which adjacent DSSAB we would be forced into. No one asked us our preference, despite the fact that we had studied a combination with the district of Algoma as well as with Sudbury. Perhaps a combination with Algoma rather than Sudbury does not suit civil servants in Sudbury, who consider Manitoulin part of their domain.
We await a meeting with the two ministers who are visibly involved, although one of them has been quoted in the press as saying, with scant evidence, that we are too small to afford a DSSAB. One can only presume that he is misinformed. We have the numbers. Joining with the district of Sudbury will cost us more than $400,000 a year, mainly in social assistance funding, to subsidize mandatory DSSAB services in the district of Sudbury, and more than $600,000 a year if land ambulance and public housing are also run by the DSSAB. Our administrative overhead -- I'm not talking about the program costs that are downloaded; I'm now talking about the administrative overhead -- would also be simpler and less expensive with a Manitoulin DSSAB than with a larger bureaucracy. You can imagine how it feels for people with some of the lowest average incomes in Canada to be told that we must subsidize someone else's welfare.
I said earlier that we have two grave concerns. The first is that restructuring creates systemic pressures to reduce basic government services in northern Ontario. I do not say this only from the perspective of Manitoulin Island, which a KPMG study found to be the part of Ontario hit worst by downloading when measured on a per capita basis. By that measure, the cost of services transferred, combined with the municipal support grants withdrawn, is a staggering $930 per capita for the district of Manitoulin, pretty nearly $4,000 for a family of four. That compares, for example, with Sudbury, in 10th place at $555 per capita. Victoria county is halfway down the list of 67 administrative regions studied by KPMG, and they came in at $369 per capita.
Overall, the KPMG study concluded that, "Northern Ontario municipalities, including the regional municipality of Sudbury, consistently fare worse in terms of the financial impact of the restructuring process when compared with other municipalities in Ontario."
Manitoulin's current situation -- I'm talking this year and next -- is a little less grim, though we're still among the worst hit, when measured by household rather than per capita, because we have some cottage country. As I was referring to a moment ago, our local tax situation is also temporarily relieved by a two-year grants program from the provincial government, which apparently, thankfully, does not want us to have to raise taxes this year or next.
Mr Michael Brown: I wonder when the election is going to be.
Mr Anglin: I don't impute motives, sir.
Despite the temporary grants, I believe the cost of basic services throughout northern Ontario is now at risk as never before. One reason is that the costs of social services will be borne increasingly by those who pay the most property taxes and least need some of the social services. They will be vocal and influential in wanting services reduced.
As well, ministers at Queen's Park will be able to change the rules on program standards and reduce services delivered by regional governments. They will be able to reduce the grants needed to maintain services, with regional government boards catching much of the blame. Accountability has become confused. We've already seen this happen with the new large school boards. People are blaming their school trustee for implementing rules that are being laid down in Toronto. Whether the rules are right or not, the accountability is not.
Another important reason that we are in danger in northern Ontario is that our subsidy from the industrial and commercial belts in southern Ontario is now much more visible, an easier target to identify and attack. It is natural for the rich cities, just like the rich provinces, to resent the cost of equalization and to lose sight of why it's in the public interest that, within reason, there should be similar levels of service everywhere, so that each region can draw on basic economic and social infrastructure in order to prosper to the best of its ability. That's good for the whole province, for the whole country.
But grants for infrastructure investment, with little popular appeal, are vulnerable to attack when they're starkly visible. Restructuring in northern Ontario has highlighted subsidies to municipal and regional governments rather than containing them in overall departmental spending estimates. The grants are open to attack by those who are mean of spirit and limited of vision.
Let me illustrate my concern with two services, ambulance and police, that are vitally important in sustaining our communities.
When we were studying DSSABs with people from Sudbury this winter, both elected and unelected officials in Sudbury referred to the cost of ambulance services on Manitoulin as prohibitive, by which they meant, sensibly, that they didn't want to help to pay for a service that costs more to deliver than it costs in the city. I don't blame them for that. But try telling someone depending on the ambulance on Manitoulin, where we have a lean 24-hour service for a region about 150 kilometres long, that our service is unaffordable.
Or police: The OPP tell us that their true cost is $360 per household per year on Manitoulin. The province has defrayed that down to $90 per household for most municipalities, with a temporary subsidy. We would have to raise taxes beyond reason to maintain those services on our own. It would be even worse if we were forced into an area services board with Sudbury, where we might have to subsidize the district of Sudbury as well.
The alternative is to beg that such services be subsidized case by case, municipality by municipality or, worse, to reduce the level of essential services. I hope that despite its actions this is not what the provincial government really intends. I hope it is an unintended consequence of their policy.
Bill 12 will exacerbate the problem, not solve it with imaginary administrative savings, and it will pit community against community in a way that we've never seen before. That leads to our second grave concern with restructuring: that the DSSAB legislation and Bill 12 means that ministers can impose regional governments with irrational boundaries and set communities at each other's throats.
Because regional communities will be able to allocate taxes between classes of taxpayer, they will pit municipalities against each other on the ground of self-interest in minimizing their municipality's tax burden. There will almost certainly be what I would call the tyranny of the double majority on the DSSAB, as municipal representatives calculate the tax allocation formula that offers the best deal to the double majority of the municipalities who are on that board. The acrimony will be far worse than the old resentment of school boards increasing taxes that municipalities have to collect. Every regional board member will, quite responsibly, try to get the best deal for the electorate he or she faces. There will be rational winners and unhappy losers.
The situation is even worse for those people whose municipalities are unlucky enough not to have one of their councillors on the regional government board. You will recall that to keep the boards small enough to be workable, not every council is represented. Some councils will be pooled and will have to vote for one councillor to represent a group of municipalities. The unlucky citizens of a municipality without a directly elected representative will feel hard done by. You should not be surprised if they go to court to claim their charter rights have been violated, with demonstrable injury to their pocketbook.
Apart from its questionable legality, this indirect election may be politically tolerable in southern Ontario, where the interests and resources in a county or region are almost certain to be more homogenous than in the scattered communities of the north. This lack of homogeneity is one of the greatest flaws in the proposed regional governments in northern Ontario. By contrast, community of interest is the foundation of Manitoulin's application for its own DSSAB and a Manitoulin DSSAB would give every municipality at least one representative on the board. I can't say that this is true elsewhere in the regions of the north.
1050
We were sufficiently confident of our community of interests that we pledged to explore the establishment of an area services board for a number of services mentioned in the letter attached to our application for the DSSAB. We said we wanted to look hard at finding advantages in an area services board where we could. But forced in with Sudbury, it is highly questionable whether we would wish an ASB. The province, however, or some tyrannical double majority, might wish to force it on to us, with very unhappy consequences.
I realize that there is no chance at this time of turning the tide which is running against northern Ontario by forcing it into larger government units, but I would leave you with two requests.
The first is to ask that you obtain legal advice on the constitutionality of Bill 12 as it pertains to indirect election to an area services board, resulting in taxation without representation and discrimination before the law.
The second is to ask that you insist that the enormous powers conferred on the minister in this bill not be used to force a homogenous region like Manitoulin, against its will, into an ASB, particularly one that requires us to subsidize another district which can use its majority to dominate the ASB. Therefore, we would ask for an amendment to the effect that no existing district under the Territorial Lands Act would be forced to enter into an ASB contrary to the wishes of a double majority of its municipalities.
We also believe that the government should state in the Legislature that it would never use its powers under the act without consultation. I refer, of course, to meaningful consultation, not the sort of treatment accorded so far to Manitoulin's application for a Manitoulin DSSAB; and although that is not directly the subject today, we ask for your support.
In conclusion, let me say that we will always remember what is done to us through restructuring. Those in charge may say that you can't make an omelette without cracking eggs. They don't know what it is to be the egg.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your bringing your comments before this committee today.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Chair: This is a very important presentation. I am looking at our schedule and two of the presenters didn't show this morning, so we're ahead of schedule. The next one is not until 11:20, as I understand it. Would it be possible for us, with the indulgence of the presenter, to extend the time for this presentation until 11:20 so that we can have a true exchange on this very detailed and important presentation? I'm asking for consent.
The Vice-Chair: This would have to be with consent.
Mr Hardeman: No.
Mr Wildman: No? Your schedule is already set.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. Order.
Mr Wildman: What's the reason?
Mr Hardeman: Madam Chair, I'm not sure it's appropriate to speak to a request for unanimous consent, but I just say, with no disrespect to the presenter, while I appreciate the comments he has made, I think it's inappropriate and unfair to all others who have presented before the committee who were obligated to stay within their time and make their presentation. It would be unfair if at this point in time we decided to have special privileges or special consideration for different presenters. This is in no way reflective of the presenter but of the process we have embarked upon.
Mr Wildman: We don't have another presenter until 11:20.
The Vice-Chair: Order.
Mr Bartolucci: Madam Chair, before we say no or take it as a final no, remember what the gentleman told us. He spoke for six municipalities, five plus his own. We have time. It is an extremely important presentation. It will afford the committee the opportunity to question and to receive information about the majority of the concerns and the flaws of this legislation, not from the politicians who sit on the other side but from people who are actually going to have to make the legislation work. It's not an unreasonable request.
The Vice-Chair: For this there must be consent.
Mr Wildman: If that's the case, then essentially the parliamentary assistant is doing to the presenter what the ministers have done to the municipalities of Manitoulin Island in refusing to have a true exchange in dialogue.
The Vice-Chair: I have heard the comments here, and we must move on. I did not hear consent.
Mr Anglin: Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and those of the majority of the people of Manitoulin.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.
I would like to ask if Watson Slomski is here.
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES LTD
The Vice-Chair: We'll move on then to the presentation of Poole Milligan. Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. For the purposes of Hansard, I will ask you to introduce yourselves.
Mr Rick Johnson: I should make a correction to your opening remarks. The presentation is on behalf of TransCanada PipeLines, not Poole Milligan.
Mr Richard Poole: Just for clarification, Madam Chair, we coordinated with the clerk on behalf of TransCanada to ask that TransCanada be allowed to make a presentation, and I guess because our name went out on the letter that's how it occurred, but certainly it is TransCanada's presentation that we ask the committee to hear.
Mr Johnson: My name is Rick Johnson, and I work for TransCanada PipeLines, based in Calgary. I look after the administration of our assessment in property tax matters. I have with me today our legal counsel, Richard Poole, from Poole Milligan in Toronto.
I would like to take time to thank this committee for allowing a ratepayer to make a presentation and to express our interest in what the government is attempting to do with local government restructuring in northern Ontario. I would like to read through our presentation, and then, if we have time, we certainly would like to have the opportunity to discuss it.
TransCanada PipeLines owns and operates 7,462 kilometres of pipeline and 43 compressor stations in Ontario. TCPL's pipelines span northern Ontario from the Manitoba border to North Bay and into southern Ontario. TCPL is perhaps the most significant single investor and ratepayer in northern Ontario.
TCPL operates pipelines within unorganized territory through seven districts in northern Ontario. These districts are the districts of Kenora, Thunder Bay, Cochrane, Timiskaming, Nipissing, Algoma and Parry Sound.
In the six-year period ending 1996, TransCanada expended $2.5 billion on construction in Ontario. During the same period of time, operating and maintenance expenditures in the province, including salaries, totalled $496 million. TCPL's construction expenditures are of significant economic value to Ontario as we increase pipeline capacity to meet demand for natural gas in Ontario and the northeastern United States. Many other businesses -- steel, pipeline services, restaurants and motels -- along our right of way benefit from TCPL's facilities and construction program. For example, in 1996 TCPL spent approximately $330 million on Ontario construction projects. The spinoff benefits to the Ontario economy were estimated to be approximately $1 billion.
In 1996 TCPL paid approximately $30 million in local taxes in northern Ontario. These tax payments are summarized as follows: within the organized municipalities about $16.402 million; provincial land tax payments in the unorganized townships about $3.3 million; education taxes in unorganized areas amounted to $9.4 million; local roads boards and local services boards, $706,000; for a total of $29.8 million.
TCPL's contributions ensure the continued viability of local government bodies in both organized and unorganized territory throughout northern Ontario. Not only are we a ratepayer in many communities in both northern and southern Ontario, but we pride ourselves on the contributions we make to local charities and community activities.
1100
The Northern Services Improvement Act, 1998, significantly expands the role and service delivery requirements of local government in northern Ontario. TCPL accepts the government's policy of realignment of local services delivery. We recognize that this initiative gives control and authority for a wide range of service delivery to residents of northern Ontario.
TCPL already bears a significant tax burden in both the unorganized and organized areas of northern Ontario yet it makes very little demand for any of the services which will be provided by area services boards. Conversely, many residents of the unorganized territory in northern Ontario have contributed minimal amounts of provincial land tax payments in the past for the provision of area services board type of services such as child care, public assistance, public health services, social housing, homes for the aged, and other possible services such as economic development, land use planning, waste management, police services, roads and bridges and emergency services.
As a major stakeholder in northern Ontario, TCPL is concerned about the cost that will be incurred by area services boards in the delivery of these services and the corresponding tax burden on TCPL. Our concern is based on the fact that within the current provincial land tax assessment base, our assessment in many of the unorganized townships represents over 80% of the assessment base.
TCPL recognizes the checks and balances in property taxation which have been incorporated into Bill 12, similar to those contained within the Fair Municipal Finance Act (No. 1), 1997, and the current Fair Municipal Finance Act (No. 2), 1998. TCPL trusts that the government will exercise care in implementing these provisions of Bill 12, consistent with the manner in which they have been implemented under the Fair Municipal Finance Act.
We understand that the clear intention of the government has been to prevent unfair and inequitable shifts of taxation between property classes in organized municipalities. We trust that this same principle will be adopted in areas where area services boards have taxation jurisdiction, including unorganized territory.
The government may wish to consider alternative methods of distributing the costs of delivering the services and the burden of taxation to be levied by area services boards. The government may wish to consider such alternative means as (a) valuing pipeline as linear property and applying a uniform rate of taxation to the pipeline across northern Ontario; (b) apportioning the burden of taxation levied by the area services board on a per household basis; or (c) apportioning the burden of taxation levied by the area services boards in proportion to the caseload and demand for services between the various communities within the jurisdiction of the area services boards.
Transition ratios: The transition ratios to be prescribed by the minister for property classes for purposes of setting tax ratios must be related to the present burden of taxation on those property classes within the jurisdiction of the area services boards.
The area services boards' geographic jurisdiction will extend over large land areas previously without any form of municipal organization. The Legislature must be vigilant to ensure careful consideration of the area services boards' transition ratios in order to avoid unwarranted and unfair shifts of property taxation between classes.
In addition, vigilance will be required to avoid unanticipated double taxation on the pipeline property class by combining the existing tax burden within the organized municipalities and an increased tax burden in those large areas outside of municipal organizations, yet within the boundaries of the area services boards, where there is very limited need for government services.
TCPL asks that the government carefully consider the design of the transition ratios for the pipeline property class to prevent unwarranted and unfair property tax increases by area services boards in territory without municipal organization.
Once again, I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear and make the presentation. We certainly are very interested in your work and wish you all the best.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just have a couple of points. Recognizing that the pipeline is a major contributor to the economy of the north, even though it may be taking the goods within the pipe somewhere else, there were a couple of areas you mentioned. I guess it's more for my clarification than legislatively. Presently, you pay on the pipeline based on the assessed value of the property the line is on in the organized municipalities. Do you pay a land tax through the unorganized or through the area where there is no municipal government?
Mr Johnson: No. The method of assessment for pipelines in the province is based on a lineal-foot basis by regulation, and that includes provincial land tax areas. There's just a different assessment base here. We don't pay on the land, because that's the landowner's land, but we pay on the value of the pipe.
Mr Hardeman: You pay taxes in the area with municipal organization and you pay a provincial grant or a grant in lieu of taxation for the area where there's no municipal government?
Mr Johnson: No. The distinction is that in the unorganized areas it's a provincial land tax provision under the Provincial Land Tax Act, so there's a fixed rate through those areas. In the organized, it's dependent on the budget requirements of local government.
Mr Hardeman: Forgetting for a moment the amount of the taxation, if the taxation method in areas with municipal government is an appropriate and fair way to pay for municipal services, do you not see that to provide municipal services in an area without municipal government, a similar way of assessing cost to an entity going through that area is fair and equitable?
Mr Johnson: It's fair if it's not disproportionate between classes. If the cost of taxes goes up significantly and the burden is borne by one ratepayer, it's not fair.
Mr Hardeman: That brings me to the other one, where you suggest, "The transition ratios prescribed by the minister for property classes for purposes of setting tax ratios must be related to the present burden of taxation." If that was not the intent, could you point out to me why that would be in there at all? If it was not the intent to somehow relate that to the appropriate level of taxation on pipelines, why would the minister then have the ability to set those tax ratios? If he didn't set them, they would be paid based across the board on the same value as they are in the organized. Would that not hold true?
Mr Johnson: I'd like Mr Poole to answer that question.
Mr Poole: If I understand your question, sir, we are asking that the minister, in setting those transition ratios, have regard to exactly what you're stating. We read the legislation as empowering transition ratios based on the historical tax burden of TransCanada and we're urging that that be carried forward as part of the scheme.
Mr Hardeman: I agree. I think we're on the same wavelength. It seems to me that if the minister was not going to take that fairness into consideration, there would be absolutely no need for that part of the legislation to be there. It seems to me that the only reason it would be there, not necessarily just for pipeline but for other entities, is that a fair amount to pay could be set as opposed to just having it the same across the whole area services board area.
Mr Poole: I agree with you, sir. That's certainly what we've addressed, and I think the form of the presentation is just cautionary on that. One thing to remember too in terms of the burden of tax on TransCanada is that it's taxed under the Provincial Land Tax Act but the pipeline was reassessed. Therefore, the $3.3 million is based on a more current value than other properties in the PLTA. The government in its wisdom a number of years ago felt that the burden of $3.3 million was a reasonable burden, and that's how that was calculated, differentially than other ratepayers in unorganized parts of the province.
1110
Mr Bartolucci: Thanks very much for your presentation, Richard. Do you have any concerns about what I would say is the fragmentation of government with this act? You have the Ministry of Health involved with one segment of public health. You have Comsoc with the DSSAB, which affects you. You obviously have the Ministry of Finance, because of taxation. You also have the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing impacting on how you will do business. You also have the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines with this act. I see a fragmentation of the opportunity for business to simplify its process and for government to ensure that simplification and a lessening of government takes place. The reality is that with you it's going to increase, is it not, and with private business?
Mr Johnson: I guess our overall concern would be just the possibility of added government, bigger government, more bureaucracy, which really adds more administration costs. Really, because of the vast areas we're speaking of here, with a very limited population and assessment base, with the exception perhaps of our base, there is a danger that there could be a shifting of that tax burden and the cost of services to one ratepayer: a downloading on a ratepayer rather than a downloading on local government, which we can ill afford.
Mr Bartolucci: That's a real concern of every property taxpayer certainly, but everybody who does business in northern Ontario. Not to be too partisan here, I still think that picture isn't clear in this type of legislation, and that's important.
There are some very interesting alternatives here, some, on page 3, that could impact very negatively on you. It's fair for you to bring them forward. Would valuing pipeline as linear property in northern Ontario not be more expensive to your company?
Mr Johnson: It really depends on the tax policy of the government. We don't know. This was one of our concerns at this point in time with the reassessment province-wide and the tax policy changes, and they are major and still quite unknown. We're not certain.
The unpredictability of our expense in property tax is a real concern to the company because it makes us less competitive, and we are working on a North American grid now. We have competition. If the expense ratios go up too much, it defers construction or maybe eliminates construction or added construction in this area. A lot of considerations have to come to bear on this.
Mr Bartolucci: The other two alternatives are very excellent and worthy of further exploration on the part of the government as well, as they clean up their tax mess. Thank you.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you for the presentation. I can see where TransCanada PipeLines would have a concern. We had presentations in Thunder Bay yesterday from a number of people, but one of the presenters was the chair of AMO. I guess there is a court challenge or a battle going on now back and forth between forced amalgamation and whatever.
I represent an area, Kapuskasing, Hearst, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane and a lot of unorganized areas in that part of the province. Your concern about having the taxes increase -- have you been able to estimate what your tax increase might be as a result of the government downloading and dumping services they used to pay for? The unorganized areas are going to have to have huge increases in property taxes to pay for the services that were normally paid by the province through grants and whatever. Some are saying their taxes could go up by $500, $600, $700, $800 in the unorganized areas to pay for the new services. Would TransCanada PipeLines' taxes go up accordingly, or have you been able to estimate what it would cost you?
Mr Johnson: Just with the reassessment program and the changing tax policy, intended tax policy, we've had to try to make some guesstimates, if you like, or estimates. It's very difficult. For the 1998-99 year, we were suggesting that our taxes could go up 70%. Because of the uncertainty of local government restructuring, assessment policy is now fairly firm -- we know what assessment is -- but the tax policy is very uncertain still in the impact and the relationship with the other classes of property.
Mr Len Wood: With an increase in taxes of 70% -- I know a number of construction projects are taking place to produce electricity from the waste natural gas all along the pipeline, cogenerating plants. Can you see this having an effect on the future construction of any of these plants? What effect would it have on employment in construction and operators that might be there in the future, with a 70% increase in taxes as a result of Bill 12?
Mr Johnson: Certainly, if it reaches that magnitude we'd have real difficulty looking at increasing our program of, say, power projects, as well as pipeline projects.
Mr Len Wood: Based just on your presentation and the presentation I heard yesterday in Thunder Bay, Bill 12 can be very detrimental to northern Ontario as far as employment is concerned, on the future of what TransCanada Pipelines has been doing over the last number of years by creating jobs.
The parliamentary assistant is saying that TransCanada Pipelines brings gas through and it goes someplace else, but they also create a lot of jobs in northern Ontario through construction of these cogenerating plants, whether it be in Kapuskasing or in North Bay or in other areas they've built them.
Mr Johnson: Let's be clear that we're not negative about change. We recognize that there are real problems in northern Ontario with administration of services and the revenue for those. I think it can work, but it has to be carefully looked at and managed and administered so it doesn't become another bureaucracy and another costly one for the government and for the individual ratepayer.
Mr Len Wood: You guys are going to need some meetings with the Premier and with the cabinet ministers on this issue, I'm sure.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Johnson, for bringing your presentation to us today.
That concludes the presentations here. This committee stands adjourned until 4 pm in Timmins.
The committee recessed from 1118 to 1558 and resumed in the Best Western Hotel, Timmins.
PORCUPINE HEALTH UNIT
The Vice-Chair: Welcome to the standing committee on general government for the public hearings on Bill 12. We are going to begin this afternoon with a presentation by the Porcupine Health Unit, Dr Susan Kaczmarek. Good afternoon and welcome. You will have 20 minutes in which to make your presentation, and you may use all or part of that time. If there is time available, we will have questions from the members present. Please begin.
Dr Susan Kaczmarek: Members of the committee, I would like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to appear before you today to make this presentation. As you know, I am Dr Susan Kaczmarek. I'm the medical officer of health for the Porcupine Health Unit, which provides public health services to approximately 100,000 people who live in our district. I also have with me today my board chair, J.C. Caron, who is the mayor of Kapuskasing, and Esther Miller, who is the director of clinical and preventive services at the Timiskaming Health Unit.
Our combined district between Porcupine and Timiskaming is really quite vast. The Porcupine Health Unit covers from Hornepayne over to Matheson and from Timmins in the south to Moosonee in the north and well along the James Bay coast. The Timiskaming Health Unit covers from south of Matheson to south of Temagami and thus covers Kirkland Lake and the Tri-town area. Both health units serve both the vast unorganized areas and as the organized communities over an area that is actually greater than the country of France.
I am here today because I wear several hats. I am the medical officer for the health unit but I'm also the northern medical officer representative to ALPHA, which is the Association of Local Public Health Agencies, and in fact I'm vice-president of that organization. All three of us are here today because we have strong personal interests in positively influencing health care reform for the residents of northern Ontario.
I'd also like to mention that I have lived in this area since 1984, the first 12 years working as a general practitioner and now as the medical officer of health. I think this leaves me very broadly informed as to the challenges of improving health and providing health care in the north.
I know all too well the current inadequacies of the health system, but I am also aware that there is plenty of evidence out there if you go and look for it as to how the system can be improved to ensure that needed services are provided to everybody and that strategies are put in place that can really make a difference to the health of the people who live up here.
I and the northern medical officers and public health professionals are watching the developments in health system reform very carefully. We do note some encouraging trends such as are happening in primary care, but we are very concerned at the path that is being taken with the reform of public health services. Admittedly, it's a small piece of the health care system, but it's a very important one.
Across the north, you've probably heard from many medical officers of health who are expressing their concerns to you about Bill 12 because we believe this bill is another step in the wrong direction for public health and even more fundamentally for the health system of this province and northern Ontario.
The first and most crucial error that was made was the decision to download funding of public health services to municipalities despite the best advice of experts like Duncan Sinclair, the chair of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, and David Crombie, who headed up the Who Does What advisory committee to the provincial government.
Bill 12 might have, I suppose, some positive outcomes for some services that are currently very fragmented or even non-existent. The bill aims to provide choice and flexibility in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms and to allow for increased efficiency and accountability in area-wide service delivery. This might be something that's very much needed for municipal services, as some of our communities are very small and isolated and services can be expensive. But we believe it's a mistake to require that one of the core services which must be provided or ensured by an area services board is public health. This would be moving public health into an integrated system with Ontario Works, child care, social housing, police, roads, bridges, economic development, emergency preparedness, airports, ambulance and homes for the aged, and would allow the future organization of public health services to be perhaps more driven by geopolitical tensions that exist around municipal services rather than looking to the successes of the northern health units in delivering services across our wide geography and the positive trends that I think I see in health care reform.
There is a position paper which has been produced by the Association of Local Public Health Agencies in conjunction with the northern medical officers of health. This position paper has six principles at its core which I suggest to you are worthy of consideration.
The six principles are, first, that the already successfully consolidated and effective services of northern public health units mustn't be weakened merely to meet the need to consolidate other services.
Second, we believe that local public health services must be organized such that each unit will maintain the necessary critical mass to continue to ensure comprehensive and effective provision of mandatory programs and public health responsiveness to important health issues as they arise.
Third, in these times of shrinking resources and staffing, any reform of local public health services must ensure that opportunities will continue to exist and in fact will be strengthened between health units.
Fourth, the reform of public health governance must ensure that there is a balance between the driving forces of efficiency and quality.
The last point I would like to make is that the next step in health system reform requires integrated approaches across public health. Current public health service reform, as is being discussed right now, must not create barriers to the important role that public health could play in the integrated health systems of the future that I think are a real possibility.
Actually, there is one more point that ALPHA made. That is that the consultation on public health integration into municipal services must include public health and the communities at large.
There are a couple of these points that I would like to expand on further, the first being that we believe northern health units have already long evolved to successfully and efficiently provide services across very vast geographies and numerous communities.
There are only seven health units in the whole of northern Ontario -- eight if one includes Muskoka-Parry Sound. Health units such as my own and the Northwestern Health Unit provide coordinated public health services to areas as large as the country of France. This is fewer than the approximately 10 or 11 district social service administration boards proposed for the north, and significantly fewer than the 15 or so currently under discussion, which are to replace, apparently, a multitude of municipal structures that currently deliver Ontario Works, child care and social housing. It seems to me that area services boards are clearly expected to evolve from these DSSABs. I would suggest to you that we shouldn't be taking apart health units and creating more health units in order to merely fit the borders of DSSABs and ASBs, as are driven by the geopolitical tensions that exist in our area.
The second point I want to expand upon is that public health services must be structured and organized such that each unit has a critical mass necessary to ensure that they can provide all the mandatory programs as they are laid out by the Minister of Health, and be able to respond to public health crises as they emerge.
Public health units have very broad legislated responsibilities to provide programs that protect and promote the health of the public. The programs document is issued by the Minister of Health. It identifies minimum standards that must be met and requires boards to employ a variety of appropriately trained professionals such as medical officers of health, public health dentists, dental hygienists, public health inspectors and public health nurses, to name but a few, in order to properly provide the service. A minimal organizational size is also required to ensure we can respond 24 hours a day.
As our budgets have shrunk, our key expertise has been increasingly concentrated into a smaller number of staff. My own health unit now only has 70% of the staff it had in the early 1990s to cover the whole of the district.
A study was done by the public health branch in 1996, and they reported that they felt it was true that the minimum population that a health unit must provide for in order to meet that critical mass was in the range of 100,000 to 150,000 people. A business plan at that time called for smaller health units to be amalgamated from the total of 42 that existed in the province down to 32.
Bringing public health into the planned area services boards, if indeed they are to be based on the DSSABs, would move us in the opposite direction from these potential efficiencies. In fact, locally, a plan to amalgamate the Timiskaming and Porcupine health units was put on hold because of the announcement that funding of the health unit would be downloaded to the municipalities and because of the discussions around the district social service administration boards. Allowing health units to continue to shrink in size will mean that some vital expertise and programs will eventually be lost to our communities.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly, I'd like to talk about integrated health services. Public health services are a crucial component of the health system, and in the north we also often fill in some of the ever-present gaps in primary care created by the shortage of family physicians. Planning documents for integrated health systems all uniformly recognize that public health must be a part of any model for an integrated system. This is because the experts realize that most of the current health care concentrates on services for individuals who are already sick, while only public health services currently plan and provide programs aimed to produce long-range improvements in the health of the community as a whole.
1610
Plans for integrated health services realize they want to involve and build upon public health services because we provide a variety of services such as epidemiology, vaccine programs, environmental health expertise, family planning clinics, well-woman clinics, restaurants and food safety programs, and infection control consultation, to name but a few.
In fact the Northeastern Integrated Health System Task Force did a lot of work only last year and produced a report in which it was stated that health promotion and disease prevention is a key component of an integrated health system, and named public health as a core program in their model for the northeast.
In conclusion, let me say that I have nothing against reorganization, restructuring, reform. It can bring benefits, but it can also produce changes that become embedded in legislation which will take years of work to undo. I ask you to please ensure that public health reforms are not driven by the need to consolidate other services, but by the evidence that exists as to what is really needed to improve our health care system for the residents of northern Ontario.
It was no accident that in the past, public health services, which began decades ago as wholly municipally funded services that were very small and very numerous in number, eventually evolved into much larger units that could provide a greater variety of services and were eventually largely provincially funded. Communities vary widely in their wealth and the very communities that are most in need of services are those that are least able to afford them. Successive provincial governments over the past decade increased their funding portion to public health as they realized that municipalities could not rise to the challenge because of the differences in the wealth of communities.
I think we should take the lessons of the past very seriously. I believe public health is a provincial responsibility and that it should not have been downloaded on to district social services administration boards, area services boards and municipalities, and I do not believe it should be funded from municipal taxes.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for coming. We heard a presentation that was very similar from Dr Northan this morning and Dr Bolton from Sudbury has written us along the same lines. I share your view.
Something I wanted to ask about, but didn't have an opportunity this morning, was that we're aware the hospital restructuring commission is now looking at rural hospitals and the smaller hospitals across northern Ontario, and is looking at clustering models, whatever that might mean. It would seem to me that public health services would be far better coordinated along the lines of our institutional services and along the lines of municipal boundaries, whatever they may happen to be. Am I wrong in thinking that?
Dr Kaczmarek: I think that was exactly what I was alluding to. The Health Services Restructuring Commission is coming to visit the district of Cochrane in the very near future and there have been some significant discussions about clustering the hospital services into a more co-operative model. I think that alongside of that it brings with it great potential for addressing the gaps in primary care that exist, by looking among the health services that exist to a more comprehensive model and more efficiencies within the health services that exist already.
Mr Michael Brown: I may be wrong, but the information I've had is that public health services, however they are addressed, will probably, over time, be the largest determinant of the health of our population, beyond physicians, beyond hospitals, beyond whatever. The environment we live in, the food we eat, the houses we have, contribute more to the longevity of our population -- the issues you deal with -- than maybe the sexier parts of medicine with all the bells and whistles.
It doesn't seem to me that it makes much sense to ask a municipality, as you've pointed out, that has to balance the need to fill the potholes, for example, with the need to have a program for pregnant women -- I think I'm agreeing with you. I can't really think of a question.
Dr Kaczmarek: Public health underlies the whole of the health system. It only takes up about 3% of the health budget and it's often an underappreciated health service, but without it you would not have the very framework you need, such as the vaccine program and the food and water safety programs, to ensure the population as a whole has the basics.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to welcome the committee to the city of Timmins. It's not often that the people in our area get an opportunity to go before a committee because it's not normally a stop that is made on the committee circuit, but this committee chose by subcommittee, and then supported by all three parties, that the committee would come to our area because this is a bill, Bill 12, that will have effects, one way or another, on the communities.
I want to point out on a beautiful summer afternoon in the city of Timmins that you have people from all over our area, from Hearst to Timmins to Iroquois Falls. I believe there are some people from south of Matheson here as well. I think it shows that when we come north and we come as far north as Timmins, people have something to say and are pleased the committee was able to come.
I have one question. It's a very simple one. In your presentation, and you didn't get to it because you didn't have time, you have an addition to your document, a yellow one, and it reads: "The Services Improvement Act has modified the Health Protection and Promotion Act such that 'additional entities such as county councils may become boards of health' and 'the administration and business affairs of the board need not be under the direction of the medical officer.'" If that was the case and that was to happen, what does it mean to a person living in Hearst or Kapuskasing or Timmins? What does that mean if it's a county council or an ASB that's running it versus the medical board of health?
Dr Kaczmarek: Currently, where there is an independent board of health, the management of the programs and the administration of the health unit come under the medical officer of health, somebody such as myself who has training to a master's level or fellowship level in public health, who therefore can make the decisions about the utilization of the health unit's resources along the lines of making sure that the mandatory programs are met, but also addressing the health priorities of the community. If that were changed, then you may have a situation where that kind of expertise and perspective is no longer brought to the decisions about where the money is spent.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you, doctor, for your presentation. As mentioned earlier by Mr Brown, we've had a number of medical officers of health and boards of health make presentations to the committee expressing in some areas similar concerns to your presentation.
I just want to make a comment on the objectives of the northern medical officers of health. It relates to everyone speaking, or singing, from the same hymn book, shall we say. I would agree with you that the intention of the bill and the process and providing of quality public health services in all of Ontario is covered in this. At the present time I am confident that it's covered in the bill. I hope we can get the information out of the public hearings to point out if and where it does not meet those challenges that you put forward in your five or six comments as to what you believe public health should do.
One of the things that has been expressed quite regularly is the concern that if it goes to the area services boards, we would end up with more boards of health, so that we increase the cost of public health. I suppose if one increased the costs and there's no more money available, you then turn around and decrease the quality in order to meet the budget restrictions. In the bill it recognizes that the area services boards would become responsible for providing public health, but it doesn't state that they would then become the board of health. They could turn around and purchase that service.
1620
As the local administrations put forward a proposal to have an area services board, it would seem probable to me, and I just ask if that would not be the case with you, that the most effective and efficient way of providing the public health services would be jointly with the present participants in the board of health, to provide them in the same way they are, rather than putting it into a smaller unit and hiring their own medical officer of health and putting in their own administration. The only thing I see in the bill that would help reduce administration is if some of the administrative functions could be provided by what would at present be administrative structures for the area services board.
Do you see a likelihood that, in the name of efficiency and effectiveness, any group of municipalities or areas would come forward with a proposal that says, "We can provide a more cost-effective and more efficient service by downsizing and increasing the number of boards of health in the north"?
Dr Kaczmarek: I'm already aware from my colleagues who are in other parts of northern Ontario that exactly that kind of discussion is going on in some of the areas. Not in my own; the borders of my health unit are the same as the DSSAB that is proposed for our area and presumably that might become the area services board. But it is my understanding that in some of the areas such as northwestern Ontario, where there is more than one DSSAB to be created within the borders of the health unit, there are people who are of the belief that they could provide the public health services within their area services board and not maintain the current health unit structure.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We've run out of time. I appreciate the comments you've brought to the committee this afternoon.
HIGHWAY 11 CORRIDOR MUNICIPAL COALITION
The Vice-Chair: I'd like now to call upon the Highway 11 Corridor Municipal Coalition, Mr Caron, the chair. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.
Mr Jean Claude Caron: First of all, I'd like to apologize to the francophones in the room. My confrère from Hearst, Mayor Blier, was supposed to be in and do the French presentation but something came up. He called me when I was on the way here so I couldn't get his presentation. So the presentation will be done in English. I'd like to apologize to the francophones on the panel and in the hall.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you. On behalf of the town of Kapuskasing and the Highway 11 Corridor Municipal Coalition, comprised of 12 municipalities between Black River-Matheson and Hearst, I welcome the opportunity to present comments at this hearing on this very significant act with respect to part II.
The establishment of area services boards, although voluntary in nature, has very serious implications on large geographic areas such as the Cochrane region. As a result of those implications, the coalition member municipalities have taken a strong position on the proposed regulations dealing with governance, added services of a local nature, taxation and the creation of another level of bureaucracy similar to a modified upper-tier level of government.
Coalition member municipalities have considered the benefits associated with the assumption of responsibility for the delivery of a number of services as proposed by the act, but the devolution of such shall evolve into the creation of another level of government and associated bureaucracy with the power of taxation. This would certainly be counterproductive and have a dramatic effect on municipal government with respect to flexibility and choice on behalf of its electorate.
Of utmost concern is the power by the province to order the area services boards to be responsible for the provision of other services that have been historically local in nature, rather than being matters of district-wide concern. The impact on cost, efficiency and other benefits, or disadvantages, requires to be further assessed prior to any firm decisions.
If this section is to form part of this bill, then a mechanism for consultation should be in place to ensure coordination, effectiveness and efficiency to maintain local government in the north, as opposed to a regional government approach, in this vast area of northern Ontario.
Specific areas of concern as outlined in the proposed bill include economic development, airport services, land use planning, police services, homes for the aged, and roads and bridges. Inclusion of these services could create conflict and could also prevent any local initiatives to be undertaken.
Some of the services outlined have already undergone a restructuring process to eliminate waste and effect efficiencies, such as the Porcupine Health Unit, and unless the provincial government is able to indicate further savings to the taxpayers, free of any negative impact on services, then it should not be considered as part of the ASB.
Another point of concern is the recovery of costs associated in achieving the requirements of Bill 12. This piece of proposed legislation outlines that an election be held in unorganized territories for election of a member to represent that area on an ASB. Therefore, recovery of costs from the residents could be achieved possibly through the board.
The Northern Services Improvement Act also outlines the majority vote as being a vote of a majority of all members in attendance at a meeting to pass any bylaw or resolution. It is suggested that a majority vote be achieved by a majority of total members sitting on the board. This would result in fair and equitable decision-making with no one group being perceived as having control, a fear that has become evident with area negotiations.
The coalition appreciates the opportunity to present these concerns and trusts they will be considered prior to final reading and vote on Bill 12.
Some of the concerns of the town of Kapuskasing are seeing this as a backwards step. We just finished over a year of negotiations with a home for the aged because the local municipalities didn't want to pay into the home. We finally came to an agreement. Kapuskasing took over the home for the aged and declared it a charitable home, and we're the only ones concerned with it. The same thing happened in Iroquois Falls. The surrounding municipalities didn't want to get involved with it. Now you're coming back to us and asking us to do just the opposite. This thing with the home for the aged was always refused by every other previous government. Now this government says: "OK, we can dissolve the board. You can take care of your own." And now you come back today and you want to put it back in. Why did we do all this work?
The most appalling thing about this government -- I can't believe what you're doing. You're pitting all the communities one against the other. In northern Ontario all the communities used to work together, enjoy our friendship, enjoy our sports, enjoy our success and work together if anything went wrong. Mr Hardeman, you're one who should know. When you came to us and you talked about amalgamation with the small communities and something had to be done, I walked on the street, and the reeves and the mayors and the people from the small communities around would turn around and not look at us. They despised Kapuskasing. People I went to school with, people who enjoyed their sports -- is this what this government wants?
This government should realize that northern Ontario is not like southern Ontario. You should realize it and should have realized it, because you never got anybody elected in northern Ontario. Your philosophy is not the philosophy of northern Ontario. Northern Ontario is people caring for people, people helping out people.
I just say, when it comes to economic development, who wants to have a big region beside it? If industry comes in and you've got five municipalities vying for it, whoever is the strongest is going to get it. This is completely wrong.
Police services: We made a deal with the OPP in Kapuskasing and we have a good solution. We buy the service we need. We don't need the region to tell us what we need. We buy our own services, what we need for our community. This is what we're looking for. We are there to serve our citizens.
I have lived all my life in Kapuskasing. I live in northern Ontario by choice, because this is the kind of life I want, a life of caring people. My friend, the thing is, if you live by the almighty dollar, you die by the almighty dollar, but if you live caring for people, you die in love.
Mr Bisson: I have a few questions. The first one is, I just want to say, Mayor Caron, that your comments about mayors and councils and communities being one against each other is something we're starting to hear a lot more of. I'm not going to use this committee to politicize it, but that's a message that I think committees have to hear. When all of this hits the ground, Bill 12 and all of the other restructuring that's gone on -- it has been a process that has forced municipalities into a situation where instead of working together, they're quite frankly sometimes trying to hang on to their own stuff and they end up fighting against each other. Mayor Caron is not normally an emotional person, and I'm a bit surprised that you chose to do what you did here today. I think it tells me to what degree you feel about that.
1630
The other thing I want to say, just before I go to the question, is that you have to realize that communities like Kapuskasing, like Timmins, like Iroquois Falls, Hearst, all the other communities, have undergone a whole bunch of change on their own. They didn't need a provincial government to tell them to restructure. They didn't need a provincial government 25 years ago to tell the city of Timmins that they needed to amalgamate. They didn't need a provincial government to tell them they wanted to go to the OPP in the town of Kapuskasing. They did it when the time was right, when it was right for their taxpayers, and they did the responsible thing. I think that's the resentment you hear from a lot of the municipal leaders.
I want to go back to a part in your presentation where you say that basically what we're doing here is creating another level of government. You've sort of answered the question, but I just want to have it clear. If we go ahead with ASBs and eventually these things become full-fledged municipal governments of their own, do you agree that all those services should be done by a regional style of government or are you better off to keep it at the local level?
Mr Caron: As far as I'm concerned you'd better keep it at local government, because local government can give what the local people want. A regional government will give what regional people want, but it doesn't mean -- like being so vast, with so many miles between each town. A good example is Cochrane North: You have the Highway 11 corridor, which is basically francophone people, you've got Timmins, which is anglophone, and then you've got Moosonee, which is native people. If you make a decision and you don't include the native people, Moosonee's left out. If you make a decision and don't include francophones, they're left out. If you make a decision not including the anglophones, Timmins is left out. This is not what we want.
Like you say, it's working together. When we built our hospital in Kap, the neighbouring communities of Fauquier, Moonbeam, Opasatika and Valrita all chipped in. We built our arena, they all chipped in. If a crisis came up, they all chipped in. This is what we want. We want to stop this fighting that is being pushed on us by this provincial government and makes enemies instead of working together. In northern Ontario, if you don't work together, you're not going to survive.
Mr Hardeman: Good morning, Mr Mayor, and thank you for your presentation. A couple of comments first, and then I have a couple of questions.
I wanted to make the comment that the Minister of Northern Development and his parliamentary assistant spent quite an extensive amount of time speaking to northern municipalities to ascertain what was required in municipal government to deal with the more regionalized services and to come up with a bill that would allow that to happen by locally driven initiatives. I think that's why this legislation is totally permissive legislation. If the people in the north, the municipalities in the north, do not want the area services boards, they do not have to put them in place.
Yesterday, in a number of presentations, people came forward and said: "We were way ahead of you. This bill is what we, in our proposal we sent to the minister, were recommending in relation to the discussions that have been held over a number of years with municipalities and the unorganized areas around them or where they have no municipal government to deal with some of these regional services, to make sure that everyone who is receiving the services pays for the services." I believe those were, in fairness, some of the comments made over the period of discussions held with Kapuskasing and some of their neighbours about payment and delivery of services. This bill provides the opportunity to put those types of things in place so the services can be delivered across broader areas without the need to provide a large government over all that area or an upper-tier government, as you referred to. I'm somewhat curious about the objection to having permissive legislation to put that in place. This was not the position put forward by the majority of municipal leaders we've heard from in the last couple of days.
One of the items you mentioned specifically in your presentation was the issue of homes for the aged being a core service, that if you set up an area services board, municipal homes for the aged would be covered by that. My understanding is that presently it is a regional-type service that provides the service to areas that are not necessarily confined to your municipal boundaries. As far as the operation goes, I'm sure they're presently operated by a board of management to operate the home and funded by the municipality. It would seem to me that the operation of that could stay identical under an area services board, save and except that the ability to fund that home for the aged would be spread over the entire area of an area services board. Do you not see that as a benefit?
Mr Caron: Well, you should talk to some of your ministry, because that's what we had and your government told the neighbouring municipality that they can pull out of the agreement and that the Kap will be responsible for their homes and Iroquois Falls will be responsible for their homes, otherwise the ministry would close them. This is the answer we got from the Minister of Health of your government. So what we did is that we negotiated for one year and we finally came up with an agreement. When the other municipality pulled out, Kap took over a home for the aged. We changed it to a charitable home, because there's a retrofit of $7 million which the town of Kapuskasing can't afford, so we can keep it as a home for the aged. We changed it to a non-profit, a charitable home so we would not be responsible for the retrofit. This was all done with your government. They tried it for the last 10 years and all the previous governments refused them, but your government accepted their conditions to pull out.
Mr Hardeman: Is it your understanding that the non-profit that you now have for the home for the aged would no longer be allowed to stay in place if you had an area services board?
Mr Caron: It wouldn't be part of it because it's not a home for the aged. It's a non-profit home. We had a home for the aged and the municipalities from Hearst to Madison were paying into it. We had one in Kap and one in Iroquois Falls. Then the municipalities of Hearst, Mattice, Opasatika, Valrita, Moonbeam, Fauquier, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane, Madison, all sent letters to the ministry saying they wanted to pull out. The minister accepted it. They said, "OK, come up with a solution," so we came up with a solution.
In Kap we didn't want our home closed. We're still supplying them with $227,000. We're not keeping it as a home for the aged because being a home for the aged, the municipality would be responsible for any retrofits, liable for anything. We changed it to a non-profit home, a charitable home, your government calls it, so we will not be responsible so we can keep our home. But if you go under the ASB, then it goes back to a home for the aged; you want it back as a home for the aged. All the work we did that your government wanted, now you want to switch it back, which I think is nonsense.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Mayor, for coming here today. What you've had to say is pretty much what I've heard throughout my constituency. I represent Algoma-Manitoulin along the North Shore. One of the interesting things that was said this morning -- I had never considered it, but David Court from the administration board of Algoma was before us, and he was so convinced that what we're getting here is regional government he wondered why the government had not given the taxing power directly to the ASB and have the ASB send out all the taxes. In other words, instead of the municipality sending out a tax bill, they would send one out with Kap's levy included in it for the people in Kapuskasing.
I guess what I'm saying is that I believe this is the second tier of government and it's a government that I think is not going to service the people I represent and certainly not the people here in Cochrane either or in any part of the north.
I don't think the parliamentary assistant understands the homes for the aged question. If you were in an ASB, what you're telling me is that you'd revert to paying the cost of all the homes for the aged within the ASB area. That could put you in the unenviable situation of supporting a charitable home all of your own, under the worst circumstance, plus paying for the --
Mr Caron: A home for the aged.
Mr Michael Brown: -- which may be in Iroquois Falls or in Timmins or wherever it is.
Mr Caron: In Timmins, yes.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for coming here today. We appreciate the comments you've made.
1640
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I have a question to the parliamentary assistant. Am I to understand that in terms of the homes for the aged now, under the new ASB, funding would stay the same, that Kap would pay for Kap, Iroquois Falls would pay for Iroquois Falls and there'd be no district-wide assessment for any of the homes for the aged across the district under Bill 12? Is this a change of policy I just heard?
The Vice-Chair: Do you wish to answer that?
Mr Hardeman: Not to extend debate, I think it's the type of debate that will be appropriate in the clause-by-clause. But I would point out for all those gathered that the legislation would allow the area services board that was going to provide this service to provide that service in any way they deem most appropriate, and they have the ability to set the cost and the payments of those services in their choice of ways. Then they send the bill to the appropriate municipalities or charge it to the appropriate taxpayers in the unserviced area.
So yes, they could provide it in different ways in different parts of their area services board. It's their responsibility.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, it's not a point of order. I think you've had clarification. We'll continue on.
CITY OF TIMMINS
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Victor Power, the mayor of the city of Timmins. Good afternoon. I am pleased to be able to welcome you here, as I recognize that you have welcomed us. I want to thank you on behalf of the members of the committee for the tokens of appreciation for our being here. Thank you very much.
Mr Victor Power: We're very pleased that you could come to Timmins today. I know you will bring those souvenirs away with you and think of us often in your deliberations at a much higher level.
I would mention that, regardless of the fact that the price of gold is down and that the price of zinc and the price of metal aren't where they should be, we're very optimistic here in Timmins that things will get better.
You probably came from the airport and came over the new bridge on the way to the hotel. As you know, what we call the old bridge is now being reconstructed, so we'll have, in a very short time, two new bridges. I want you to know that in Timmins, we probably won't be building any more bridges for a while, but it's not for lack of money. We've just run out of rivers.
In any event, I would like to welcome you to Timmins and thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding Bill 12. This is, of course, An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery.
I am making this presentation with great concern because of the experiences we have had with the development of a district social services administration board for the district of Cochrane. The city of Timmins was not able to come to a resolution with respect to representation on the DSSAB with our neighbouring communities within the district. We have now received a decision from the Minister of Community and Social Services, Janet Ecker, as well as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Chris Hodgson, who have decided representation on the Cochrane district social services administration board.
After reviewing Bill 12, it appears that this legislation should have preceded the legislation for district social services administration boards, because Bill 12 is deemed to be enabling legislation whereas the district social services administration board act is prescribed legislation, dictated by the provincial government.
I would first like to deal with Bill 12 in general and then proceed to more specific items with respect to this legislation. It is the opinion of the city of Timmins that the establishment of Bill 12 will encourage regional government in northern Ontario. Subsection 41(1) of Bill 12 mandates the six core services which the area services board shall provide, as well as listed optional services. Paragraph 41(2)9 indicates that the minister may also designate any other service to the area services board for delivery.
If this section is utilized to its fullest, local municipal government would be minimized to providing only a few services at the local level. The city of Timmins believes that local decisions should be made at the local level. Further, area services boards have been granted the authority to tax under one of two taxation models.
Although the establishment of an area services board appears to be voluntary, in reality it is not. Municipalities are forced to develop district social services administration boards and provide at least the delivery of services for Ontario Works, child care and social housing, while at the same time paying for public health services, land ambulance services and homes for the aged.
We see no alternative but to roll into an area services board, because the additional core services mandated for delivery are currently downloaded and paid for by the district municipalities. How would this work, if some of the services were managed at a district level whereas some would be managed at a local level?
Our concern in the long term is that this legislation will lead to the formation of regional governments and that northern Ontario will be governed by 10 huge governments that will be the size of the districts as we know them now. Municipal councils will have virtually no authority and the regional government will decide everything.
I might mention as an aside that the city of Timmins, as it is presently constituted, is in itself bigger than the state of Rhode Island, so I don't know how much bigger we want to go. We're heading towards Texas, I guess.
Bill 12 does not take into consideration the geographical uniqueness of northern Ontario and the problems associated with travel during the winter months. In addition, it is contrary to the preamble of the act, which indicates that the act has been developed to recognize the unique circumstances of northern Ontario. It is our opinion that the unique circumstances of northern Ontario are not considered fully in this bill.
The city of Timmins also has serious concerns regarding its function as a local government entity once district social services administration boards are created. For example, when discussions begin with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines regarding the establishment of an area services board, will the ministry deal solely with the Cochrane district social services administration board or will there be discussion with each of the local municipalities? Our concern is that once the Cochrane district social services administration board is created the provincial government will deal solely with that board.
Although Bill 12 has been described as permissive legislation, the city of Timmins has grave concerns regarding the powers delegated to the minister with respect to regulation without consultation. Subsection 38(3) indicates that the minister may amend an order as the minister considers appropriate, at the DSSAB's request or in any other circumstances. This power is extremely far-reaching and provides the minister with an excessive amount of decision-making authority.
In addition, subsection 37(2) states that the minister may establish principles that municipalities, local services boards and residents of unorganized territories shall consider when developing a proposal to be submitted to the minister. There is no indication throughout the legislation as to what these principles may be, and once again it provides the minister with a tremendous amount of authority. If these principles relate to the process in general they may be fine, but if these principles deal with representation and items of a similar nature it is essential that the legislation speak specifically to these matters.
It may be argued that the minister would never impose his will as we have interpreted these particular clauses, but I would like to remind the committee that the city of Timmins is very cautious with respect to this authority because of the experiences we have had with the downloading of responsibility for provincial highways. The Minister of Transportation has exercised his authority and downloaded approximately 90 kilometres of provincial highways for the city of Timmins to maintain at the expense of the city's taxpayers. Therefore, we are concerned with respect to the authority given to ministers of the crown through legislation.
There do not appear to be any sections within Bill 12 that specifically discuss representation on the area services board. It is the position of the city of Timmins that since we have the majority of the population, the majority of households and the majority of the assessment, we should receive the majority of representation on any proposed area services board. We are not proposing this to the detriment of our neighbouring municipalities within the district. We firmly believe that Timmins should have a major influence in decision-making when the majority of the costs would be borne by the taxpayers of the city of Timmins. In fact, out of every $5 in expenditures, we shall be paying more than $3, or 61%.
1650
The next issues I would like to discuss are the sections of the legislation which deal with unorganized territories. Although these sections of the legislation do not directly impact on the city of Timmins, I feel mention must be made with respect to costs. Bill 12 provides for elections in unorganized territories to coincide with municipal elections under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Will the municipalities within the Cochrane district have to share in the payment of these election expenses or will the province pay for this expenditure?
Subsection 41(1) provides for the six core services to be delivered under an area services board. Included as a core service are homes for the aged under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act. The city of Timmins requires clarification of the following: Is this legislation only applicable to municipal homes for the aged or other long-term-care facilities? Does this legislation include charitable homes for the aged, private for-profit homes for the aged and homes for the aged operated under the jurisdiction of a hospital?
Further clarification with respect to the delivery of services for homes for the aged must be provided, because in each of the districts of northern Ontario there are different circumstances with respect to governance. For example, in the district of Cochrane there is a charitable home for the aged in Kapuskasing; a home for the aged in Iroquois Falls, which is operated by the local hospital; and Timmins's Golden Manor Home for the Aged, which is a municipally operated home. If this legislation is only applicable to municipal homes for the aged, will Timmins's Golden Manor be rolled into an area services board and will the costs to operate that home be apportioned on a district level? If so, will the Golden Manor Home for the Aged be required to become a district home for the aged?
In addition, there are districts within northern Ontario that have one or more district homes for the aged within their geographical boundaries. How will these homes be managed? Will they be expected to consolidate management services to create efficiencies, and is it realistically possible to do this given the unique geography of northern Ontario? Further discussion must take place with respect to the inclusion of homes for the aged under this section of the legislation.
In conclusion, it is the strong position of the city of Timmins that Bill 12 be given further consideration. In keeping with the intent of the legislation, an independent body must be hired to substantiate financially that the creation of an area services board will in fact bring about increased efficiency and accountability.
Again I wish to thank the honourable members of the standing committee for your time and consideration this afternoon. We'd be pleased to answer whatever questions you might have.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon, Mr Mayor. Thank you for your very well formulated and informative presentation.
Mr Power: Thank you. It's good to see you again.
Mr Hardeman: First of all, just a quick clarification: The act does only apply to municipal homes for the aged, not long-term-care facilities. Your pointing that out may very well point out that this needs to be clarified in the legislation, to make sure that all understand that.
One of the things I'd like to ask you is: In our two days of hearings in four different venues in northern Ontario the issue of the permissiveness of the legislation comes into question when you look at the area of an area services board and that it would be based on some level of support required to form an area services board. In almost every presentation where that concern is expressed, it is always brought out that the largest player in the area would have the voice in whether an area services board would be set up or whether it wouldn't, because not only would they apply as one municipality, but they also have, when it comes to the majority of the population -- what shall we say? -- a slightly more advantageous position. Yet in your position you seem to indicate that you think an area services board could very well be put in place in the Timmins area without support of the council of the city of Timmins.
Mr Power: I certainly didn't want to leave that impression. If there were an area services board, probably the city of Timmins would have to be part of it. Frankly, as I pointed out earlier in the aside, the city of Timmins is big enough now. Twenty-five years ago we went through, in miniature, the same debate they had in Toronto last year about consolidation of the city. The city of Timmins was consolidated exactly 25 years ago: January 1, 1973. It's a huge area to cover. We say that local decisions should be made at the local level and we're really not looking to spread our wings, to tell you the truth. We can manage nicely and I think the Cochrane North coalition can manage nicely on their own. They're doing a good job.
Over the past few months, as Mayor Caron indicated a while ago, there has been a bit of bitterness over the DSSAB. We realize where they're coming from and I think they realize where we're coming from. I don't think there should be any mad rush to get into area services boards. Our municipality -- and I can only speak for the city of Timmins -- is handling things rather well right now. As a matter of fact, even our municipal tax increase this year was only 2.89%. We didn't do badly. I don't know what the advantage would be. Why is bigger always better? We're big enough now.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Mayor Power, for the pen and gold bar.
Mr Power: When the price goes up it'll be worth more.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm sure it will appreciate in the next little bit.
I was interested in your analysis too. I think you're right: As far as the area service boards go, they're coming and you will get them. That's the way this legislation is drafted, and by fiscal means the government will accomplish this. I do note that I think they're fighting words when you spell out what is obviously your position on representation on that board. If I was from Timmins, that's the position I would take. I would not be very happy about that if I was from Hearst.
Mr Power: No, but you see -- go ahead.
Mr Michael Brown: I understand your position and Mayor Caron's point, that it's just setting municipality against municipality, community against community. I notice that in the northeast, the region of Sudbury is standing alone in this DSSAB arrangement, with Sudbury district and Manitoulin against their will being lumped in together, Algoma being separate from Sault Ste Marie. So it would seem to me if the government had any kind of consistency, it would believe that Timmins should stand on its own and the other DSSAB would be the rest of the Cochrane communities. But that's apparently not what's happening.
I am concerned that there are not efficiencies here either. I'm from a very small community. I know that smaller is not always more expensive, but often smaller is better. Sometimes it is more expensive, but there's no rule that says bigger is better or smaller is better; you have to look at these case by case. Your experience in Timmins I guess would bear that out.
Mr Power: I would say that is correct. We could go to the school boards for an example. The huge school boards have not necessarily become more efficient; I don't think anybody could argue that point. I don't think an area services board would necessarily be more efficient; in fact, I have my doubts.
Mr Michael Brown: I have grave doubts.
Mr Power: As far as representation goes, the day that Nova Scotia has more seats in the House of Commons than Ontario, then I would believe that this business of representation by population has then gone out the window, but until that type of thing happens I think we pretty well have to stay with the type of thinking we have.
Mr Bisson: We did get more seats in Nova Scotia; they went NDP.
Mr Power: I guess bigger is not better.
Mr Bisson: Coming from you, I don't know.
I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of the taxpayer and take away my politician's hat. I say to myself, you're making the claim in this document that I've come to when reading the legislation, and a lot of other people have, which is that in the long run we're going to end up with regional government. There will be 10 regional governments across northern Ontario. They will have the taxing power; they will run most of the services. Local municipalities like Timmins will be a thing of memory; it'll be a small band of people who sit around the table and talk about where the stop sign goes, or smaller issues.
I'm looking it as a taxpayer, and I've got to ask you the question as the mayor of one of the only five big cities in northern Ontario: How am I better off as a taxpayer by having a regional government deliver services in my community? Am I going to be better off when it comes to the tax rate? Am I going to be better off when it comes to services being delivered?
1700
Mr Power: You couldn't possibly be better off, Mr Bisson, because right now when your tax bill comes out, at least you know who to call. If you have a problem with the city, you know who to call or you know someone who knows someone who can fix it, but if you get into a regional government, it's going to be another bureaucratic set-up. This is the type of thing that none of us believes in.
Mr Bisson: Wouldn't it be more government adding to the cost in the longer run when you really look at it?
Mr Power: I'm sure it's going to be more costly. As I say, I remember when the regional school boards were coming in and they were supposed to be a whole lot better, but it didn't necessarily end up that way.
Mr Bisson: We already have in our district, for example, when it comes to welfare, the city of Timmins runs their welfare department for a city of some 50,000 and the Cochrane district runs their own welfare system for the Highway 11 corridor.
Mr Power: That's right.
Mr Bisson: In your view, is that a sensible way of doing business? Are we better off going under one ASB to do all of that?
Mr Power: No. I think it's better the way we have it as of this moment. I'll give you an example. In the city of Timmins -- I'm not criticizing anybody when I say this; this is just the way it has to be because of the population breakdown -- we have one caseworker in welfare for 225 clients. In other areas they have one caseworker for 95 clients. So I ask you, what's going to happen if we decide on a magic number like, say, 125 or something? We're going to double the number of employees just in that part of the operation alone. Is that efficiency? I can't see it.
Mr Bisson: Sid Ryan would like it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for presenting your views today.
BEN LEFEBVRE
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Ben Lefebvre. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.
Mr Ben Lefebvre: Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, for showing up here.
First I'd like to point out that although I'm a recently elected councillor for the town of Iroquois Falls, which is about 45 minutes from here, I do not represent the views of the town of Iroquois Falls. Quite frankly, that would limit the expression of my views, and I am a hard man to hold down. Therefore, we'll begin.
I would like to welcome you to Timmins and thank you for allowing me to speak here today. I have reviewed Bill 12 in its entirety and have come away from the exercise with some apprehension, I must admit. I will attempt to confine my comments to the bill as it is presented. My first point is to bring your attention to the bill's title which begins and ends with these words: An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents...to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery." As I see it, the choice and flexibility is quickly spelled out in clause 37(1)(b), where it states "that the proposal has the degree of support of the municipalities and local services boards and of the residents of the unorganized territory in the board area." This is a very important point and needs to be remembered as this legislation is rammed through Parliament.
The very next subsection, however, states, "The minister may establish principles that municipalities, local services boards and residents of unorganized territory shall consider when developing a proposal to be submitted to the minister." Imposition of the minister's principles on the new entity would hardly provide much choice and flexibility to northern residents, as was suggested in the title of the bill. Section 38 goes on to spell out the powers of the minister, including clause 1(e) where he or she may "designate the additional services...that the board shall provide," and further in subsection (3) where, "The minister may amend an order as the minister considers appropriate, at the board's request or in any other circumstances." Pretty broad statement.
Subsection 55(4) then goes on to say, "The minister may make regulations, which may be general or particular in their application, varying, limiting or excluding the powers and duties...of boards and their officers." Wow, I thought that type of control was reserved only for the likes of Ghengis Khan and Joseph Stalin.
This legislation would provide the minister the flexibility to create regional governments under the guise of area services boards. This legislation is the quintessential download. This legislation would allow the minister the latitude, either by order or through coercion, to empower the area services boards to set themselves up as yet another level of government.
All of this is being provided to us by the very party that promised us disentanglement and simplification in the delivery of government services. I suppose that may be true in the end, because by the time all is said and done, government as we know it in the province of Ontario will be a shadow of what it once was.
In our area the government recently allowed municipalities to opt out of a 30-year-old funding arrangement that basically mirrored a portion of the existing proposal for the creation of ASBs. Twelve regional municipalities contributed to the Cochrane district homes for the aged. This government-sponsored abandonment wreaked havoc between the former municipal coalition and divided the communities where the two homes for the aged existed, Iroquois Falls and Kapuskasing. They were both spoken about before by Mr Caron. People lost their jobs; others took hefty cuts in their wages. Worst of all, it instilled uncertainty in the residents, who were affected by the rumours of closure threatened as a result of funding constraints.
My point is this: When given the opportunity to opt out of providing funding to what many people consider essential services, such as seniors' programs, child care and social housing, the majority of people would turn their backs because they are not personally affected by such decisions.
That is why it is so essential to ensure provincial standards are maintained. If municipalities become responsible for paying for such services, they will request "say for pay." How will the government, in all good conscience, deny that to the taxpayers of Ontario? Worse yet, how will municipal governments deny that to their own constituents? This proposed legislation will make good guys out of the provincial government and bad guys out of mayors and council. Our friends and neighbours will see us as the enemy, as the unscrupulous taxman, as the callous autocrat.
I take exception to subsection 39(5), where it says, "A board member who represents a municipality shall be appointed by the council from among their number." The responsibilities given to ASBs and the potential to increase that responsibility by ministerial decree hold that such a position could soon turn into a full-time job. No one from our council can afford the time required to represent our municipality in a full-time capacity. Who is going to pay for such dedication to such an important job?
For the purposes of continuity on such a board, I would like to suggest that this bill should allow municipalities to appoint their sitting member from the municipality itself, and not exclusively from "among their number" as suggested above. This would give us true flexibility should the bill pass into legislation.
The legislation makes provision for taxation powers to be given to the proposed ASBs. This from the same government that promised lower taxes? This from the same government that promised revenue-neutrality in their recent downloading exercises?
Supplemental board funding is supposed to come from the government "in accordance with the apportionment formula established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." This formula has not been spelled out and I suggest really needs to be. Municipalities would be buying a pig in a poke without first knowing what that ratio was going to be. Municipal confidence in this government has been dealt a severe blow of late. It's hard to suggest blind faith be our guide at this time.
One final point: Paragraphs 8 and 9 of subsection 41(2) are all-encompassing statements, far too general to be allowed to go unchallenged. Paragraph 8 provides the possibility that roads and bridges could be downloaded to the municipalities through the ASBs. This also implies that all provincial highways within the boundaries of the ASB could become the responsibility of that ASB. The taxpayers of northern Ontario simply cannot afford the road network that we have up here, the same road network that benefits the economy of the entire province and actually drives it.
1710
In closing, I'd like to suggest that there need to be several amendments made before this bill is passed. Northern Ontario has a separate reality from the rest of the province, that's for certain. Many of the services suggested for the proposed ASBs are already being delivered in similar fashion. I therefore question the relevance of such legislation at this time. Is this simply a punishment for rejecting the Harris agenda and his Common Sense Revolution by northerners? Although it is said to be enabling, once accepted by a municipality or an agglomeration of communities, the powers vested in the Minister of Northern Development and Mines through this legislation should only be reserved to God Himself, and I know He doesn't sit in the Conservative Party. I do not support this legislation as it presently stands.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you for coming. I think you're expressing the view of many people who have come before the committee over the last couple of days. I think this is an unhappy development. We're the square peg and we're trying to fit into southern Ontario's round hole. I'm not so sure it works so well down there either.
The geography of northern Ontario and communities of interest of northern Ontario are basically inefficient. If we really want to come down to it, we had the doctor from the health units come and say it should be 150,000 people. There's only about 800,000 to 900,000 in all of northern Ontario, about 90% of the land mass.
The problem the government has is that they keep talking about efficiencies in what is obviously going to be an inefficient place to deliver service. On the other hand, we provide in northern Ontario a huge amount of the revenue and, as you said, drive the economy of the province from our mines, our forests, our resources in general.
I guess what you're saying is we have to have solutions that are more appropriate to northern Ontario. Some kind of solution that might work for Lambton county isn't going to work for Cochrane. Am I getting the drift here?
Mr Lefebvre: Absolutely. Mayor Vic Power mentioned a while ago about the amalgamation in Timmins 25 years ago. Well, 51 years ago the same type of amalgamation took place in Iroquois Falls, where we pulled in five or six communities in a surrounding area to deliver services that were deemed appropriate and manageable in a geographic area that was manageable. Now we're talking about, as was mentioned by Dr Kaczmarek, that it's going to be the size of France. Let's get real with this thing. There's only so much geography that we can take into account in one go.
Mr Michael Brown: Have you struck your mill rate yet in Iroquois Falls?
Mr Lefebvre: I'd rather not mention that right now; there may be taxpayers in the crowd. Actually, we're going to be announcing it at Monday night's council meeting coming up. But yes, we've decided what that is, and it's scary.
Mr Michael Brown: Your taxpayers will be getting that news shortly in the mail, I take it?
Mr Lefebvre: Actually, it will be on television on Monday night. I wish the Harris government could see it.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move to Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Just before I get to the question, I think the point that you make, where municipal councillors are now having to make decisions about what service should be delivered and what the rate of taxation is based on the downloading, really puts you guys out to dry and makes you out to be the bad guys, because I don't think at the local level most people understand who pays for what service. All they know is that when they go to a district home for the aged or a public health unit or whatever it might be for services, the taxpayer pays for it. That's all they know, by and large. These people are now having to make all of those decisions based on downloading.
I want to get back to the issue of the district home for the aged. Iroquois Falls, as Kapuskasing, is going to find itself in a really weird position. If I understand the legislation correctly, they're going to apportion the cost of those municipal homes for the aged, such as the Golden Manor, across the district once the ASB is put in place, which for the city of Timmins is a great deal. It means we get to share the cost of the Golden Manor, which is a prime facility, across the entire district. So people in Iroquois Falls, Hearst, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, all of them are going to have to pay. But Iroquois Falls and Kapuskasing, because the Tories allowed everybody else to opt out of the district homes for the aged board of the Cochrane district and now you have two independent facilities, will on top of that not only have to pay the apportionment cost of the homes for the aged under the ASB, such as the Golden Manor, but will be stuck with the bill for the original homes for the aged that would have been under the apportionment if the Tories had not allowed it to go the way that it is. So what do you guys now do with the apportioned cost or the cost that you're paying for the Centennial Manor?
Mr Lefebvre: We've already promised the hospital board that we would maintain the existing level of funding, last year's level of funding, for at least three more years, through the mandate of this present term.
Mr Bisson: But the question is after --
Mr Lefebvre: If ASB is mandated by the end of this year, the flip side of that is what happens -- because of the fact that we're already contributing to our own local home, does that exempt us from having to contribute to the ASB? I don't think so.
Mr Bisson: No.
Mr Lefebvre: I would think that the regional municipalities, particularly the ones that were close to Iroquois Falls and Kapuskasing, as in the past within the northern coalition, should be forced to contribute their fair share to the running of that board. I know that's not part of the legislation, but I don't understand why they allowed the municipalities to opt out to begin with. It was a real problem. This decision affected people's lives in a big way in the town of Iroquois Falls, and I'm sure the same in Kapuskasing.
Mr Bisson: We're going to have chaos in Kapuskasing and in Iroquois Falls in about two years' time when all of this is put in place, and we will end up with an ASB up here. You're going to have real chaos because I don't believe Kapuskasing and Iroquois Falls will want to pay apportionment costs of the entire district and then separately have to pay for their own homes for the aged because the government allowed them to be pulled out in the first place. So is this chaos or is this organized chaos?
Mr Lefebvre: One tends to wonder.
Mr Preston: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's quite obvious that across the north there is a great diversity of opinion. We've travelled completely across the north in the last week, believe me. We have gone anywhere from, "We don't want anything to do with this" to "Aren't we proud because we asked for it and it's come forward."
The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association is very proud that they asked to have this legislation put forward, very proud that one of their members put in the basis for this bill. I guess what I'm really saying is that there are problems inherent in this bill for some people, some municipalities, some areas, some districts, and there are great rewards for others.
One of the reasons we go on these tours is to find out what the problems are so they can be changed. Your suggestion that there have to be a lot of amendments to this bill did not come with suggestions for amendments. I feel that if a person's going to knock something, tell us how to do it right. If you'd like to do that and send it to this committee's attention --
Interjection.
Mr Preston: Do you have a problem, sir? Do you have a medical problem? I heard you groan.
If you do have suggestions for amendments, I would suggest that you send them forward. We've been to many places, and medical officers of health are saying that this bill is great.
Mr Bisson: Who?
1720
Mr Preston: You haven't travelled the whole trip; I have.
Some mayors, reeves, council members, both for and opposed, have come up with suggestions for amendments, and I would be happy if you would do that for us. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: One minute left.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of areas where your presentation asked questions as opposed to doing it directly: There have been other presentations talking about the apportionment of costs, particularly as it relates to the home for the aged. I would point out to all those gathered that there is no direction in the bill as to how the taxation or the apportionment shall take place. Each area services board, as it's being proposed by the municipalities or by the people of the north, would indicate in their proposal how they were going to deal with funding and how they were going to tax for the services, the core services, that the board will be providing. So indeed they could in their proposal allocate the funding for a certain home for the aged in the same way that it is presently allocated if the members of the board, or the proposers of the board, deem that to be the appropriate way to fund the service.
The other area that generally I find very important is that you hinted on the appointment of people other than elected officials.
Mr Lefebvre: One of my suggestions.
Mr Hardeman: One of the concerns that has been expressed, particularly by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and FONOM and NOMA, was the issue that if you appoint people other than elected people to special-purpose bodies, you have totally lost the accountability. In fact, in their position, the taxpayers have a right to have the people they elect be accountable for the money being spent. So if you have taxing authority in a special-purpose body, you have to have elected people there to be responsible for that taxing authority. That's the government's reason for making that an elected appointment, as opposed to just someone from the community being appointed.
Mr Lefebvre: Every municipality that I know of has a CAO who is responsible for spending all of the money in their municipality. He is not an elected individual. He is hired. He is there for continuity purposes and for his expertise.
Mr Hardeman: I guess from a --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I'm sorry, we've run out of time. We appreciate your coming. Thank you very much.
Mr Hardeman: No CAO has the power to spend money.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Mike Morrissette, the clerk administrator for the town of Iroquois Falls.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Chair: The standing orders give the power to the assembly to set committees out in order to look at bills in detail after second reading, and further, the subcommittees of that committee are then allowed to make decisions about what communities they want to go to in order to hear people's input on a particular bill. I take some offence on the point made by Mr Preston across the way saying that people who come to this committee and have something to say that may not be nice to the government somehow don't have something valid to say. For you to say to them --
Mr Preston: I did not say that.
Mr Bisson: Just to finish, for you to say to them, "If you're going to come here and knock it, at least you've got to give what you would do instead," I think is unfair. Committees have travelled not only under your government but under every government, and we've always had the courtesy to listen. I would ask you to do that to the people of my community and not come in here and start to insult them in the way that you did.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, I must point out to you that that's not a point of order.
Mr Preston: On a point of personal privilege, please: I at no time insulted the gentleman that was here. I asked for his suggestions to be sent to us so that we could implement them. I don't believe that to be an insult. If I ask you for something and you can't provide it, maybe that's an insult.
Mr Bisson: Insinuating that he can't provide --
Mr Preston: I didn't say that. I asked him to come forward --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Preston. We are not able to rule on a point of privilege, so we'll carry on.
TOWN OF IROQUOIS FALLS
The Vice-Chair: Mr Morrissette, welcome to the standing committee.
Mr Mike Morrissette: Members of the standing committee, I would like to thank you on behalf of the town of Iroquois Falls for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the town of Iroquois Falls's concerns regarding Bill 12.
As we know, the government of the day is very keen on centralization and will go to any length to enact or introduce permissive legislation that will support its philosophy without any regard for negative impacts that may arise as a result of its actions. In particular, the Northern Services Improvement Act is not designed to provide the choice and flexibility it claims to be providing, it does not allow increased efficiency, and it does not allow for increased accountability.
When I looked up the word "efficiency" in my dictionary, part of the definition reads as follows: "Power of producing intended effect." The only intended effect Bill 12 will provide is the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy called either upper tier or regional government. Municipalities actually will have no "power to produce intended effect" or have any "flexibility or choice to produce intended effect." The minister through Bill 12 gives himself all the power to prescribe and impose anything he or she so wishes without flexibility or choice.
For example, the minister may establish a board, may establish representation, may establish number of board members, may establish term of office, may specify the territory a member will represent, may establish boundaries in which services will be provided, may designate any additional services he or she so wishes the so-called regional government to provide. Just as an example here, if the minister deems it appropriate to transfer Highway 655 between Timmins and Driftwood to an ASB without the consensus of the participating municipalities, would you call that a choice? I wouldn't.
He may also amend an order as considered appropriate at the regional government's request -- I call the ASBs regional governments because I think they're equivalent -- or in any other circumstances. That's also a broad statement which gives him carte blanche to impose anything that he wishes on municipalities.
He may designate areas within the designated boundaries where no services will be provided. He can decide whether a board may or may not charge fees for services. He can decide whether a board may or may not enter into an agreement for the provision of a required or prescribed service. He can postpone a board's duties to provide a service.
The minister also has established all the core services which shall be provided including taxation powers, which the ASBs don't have.
The council of the town of Iroquois Falls does not see Bill 12 as a tool to provide flexibility to make local decisions regarding governance structures and service delivery. Every aspect of Bill 12 is designed to impose upon municipalities rather than giving them the power and the tools to mould their proper future. For these reasons, the town of Iroquois Falls does not support this legislation and does not believe it will give northern municipalities the "power to produce intended effect."
My suggestion, although not written in this paper, is that this bill be relooked at completely. Perhaps you can come back and talk to the people in the north and ask for their input into it. Maybe then you would get suggestions that would be truly worthy of northern Ontario.
For the record for this committee, Iroquois Falls does not support AMO's report 98/007 presented to the standing committee in regard to Bill 12. It does not represent the views and positions of all northern Ontario municipalities. Therefore, we formally request that the standing committee disregard AMO's report 98/007 in its entirety. Thank you.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I guess what you've said is what I've heard from a lot of people in dealing with this bill up to this point, which is that basically it's regional government by the back door. You're going to be forced into a DSSAB. Once you're into a DSSAB, municipalities will end up under the ASB one way or another, and once you have the ASB you'll have a regional government and municipalities will not be the same types of structures that we know now.
1730
I want to get back to the highway issue, because Iroquois Falls, like Timmins, was affected quite negatively in the downloading of highways. I won't go through all the details, but the minister decided to transfer over a number of provincial highways and Iroquois Falls and Timmins were probably the two communities that were most affected, in the northern part of the province anyway, when it comes to the download. As I read the legislation prescribed under subsection 41(2), the minister can transfer further highways into this new regional government. What do you read that to mean as a municipality that already has got a whole lot of highways transferred to it?
Mr Morrissette: Mr Power just alluded to the two beautiful bridges they have in Timmins. They may become regional bridges, for all I know. The minister has that power to transfer to the rest of the area.
Mr Bisson: But you get Highway 655 that runs out to Smooth Rock, Highway 11 that goes from Hearst all the way down to Matheson, which would be the southern part of the district. Do you fear that there are parts of that that the minister would transfer over to the ASB because they would see them as local roads?
Mr Morrissette: A similar highway, Highway 67, was transferred partially to the city of Timmins and partially to the town of Iroquois Falls. It serves practically the same purposes as 655. The minister cannot transfer 655 at this time because it doesn't abut any of the neighbouring municipalities, it's in the middle of nowhere, and he would be hard-pressed to transfer it to anybody else. Being in the region, and who accesses 655 accesses Timmins and Hearst, and everybody from Cochrane and the northern region travels to Timmins through that highway, he would definitely deem it to be a regional road and would transfer it to an ASB. I can see that.
Mr Bisson: Under subsection 41(2), the last part of it says that the minister will have the ability to download "Any other service designated by the minister." That means to say that you walk into this with your eyes open, saying, "I'm going to six core essential services, 1 through 6: child care, welfare, public health, social housing, land ambulance and homes for the aged." You say, "I'm ready for this, here it comes." You get it, and then it says the minister can download a whole bunch of other services, including airports, police and other services, but the kicker at the bottom, it says, in that paragraph 9, "Any other service designated by the minister." Does that mean what I think it means, that you can get absolutely anything downloaded from the province to you, by law?
Mr Morrissette: Absolutely, carte blanche.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to make a couple of clarifications in interpretation, as I see it, not necessarily debating as to right or wrong.
In your presentation you talk about the examples of what the minister may do and that somehow it takes away from the permissiveness of the legislation. I want to point out, at least in the government's view and my interpretation of the bill, that it is a totally permissive piece of legislation and it's not every community in the north, as very many communities may not want to create an area services board and some may.
I would point out the things that the minister may do that follow the clause in the bill that says, "Upon receiving an application." This does not give the minister the ability to do all those things in an area where the municipalities have not got together and made decisions on how they're going to provide services, how they're going to pay for those services and how they're going to represent their taxpayers on that board.
The local initiative would, first of all, decide on whether they want an area services board; second, if they want an area services board, the geographic area they want to deal with. Obviously the core services are mandated, if they put an area services board in place. They get to decide whether they want to add more than the core services. The participants in this application may very well want to provide more than the core services to get an efficient and effective way of delivering those services. Upon getting that completed, the minister may make these adjustments or may implement those decisions of the local inhabitants through regulation as opposed to legislation.
Mr Morrissette: That's the portion we don't want. Local decisions should remain local. Mayor Vic Power mentioned that, and I fully support that. The Ontario government is not as close to the people as the local governments are. They are the ones that answer to these people and are responsible to the taxpayers of the communities and they are closest to it. They should be the ones making the decisions that will affect those residents.
Mr Hardeman: Again, I want to make sure of at least our interpretation of the act. I think it's very important that we understand what the implications are, and if corrections are needed, they will be implemented. Legislatively or regulation-wise, in order to legally implement the application put forward by the inhabitants of an area services board, the minister has to have the ability through legislation to pass a regulation to implement it. That must include what the minister has the power to do at the request of the local inhabitants. Just because the local people decide doesn't make it so; it has to have the weight of law to do it.
Mr Morrissette: I disagree with you.
Mr Hardeman: That's my interpretation of the reason for that to be there. We will definitely be looking at that, to make sure that is the end result of that.
The other thing that is somewhat concerning is the last comment that, "We formally request that the standing committee disregard," a report that was presented to the committee. I accept that one would disagree with the report, but do you not see that as at least the opinion of a number of municipalities in the north?
Mr Morrissette: No, I don't. If it was from the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, I would probably not have put that comment in the report, but it's from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and not necessarily all municipalities in northern Ontario are members of that association. Definitely, they represent the municipalities of Ontario as a whole and northern Ontario is a very small part of that.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Mr Morrissette, for taking the time to come and see us this afternoon. I thought I might be happy to be somewhere else this afternoon, given the fine weather you've provided us with here in Timmins. I take it you're the numbers guy in Iroquois Falls.
Mr Morrissette: No, we have a treasurer.
Mr Michael Brown: Oh, you have a treasurer. But you're the treasurer's boss, probably. The downloading to date has been revenue-neutral, I take it?
Mr Morrissette: No, it hasn't. I will be presenting a paper on that to ministers Tony Clement and Chris Hodgson at AMO. We are $284,000 short on the transfers. I will bring the big picture to Mr Clement, as he requested the municipality to do, and he will take it up with the Minister of Finance.
Mr Michael Brown: Does that include the transition funds and all the various coffers of government?
Mr Morrissette: I have added all the transfers from the province of Ontario, yes.
Mr Michael Brown: I know this is asking you to extrapolate a little bit. Would you see a DSSAB, and probably the ASB from that, as being more efficient?
Mr Morrissette: No, I wouldn't, because centralization will benefit centres and it will take away from all the smaller communities. You are killing rural Ontario. Prior to working for the town of Iroquois Falls, I was working for a smaller community up in the Kapuskasing area, a place called Fauquier, with 750 population, approximately. It's a small rural town. They're a vital part of Ontario and your government is killing it --
Mr Michael Brown: Not my government.
Mr Morrissette: The provincial government of the day is trying to kill small rural municipalities. They are centralizing these massive areas. You're taking away the heart of all these, and I don't agree with it. That's centralization and DSSAB is part of that. ASB will be it.
Mr Michael Brown: So if I'm to understand you right, you have a $284,000 shortfall in being revenue-neutral out of this exercise. You foresee, out of this exercise, escalating costs for the property taxpayer in Iroquois Falls if you are forced into the DSSAB and probably eventually into the ASB.
Mr Morrissette: Absolutely, and we are going to tell our taxpayers just that. The minister, with the transfer of highways, has given us a few pennies. When I asked the minister if those pennies were for operating purposes or for future capital purposes, he had a hard time answering, because both answers would not have been appropriate. If he gave it for operating, there's probably enough money to cover about two years' operations. So in fact they have deferred the tax increase for two years. By then an election would have gone through, and who do we blame in two years? They'll say: "No, that went through two years ago. You can't blame that on us. That's mismanagement." The blame will come back on town council. I agree that they should pass that on immediately and not use those funds, because that's exactly what is going to happen. It's simply a deferral. That's part of our shortfall.
Mr Michael Brown: In a past life I happened to be the president of the Manitoulin municipalities. I think the largest of the Manitoulin municipalities had 1,400 people at the time, so I can relate to small communities. One of the things I know about small communities and groups of small communities is they are often baffled by social services and those kinds of issues, not because they're not well-intentioned, not because of anything else; it's just that their familiarity with the issues surrounding them doesn't tend to be great and when you're getting beat up at the council table about the pothole over here, that tends to be what you reflect on. Do you see the DSSAB as something you really believe somebody from your council could be effective upon in voicing the view of Iroquois Falls ratepayers?
Mr Morrissette: I would have preferred to see two DSSABs in northern Ontario: one for Cochrane North and one for Cochrane South. Of course, the minister sees fit that there should be one and we have no choice or flexibility on that matter. What will happen with the current wishes of the minister to impose one DSSAB on our area is that the cost of services in Timmins might be about here and ours is there, and this is what's going to happen. The centre will benefit by its costs being reduced. The money will not flow from Timmins to the smaller communities, the money will flow from the smaller communities into Timmins, and it will become more expensive for the rest of the area.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Morrissette, for being here today and giving us your views. This concludes our hearings.
The committee adjourned at 1748.