CONTENTS
Thursday 8 October 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
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 Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr John Ritchie, senior counsel, legal services, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Mr Aime Dimatteo, senior manager, northern services implementation team,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel
Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Christopher Wernham, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1007 in committee room 1.
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 Chair (Mr John O'Toole): I'd like to call the meeting to order. Welcome, members. I'll just give a little background. I first want to thank the Vice-Chair, Julia Munro, for chairing the hearings that were held in August in Thunder Bay, Kenora, Sault Ste Marie and Timmins and thank the members for their participation.
I gather the subcommittee had agreed that there would be some time allocated for each individual party to make a 10-minute statement with respect to Bill 12. Also, just an administrative issue: Tom advises me that the NDP amendments have been tabled with the clerk this morning and we're just waiting for those to be copied and circulated for members of the committee. In the interim, it would probably be advisable if we proceeded with the introductory statements by committee members. If there's no opposition to that, I would now commence the process of recognizing the Liberal Party first to make their opening statements.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Let me start off by saying that we shouldn't lose sight here of what the reality is with Bill 12. This legislation is only needed because of Mike Harris's massive dumping of responsibilities on to municipalities. Let's get this straight: Harris's downloading of services hits northern Ontario the hardest. That's been documented in studies by KPMG; it's been documented throughout the north during the presentations. There are, and continue to be, severe concerns with regard to this massive downloading on to municipalities.
Many municipalities do not have the sufficient tax base to absorb the massive shift in responsibilities. The parliamentary secretary, the Vice-Chair of this committee and the members of this committee were told that repeatedly over the course of the public hearings and those limited hearings which happened before. In particular, the high cost of long-term health care, highway maintenance and repair, ambulance services and social housing are all concerns that were addressed at the different stops along the way during the committee hearings. We have municipalities that are facing 25%, 50% and even 100% property tax increases. They don't have a clue of how they're going to be able to cope with the massive dumping of services.
The Minister for Northern Development and Mines issued a press release on December 19, 1996, stating that his government, the Tory government, recognizes the higher costs that northern municipalities face in delivering local services, as well as the assessment difficulties unique to resource-based communities. In itself, that sounded pretty good. He quoted a 1989 government study that proved that the cost of providing municipal services was 16.2% higher in northern municipalities than it was in the rest of the province. We in the north were hopeful that he would understand the severity of the statements he was making.
Despite that, this present government, the present Minister of Northern Development and Mines, eliminated all municipal support grants and any form of special provincial support for northern municipalities on an ongoing, long-term basis. Many smaller northern communities have a disproportionately small business property tax base and a disproportionately high level of seniors, people unable to absorb an increase in property taxes and those relying on the highest level of municipal services. Again you learned, as you travelled across northern Ontario, that smaller northern communities do not have the resources to undertake major capital projects: seniors' homes, public and non-profit housing, water and sewer projects, maintenance of highways, reconstruction of highways. You heard repeatedly the concern with regard to a transportation system that is crumbling, that we in the north rely on to expand a very limited resource base.
With this massive dumping, you're forcing municipal amalgamations across the north. Forced municipal amalgamation and annexation will result in the winning and losing in municipalities across the north, pitting one community against another and possibly resulting in nasty amalgamation and annexation fights. I think the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the minister, certainly those who deal directly with the north, are seeing that this is coming to fruition, and over the course of the last little while there have been several amalgamations that have been anything but what I think any one of us around this table in this committee wanted in the first place.
It's important to understand that we'll consider the clause-by-clause of Bill 12 today, but let's not forget for a second what's really going on here. This isn't about improving services delivery in the north. This is about the massive dumping of costs on the property taxpayers of northern Ontario.
I was happy that the government chose to have these hearings, and I'll say that publicly, but I'm concerned. I was concerned in the past and I've explained this to the parliamentary assistant; I've said it in the House and I'll say it again today: I honestly believe that we heard excellent presentations from across northern Ontario, but there are still those areas, those sections, those unorganized townships that have major concerns that for a variety of reasons didn't have the opportunity to present. The consultation process, although it was there, and I'll admit it was there, was certainly not as complete as it should have been. Because it wasn't as complete as it should have been, I think we've missed a very important component of northern Ontario.
I'm also concerned -- and we'll deal with this later, I hope -- with some of the presentations that we received and the government isn't acting upon the recommendations. Let me refer to one specifically, and that's with regard to the OMA, the Ontario Medical Association, urging the government to make what I consider to be very realistic recommendations. I'm concerned, as is the OMA, that sections 34 and 38 of the bill mandate that the decision-making powers for public health in the north will reside with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I honestly believe that's a mistake.
You know what? You cannot believe that there's going to be that consultation between ministries. We deal with the political process day by day and we know that that communication, although we would like it to be expanded, is limited in scope because everyone seems to be isolated and more intent on doing their own thing as opposed to what is in the better interests of the people in a particular area, specifically northern Ontario in this instance. This afternoon we will be tabling further amendments, which will bring in the OMA concerns. I would suggest to the Chair, to the parliamentary assistant and to the committee that had the government acted upon these, clause-by-clause could have been relatively simple.
I know this is amending legislation. I also know that you can either buy in or buy out of it, but I honestly believe it has to be a little bit more specific. One of our recommendations will be that Sudbury is excluded from this piece of legislation. The reality is, if you define it either broadly or specifically, Sudbury is already in the particular mode which Bill 12 gives other municipalities and areas the opportunity to either buy in or buy out of. To avoid confusion, to ensure that there isn't another level of government, to ensure that everyone understands the rules, that the Minister of Community and Social Services are allowed to fulfill their DSSAB requirements, to ensure that there isn't a duplication of government, to ensure that that other level of government does not come into being because of Bill 12, one of our amendments will certainly be to exclude Sudbury from this bill.
I thank the government again and I thank the committee for going across northern Ontario, in the limited fashion that they did, and hearing from the people there. There are still many concerns, and certainly through clause-by-clause we will be debating some of those concerns.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll have comments from the member of the NDP.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to echo one of the comments my colleague from Sudbury made, that we had public hearings on this bill, and that's something we don't have enough of on a lot of legislation that has come our way in the past couple of years. With this particular bill you did go out, you did consult and you did give an opportunity to northerners in places like Timmins, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay to make their comments.
It's not a question of myself as a member or Mr Bartolucci as a member being thankful. I think it's those people whom the legislation in the end is going to affect who say thank you, because that's what the legislative process is all about. We give you kudos on that one. At least you went out and consulted on this bill and that is appreciated by a lot of people in northern Ontario.
We take our politics quite seriously in the north. We live and breathe it in a very different way because we understand, in northern Ontario, that government can and should play a positive role in our economy and in our lives and people understand that government has a much closer relationship with individuals than you probably would see in other parts of the province.
I also want to say that I am generally supportive of this legislation as long as we do what we thought we were going to do, which is to make this enabling legislation. The way the government has written the legislation makes it appear that it's enabling, which I think it is to a great extent, with fairness to the government. But there are particular sections in this bill that tell me that if you opt to go the way of an ASB, the minister gets a whole bunch of powers. I've talked to the parliamentary assistant about this in the past. That would, in the end, give the minister probably more power than I would be comfortable with if I were a municipal representative.
We're going to get a chance to get into some of those in some detail later. I'm looking for some really clear explanation as to what the intent of the minister is and what power the minister, the ministry and cabinet would take, given the powers that we're providing in this legislation. I just want to let you know where I'm coming from.
I have no difficulty with putting this legislation on the books when it comes to enabling. If communities in our area or anywhere in northwestern Ontario decide that they want to form an ASB, that's their business. I have no problem with that. But it's something that has to be municipally driven. I don't believe in a top-down process of making those kinds of reforms. I think there has to be a buy-in at the local level. We're going to go specifically through the legislation in a number of places to show that we have some concerns about the powers that the minister is getting.
1020
For example, in one of the sections of the bill it would appear that we're saying that if the municipalities decide to form an ASB, they have the right to put together their plan, decide what the geography is etc and bring the plan to the minister. Once the minister gets the plan, the minister can say, "By the way, I've got some extra services I want to give you," and the new municipalities under the ASB won't have any power to say no as I read the legislation. You'll have to clarify or satisfy my curiosity on that as well as the comments I've gotten from people in our area who talked to me about this legislation.
The second point I would make to the legislation is one you've heard from me before and you're going to hear it from me again. Vous ne pouvez pas transférer les services du gouvernement provincial qui étaient couverts sous la Loi 8 et décider de donner ça aux municipalités sans vous assurer que les francophones sont protégés sous la Loi 8. Le gouvernement a, en 1986, passé une loi ici à l'Assemblé législative qui était supportée par Mike Harris et son caucus dans le temps, qui était supportée par l'NPD et le gouvernement libéral de la journée, qui dit, si on demeure dans une région désignée sous la Loi 8, on a le droit d'avoir accès à nos services en français.
Je commence à être pas mal inquiet et pas mal frustré par ce gouvernement qui, à chaque fois qu'il transfère un service aux municipalités, oublie de s'assurer qu'il va y avoir des provisions pour s'assurer que le francophones sont protégés quand ça vient à leurs droits linguistiques. Il faut que je rentre dans ces débats-là en vous disant que je suis très inquiet, que je suis très frustré comme francophone et que je veux savoir que mon gouvernement provincial va travailler pour protéger nos droits, les droits de la communauté francophone de la province. C'est pour cette raison que vous allez voir aujourd'hui qu'on a mis un amendement qui dit que les droits francophones, les droits linguistiques qui sont présentement donnés sous les services provinciaux, une fois transférés aux municipalités à travers l'ASB, vont être respectés.
I say to the government members who did not have the opportunity for translation that I don't know if it's because they didn't provide the translation units or whatever, but I want to make sure you've understood what I said. For the record, I want to indicate that for whatever reason -- I don't know why -- there is no translation equipment available here in committee this morning.
I'm getting increasingly concerned, as both a legislator and a francophone living in this province, that every time services are transferred to the municipal level of government, we're seeing the transfers happen without guarantees of French language rights. You need to know that there was all-party agreement back in 1986 to pass unanimously through this House legislation called Bill 8. Mike Harris at the time was there and he bought into that legislation. He agreed with the government of the day of David Peterson and with our party that francophones needed to have some protection under the law when it came to French-language services and a compromise was reached. I'm not totally satisfied with the compromise, I would have liked more, but at least it was a step in the right direction that said, "Under Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, if you live in a region that is designated under the legislation, when you're interacting with your provincial government, you will have the right to ask for services in French." If I go to the hospital, if I deal with any provincial agency or any government program that's run by the province, I have some degree of knowledge that I can get those services in French, and it's been quite successful. If I look at Sudbury, North Bay, Timmins, Ottawa, and London in places people now, as we say in French, commencent à s'afficher comme francophones. In other words, they're starting to say: "I can actually do my business in French. This is a lot better because it's our first language." What we see now is that the government, when it transfers services over to the municipalities, is either forgetting to protect those rights under Bill 8 or it's intentionally not doing it. I want to hope it's the first and not the second. I'm getting pretty concerned and frustrated about how the government is transferring these services over without proper protection of French-language services.
You've heard from me before on this one and you're going to hear from me again; I'm hoping that the government will ensure that the amendment we put forward today will be adopted. I want to be clear about something: It's not going to cost anything more than what we're paying now. If it's a municipal service that was not protected under the French Language Services Act, this amendment would not see Bill 8 apply to what was a municipal service. All we are asking for is, if the minister says we're transferring welfare, or we're transferring ambulance services, or we're transferring whatever service that used to be a provincial responsibility, that the French Language Services Act go with it. It's not an added cost. We're doing it now, it works well and people in our communities are using it because it's their first language. That's the language they want to work in. I look for your support on that particular piece of legislation. Those are my comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson. I recognize for the government side the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I will at the outset thank all the committee members for their effort. You know that I was fully intending to be at the committee hearings, but unfortunately the death of my father precluded my joining you. That's the reason I wasn't there. I want to thank Ernie Hardeman for filling in as the point man on the hearings. I appreciate that, Ernie, and all of the members of the committee, because I would very much have enjoyed being on the committee with you to do the hearings.
I'm certainly happy to be part of this process now and part of clause-by-clause. I want to address the key underlying reason why I think this legislation was brought forward. The member for Sudbury East said that this was a necessity as a result of "massive downloading" I think was the expression she used. We know that this government has attempted to realign provincial and municipal responsibilities. We announced that in 1997. The objective was to create the opportunity to build more effective local service delivery systems to eliminate and reduce the duplication of services between the provincial government and the municipal level of government.
When we embarked on the Who Does What exercise, that was the objective all along. In fact, the Who Does What exercise, inasmuch as Metro Toronto and the GTA squawked -- I know that my colleague from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would back me on this -- was really designed for northern and rural municipalities of this province to allow them the opportunity to get services for the reason the member for Cochrane South indicated. They just don't have the population base or the assessment base to be able to get some services or even to get higher-quality services. That's the reason the Who Does What exercise was embarked upon.
We clearly recognize that the northern and rural municipalities, but most particularly the northern municipalities, do not have the resources, as the member for Sudbury indicated, for things like capital costs, for roads and infrastructure. The idea behind what this government is doing is specifically to assist those communities. There's no higher profile member in northern Ontario than the Premier himself, and that is the objective we want. The member for Cochrane South would like to think he has a higher profile, but he chooses to mention the Premier's name in probably every second sentence. That just raises the profile of the Premier, with due respect, member.
The accusation that has been levelled at this government is, "You pass a piece of legislation and then you have to come back and fix it two months later." Ladies and gentlemen, when you pass a piece of legislation, it always has good intentions, but nothing is perfect in this world. This government is realistic enough to understand that nothing is perfect, and we have the guts to go back and finish the job and admit that some things need correction, refinement and finishing rather than leave a piece of legislation in place as past governments have: "It's not perfect, but we're not going to admit to the fact that it isn't perfect." We have the guts to go back and say: "The other pieces of legislation weren't perfect. We're prepared to address the issues and finish the job."
The member from Sudbury talks about the transportation system crumbling. That's hot air, with due respect to the member, and I'd have said that if he were here. The reality is --
Mr Bisson: I didn't catch what you just said; I'm sorry.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, through the Chair, please.
Mr Bisson: Through the Chair: If you could just repeat what you said before. I didn't catch it.
Mr Spina: The member for Sudbury indicated that the transportation system was crumbling.
Mr Bisson: OK. Thank you.
1030
Mr Spina: The last part of what I said, and I'll repeat it, is that it's hot air. This government has invested more money into the northern Ontario transportation infrastructure than any government in the history of this province. I think everybody can see that by simply driving Highway 17, Highway 11, Highway 634 and all the other highways across northern Ontario.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You should keep driving.
Mr Spina: We just haven't gotten to Cochrane North yet, Lenny. We're getting there, though.
The consolidation of municipal services in the north has to take into account the challenges of geography, population distribution and municipal governments. The critical thing here, folks, is that this was requested by the people of northern Ontario specifically. The people from Kenora region, people from Rainy River, people from Timiskaming, some from Algoma-Manitoulin, specifically were groups of people, both in organized and unorganized territories, that asked us to provide the enabling legislation, and I stress that word. I thank the member for Cochrane South for being supportive of the fact that this is enabling legislation. That is what clearly we are intending it to be: enabling legislation.
We are not going to force an area services board down anybody's throat. What we are looking to do is, when a proposal comes forward to the minister to create an area services board, that this area services board is seen to be providing services in a fair and equitable manner to all the people within that board's jurisdiction. Then, and only then, will the minister be in a position to agree to it. Also he or she, whoever the minister of the day may be, can only agree to it provided that this bill, the enabling legislation and the ensuing proposals surrounding it comply with all the pieces of legislation in the other ministries in Ontario.
On that note, there are some arguments the members have brought forward that are more specific to their amendments, and I think we'll address those more specifically when those amendments come forward for debate.
The Chair: Each member has in their possession the 24 amendments that have been tabled. The amendments are two from the Liberal party, 10 from the NDP and 12 from the government caucus. I verify that that's the case. When reviewing Bill 12, you would all recognize, I gather, that we could expedite this process and get to the main sections. I would be interested in entertaining a motion with respect to grouping sections 1 through 9 as one section. They're administrative and I would ask if that is agreeable to all members.
Mr Bisson: I'm sorry, I was still trying to sort out the amendments in their proper order and I don't quite follow what you just asked us to do.
The Chair: We have the amendments ordered. The clerk has ordered them, Mr Bisson. We can await your --
Mr Bisson: I was straightening out the amendments I have and you said something and I didn't quite follow what you wanted us to vote on.
The Chair: At this point in time, there have been 24 amendments tabled with the clerk. All of those amendments are in everyone's possession. In fact, they deal pretty much exclusively with sections 10 and after.
Mr Bisson: There are no amendments prior to section 10?
The Chair: No.
Mr Bisson: You're asking that we --
The Chair: Group 1 through 9.
Mr Bisson: Yes, that's fine.
The Chair: I'm at your pleasure. I'm looking for a motion with respect to grouping. Does everyone agree? Agreed.
I'll call the motion on sections 1 through 9. Are there any questions or debate with respect to sections 1 through 9?
Mr Bisson: No, they're basically definitions.
The Chair: I'll call the question. All those in support of sections 1 through 9? Carried.
We're now dealing with section 10 of the bill, which deals with section 35 of the act. There is an amendment to section 35, moved by Mr Sergio.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I move that section 35 of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding after "Sudbury" in the fourth line "with the exception of the regional municipality of Sudbury."
At the bottom of page 3 you see the clause, and I think it's self-explanatory. We would like to see the line added to that clause.
The Chair: We have a motion to amend section 35.
Mr Bartolucci: Just very limited comment on this?
The Chair: We would try to limit expeditiously. You have an amendment. I suspect you want to speak to it.
Mr Bartolucci: I thank my fellow member for introducing it, and I apologize to the committee for having to go up and speak in private members' hour. But it was about the Holocaust, and it was very important that we speak in support of Mr Chudleigh's resolution.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the parliamentary assistant and I have had many discussions with regard to this. I am very concerned that people will have a perception here -- and perception is reality -- that another level of government is being created. That is the concern within the regional municipality of Sudbury. It is a concern with the seven area municipalities which form the regional municipality of Sudbury. Mr Hardeman and I have debated this. There is that concern and I think it is understood by all the committee.
Bill 12 is crucial for some areas of the north, and that's why, at the end of the day, I think we're going to be supporting this act. The reality is, it poses a problem of interpretation in Sudbury. I suggest to you that there is the opportunity for confusion, for confrontation and for a lack of the process that I think we on this committee all want to happen with respect to Bill 12. I suggest it honestly is removed if we support this amendment. I ask the committee in a non-partisan way, but in the way of facilitating good and effective government, to remove the regional municipality of Sudbury from Bill 12.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I want to point out that I have some concerns with excluding for no reason at all other than that someone might misunderstand what the act says. I think the fact that the bill is a permissive piece of legislation and the region of Sudbury, which would be excluded by this motion, will not be part of an area services board without their consent -- it is not obliging them to do anything. But I think that in approving such an amendment -- circumstances may change; there may very well be a time and place when the region of Sudbury does want to be part of an area services board for delivery of some of the core services that go beyond the region of Sudbury. If we exclude them, that would no longer be possible. It would take away some of their opportunities to find those efficiencies and to find ways of delivering services in a more effective manner.
There have been some discussions, that I'm sure the member is more aware of than I am, about the change of governance in the region of Sudbury. If that were to be concluded, it may very well be in the best interests of the region of Sudbury to have the ability to be part of an area services board. I suggest that it would not be a service to the people of Sudbury to exclude them from this piece of legislation. I think we would be very supportive of their having the same opportunities that others in the north have to create a more cost-effective way of delivering regional services.
1040
Mr Bartolucci: Just a point of clarification, if I might: I agree with everything Mr Hardeman said, and that's why we're including Sudbury. What we are excluding is the regional municipality of Sudbury. If we continue to include Sudbury, as I have -- because one has to protect themselves for the future in the event that the governance issue changes. If the governance issue changes, and the regional municipality of Sudbury, the one region we have in northern Ontario, becomes non-existent or changes format, we will still be covered because the district of Sudbury is still in the legislation.
What we are doing in reality is protecting every lower-tier municipality in this act by keeping the district of Sudbury in. What we are doing is ensuring that there is not another level of government created that already provides the services that have been agreed upon by two ministries, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and the regional municipality of Sudbury. There is consensus now that the DSAB can do the job. I suggest that we are not excluding Sudbury. Mr Hardeman makes a good point. You have to look to the future.
I suggest that we're removing the one aspect that can create another level of government for services that now are being completely provided through a different forum and a different ministry but that works and does not create the confusion, the excess, the duplication and the other level of government, which we want. So Mr Hardeman is right. We're not excluding Sudbury. We wouldn't do that. What we are excluding is the one region, the regional municipality of Sudbury.
Mr Hardeman: Maybe it's my misconception, but it seems to me that if we look at the core services that are becoming the obligation of an area services board, if it is to be implemented at the discretion of the local people, those services are presently regional services in the region of Sudbury. To say they would be excluded from this legislation, that as the deliverer of those services today, they could not be involved in finding a more effective and efficient way of delivering those services, I think would be inappropriate. If, at some point in time, they did not have an upper tier, I think it then becomes a moot point whether that upper tier had authority.
At the present time, the region of Sudbury delivers the majority of the core services that area services boards would. If there were a need for, and an opportunity to deliver, those services in an area services board beyond the region of Sudbury, to some areas outside, that that was going to be the geographic area of a proposal to find a more effective operation, I think it would be inappropriate to say that the legislation doesn't allow the region of Sudbury to talk about and find more effective ways of delivering the services they are presently delivering.
I agree with you that the perception may be there, but I think the citizens of Sudbury region would be better served to be informed about the non-existence of that threat rather than to take it out and not provide the opportunity for the region to be able to look for effective ways of delivering those services.
Mr Spina: The member says that perception is reality. That's typical Liberal sleight of hand. They'd like to make perception reality. We have to deal with reality. The reality is that I met with the late Chair, Peter Wong, at some length last January on this issue, and that was a specific concern of his as well as a couple of other members of regional council. I assured him that if, as an example, an ASB were created for Sudbury district there is no reason an area services board could not work hand in hand, on a complementary basis, with the region. For the delivery of particular services, the region can deliver those services under the direction, co-operation and with the regional municipality. I assure the member that the minister would never approve of an area services board that would create a duplication of services. A minister should never do that, because the intent of this exercise, the intent of all we are trying to do with provincial and municipal governments is to make them more efficient to be able to serve the residents better. This is the reason we think that an area services board can work in a complementary relationship with a regional government, and we know that's the only one in the north. I would be pleased to sit down with the newly elected Chair, Mr Mazzuca, to openly discuss this and iron out the situation with him and other members of regional council, along with yourself, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: Chair, just one comment.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member from Sudbury, and we'll give you the last word on this.
Mr Bartolucci: Well, Mr Spina may want to reply.
I really do take exception to the comment of the parliamentary assistant with regard to perception being Liberal reality. I thought I qualified my comment by simply saying "in a non-partisan way." Whenever I deal here, I deal with what's in the best interests of the people I represent and the area, the regional municipality of Sudbury. So I must suggest to the parliamentary assistant, who is second in command in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, that he would do well to tune up on what the people in the regional municipality of Sudbury are saying with regard to area services boards.
I suggest to you that if perception is Liberal reality, you might want to know that the perception in the regional municipality of Sudbury is one of distrust about this act and this government's issuing of this act. If in fact, Mr parliamentary assistant, Mr Spina, for whom I have respect as an individual, if you are saying that this government would never, ever condone a duplication of services, there has never, ever been a dispute from you or your staff that this does not, will not, lead to a form of duplication that no one should tolerate. I don't know that I'll get the last word, Chair, but I do know that I wanted to get that on the record. This is not done in a partisan way. If it is partisan, it's only because I'm worried and caring about the people in the regional municipality of Sudbury, many of whom I don't represent.
The Chair: One very small response.
Mr Spina: If the people of Sudbury don't want an area services board, they don't have to vote for it.
The Chair: Very good, we have the motion by the Liberal Party on section 35. I'll call the question. All those in support? Those opposed? That's defeated.
Mr Bisson: Can we record a vote on that?
The Chair: It's a little late on that one.
Mr Bisson: All right.
The Chair: At this point in time, with the permission of the committee, I am also speaking in the House on a private member's bill and I am going to now relinquish the chair to the Vice-Chair, Mrs Munro.
I am going to be back as expeditiously as possible.
1050
The Vice-Chair (Mrs Munro): OK, we are looking at a Liberal amendment to section 10. Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Bartolucci: All we want to do with this is add the clause, "to ensure that the wishes of the local residents are reflected in determining the structure of the board and services delivered by the board."
If what the parliamentary assistant said in his last comment is true, then this addition should pose no problem at all to the committee. If the government believes that the wishes of the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury and the governance bodies for all the municipalities, both organized and unorganized across northern Ontario should prevail, then the addition of this clause should be no problem at all.
Mr Spina: We're not supportive of the motion. The whole bill is based on responding to the needs and wishes of northern communities, and subclause 37(1)(a)(vi) specifically provides for the ASB proposal having to demonstrate the degree of support of the municipalities and residents of the unorganized territory in a proposed board area as part of the proposal to the minister. To me, that directly reflects the wishes of the residents. Therefore, with due respect, the member's amendment is a duplication of a clause that is already in the bill.
Mr Bartolucci: Then there should be no problem with including it. If it's simply a duplication found in another section, there is no problem with including it. If it's there already, what's the problem? If in fact the parliamentary assistant says it's found in another act, what's the problem with ensuring that there is clarity of purpose, that the residents clearly decide the structure of the board and the services delivered by the board. If it's already written in another section, let's put it in this section. That's all it is; it's not complicated. If it's already in one section, let's put it in the other. That's all I'm asking.
Mr Bisson: Chair, I heard the parliamentary assistant say it was in another section of the bill. Can he point to which one and tell me where it is?
Mr Spina: Page 4, 37(1)(a)(vi), and it begins "the degree of support of the municipalities." Are you with me?
Mr Bisson: Yes, I'm with you.
Mr Spina: That was the section I was referring to.
Mr Bisson: Give me a second to make sure it does what you say it does. We do have to read the legislation, you know. It helps.
Mr Spina: I suggest to the members that if you have to say something two or three times in a bill, it's a bad law. If you say it once and it's clear enough, then there's no reason to go beyond that.
Mr Bisson: Try this, it's a bad law: "I love Tories, I love Tories, I love Tories." Christ, I agree with you.
Mr Spina: Watch your language. You're in Hansard.
Mr Bisson: I know.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson are you finished? OK. Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: Madam Chair, I don't support the amendment, and I think it has more to do with the ambiguity of the amendment than with whether it is a duplication and overlap of what the bill already says. I think if the local people come forward with a proposal demonstrating to the minister that they require support, which deals with municipal support in areas where we have municipal government -- and in the areas where they don't, it requires the support of the local residents. I don't think that a clause of the act that says, "to ensure that the wishes of local residents are reflected," is a definable clause over and above where you have the local, municipal support. I think we would invariably have people coming forward to say, "Well, that may be the view of the local representatives, but that's not my view." I don't know how anyone would make the judgement of whether it is the view of the local residents. I think that is done through the electoral process at the local level electing a local council to make decisions on behalf of their citizens. To say that in this case we are going to override that accountability and that in these cases they must test that in a general election to get the view of the local people, I think would be an onerous task on anyone in setting up an area services board in the areas where we presently have organized the municipalities. I think it's an ambiguous thing that would be unachievable in the majority of cases.
Mr Bisson: As I read section 37(vi), basically it says that the minister wants to see what degree of support there is. But there is nothing to make sure the citizens are actually canvassed in any real way or that a referendum is taken or any kind of mechanism to ensure that we have the degree of support we talk about. I think the amendment we have before us is trying to say that we want to have something that ensures that the wishes of local residents are reflected, and yes, that means possibly a referendum at a municipal election.
I understand that the Conservative party supports referendum legislation. I have some problems with some of that, but generally I think we in this country have learned that you cannot change the form of government without having some sort of process where you involve the public. For example, we've had all kinds of constitutional debate. One of the biggest complaints about Meech Lake, which I thought we should have accepted, was that there was not a good process of public consultation and that the public didn't have a chance to have their say and give their support in whatever way that could have been done. Charlottetown, quite frankly, was an attempt to fix that. We had a referendum. So there is a history of utilizing referendums or consultation processes to give people some say in which governance structure is going to be changed, added, deleted or whatever.
I think this amendment is saying that if this is enabling legislation -- yes, the municipal politicians have to work out the details because they are the people with the expertise; I don't argue that for a second -- we need to make sure that the public who live within those areas say, "Yes, we as taxpayers are OK with having an additional level of government." I think we need to be quite clear about that, because in the end this would be another level of government, and I think the public should have the right to express their views, either by way of a good consultation or possibly a referendum.
Mr Bartolucci: I think that where we're putting this is very important. We suggest that it go to section 36 because that's the purpose of this part of the act, it's the purpose of the act. In fact the title says, "An Act to provide choice and flexibility...." Therefore, let's spell it out clearly in the purpose of the act. It's not asking too much. It clarifies the act. The addition of this clause clarifies the purpose, you're clarifying the purpose. I suggest that its placement in the act is extremely important, and the raison d'être for the clause simplifies and clarifies the purpose of the act, which I think should have been spelled out in this section anyway, but isn't.
The Vice-Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Bisson: I don't want to debate this at length, because we're going to get a chance later. But I want to see where the government is when it comes to making sure the public is consulted in some formal way when it comes to creating another level of government. I'm looking for an answer.
Mr Spina: I'd be happy to provide that. The interesting thing is that philosophically this act has been created as enabling legislation, as we said. It must come forward in the form of a proposal from the residents of the area itself. But residents of an unorganized territory also have the opportunity to participate. The important fact is that the municipalities or local services boards -- if you go to 37(1), member, if I could interrupt you.
Mr Bisson: We're doing strategy here.
Mr Spina: You asked for an answer and I'm trying to give it to you.
Mr Bisson: I'm with you.
Mr Spina: "One or more municipalities or local services boards or the residents of unorganized territory may make the proposal to establish" a board for the consolidation of services. Then you go down to subclause (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...and the manner of determining that support." There has to be an assessment of that proposal to ensure that there is the outstanding support that meets the desire of the residents.
Further, 37(1)(b) on the next page says, "proof in a form satisfactory to the minister...that the proposal has the prescribed degree of support of the municipalities and local services boards and of the residents...."
It's not just that they are part of it. The reality is that they must also provide proof of support.
1100
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Spina: He wasn't listening.
Mr Bisson: I did listen. I listened to your argument quite attentively. What you said was, and as I read the legislation, "One or more municipalities or local services boards or the residents of unorganized territory may make a proposal to establish...." It's one of those, right? It's not all of those that have to make a proposal. If the municipality decides to make the proposal, it's up to them. But under subclause (vi) it says that if a municipality decides to do this without the support of the local residents, it would have to demonstrate in its proposal that it has some degree of support. That's the way the legislation would work.
My problem is, who the hell determines what the degree of support is? Do you follow what I'm getting at? If local municipalities in my area say, "We would like to do this," and then a whole bunch of residents are in disagreement with their councils, there is really no mechanism to get at that. I think that's what Mr Bartolucci is trying to get at.
Mr Spina: With respect to any proposal that comes forward in this regard, the government must entertain any dissenting bodies. I go again to what I said at the end of my comments: 37(1)(b) says "proof in a form satisfactory to the minister" that the proposal has the appropriate support. To me, just saying, "We on council voted 9 to 7," if you have that many councillors, "that we of the organized territory or municipality of whatever have decided that we want an ASB," doesn't demonstrate proof of support if you want an ASB to go way beyond that municipality. That's only common sense.
Mr Bisson: I take it we're putting that in Hansard today, because at one point I'm sure the people, as they try to make this legislation work, are going to want to know what the intent was. What you're saying is that your minister or any minister would not accept a proposal that comes forward if it doesn't have a good degree of support from local residents.
Mr Spina: If there is proof of support.
Mr Bisson: So if the municipality went to the minister with a proposal that said, "We have decided, contrary to the wishes of our local residents, that we want to create an ASB," and it's not demonstrated in the proposal that it has the support of the local residents, the minister wouldn't approve it.
Mr Spina: That's what the legislation states.
Mr Bisson: And that's the intent of the legislation?
Mr Spina: It must be demonstrated and proof shown.
Mr Bisson: Is that the intent of the legislation?
Mr Spina: Of course. That's why it's in there.
Mr Bisson: All right. Thank you.
Mr Bartolucci: You might want to get some clarification of that and put it on the record. You might want to defer later to other interpretations. What you say is creating an impossibility for this act. I'm telling you, Mr Spina, that if that is the intent of this legislation, you are legislating something impossible. I give you that as a point of caution. You may want to straighten out the record. To clarify the record I suggest that this amendment, the addition of this clause, now becomes even more important in light of what Mr Spina just finished saying. In light of what he just finished saying, I don't know how the government would want to vote against this amendment, especially where it's located, in the purpose of the act.
Mr Bisson: This has nothing to do with common sense.
Mr Spina: In my opinion, it is easy to respond to you, sir. When you put a clause in that says, "to ensure that the wishes of local residents are reflected," it's vague. How are the wishes determined? With respect to the act, we are looking for a demonstrated degree of support, and proof of support to back that up. To me, those are far stronger than a vague statement that says, "ensuring that the wishes...are reflected." That's the reason I feel that these clauses are far stronger, far clearer and already inclusive of the amendment you have brought forward.
Mr Len Wood: As a follow-up to the parliamentary assistant, you're saying that support has to be shown from the organized and unorganized areas. How are you going to determine the support that's out there? Are you talking about a referendum that was taken by the city of Toronto to determine whether they wanted to amalgamate, or a decision that was attempted to be forced on Geraldton and is still going through the courts? How do you establish the support that's out there from the organized and unorganized areas? Is it through a vote or a referendum or some kind of survey, or are you just going to look at the proposals that are there and say, "We have the support of 60% or 70% --"
Mr Bisson: Of the Tory riding association.
Mr Len Wood: Yes. We have to get answers to that somehow.
Mr Spina: I'll make a comment. I'll defer to my colleague.
First of all, it's got nothing to do with Toronto. The easy answer is, it's in the proposal. The proposal has to show the degree of support and proof of that support.
Mr Hardeman: Unless I misunderstand the situation, I think we have to clarify that when we're talking about support, we have two bodies that one looks at. In areas where we do not have municipal government, and as it is in the municipal restructuring process that's part of the Municipal Act, you have to find a way to identify the local support in areas where there is no local government in order to express that support.
In the unorganized areas that would be included in the proposal, there would be a requirement to have identified individual support from the people who are involved. In municipal restructuring proposals, I think it's identified as holding a public meeting with a certain percentage of the people present and their position is taken as the view of those who do not have a municipal government to represent them.
In areas where area services boards would be looked at, where they have local government, I think the local people have put their faith in the decision-making abilities of people on council to make the decision. If a proposal came forward identifying local support for having an area services board which incorporated an unorganized area and three municipalities, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the minister would expect the support of the councils in those municipalities and that would, in his opinion, reflect the views of the people who elected those councils to make the decision on their behalf. In the bill, he would also require proof to identify where the support from the local people in the unorganized area came from, because at that point they have no one to speak on their behalf as a group.
If we look at the regulation that deals with restructuring, again it speaks in the same terms of local support and the degree of support required. In the areas where we have two-tier government at the local level, it speaks of a triple majority, where it requires the support of the council, the majority of the municipalities representing the majority of the population. It does not identify that you must go out and get the vote of the majority of the population but of the representatives of the majority of the population. If it's an unorganized territory, that regulation requires the support of a public meeting held for that purpose in the unorganized areas.
1110
Again, I think it is to identify who is making decisions on the public's behalf. In the organized areas in the north, and in southern Ontario, the municipal councillors were elected to make decisions on behalf of the residents in delivering municipal services. We have to recognize that if the area services boards are set up at the discretion of the local people, they are set up to deliver the municipal services that the elected councils are presently responsible for. So I say that they do represent the interests of those residents.
We have to identify a way of hearing the voice of those in the unorganized areas on who will be creating a delivery model for them. That's why I speak against the resolution of the Liberal Party. It identifies that in each proposal we are going to be looking for some way to identify the individual in the municipality, as opposed to allowing their elected representatives to speak on their behalf, which they have elected them to do.
Mr Bartolucci: We have two completely conflicting stories: one from the parliamentary assistant and one from the honourable member. They are conflicting, and so I'm going to ask for answers to the following two questions. If we use the parliamentary assistant's scenario, the nine to seven resolution for an area services board is passed at council. In the parliamentary assistant's record in Hansard, he said there would be no area services board with a simple council majority of nine for and seven against. That's what the parliamentary assistant said; that's not what Mr Hardeman said. What is the answer? Is there an area services board if a majority of council agrees that there should be an area services board?
I have a second question dealing specifically with the regional municipality of Sudbury. Go ahead.
Mr Spina: You cannot have a vote on one organized council that is going to create an area services board for an entire district over which it has no jurisdiction. You require the other partners. That was my point. That's all my point was.
Mr Hardeman: I just want to correct the record. I was not disagreeing with the parliamentary assistant, and Hansard can be checked. He made it quite clear that the nine to seven vote was that they could not extend an area services board beyond their municipal jurisdiction. My comments were together with his, they were the same. It would be the vote of each individual municipality. But if it goes beyond that municipality, it requires the support of the other municipalities involved; it requires the support of the unorganized population. But you can't have an area services board where the people do not want it if they do not support it.
Mr Bartolucci: The second question for clarification is with regard to a region -- but there's only one region in Sudbury so we'll talk about the regional municipality of Sudbury -- and to single, double and triple majority.
There is a resolution at the council of the regional municipality of Sudbury agreeing to an area services board. However, area councils or lower-tier councils -- for example, Walden, Nickel Centre, Valley East and Capreol -- vote against an area services board. We have four of the seven municipalities voting against an area services board. There are seven municipalities in the regional municipality of Sudbury. The councils of four of the seven municipalities say "no" to an area services board. However, around the regional council table, where the city of Sudbury has the majority of votes, the vote is in favour of an area services board. What does the government do then?
Mr Bisson: Good question.
Mr Spina: I think this debate is more relevantly conducted when we get to other amendments regarding how the ASB is created and the double majority and all that sort of thing. With respect to the amendment that the member has on the table right now, I think we should just call the question.
Mr Bartolucci: But it has everything to do with my question. It is not fair to call the question, to be perfectly honest, because there is no answer to the question. It's relevant, it's important and it's essential.
Mr Spina: It's a hypothetical situation.
Mr Bartolucci: But it's not hypothetical at all.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Chair: I hope we're not going to get into a situation where the parliamentary assistant is going to try to invoke closure at this committee. You have called for the question, which is a pretty serious thing to be doing in committee. We are in here trying to work our way through. I take it you're not going to be -- you're withdrawing that? Very good.
The Vice-Chair: I would just point out that he did not suggest closure on this. Any further comments?
Mr Len Wood: I'm a little concerned about the comments we are getting from the parliamentary assistant and Mr Hardeman. Mr Hardeman travelled through the area, and I attended most of the meetings in the north. When he makes the comment that we'll have public meetings, where do you hold the public meetings? You're talking about a huge territory. People are going to have to travel to get to these public meetings. Do you hold them in the large, urban areas or do you hold public meetings out in the small, unorganized areas? Where do you hold the public meetings? Do you force everybody to travel for an hour to get to a public meeting? You're saying, "Hold a public meeting and tell the public what you're going to do and then do it." I don't think that's the answer to getting a consensus among the people out there.
I get a little concerned about the way the hearings were held in the north. When people wanted to have a chance to be questioned on the issues, they were shut down. I'm glad to see that the parliamentary assistant withdrew his request to ram this down the throats of everybody in the north when I'm sure there has to be a lot more debate and discussion out there.
The concern I heard as I travelled throughout the north was that this is another form of county or regional government, like they have in rural southern Ontario. If that's the intent of this legislation, the people of the north do not want to see the north split into 10 county governments and the large, urban areas controlling everything. There is a concern out there. What is the future going to mean with this legislation coming through? There's got to be a better way of establishing support than has been suggested here so far.
Mr Hardeman: First of all, we have a bit of a dilemma here. We have the NDP suggesting that this would somehow create a second level of government, as Mr Wood mentioned --
Mr Len Wood: The people say that --
Mr Hardeman: Yes, the perception is that this creates in the north the county government of southern Ontario.
Mr Len Wood: You heard that?
Mr Hardeman: Yes. But I think we have a dilemma here, because the question that was asked by the member for Sudbury is: How do we prevent the region, which incidentally is the second-tier government that we have in southern Ontario, from arbitrarily creating an area services board? If the reality is that this is a way of creating a second-tier government to deliver upper-tier services, why would the region of Sudbury ever consider creating an area services board to do what they have in the region now?
1120
If we look at the services that are going to be core services of an area services board, I believe they are all the services the region is presently delivering, unless there is an anomaly in the Sudbury region. If they decided to create an area services board, what would they be creating, other than the region? If they were the only ones involved, they would then call themselves an area services board so they could deliver the same services they're already doing. There's no logic in their wanting to do it. If they want, and I very much expect that they may, to look at broadening the delivery of those services beyond the region to find efficiencies and effectiveness in delivery of those services, again that would be, in my opinion, the decision of the region that was presently delivering those services. If we look at child care, assistance under Ontario Works, public health, social housing, land ambulance services and homes for the aged, I believe all those services are now being provided on a regional basis in Sudbury as they are everywhere else.
I don't see any opportunity or need for the region, unless it was to expand the area of those services, to even consider an area services board to take the level of government and split it in two and make it three. I don't think the people of the Sudbury region would make that type of decision.
Secondly, I think the act is quite explicit that the minister must approve these. I don't know how you would justify taking a two-tier government and making it a three-tier government and somehow imply that's going to create efficiencies and effective government. I don't see that possibility existing in the act, even though it's totally permissive.
Mr Bartolucci: Without being confrontational, because I don't want to be, we could have avoided all this if you had voted for the first amendment. You chose not to. The reality, though, is that one of the area municipalities within the region may want to strike the area services board proposal on its own. It will garner a couple of other municipalities' support, and you still haven't answered the question of the four to three split. Is there or is there not a double majority in this legislation? Does the purpose of this legislation ensure that the wishes of local residents are reflected in determining the structure and the services delivered by the board? I suggest to you, with due respect to everyone around this table, that that hasn't been answered and that if you include it in the purpose of the legislation, it allows you to clarify purpose as we go on and as Bill 12 expands.
That is all I'm suggesting we do. This isn't hocus-pocus and it isn't a trick clause. It's very straightforward. If anything, the debate we've had this morning should indicate the need for this clause being added to the purpose part of the bill.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? If not, shall the motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is lost.
We'll move to the next one, which is a government motion, section 10, subclause 37(1)(a)(v).
Mr Spina: "I move that subclause 37(1)(a)(v) of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(v) the additional services under subsection 41(2) that the proposed board would provide."
Mr Bisson: Can you explain that?
Mr Spina: Basically it recognizes a drafting error and clarifies that this section deals with "proposed" boards. That's the key word we are adding here, because it made an assumption that a board was already created.
The Vice-Chair: Any questions?
Mr Bisson: I just want to put on the record that I'm actually going to vote for this amendment. I hope the government will vote with some of ours as well in the spirit of cooperativeness.
The Vice-Chair: Is it the wish of the committee that this motion pass?
Mr Bisson: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Bisson, Danford, Froese, Hardeman, Spina.
The Vice-Chair: We're looking at the next motion, which is an NDP motion.
Mr Bisson: I move that clause 37(1)(b) of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) proof in a form satisfactory to the minister that the proposal has the support of,
"(i) a majority of the municipalities in the proposed board area having a majority of the population, and
"(ii) a majority of the meetings held by each existing local services board to consider the proposal attended by residents in the unorganized territory to be included in the proposed board area."
If you want, I will explain why.
The Vice-Chair: Would you?
Mr Bisson: We have somewhat gone through this debate earlier with the previous motion from the Liberal Party. As I said before, and want the parliamentary assistant to understand, we're supportive of the government's trying to put in what is supposedly enabling legislation, but there are some parts of the bill that make me a little nervous. However enabling it is, municipalities could gang up on unorganized communities. The way the bill is drafted, that could happen and there's not a heck of a lot that unorganized communities can do to have an effect on the process, and there are other things later on which I won't get into.
What this basically tries to do is say that at the very least there have to be meetings in the unorganized areas -- those people have to be consulted; they have to be able to see what the hell the plan is -- and also give some sort of prescription to the degree of support when it comes to the unorganized communities.
The Vice-Chair: OK.
Mr Bisson: I'm about to find out something.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, you are about to find out something.
Mr Bisson: Madam Chair, I ask for a one-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 1127 to 1128.
The Vice-Chair: I call the committee back to order.
Mr Len Wood: I move that clause 37(1)(b) of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) proof in a form satisfactory to the minister that the proposal has the support of,
"(i) a majority of the municipalities in the proposed board area having a majority of the population, and
"(ii) a majority of the meetings held by each existing local services board to consider the proposal attended by residents in the unorganized territory to be included in the proposed board area."
The Vice-Chair: Would you like to speak to that?
Mr Len Wood: Yes. We had some discussion earlier that there has to be a way of finding a consensus among the residents in the areas if there is support for changes that are being made. As I mentioned earlier, one of the concerns with Bill 12 in its entirety being introduced is that it will lead to a duplication of services, that there will be more arm-twisting as far as amalgamations are concerned, which has been attempted out there now in the Hearst area, Kapuskasing area, and one of them in the Longlac-Geraldton area is being challenged by the Conservative government in court right now.
There has to be a guaranteed way of making sure that the consultation does take place in the unorganized territories and that there is support by the majority of the people in the municipalities, and in the unorganized areas, for changes that might be taking place. We have to understand that a lot of the changes in this bill and a number of other bills are only being brought forward because of the unwillingness of the present government to pay for the services in these areas out of general revenue and that the dumping and unloading of services which the provincial government normally has paid for over the years is now going to be collected in property taxes. It's going to drive property taxes right through the roof in a lot of areas. People are going to find out that they are going to lose their houses; they won't be able to pay the taxes on them. It's a matter of finding a way of shedding the responsibility that the provincial government should have through general tax revenue, putting it on to property taxes and forcing the unorganized areas and the municipalities to pay for services that they don't want to pay for.
We can look at land ambulances, we can look at OPP policing, we can look at a number of changes in areas that general revenue should pay for, especially in northern Ontario, where the population is spread out over large areas. They need assistance from general revenue taxation, and now they're going to be expected to pay the full cost of these services. In some cases, they're going to lose the services if they can't afford to pay for them.
Mr Bartolucci: There's just a point of clarification that I'd ask for from the third party, because I'd like to be able to support this. It goes on with what we had originally in my second amendment or proposal. "A majority of the municipalities in the proposed board area," okay, that's fine, because if we use Sault Ste Marie for an example, there's Sault Ste Marie, Thessalon, Batchawana, Searchmont. So, three of the four agree to an area services board. But then here's the problem, "having a majority of the population." Sault Ste Marie has the majority of the population, so if Thessalon, Echo Bay and Searchmont, the unorganized areas, did not want the area service board, the majority of the population, which is centred in Sault Ste Marie, would get its way. I don't know if that's the intent of the legislation, and I would ask for clarification.
Mr Bisson: Just to clarify the way the amendment is. There are two parts to the amendment. The first part is that two things have to happen before the plan will be accepted by the minister. You have to demonstrate that a majority of the municipalities have the majority of the population. So, for example, in our area that would mean they would have to have at least Timmins and a few other communities on side, on the Highway 11 corridor, to be able to go forward, because there's a whole argument about where the majority of taxpayers are and that they should have a weighted say when it comes to what happens. We put that in because we don't want just one municipality in the end having the say; it has to have the two things. The second part is about having some mechanism for the unorganized communities, and I'll speak to that a little bit later in more detail. Do you follow?
Mr Bartolucci: Gilles, in reality then, if we used the example I used, Sault Ste Marie could establish an area services board without the support of Thessalon, Searchmont and Batchawana Bay, because they have the majority of the population.
Mr Bisson: Well, that's not the intent of the amendment.
Mr Bartolucci: No, I know it's not.
Mr Bisson: It might need clarification. This is an amendment that was brought forward as a request of some of the municipalities actually in that area and in our area as well. The intent of the amendment is to do two things: to say the minister can't approve unless there is a majority of communities that agree, and you have to have a majority of the population agree as well, plus you have to have an agreement by the unorganized areas that this is to go forward.
Mr Bartolucci: That was the intent?
Mr Bisson: If it doesn't do that in the drafting, maybe we have to propose an amendment to this.
Mr Spina: In response to the amendment -- we had discussions about this, Gilles, I know. To put these clauses in right now is a bit of a shortcut. But as clauses themselves they're not adequate. They'd require about three pages of regulations to cover all the rules for determining the local support. We are trying to be flexible enough here to allow the double majority concept to be worked out in the proposal when it comes forward to the ministry. We want it to parallel the restructuring of municipalities, because you're restructuring services, and it's not intended to be a restructuring of municipalities, as you know. That's the reason we would not support the amendment. Some of the surrounding comments or elements would be in regulation, but to put it as a clause like this would require a very prescribing environment from the point of view of the government.
Mr Len Wood: You're talking about the regulations. Are the regulations prepared and ready so that we can take a look at the regulations and see if that's going to address the concern out there?
Mr Spina: As I said to you earlier, what we are looking to do is to accomplish the environment of the bill. Regulations aren't created until a bill is actually finished and all the clauses are in place, either as introduced or amended. That's why the ministries will hold off on creating the regulations until that point. The basic underlying point is that we want to permit the flexibility within the proposals for them to be able to come to us with how they want to have the representative structure, as opposed to us being overly prescriptive and dictatorial in terms of how they're going to arrive at it.
Mr Len Wood: In fairness as well to the parliamentary assistant, this is not legislation that was just dropped here yesterday. This is revised legislation that has been brought forward from last year with some minor changes to Bill 12.
I don't see any reason why a draft of the regulations couldn't be available for people to see what your intention is if you're saying that a lot of it is going to be dealt with in the regulations; there's no reason why. I've dealt with legislation before as a parliamentary assistant and we talked about regulations at the same time we were bringing the bill through for second and third reading.
Mr Hardeman: In the process, I think it's very important that the bill does deal with the ability of the minister to prescribe the required support and how that will be achieved.
I have some concern with this resolution if Mr Bartolucci can interpret that first section to mean that one municipality, because it has the majority of the population, could force this area services board upon all the rest. If that's his interpretation of this amendment, I would assure you that it's an inappropriate amendment to put in the bill. I read it with maybe a slightly different view, because I read it as being the interpretation of the double majority, that it not only has to be the majority of the population but it has to be the majority of the municipalities. But if that's the interpretation, I would suggest that it's an inappropriate amendment.
1140
The other part I have some concern with is that if you legislate the meeting and you legislate how they're to be counted, it becomes very difficult to then, through regulation, describe or prescribe what and how it must be done. It's very important that it's not good enough for the legislation to say they must hold a meeting and then there is nothing else that they have to come forward with. It makes far better sense to have the minister have the ability to prescribe the number of meetings that must be held, the type of meetings that must be held and what would be taken as the majority support of the people or the municipalities that want area services boards. I think the legislation presently will deliver protection for the people better than this amendment would, because it would take away the areas for the minister to prescribe that type of support.
Mr Len Wood: Let's see the regulations.
Mr Bisson: Three things. I don't want to repeat what Mr Len Wood said, but I think we need to see the regulations, which is part of the problem. You need to know. When we were talking about dealing with this particular amendment, we realized, as the parliamentary assistant said, there's no simple way of putting this in the legislation. But understand why this came forward. It came forward because we want to see the regulations and how the process is going to be prescribed under the legislation.
I also agree with the parliamentary assistant on the point that if subclause (i) is indeed being interpreted that you have to have both -- like, the biggest community can decide everything, that's not the intent. I would propose we amend that by striking out the word "having" and inserting the word "and," and I'll do that in a second, to make sure that we're clear we're talking about a double majority.
But also understand what this is all about. Ideologically we have a problem with you going after the unorganized communities. I realize the government's intent through this legislation is to say: "You know, all you people who live in the unorganized communities, you've been getting it free for too long. You're using the municipal government's services in Timmins or Iroquois Falls or Sault Ste Marie or whatever, and we want you to pay taxes as everybody else for those services." I understand what you're trying to do. That's one of the difficulties we have with this legislation. We've had this debate in the House, and I'm not going to prolong it.
People choose to live in those areas for a very simple reason. I know that well because my father made that choice when we were younger. He didn't want to live within the community of Timmins, because he wanted a different lifestyle for his family as he was raising us but also didn't want to pay the level of municipal taxation that was at the time being imposed on municipal properties in our community. So he decided to move outside of the municipal boundaries and to be in an unorganized community for a very simple reason: He didn't want to pay those municipal taxes and said, "I will pay the additional transportation costs that it costs me, I will pay for my own garbage pickup, I will pay for my own water, I will pay for my own septic system." All services that would be provided under the tax base in a city he decided to do away with and do himself. That's why people choose to go out.
For the government to say, "We're now going to start taxing unorganized communities at the same rate or close to the same rate as municipalities," is a bit unfair, because they don't have the services. The only thing they would have access to is their kid possibly playing hockey, who travels into town, or going to use the swimming pool every now and then. But those are not great burdens on the municipality. If you look at the participation of those people in the unorganized communities in the soft-type services and recreation, it's small as a percentage as to who uses them overall.
The only other service they might end up using is ambulance services, and we have a provincial system that deals with that, and/or welfare, which is 80% paid by the province. Ideologically, I have a problem with trying to tax the unorganized communities. That's also what this is trying to get to.
Mr Spina: Just to respond to that, Gilles, it's not our intent to set the tax rate for the ASBs, as you know.
Mr Bisson: I know that.
Mr Spina: Also, I think it is within the flexible authority of an ASB to be able to modify the tax rates according to the services the residents receive on a zone basis or however they structure it. The important thing is that we allow them the flexibility to be able to create the structure they want to have rather than us telling them. If we're not satisfied with the structure in terms of fairness or an excessive imposition, as you described, to an unorganized householder, then clearly it doesn't meet the objectives of the bill, which are to have more efficiency in government and be able to better deliver services, hopefully at a lower cost.
Mr Bisson: But would you agree that one of the intents of this bill is to basically bring within the organized communities the unorganized areas? That's part of what you're trying to do here.
Mr Spina: Sorry. Trying to bring them in?
Mr Bisson: Part of what this bill is trying to do is to say that for those people who are living outside municipal boundaries, in what we term the unorganized communities, this legislation, if the municipalities choose, would encompass those people in their boundaries, which means they would pay higher taxes for services they don't receive. That's my problem.
Mr Spina: But that's the point of the bill, to ensure that there's flexibility there so that they can participate in an ASB. Let's face it, they have brought the request forward to us. Part of the problem that a lot of the unorganized complain about is that they'd like, and are willing to pay for, certain services, but they do not want to be amalgamated outright into an organized community. We understand and respect that mindset, that thought and that attitude. That's part of the reason we've structured the bill as we have.
Mr Bisson: Let me try it this way, just to make sure that we're clear. We understand this is enabling legislation, and the only way that an unorganized community would be part of an ASB is if the majority of municipalities in that area choose to go the way of an ASB and if the minister agrees to the plan.
Mr Spina: Depending on how they structure their double majority.
Mr Bisson: But the point is, and this is the thin edge of the wedge, that the unorganized communities have very little by way of protection if they don't want to be organized. Do you agree?
Mr Spina: No, I think there's flexibility there.
Mr Bisson: How? Because the way the legislation is written -- we'll take our area in the Cochrane district. There are some unorganized communities in the Cochrane district. What would happen with this legislation is, if the majority of communities and the majority of the population, other than the unorganized, decide they want an ASB, then it happens. Right?
Mr Spina: If you had the town of Cochrane, and the town of Cochrane voted as being -- they would be the largest urban pocket in that area. Is that a fair way to describe it?
Mr Bisson: No, it would actually be Timmins.
Mr Spina: OK. If Timmins and Cochrane decided to come together, you're suggesting that the unorganized around them would be sucked in? No.
Mr Bisson: That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking, what would probably happen if an ASB was created in our area? The ASB would probably be either all of the Highway 11 corridor, probably from Matheson, Iroquois Falls, Cochrane, somewhere around there, all the way up to Hearst. All right?
Mr Spina: You're talking about all of the organized communities that would be making that decision.
Mr Bisson: Yes. Let's say those communities decided to do an ASB. I'll give this one as a suppose, OK? The Highway 11 corridor communities from Matheson all the way up to Hearst decide they want to form an ASB in order to share how they're going to deliver those provincial services that are now being transferred on to the municipalities. Within the Highway 11 corridor area, there are unorganized communities such as Jogues and Ste Thérèse. My point is this: The way the legislation is written, if the majority of municipalities on Highway 11 decide they want to go the way of an ASB, there's nothing the people in Jogues or Ste Thérèse, who are within the unorganized, can do to stop it. Right?
Mr Spina: Except for the minister.
Mr Bisson: The minister may decide, but not very likely. If there's a plan that comes before the minister and it's supported by the majority of the organized communities, he or she would accept it.
Mr Spina: But the minister, I suggest to you, would be very interested in knowing whether or not this is a fair situation. If there is outstanding dissent from an unorganized community, then it really boils down to whether or not the minister thinks this ASB is a fair board to deliver the services. That may be questionable. It's hypothetical here.
Mr Bisson: With all respect, I've heard the government and you on a number of occasions in the House, in committee and in public on radio and TV talk about how this legislation is going to ensure that those people living in unorganized communities pay what you call their fair share towards municipal services. Right?
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: That means it has an intent of bringing the unorganized communities into the ASB so that they pay taxes for services they're using in the neighbouring communities.
Mr Spina: If they choose, if they're getting those services; that's all we're saying.
Mr Bisson: That's right. I look at Jogues or Ste Thérèse as a good example. They would be next to the community of Hearst, which would be the closest one, and that's probably where people would go if they're going to use the arena or any of the municipal services. My point, why we're bringing this motion forward, is to say the minister would not automatically approve an application for an ASB if they didn't at least have a number of meetings with the unorganized communities, where the people were notified, the people in the unorganized communities could come, they could hear the proposal and give their support or non-support. If they don't give their support, then maybe it shouldn't go forward. That's what we're suggesting.
Mr Spina: I think we have to look at the population. The unorganized territories could count as a municipality. They could certainly make their presence felt in an equalized manner, and then if the minister can see it, it may or may not get approved as a board.
Mr Bisson: I'm not going to hold this up very long, because it's pretty clear the government is going to vote against it, but I just want to put on the record quite clearly that we need to understand what the government is doing here. The government is going to make it possible for communities like Hearst and other communities in the neighbouring area to basically charge taxes, through the ASB, to the unorganized communities such as Jogues and Ste Thérèse for services that people may or may not be using in those communities. I don't think that's right. If people have decided to live there, they don't have the degree of municipal support, programs and services that they have in built-up areas. They're there for a reason. There's an added cost to living there already. To add municipal taxes on top for services they don't get doesn't sit well with me or my party.
Mr Spina: Thank you for your comments. We'll take that into account in regulations.
Mr Bisson: One small point: I would like to move an amendment to strike the word "having" and insert the word "and," so that we're clear what we mean.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wood would have to do that.
Mr Len Wood: I would like to move an amendment on subclause 37(1)(b)(i), strike the word "having" and replace it with the word "and." Do you want me to read it? It would read:
"(i) a majority of the municipalities in the proposed board area and a majority of the population."
The Vice-Chair: Any discussion on the amendment to the amendment?
All those in favour? All those opposed?
The amendment to the amendment is carried.
Mr Wood has moved clause 37(1)(b). Any further discussion?
Mr Bisson: Since this is going to be the last chance, obviously, that we get before the break this morning, I just want to say again, clearly, I'm not in favour of taxing the unorganized communities. I think that's wrong. People who live there already pay enough as it is. To do what the government proposes here, I see it as a tax grab.
Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bartolucci, Len Wood.
Nays
Danford, Froese, Hardeman, Spina.
The Vice-Chair: I think we'll call for a recess at this point. This committee stands recessed until 3:30 or after question period.
The committee recessed from 1155 to 1534.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. We'll reconvene the meeting on Bill 12.
Interjections.
The Chair: I'd ask members to come to attention, please. It's important that we stick to the debate here. We have before us an NDP motion. Do I have a mover of the motion on subsection 37(1)?
Mr Bisson: One moment. I am trying to get my papers in order. Before we get into a debate about it, I first of all want to ask the clerk of the committee if this motion is in order, seeing that we defeated the previous motion, because it seems to me those two things were related.
The Chair: I'll refer this to the clerk.
Interjection.
The Chair: To the member, if you would like to withdraw the motion, that's the advice of --
Mr Bisson: Is it in order?
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: It is. Can you just give me one second? I just opened up my papers.
Interjection: Which one are we at?
Mr Bisson: We're at my motion number 2, which is subsection 37(1.1) and (1.2) Actually, I will deal with it just quickly. It's somewhat related to the first one but not entirely, and maybe the parliamentary assistant can help us.
I move that section 37 of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Notice requirements respecting meeting
"(1.1) Notice of a meeting referred to in clause (1)(b) shall be given by publication in newspapers having general circulation in the relevant area and by mail to the last known address of each resident.
"Timing
"(1.2) A notice given by mail shall be sent at least 14 days before the day on which the meeting is to be held."
I just want to hear the parliamentary assistant's comments on that amendment and see if he would view that as a friendly amendment.
Mr Spina: Basically we make the same comment as we did in the previous motion, in that the concern is that we would be micromanaging how the proposal would be shaped. If they choose to use that as a way of determining suitable proof of support to apply for an ASB, that's up to them, rather than our prescribing it. That's the reason we wouldn't support the amendment.
Mr Bisson: If I can ask the parliamentary assistant or his assistant the following question: What is going to be prescribed in the regulations -- because we don't have the regulations with us -- when it comes to what the minister would consider to be a proper process of buy-in on the part of local residents in an unorganized community?
Mr Spina: Sorry. Your question is, what would be the proper process of --
Mr Bisson: What is the process that you envision under this act? If you read the legislation, what your legislation now says is that the proposal has the prescribed degree of support of the municipalities and local services boards and the residents of the unorganized territory. What I am wondering is, what is the prescribed degree of support? I take it that's in regulation, and I want to know what that's going to be.
Mr Spina: Not as yet, but our intention is that it would have the same rules and regulations as in the Municipal Act in trying to determine the degree of support. If you had municipalities that wanted to come to an agreement on issues, then I think that would be a reasonable approach.
Mr Bisson: This is the reason they pay you the big bucks, Joe, and give you the Cadillac. I want to know what that is. Can you explain or the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs --
Mr Spina: The parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs would be better able to explain that.
Mr Bisson: -- or the staffers who are here, what the process would call for?
Mr Spina: Yes, basically for municipal restructuring.
Mr Bisson: I want to get it clear on the record today what's going to happen. What would be the prescribed degree of support as set out either under the Municipal Act or regulations under that act, or what your plan is under this act, so that people are clear when we go through this in our area?
Mr Hardeman: I think it's important as it relates to this amendment that the prescribed degree of support may very well differ in different areas in different circumstances. If you were talking about a small unorganized area that held one public meeting and only three residents came because there was improper notification or there was not sufficient notification for the population to know the meeting was taking place, I think the minister would not accept that as an acceptable test of the support for the proposal. The minister could, and does, in the regulation prescribe how they must hold the public meeting and the type of support that they must register at that public meeting in order to bring that proposal forward.
1540
That's not to say that it would necessarily be exactly the same number. I haven't got it before me, so I can't say, but I don't believe the regulation says that it must have 267 votes in support of an application for that to be the support from the municipality. The regulation does not say that you must have 60% of all those involved at the meeting in order to make the meeting valid. I think it's based on a reasonable test that what is being brought forward is in fact a representative sample of the community that's being referred to.
Mr Bisson: Let me try it this way --
The Chair: Mr Bisson, if we could have that through the Chair.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Chair.
Let me try it the other way. I take it you're going to have to have some process under this legislation that gives people who live in an unorganized community the ability to see what the plan is and have their say. What do you envision, both by way of regulation and the legislation? What would happen? If you can set that out, maybe that'll answer my question and all of this is a moot point.
Mr Hardeman: In simple terms -- and I don't mean this to be a simple answer because of the questioner but on the ability of the answerer and the simpleness of it -- I would envision that the people involved in starting the process of creating an area services board would collectively agree to how they would go about getting a representative sample of support for the area services board that they were proposing. I think in order to get the support or the lack of support from the people in the unorganized territory they would have to take a proposal of that kind to a representative sampling or numbers of the population in the unorganized area.
If they were talking about a very large geographic area I don't think the minister would consider in the regulation that you could have half of northern Ontario as part of the area services board and hold one public meeting in one corner of it and assume that what that group said was representative of all the people. The minister would, by regulation, set what was a reasonable consultation process to hear the views of the people of the area to see whether they are supportive of that.
The Chair: Mr Spina, do you have anything to add?
Mr Spina: All I was going to say is, if you want the ministry counsel to tell you what the rules are, we can ask him to do that.
Mr Bisson: That's what I was asking.
Just to make it clear so they understand where I'm coming from, what I need to know are a couple of things. If I understand the legislation, section 37 deals with how --when I read that, it says "that the proposal has the prescribed degree of support of the municipalities" etc. What I need to know is, specifically, what do you mean by "prescribed degree of support"? How do you define that? I also want to understand what the process will be to notify people in unorganized communities that there is an area services board possibly coming their way. Two questions.
The Chair: Are you referring those two questions to legal counsel, Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: Yes, if that is fine with the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: Would you care to respond on the interpretation of 37?
Mr John Ritchie: My name is John Ritchie. I'm a lawyer with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
The rules in the regulation under the Municipal Act pertain to municipal restructuring. The situation is somewhat parallel here so, as Mr Spina says, we were intending to basically pick up the same rules. The regulation under the Municipal Act is fairly extensive. It's a fairly long regulation and there's a lot of detail so I'm summarizing in a great way.
Mr Bisson: That's fine.
Mr Ritchie: First of all, with regard to municipalities that use the double majority test, meaning that the majority of municipalities must be supporting the proposal and that that majority of municipalities must also contain a majority of residents within the proposed board area, for that purpose, the regulation under the Municipal Act defines the people in the unorganized area as being the equivalent of one municipality. So they would essentially be getting the vote of one municipality for the purposes of determining support.
In the unorganized, there are fairly extensive procedures for holding a public meeting to determine whether there is resident support. That involves 14 days' notice, somewhat similar to what -- there's a very short version proposed in your motion to amend, but there is much more detail in this regulation that I'm referring to. Essentially, though, it involves 14 days' notice to the public in newspapers having wide circulation. It is flexible. It does permit other means of notifying the residents.
The notice must tell them what it's all about, what's contained in the proposal, where the meetings will be held, the time and so forth. Then they vote and, as I say, the vote of the unorganized is essentially equivalent to one municipality for determining whether the majority of municipalities support it, and of course the population of the unorganized speaks for itself. There has to be a majority of the population within the supporting municipalities. Have I confused you entirely?
Mr Bisson: No, that's actually quite clear and quite helpful. I want to thank you. As I understand it, basically we give 14 days' notice that there will be a meeting in the unorganized communities.
Mr Ritchie: That is correct.
Mr Bisson: We put that in the papers, which is fine. Then we have that meeting, and what's divulged or what's talked about at that meeting is not the final plan, because you may not have the final plan of what your ASB would look like, but what the concept is.
Mr Ritchie: Well --
Mr Bisson: I'm wrong? Clarify, if I am. I want to know at what point this happens. Does it happen after all the decisions have been made by the other communities or does it happen at the same time? That's what I'm getting at here.
Mr Ritchie: It's part of the decision-making process. They're voting on a draft proposal and they're either indicating support or non-support. If there is support, presumably the proposal goes in to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.
Mr Bisson: Here's my concern --
The Chair: Excuse me, if we may direct, for the recording people, through the Chair. Mr Bisson, you're responding to Mr Ritchie.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Chair. Through the Chair to the legal counsel: I think we're going in the right direction here. I just want to be clear on one point. I heard you say that what the unorganized community would be presented with at that meeting, once they've got their 14 days' notice, would be the proposal. I guess my problem is that I'm trying to figure out, how does that make them part of the process? They're sort of consulted after.
Mr Ritchie: Oh, no, not at all. They are definitely involved in the process of putting the proposal together. There would be municipal representatives and there would be representatives from the unorganized working as well with provincial staff to put together a draft proposal. Then the proposal would be considered by the inhabitants of the unorganized and the councillors in the municipalities.
Mr Bisson: The person who chooses the representative from the unorganized community at this stage is going to be the province, right?
Mr Ritchie: No, the community would choose their own representatives.
Mr Bisson: That's right too, OK. So you're assuring me then that in the end the unorganized communities will have notice of what's happening before a decision is made. They will have one rep as part of the overall committee that will look at this and then their plan would be brought back to the unorganized community residents, who would get 14 days of notice by way of a paper etc. Then they would have a vote like any other community.
Mr Ritchie: That is essentially correct. There doesn't have to be one representative. There might be any number of representatives involved in putting the proposal together.
Mr Bisson: So it would be inconceivable that a community like Ste Thérèse or Jogues or others which will be affected in our part of the province would not be represented if we were going towards an ASB. Let me put the question more directly. If an unorganized community is not consulted, they don't have a representative on the ASB committee that's looking at this, and there is no public meeting hosted etc, then this thing can't go ahead. Am I correct in understanding that?
Mr Ritchie: That's correct.
The Chair: If that solves most of your concerns with respect to notice --
1550
Mr Bisson: I have one other question, Chair. This is helpful; it's putting on the record. I want the Chair and members of the committee to understand that I'm not trying to be combative in raising these questions. We're going to have to deal with this as of January and, like it or like it not, I'm the guy everybody will come to and want to deal with to find out what their rights are. People are already asking us questions, as the parliamentary assistant knows quite well. There are a lot of people on both sides of this issue. Some people love it and want to see this legislation go through, other people are quite concerned. I want to make sure that I don't have improper information. I don't want to give improper information to my constituents, so I want to make sure we're clear about how the legislation works and how the regulations work.
One last question on this section. What would happen in the Timmins area, in the Cochrane district -- on the double-majority issue, now; not so much the unorganized issue but the municipalities themselves. Timmins represents a little better than 50% of the Cochrane district; over 50% of the population of the Cochrane district is from Timmins. We agree on that. What would happen if the city of Timmins were to say -- and we'll just make up a hypothetical number; eight communities outside the city of Timmins, for a total of nine; a couple of unorganized brings it up to about 11. The city of Timmins says, "We're the majority." Part of the double-majority process is done, but they don't have the majority of the other communities on Highway 11. It would stop, it wouldn't go anywhere. They couldn't do this on their own.
Mr Spina: Yes, that's right. They need the consent of the people outside their own territory. You can't expect Timmins to start calling the shot for the entire area, particularly with the numbers you describe.
Mr Bisson: Just so you understand why I want this on the record, there are some people within the city of Timmins who would want to control this process entirely.
Mr Spina: We know that.
Mr Bisson: I think you are aware of that and I want to make sure that the smaller communities outside Timmins are not feeling that they're going to somehow get railroaded into a process. This is not the view of the entire city council, but there are some people there.
Just for the record: If we go by way of an ASB, the city of Timmins has to have half of the population of the municipalities within the Cochrane district, which would be the new ASB, along with at least half of the municipalities on Highway 11 before anything can go forward. That would include when you're making -- OK, that answers my question.
Mr Spina: Yes, it's a simple double majority rule.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Chair. That answers my questions and at this point I would be prepared --
The Chair: Excuse me, the Chair recognizes Mr Brown. Have you a comment with respect to this amendment?
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I just want some clarification. We talked about residents of the unorganized townships being notified, is that correct? Is it the ratepayers or the residents? There's a difference.
Mr Spina: I'll have to bow to legal counsel on that one.
Mr Bisson: That's a good question.
The Chair: Mr Ritchie, with respect to those who would be notified: residents or ratepayers?
Mr Ritchie: We were proposing "residents," to be consistent with the Municipal Act.
Mr Michael Brown: So a ratepayer might very well not be notified of a public meeting if, for example, a ratepayer lives in a different part of the province.
Mr Spina: Or world.
Mr Michael Brown: Or world, yes. They would receive no notification whatever because they did not have the foresight to subscribe to the local newspaper.
Mr Spina: If they own property and there's a tenant, then I presume the tenant would probably get the notification. It's whatever is standard within the Municipal Act.
The Chair: Mr Brown, did you seek clarification on the specific notification process with legal counsel?
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, I was just trying to --
The Chair: Could you refer to the Municipal Act and the requirement of notice? Would this apply?
Mr Ritchie: As I understand, it's "resident." Therefore, under the scenario you just laid out, the person would not learn of the meeting. If they're not taking the newspapers and they're residing in Florida or wherever, they may well not learn of the meeting.
The Chair: Does that answer your question?
Mr Michael Brown: That's the first one. The second one is just for clarification. It involves the double majority.
Maybe I misunderstood, but you talked about it being possible for two municipalities and the unorganized territories -- does that mean each unorganized area? It's possible that this may include three, four or five unorganized areas. Are they lumped as one, with one vote, and the municipalities each have a separate vote, when you're looking for double majorities? Is that how it works?
The Chair: Mr Ritchie, do you care to clarify?
Mr Ritchie: Yes. As you realize, sir, we haven't written the regulation yet, so we're really talking about what's in the Municipal Act for municipal restructuring situations. The way it's written in the regulation under the Municipal Act, each municipality essentially has one vote. Then all the unorganized within the proposed area services board's area count as one municipality essentially, so they get one vote. It's not divided up.
For example, if the area services board is going to be the territorial district of Kenora, then all the people in the unorganized are lumped together, considered to be one municipality and have one vote, the equivalent of the town of Kenora. But there's also the population test under this double majority rule.
The Chair: Mr Brown, does that answer your question?
Mr Michael Brown: Yes.
Mr Bisson: I would ask the parliamentary assistant if there is a simple way to give ratepayers an opportunity to get notice. You know what's going to happen. I have that problem in my riding already. When Matheson decided they were going to annex parts of unorganized communities in their area under previous legislation by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, some people contacted me after the fact and said, "I never got noticed etc."
Is there a simple way you can think of, either yourself or members of this committee or legal counsel, to give notice to people who are ratepayers, who don't live in the riding and wouldn't see the notices in the papers?
Mr Spina: I will take under advisement to ensure that perhaps there's some reference to that in the regulations, as long as it complies with the Municipal Act.
Mr Bisson: May I then ask the parliamentary assistant what's in the Municipal Act?
Mr Spina: The lawyer just explained it.
Mr Bisson: It seems to be --
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, do you have something to add to this motion? We're going to call the vote after your comment.
Mr Hardeman: In clarification, my opposition to the motion is not based on the fact that I don't think anyone should not get notice for something that may happen to affect where they live. But I think it's very important to recognize in these types of situations that if you put in the legislation that every person must receive a letter, if at the end of the process it's put in place and someone comes forward and says, "They should have known I lived on West Street in Miami and I didn't get a letter," this puts in question what all the people of the area have decided to do.
I think it's very important that the regulation set out how the proponents of a proposal put forward their plan and how they must do their consultation to make sure they have the required support. As Mr Spina told us this morning, the act says they must prove that consultation process. They must prove to the satisfaction of the regulation and the minister that they have done proper consultation and that the appropriate people were notified and everyone was involved in the process in an appropriate way.
I think the regulatory authority is what's important, to make sure it's done properly without hamstringing the situation for the local residents so they would be unable to accomplish what they want done.
Mr Bisson: Chair, I don't mean to be combative with you, but you mentioned earlier that you were going to take one more comment and then go to the question. It's up to the committee to decide when we'll go to the question.
I just want to say that I respect what the parliamentary assistant has said. He is going to undertake to look in the regulations if we can deal with this issue. I think he understands what I'm getting at. Ratepayers don't want to find out after the fact that their taxes have gone up, down or whatever the case may be -- I think more than likely up -- at the end of this legislation. Seeing that there's some willingness on the part of the parliamentary assistant to deal with this in a proactive way, I will withdraw our amendment.
1600
The Chair: We're withdrawing the motion on 37(1.1) and (1.2).
I have another motion on section 38.
Mr Bisson: I move that clause 38(1)(e) of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "if those services have been requested in the proposal."
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Mr Bisson: I think it's fairly simple. Under section 38 we're dealing with the powers of the minister to make the order. In other words, once we've gone through the approval process and gone through the decision locally of forming an ASB, we make a plan. We decide what services we want to deliver with our ASB, we decide the geographical boundaries and all those questions and we send it off to the minister.
This section says that upon receiving a proposal that meets the requirements of section 37 that we talked about earlier, the minister may, by order, establish the board, establish the boundaries of the board, and it goes on and on. But in clause (e) it says, "designate the additional services under subsection 41(2) that the board shall provide."
If you read 41(2), we're giving the minister the ability to pass on services that may not have been asked for by the people forming the area services board. Our position is that if this is enabling legislation, let the municipalities decide what they want in their ASB, and don't give the minister the power to download whatever they might want. I ask that the parliamentary assistant see this as a friendly amendment making sure this truly enables the municipality to decide. That's why we want clarification.
Mr Spina: I think it is a reasonable amendment, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. The reason I say that is that if you refer to the government amendment which puts a restriction -- it says: "An order shall not require the provision of any service mentioned in subsection (2) unless a proposal requesting its inclusion in an order has been made."
Mr Bisson: That's which amendment, so I can read it?
Mr Spina: It's the fourth government amendment.
Mr Bisson: Please explain it again.
Mr Spina: It's subsection 41(2.1) of the Local Services Board Act. At the bottom it says, "An order shall not require the provision of any service mentioned in subsection (2) unless a proposal requesting its inclusion in an order has been made." If the request for a proposal has been made in there, it will be included.
Mr Bisson: Can you give me two minutes just to read it, Chair? I want to make sure. It looks like we're going in the right direction.
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Bisson: So this would replace clause (e). We would insert this as a new --
Mr Spina: It would be part of 41(2.1).
The Chair: If you look at the government amendment to section 10 of the bill, subsection 41(2.1), it's covered in that.
Mr Bisson: Again, I want the Chair to know this is not to slow the committee down, but give me a few minutes just to make sure. Maybe the Liberal caucus has a question. I just want to make sure it does what I think it does.
Mr Michael Brown: Just to clarify our position, we favour the government amendment. It appears to do what all of us believe this section needs to do and makes sure the proposal does have to come from the local level before the province moves.
Mr Spina: I want to point out to the member for Cochrane South that it's also very close to his other amendment, number 8.
Mr Bisson: That's what I'm looking at.
The Chair: Any other comments on this while Mr Bisson is looking over his --
Mr Bisson: I do have a question. Just to make sure I understand your amendment, which we'll get to later, in section 41, where we're prescribing in the legislation what services the ASB will get, it says, "Here are the six services you're getting if you want an ASB," and those are the six core services, right?
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: Under this one you're saying, "An order shall not require the provision of any service mentioned in subsection (2)," and those are the additional ones that come later, "unless a proposal requesting its inclusion in an order has been made." That would bring us back to 38, would it not? Isn't that what the second part would do? "Unless a proposal requesting its inclusion in an order has been made," brings us back to 38 and basically says that the minister can't add further services in the proposal.
Mr Spina: Unless they're being included for the options, which is subsection (2).
Mr Bisson: If you answer positively to this, I think I'll be satisfied. What I'm getting at is this: We know we're going to form an ASB. We go through the process, we've all agreed, we get these six core services -- child care, assistance under Ontario Works etc -- we bring that to the minister, the minister approves it. As the legislation is written now, with no amendments, the minister can add additional services that are found in 41(2). What you're proposing by way of this amendment would prevent the minister from adding those other services under subsection (2) to the proposal unless the area services board committee were to ask for them.
Mr Spina: Which is exactly, if you look at your amendment 8, the same as yours, word for word. We think the substance of your third amendment is covered by those. If you want us to accept your amendment 8, we can drop our fourth at the appropriate time. If you want to withdraw this one, we can get into it later.
Mr Bisson: I think we're going to be all right, but I just want to make sure, because I keep coming back to 38. Actually I got the answer from one of the staffers, who said yes, but I guess I need it from the parliamentary assistant before I start. I know you were trying to be helpful.
The question I had was -- and again I put it on the record -- we go to the minister asking to form an area services board with the six services under subsection 41(1). If the minister goes with the amendment you propose, which is the same as our amendment, the minister would not be able to download any of the other services found in the second part of section 41.
Mr Spina: Unless requested by the board or the proposed board.
Mr Bisson: OK. I have to have one clarification and I think we're fine. Why, then, would we still have clause 38(1)(e)? Section 38(1)(e) says, "Upon receiving a proposal that meets the requirements of section 37, the minister may by order...designate the additional services under subsection 41(2) that the board shall provide." Why do we still need that?
Mr Spina: Because once the board has made the proposal to the minister, this empowers the minister to designate it as so -- and counsel might want to clarify this for me.
Mr Bisson: So you're saying he or she needs this or that. In the event that the municipalities say, "We want economic development in our ASB," he or she would not have the power to include it in the plan.
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: So it's not meant to pre-empt the other way around.
Mr Ritchie: Subsection 41(2) is not pre-emptive.
Mr Bisson: Could I have legislative counsel put that on the record clearly? This is a major contention with us in this bill, and I want to make sure we're clear. If we leave 38(1)(e) the way it is and we accept either our amendment to section 41 or the government's amendment, it would mean that the only way you can ever get the other services found in 41(2) passed on to you in an ASB would be if the municipality or the ASB were to ask for it.
1610
Mr Ritchie: First of all, I'd better say I'm the ministry counsel. Legislative counsel is at the other end.
Mr Bisson: I am sorry, my mistake. I was probably promoting you, more than likely.
Mr Ritchie: Thank you. I appreciate it. The answer to your question is yes. Both you and, I believe, Mr Spina have said exactly the same thing. Section 38 is a listing of the contents of an order and, as Mr Spina said, it empowers the minister to put these things in an order.
Section 41 is getting down to the nitty-gritty and dealing with the specific services that we're talking about. The effect of the section 41 amendment is to prevent the minister from adding any of the additional services listed in subsection 41(2) unless there is a local request. The minister is prohibited from putting in a service that isn't requested.
I guess that's the intent of the amendment before the committee right now under section 38. Our preference is to do it through section 41.
Mr Bisson: With that, I want to say just two things and we'll be moving on. I want to say to the government members, it's a hell of a lot easier working this way than what we've normally experienced through committees. At least we're working in the same direction. I will put it on the record, the government is paying some attention to the concerns that were raised at the committee level when people came forward. I'll put that on the record. That was a major issue, so there's a fairly significant move here on that particular section if it does what it wants.
Again, for the record, I will withdraw our amendment on the basis that we understand from what we've been told by the parliamentary assistant and the ministry counsel -- I was going to say legislative counsel -- that in the end the amendment we're bringing forward later, which is the same as the government's under section 41, would prevent the minister from downloading services on to the ASB that are found in subsection 41(2).
The Chair: We'll move on to the next amendment, which is an NDP amendment to subsection 38(2.1).
Mr Bisson: I will just read it and I'll figure out where I am at in a second. I move that section 38 of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Limitation
"(2.1) Where a service delivery agency is providing a planning service in an unorganized territory in a proposed board area at the time the proposal for the establishment of a board is made, funding shall be provided to the agency by the board after its establishment unless the board and the minister agree otherwise."
Again I would ask the parliamentary assistant for his views before we go any further because we might actually agree on this one.
Mr Spina: Part of the problem is, first of all, I'm not in favour of the amendment.
Mr Bisson: Oh, come on, Joe.
Mr Spina: We've been pretty good so far, come on. Part of the problem is, if a proposal comes forward, there is no way that we are going to commit the government to funding something in which we don't know what all is involved down the road. In terms of the context of this bill, I'm not sure it serves a useful purpose for the objectives of the bill. When an ASB wants to deal with an issue of this nature, when the proposal is submitted, if they feel that economic development is an issue they want to adopt as one of their services, then the request would be far more relevant in that environment and in that context than us actually putting it into the bill.
Mr Bisson: Can I make a request to the committee? This is meant as a friendly request. This particular motion came to me by way of another one of our caucus members dealing with concerns raised to him from constituents in his area who would be affected by this legislation. I would ask if we skip over this so I have a chance this week to talk to him and bring this particular section back. Maybe your explanation responds to this amendment, but I just want to talk to him first. Can we do that? I guess by unanimous consent we could.
The Chair: Yes, we would require unanimous consent to stand this down. I would put the question on standing this motion down until Mr Bisson can do some research. I'll call the question. All those in support? Anyone disagree? Agreed.
Mr Bisson: Thank you for the cooperation. Much appreciated.
The Chair: We won't be able to vote on section 10 until we've dealt with that. The next motion before us is on section 10, subsection 38(3), an NDP motion.
Mr Bisson: The next amendment is in keeping with what we talked about a little while ago.
I move that subsection 38(3) of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Amendment of order
"(3) The minister may amend an order at the board's request."
I would ask the parliamentary assistant to see if he views that as a friendly amendment.
Mr Spina: Give me a moment, please.
Mr Bisson: Just while he's reviewing it, maybe I can explain what we were trying to get at in this one. It's pretty simple. If you read 38(3), once they've received the order, "The minister may amend an order as the minister considers appropriate, at the board's request or in any other circumstances."
We're trying to hone that down a little bit by saying, "The minister may amend an order at the board's request." Just so you're clear, we're not trying to play silly bugger here. This is not about saying there's a fault with the proposal and the minister doesn't have the ability. We want the minister, if there's a fault with the proposal, to be able to redress that fault, but what we don't want are additional things added in, such as the representation on the board, the geographical boundaries etc.
Mr Spina: You've partly answered the question yourself, because part of the context of having that clause in there is that it gives the minister the ability to correct errors in an expeditious manner and he can also ensure that provincial standards for programs are maintained. That's really the context of why we want that in there, because just to say "at the board's request" would limit the flexibility of the minister to be able to this. That's the reason.
Mr Bisson: To the parliamentary assistant, if I were in your shoes I certainly would want not to put the minister in the position of not being able to amend an order if there was a problem. I don't have an argument with you on that one. Quite frankly, that wouldn't work. But I think you also understand what we're trying to get at here. One of the concerns we heard when we were on committee is that people were really nervous not all but certainly a number of people were nervous about the minister having power to amend the plan once the plan ends up on the table of the minister, way beyond what the plan may have encompassed.
Just to be clear, one of the big, contentious issues will be the geographical boundaries of the new ASBs. We may decide in our area that an ASB may not contain a certain part of the geography; for example, maybe they don't want Timmins in an ASB. It could be. If the local area services board is to be Highway 11, Matheson to Hearst, we don't want to be in a position where the minister says, "Well, it's not quite what we had in mind. We wanted to throw Timmins inside the ASB," and we end up in all of that thing. What we want to be able to do is, if the local municipalities on Highway 11 decide it makes sense to go the way of an ASB, they can determine what the geographical boundaries will be and make it work for them. If later they want to put Timmins in, that would be their business. That's sort of what we're getting at here.
Mr Spina: As I said earlier, the objective of this particular clause was not for the minister to be able to arbitrarily make decisions to change the context of the proposal, but rather to allow him or her the ability to ensure that standards are met with respect to the services. If something such as you describe came forward, I would suggest to you that the process of handling that would be to turn down the proposal, with some reasons behind it, and ask the appropriate parties then to readdress it, as opposed to the minister actually ordering it.
1620
Mr Bisson: The Chair has nodded to me affirmation of my being recognized. Thanks very much, Chair.
Let me ask you this question and let me get directly to the point and it might be easier. If the Cochrane district was to come to the minister and say, "We want to go by way of an ASB, it makes sense to us, but our ASB is only going to be from Matheson to Hearst or Calstock" or even Moosonee, let's say, excluding Timmins, would such a proposal be acceptable to the minister? You follow exactly where I'm going with this.
Mr Spina: I can't answer that, because you're giving me a geographic boundary and I have no idea what services beyond the mandatory services that they would choose to adopt as part of an ASB proposal. Furthermore, I have no idea at this point of the population breakdown. There's a whole number of other factors, Gilles, that I don't know about. So to ask me if that would be acceptable to the minister, I can't answer that question.
Mr Bisson: I don't know if this is fact or fiction, but what I'm hearing from people within our area who are involved at a municipal level and also, quite frankly, from some ministry people as this legislation was starting to come forward, was that the government was looking at creating, I think it was, 10 or 11 area services boards that would encompass those services that sort of crossed the northern part of our province.
There were geographical boundaries someone thought of that would have included, in our case, Timmins, Matheson to Hearst. You know and I know they're having problems now with the DSB, let alone getting into the ASB legislation, so that's why I'm asking the question. I can see in our area our local municipalities on the Highway 11 corridor saying, "We want to go by way of an ASB," and if they decide to do that, that's fine. But I don't want to be in the position where we end up with the city of Timmins versus the Highway 11 corridor and vice versa, because in that case everybody loses, including the provincial government.
I just want to make sure that we are not in a position that if the Highway 11 corridor says, "We're going to an ASB because that makes sense, but we're doing without Timmins," that is not going to be changed to encompass Timmins against their will.
Mr Spina: Let me put to rest the rumour that you indicated. There was never any intention by this government to say that we were looking for a specific number or types of ASBs. What was clear from the outset was how the DSSABs would be set up. Beyond that, I stick to the objective of the ASB, depending on who comes forward with a proposal, the kind of proposal.
There may be no ASBs created in Ontario for a period of three years, but that's fine. That means that a decision that's been made by the municipalities or it perhaps may have been turned down by the minister, ours or anybody else's, because it didn't meet the objectives of what an ASB should meet. On the other hand, if you ended up with 11 ASBs, that would mean presumably that the proposals were well founded and well structured as they were presented and the minister of the day saw fit to approve those 10 or 11 boards, but the numbers are strictly DSSABs, not ASBs.
Mr Bisson: That is helpful because that alleviates some of the fear. The point I want to make is this: If we're going to spend our time here as legislators putting in place this bill to give municipalities in northern Ontario the opportunity to get together and share some of the costs of mandated programs in this legislation, I would think that the provincial government wants people to do this. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, provided it is done in an enabling way and not by way of force, because certainly, as we said before, there have been all kinds of amalgamations in the past, way before this government ever came around, because there was enabling legislation that was created to make that happen.
The point I make is simply this: The reason I want to have clarified what happens when the plan comes to the table when it comes to the geographical boundaries is that I fully expect that this legislation will be used by the Cochrane district and it will be the Highway 11 corridor people, because for them it will be a way of fixing the problems they're having with the DSSABs.
Just for other members who may not be aware, in our area we're having now to go through the legislation that was set up by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in order to deal with the services mandated under the former act to create the ASBs. As of yesterday, it broke down in our area. They walked away from the table and the big argument was the geographical boundaries issue. Basically, geographical issues is really what it comes down to and it fell apart. So I fully expect that the ministry, through the legislation, now is going to come and impose whatever it is that they can impose under the legislation created by Minister Ecker. I think this legislation can go back and fix that.
That's my interest here. If in the end this legislation can go back and satisfy the people in the Highway 11 corridor and satisfy the people in the Timmins area to make sure we have a structure that works for both, hey, we've done our job and I think that's a good thing. I say to the parliamentary assistant, this amendment that we make may have to be rewritten in another way, but I just want to make sure we don't end up in a position where the minister says, "No matter, we're putting Timmins in whether you like it or not."
So I go back and I ask question in light of the statement I made: If the Cochrane district was to come forward from the Highway 11 corridor, excluding Timmins, to form an ASB, would the minister accept something in that general nature?
Mr Spina: For the same reasons that I gave earlier, I cannot put words and I cannot make decisions on behalf of the minister. Furthermore, you know that no one can make that commitment until the proposal is presented. We want to ensure that the minister has the flexibility to be able to ensure that provincial standards are in place. That's the reason the clause is there and that's the reason I'm not in favour of your amendment.
Mr Bisson: I agree with half of what you've said and that's where the problem is. I agree totally with your logic: The minister has the power to make sure that this follows provincial policies that are affected by other legislation and other statutes and regulations. I wonder if we can take a minute to take a look at this. Is there some way of being able to rewrite subsection 3 so we're clear about what we're trying to do?
I hear what the parliamentary assistant is saying. He's saying we can't handcuff the minister. We don't want to do that. So if that's what we're both agreeing on, is there some way that we can amend subsection 3 to make sure that the minister can amend a plan that is not in keeping with other provincial statutes or policies of the provincial government? The only two ways that you can amend the plan was if the plan was not in keeping with provincial policies or other statutes or that the request for change would have to come from the municipalities.
The Chair: Any advice from the parliamentary assistant on this request?
Mr Spina: I think the concerns of the member are covered off in the amendment that he and we both propose which are, word for word, identical in subsection 41(2.1) where the minister cannot impose anything.
Mr Bisson: As far as additional services.
Mr Spina: As far as additional services. I suggest to you that there are other elements in that clause that may cover this off.
Mr Bisson: I'm satisfied that we're going to deal with the issue of the additional services. It appears to me that the indication by the parliamentary assistant was either our amendment, the NDP amendment, would be accepted or you would take your own. Either way, we end up in the same place. What I come back to is the issue of the geography. This is going to make or break the ability to create ASBs. You know it. The parliamentary assistant and the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs as well have travelled through this committee, as well as other Conservative members, and they heard what people said. I think you guys can come out of this in a fairly positive way if people really do get a sense it's local buy-in that drives this legislation. I hear this is where this is going. I'm encouraged, this is good, but this is going to be one of the stumbling points.
What's going to end up happening and what I fear is, if people get a sense that the minister can change the order to change the geographical makeup of the ASB -- I can understand if it was unreasonable, like if the ASB was only two communities. But why would you do it that way? You'd just amalgamate the two communities. It wouldn't make sense to go that way. But if people come together and say, "We want to create a Highway 11 corridor ASB," I don't want the minister put in the position of having the power to be able to say, "No, we're going to change the geographical boundaries and include Timmins." That may not be appropriate at the beginning. I'm looking for some support, I'm looking for some confirmation that is not where the government wants to go, or at the very least, something on the record that says, "We don't favour having big, huge ASBs that would include the city of Timmins at the very beginning."
1630
Mr Spina: As I said earlier, geography is only one component of the proposal. By restricting even the amendment and amending your amendment to say "geography," you again are consistently going to be tying the hands of the minister to specifically look at that issue. We have to leave it open enough, for the sake of all the communities of northern Ontario, that the flexibility will be there to look at geography as one component, population distribution and disparity, if you will, in another way, and also the makeup of that population.
Mr Bisson: I feel as though I'm fighting a real uphill battle here. Let me try it this way; maybe there's another way around it. My question is to counsel for the ministry if that's at all possible, if the parliamentary assistant feels comfortable with the following question. The way this section that we're debating works, this is where we give the minister the ability to amend the plan so that technically the minister could say, "I don't like the structure of your board. It's too weighted to the smaller communities," or "It's too weighted to the bigger communities," and the minister could amend the geography, the minister could amend a whole bunch of issues about the structure of the actual ASB. Am I correct? This is where the minister gets that power?
Mr Ritchie: The way the provision is worded, I guess the minister could use his authority to resolve any problem with an order. There is no restriction as it's currently written. It's not written to refer to geographic questions or any other particular aspect of a board or how it operates. The same of course is true with the original order. There is a certain amount of discretion that exists when the minister makes the original order, and the same amount of discretion would apply on an amendment.
Mr Bisson: Let's try this way: Is the parliamentary assistant, either municipal affairs or northern development, prepared to say that if a plan came forward that was reasonable -- and I would consider a plan that says a Highway 11 corridor ASB would be a reasonable one. You can't give a commitment because you're not the minister, but can you give some sort of assurance that there would at least be a chance that that ASB would actually be able to get off the ground without having to include the city of Timmins?
Mr Spina: In one context of your question, if the request was reasonable, and I stress that, then I could see the minister agreeing to it. Whether the request as you describe it geographically is reasonable, the same answer to the same question.
Mr Bisson: The parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs looks as if he's either got an itch or he wants to respond.
The Chair: Any further comments? Mr Bisson, I think we've hit a bit of a stalemate. The responses are pretty much the same from Mr Spina.
Mr Bisson: I was going to bring another factor into it. The parliamentary assistant wanted to comment.
Mr Hardeman: One can resist only so long in making a comment. I think it's very important, as the parliamentary assistant suggested, that we make sure we understand the inability on behalf of someone else to interpret the words "a reasonable request." It may very well be reasonable to the member opposite; it may not be reasonable when you look at it in the context of the title of the bill. The purpose of this bill is, with the unique circumstances in the north, to allow increased efficiency and accountability for area-wide services. I think it's important that as they prepare their proposals for an ASB they consider the area-wide delivery of services, and we are looking at an efficient way of having those delivered. Without seeing proposals, I don't think anyone in this room, including the members opposite, could make a judgment of whether a proposal might or might not be reasonable under the circumstances.
Mr Bisson: Can I ask another question related to the same amendment? Under section 41, there are six core services that would be part of a new ASB. I guess the question is, because I don't have the legislation with the DSSAB in front of me, are these the same services that are mandated through the DSSABs?
Mr Spina: No. Only three are under DSSAB.
Mr Bisson: Which ones are they again?
Mr Spina: Ontario Works, child care and social housing are the only three under the DSSABs. The other three are the ones that would be picked up in the creation of an ASB.
Mr Bisson: I was going to say that if it's the same six then maybe it's a moot point, but it's not.
Mr Spina: No, it's not.
Mr Bisson: That's my problem here.
Mr Spina: It goes from three to six.
Mr Bisson: So that the members on the government side understand where I'm coming from, public health services, for example, right now are going to be under -- wait a second, I've got to think this through. Never say something unless you know where you're going is what I've learned in this business.
Mr Hardeman: I thought it was never say something unless you know what you're talking about.
Mr Bisson: Never say something unless you know where you're going is my motto, and never ask a question unless you know the answer.
Here we go. I've got it straight now. My concern is this: Other than the geographical side, the problem we're into is that we know that under the DSSAB, one way or another, our area is more than likely going to have a solution imposed, because there doesn't seem to be a deal coming unless things change in the next little while. According to what I've just found out, child care, Ontario Works and social housing will be part of the DSSAB scenario. There's no way that our municipalities are ever going to go to an ASB, I would think, if they've been forced into a DSSAB, for a couple of reasons. One of them is that it would mean that they would have to undertake services they probably don't want to undertake, which they would already have the ability to deal with themselves.
For example, with land ambulance services, I expect what will happen in our area is that the city of Timmins will take over their land ambulance services and will manage that as best they can, although that is a problem, but all the other communities will probably do the same, and they may want a vehicle to be able to manage that jointly in some way. The problem they're into is that once they try to get that vehicle to jointly manage land ambulances, for example, they have to go by way of the ASB legislation, and if they go by way of the ASB legislation, if Timmins has been forced into the DSSAB through the other legislation, you're not going to get them coming back to get any more services.
If you allow municipalities to form their own ASB in, let's say, the Highway 11 corridor, there's going to be a buy-in. They're going to say: "We're able to solve the one problem and at the same time solve the other. We'll create the delivery vehicles that we need to manage these other services that we know are coming our way soon from the provincial government, such as ambulances, and solve our second problem, which is that we want to have our own autonomy, separate from Timmins, when it comes to being able to deliver those services." I think the ASB legislation can fix your problem, but there has to be an assurance that they have some flexibility when it comes to the geographical boundaries of the ASB.
That's why I'm hung up on this, because I, like you, Parliamentary Assistant, don't want to see our communities fighting with each other, and that's what's happening. The smaller communities are scared as heck. They're saying: "Timmins is going to get everything because they're the big regional centre. They'll get all the jobs, they'll get the best of everything and we're going to lose out on services and in clout when it comes to what happens under the DSSAB." You've got them fighting against each other, which I think is counterproductive, and I would think the parliamentary assistant sees it the same way as I do. If we can fix that problem, I think we're all the much better, so that's why I'm trying to see if there's any way that the legislative counsel or counsel for the minister or you yourself can suggest some way of rewording my amendment in a way that would be acceptable.
1640
Mr Spina: I don't know that we can fix your amendment. I do know that if there is a series of situations that we are trying to address in the municipalities, either in or out of an ASB, that's what we are willing to look at and I think the minister would be willing to look at under an ASB environment or not. You try to create legislation for the greater common good so that it has flexibility across all of northern Ontario. If we start to micromanage a detail each and every step of the way, I think each time what it does is restrict the ability of the locals to create their own proposal.
I understand your concern about the squabbling about the DSSAB and how the Ministry of Community and Social Services will come down and impose the structure that they see fit for the area. At that point, I think that for any one municipality or any one unorganized territory to start to cherry-pick one issue over another could be -- not necessarily but it could be -- counterproductive in terms of the whole process, perhaps even for that municipality.
"We want to experiment with land ambulances for a year and see how it goes." You end up with a whole bunch of problems and different situations all over the province, as I'm sure you can appreciate. What we are trying to do is create a kind of umbrella under which there is as much flexibility as we can give, but at the same time provide enough structure so that the municipalities and the unorganized territories have some guidelines under which they can work. That's really what we are trying to create here.
Mr Bisson: I wouldn't see it as cherry-picking. I really believe that there is probably a good opportunity here -- not a good opportunity. I really believe that there is the prospect here that municipalities will look at this legislation as a way of being able to deal with some of the problems that they're in. They can't cherry-pick because the legislation says, "Here are the six mandated services that you must take if you create an ASB." You can't cherry-pick which of those services it prescribes under the regulations.
I would imagine there will be prescriptions as to what the structures would look like to a certain extent. I just want to make sure we don't end up in a situation where these municipalities do all the work and then in the end the minister says, "No, I want bigger and better ASBs beyond what you're thinking of in scope." If we were to create an ASB between Timmins and, let's say, Matheson and Iroquois Falls, I can understand why the minister may not want to have that happen, but an ASB going from Matheson to Hearst would be one heck of a big ASB and would probably take in around 40,000 or 50,000 people. I can't see that as being unreasonable.
We know, for example, that some of the ASB areas that you're already now proposing up around the Sault Ste Marie area are no bigger than 40,000 people that they would cover. That's what this would do if they were to do an ASB within the Highway 11 corridor from Matheson up to Hearst or Calstock.
I ask the parliamentary assistant again, if our municipalities were to come forward and say, "Listen, we have a real problem with the DSB. We can invoke this decision by way of the legislation that Mrs Ecker has brought forward. We want to be able to sever that from the city of Timmins and arrange our own delivery mechanism," could they use the ASB legislation to say, "We're going to create an ASB from Calstock or Moosonee all the way down to Hearst or to Matheson"? That might in the end fix the problem for you, the government. It'll fix the problem certainly for both the city of Timmins and the Highway 11 corridor. Later on, they may decide to come back and make it bigger, that's up to them, but at least they can go into this knowing that there's a reasonable size, because Matheson to Moosonee you're talking 40,000 or 50,000 people. It seems to me that the size of the ASB would be large enough to make it efficient and it would make some sense from the perspective of the government as well.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, unless there are government member comments here -- any comments? Have we reached an impasse on this?
Mr Bisson: I take it I'm fighting a losing battle here. I guess what we're going to have to do is vote on this and the government will carry the day, but I want to put on the record that I think this is a missed opportunity. I really do. This particular section, if we'd be able to amend that clearly so that we can give some flexibility to the local municipalities to decide what the geographical boundaries are, I think would be a win-win for everybody. I really do.
I'm almost prepared to say that if you were to do that, along with a few other things that we've already decided on, I could give my support to this legislation quite easily. I want to make this work. I want you guys to understand this has nothing to do with trying to play obstruction to your legislation. This has to work for me. I'm the guy who's going to live with this legislation once we've passed it in this Legislature.
I say again to the members, if you're not happy with my amendment, I understand that. The parliamentary assistant did raise some points about how this may be a little bit too restrictive. I'm prepared to look at how we make it work for you and we make it work for the people of my area. I ask again, is there a way, Parliamentary Assistant, for legislative counsel to write this amendment in such a way that gives the minister the power to fix unwieldy proposals that don't make any sense but on the other hand doesn't give the minister the power to say, "We're going to make huge ASBs"? That's going to have everybody fighting each other.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I just would like to go back to section 36 in terms of the purposes of this part. It seems to me that the examples you've given would tend to negate the kinds of things that are suggested here. I'm thinking particularly of a process of service delivery in a timely and efficient manner. The comments you made at the very end would suggest to me that anyone coming forward with those kinds of proposals that didn't meet those goals, it would have a self-regulatory effect.
You've raised a number of examples of a speculative nature obviously. "What if...? It seems to me that in those situations they wouldn't meet those particular goals at the outset. That's where the whole process rests, on providing the kind of case that would build the kind of situation you desire.
Mr Bisson: I hear the argument that you make and I respect what you're saying, but I would not see an ASB from Matheson to Hearst as being against any of the purpose clauses. As I was saying to the parliamentary assistant, that's a large geographic chunk to fly. You're talking at least three hours of flying, so it's big enough. Population-wise, it's got 40,000 to 50,000 people in it and about eight municipalities. I haven't counted it all up in my head real quick. It would be in keeping with the purpose clause.
I go back and I say we're going to get in a problem around the larger geographic centres, not only in my area. You're going to have the same thing, I bet you, around some places in northwestern Ontario etc.
Can I ask a question? How did you finally deal with the DSB situation around Sault Ste Marie? I understand that you allowed the DSB to be separated from Sault Ste Marie in some way. Am I incorrect in assuming that? That might solve the problem.
Mr Spina: I stand to be corrected, but I think the Soo is on its own and has retained the rights for social services as they had before. I believe that was the case. Algoma district is separated. I think that's the way it was resolved, but as I said, I stand to be corrected because I haven't been that close to that particular one.
Mr Bisson: When I see that happening up in the Sault Ste Marie area, that makes ultimate sense to me because of the same problems that we're facing in our area. On the one hand we know that the government has already favoured such a structure, because we've done it in the Soo as I understand, allowed the Soo to hold its own structure when it comes to welfare etc, and the Algoma area is going their own way under DSSAB. I don't understand why we wouldn't want to do that in our area, and I certainly hope the government is not going to impose the DSSAB model on a larger geographical area than what is already there. I just think it's a recipe for disaster.
Mr Spina: I can't answer that.
1650
The Chair: We have a full debate, and I'm sure staff and others have heard that.
Mr Bisson: Can I have a confirmation just before we move on?
The Chair: Through the Chair to legal staff?
Mr Bisson: Through the Chair to staff that's here: In the DSSABs that are being set up now, are we correct in understanding that Sault Ste Marie is standing alone, separate from the rest of Algoma district?
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: I am correct in understanding that.
The Chair: Members of staff, if you would like to attend at the table so we can put it on the record. Otherwise, it will not be recorded as a response.
Mr Aime Dimatteo: My name is Aime Dimatteo. I'm a staff member with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
Mr Bisson: And a very good one too. I remember well.
Mr Dimatteo: Thank you, Mr Bisson. In response to the question, sir, the DSSAB that has been set up in the Sault Ste Marie area in fact represents the city of Sault Ste Marie, the township of Prince and 26 other unorganized townships surrounding the city of Sault Ste Marie, better known as and including the Sault planning board area, so it has resulted in an amalgamation of a lot of unorganized area with the city. They have expanded the provision of the city services to include all of that area. The rest of the Algoma municipalities and unorganized communities have also come together to form a DSSAB for the rest of the Algoma district.
Mr Bisson: My follow-up question to Mr Dimatteo is, the population base of the people in the Algoma district under the DSSAB would be, ball park, how many?
Mr Dimatteo: Unfortunately, I don't recall the population number in both areas that were formed in the Algoma district.
Mr Bisson: This might be very helpful. Actually, I'm glad we went this way, because this might solve part of my problem. In the DSSAB that is being created -- it's actually not a DSSAB that Sault Ste Marie is creating, is it? It is actually a DSSAB? The one they are creating, all those unorganized communities, are they geographically very close and linked to the community or spread far and apart?
Mr Dimatteo: The Sault Ste Marie and Area DSSAB communities are all adjacent and surrounding the city of Sault Ste Marie, so do have a fairly close geographic relationship.
Mr Bisson: That being the case, is there any chance in heck -- I won't say what I was going to say -- that with the DSSAB proposal, or eventually the ASB that we'll end up with if we go that way, a similar model could be reached in our area between the city of Timmins and those people just around it and the Cochrane district?
Mr Dimatteo: I don't think I can answer that question. As Mr Spina has indicated, that would be prejudicing an application in the future.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Mr Chair, on a point of order: I can appreciate the member opposite and his concern about getting a lot of the factual information straight, but I'm a little bit concerned that some of the comments that are being made are really beyond this bill. They don't pertain to the bill. I don't know what --
The Chair: The Chair recognizes that there has been extended discussion, but I believe that Mr Bisson has being rather forthright in trying to resolve his understanding of how a specific area could be dealt with and whether this legislation is permissive in respect to addressing --
Mr Froese: I understand that, but all his questions that come up have been answered, and he goes back to it, and it has to do with the permissive legislation. If he can make his comments and his concerns noted, I'm also making my comments and concerns noted that this is being prolonged unnecessarily.
The Chair: You are duly noted.
Mr Bisson, if you might conclude your remarks.
Mr Bisson: I'm just about to conclude, and it will take about a minute and a half. I just want members to understand, I am not trying to prolong this debate by any stretch of the imagination. We're setting up in our area DSSABs, which are sort of the precursors to what eventually will be ASBs, and we need to be clear about how all of this is going to work. In the end, if this were being done in the neck of the woods where you live, you would want to understand how the legislation works and make sure the concerns that have been brought to you by your municipal aldermen and taxpayers were addressed. That's all I'm doing here. I'm not trying to be combative. If I was combative, as you know, I'm perfectly capable of coming into the committee and kicking up a storm, and that's not what I'm doing here.
In the spirit of trying to move on here, I have put my concerns on the record. I'm going to put my faith, although it's a bit shaky, in the hands of the minister and hope when a proposal comes forward by the Cochrane district that says our ASB is Matheson to Hearst or Moosonee included, that he or she will smile on that proposal and it will solve the problem we're going to have with our DSSAB.
The Chair: Those being the comments, I'll ask the question. All those in support of this particular amendment?
Mr Bisson: A recorded vote.
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Before you put the question, I would appreciate knowing what it is. It has been some time now since the actual resolution was put. I would like to know what resolution we are presently voting on.
The Chair: I would ask each of you to have before you the amendment that we are voting on. It deals with section 10 of the bill, subsection 38(3) of the Local Services Board Act, an amendment to that subsection (3). Is everybody familiar with that?
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much.
Ayes
Bisson, Sergio.
Nays
Danford, Froese, Hardeman, Munro, Spina.
The Chair: That concludes the discussion on that particular amendment. We have another amendment by the NDP on section 10, subsections 40(7) and (8).
Mr Bisson: We're either going to agree or disagree on this particular one, but here we go.
I move that subsections 40(7) and (8) of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be struck out.
I will give an explanation if the Chair wishes. It's fairly clear what we're getting at here. You're introducing in this legislation, as you have done previously in other legislation, that meetings of the ASBs could be held by videoconferencing or teleconferencing. That is quite frankly not, in my view, a very good process, and I would want to see it taken out of this legislation.
The Chair: Mr Bisson has moved that (7) and (8), dealing with the conducting of meetings and availability of minutes, be struck out. Any other comments? I'll call the vote.
Mr Bisson: I want to know what the parliamentary assistant's views are on this amendment.
Mr Spina: I'm still trying to understand why you want it struck out, because the intent of that particular clause is to ensure that people, without travelling great distances, would at least have the opportunity to have some input. I fully respect the fact that in some areas you're not going to be able to have teleconference or videoconference services, but it does allow other means of distance communication. It's to ensure that people in distant geographic areas have the opportunity to have input.
Mr Bisson: There are (7) and (8), two different things here, that we're striking out. When it comes to (7), I bring this at the request of people who are sitting on our school boards up in our area, because they have the ability under previously passed legislation to do exactly that. For example, the school board Northeast number 1 is huge. I won't even go through the geographical boundaries, and they have the ability to do this. There has been a bit of a kerfuffle with some of the trustees around this, because some would rather do it by long-distance teleconferencing, and it's not a practical way of doing things. You can't hear half the time, you don't know if the person is really at the other end of the phone, and some of the members have been pushing to have their board meetings actually happen when they're all around the table. Up to now, knock on wood, they have been successful. I'm just trying to bring this forward as a result of a request or a concern that was raised to me by the school board people. They're finding that provision not very practical. That's (7), and then I have a separate issue with (8). Does that explain why we're doing (7)?
Mr Spina: I can understand that, but the purpose of (7) is not that you must. It says it is acceptable if it's done that way.
1700
Mr Bisson: I hear you. I'm trying to bring to the government the concerns that were brought to me by school board officials.
Mr Spina: Does that mean you'll remove subsection (7) from your amendment?
Mr Bisson: I might, depending on what happens here. As long as we are clear that the government is not intending that the process of teleconferencing or videoconferencing be foisted on the ASB members.
Mr Spina: It's permissive.
Mr Bisson: It's permissive, so the answer is no, it will not be foisted?
Mr Spina: That's right.
Mr Bisson: Thank you.
Mr Spina: "May" be conducted is the key word.
Mr Bisson: So half of the amendment we can live with so far. I can live with (7) as long as it's permissive. Again, I want you to know, when I read this amendment and I put it forward, I well knew we would end up at this point, but I did promise a particular school trustee that I would raise this issue and make sure that you heard that they don't like that process. They really find it doesn't work. The story he gives me, they did it the one time and it was, like, half of the people walked out of the room. What they did at one point, there are three councillors in Timmins and two of them were there and they decided just to walk out of the room to see what would happen, and none was the wiser. So you follow what I'm getting at. It's not a very good way of doing public business.
The second one, the other issue, currently under (8), "If it is not practicable to open a meeting conducted by distance communication under subsection (7)...." We know what you're trying to do there. You're saying, if you can do it, allow other people to link in so they can hear what's going on; if that's not practical because of cost or whatever, they would provide minutes of the meeting to people.
When I read that it says "...that would otherwise be open to the public, the public shall be given access to the minutes of the meeting" -- why did we put that in? I withdraw that one too.
Mr Hardeman: I would hope so.
Mr Bisson: It goes to show. Somebody brought that forward and I don't know why we would want that out. Give me a second.
Interjections.
The Chair: Through the Chair. Mr Hardeman, please, we just want to keep it moving. Mr Sergio, you had your hand up earlier.
Mr Sergio: By striking out (7) and (8), I was going to ask the question what we would put in their place. If I read (7) it's very clear. But in (8) it says, "distance communication under subsection (7) that would otherwise be open to the public," so I would assume that (7) does not preclude open meetings, as they are called, attended in person. It has always been my and the Liberal intent to give people the possibility to access meetings in any particular way. I'm not too familiar with the northern north, north of Barrie, I would say, and I'm a bit at a loss about that. But I believe we should give the people in the north every possible way to attend meetings either via teleconferencing or by a meeting in person or submissions in writing.
Therefore I would say (8) answers a little bit of, if you will, the timidity that I had with (7), because (7) does not say "other than regular board meetings" and (8) does say "that would otherwise be open to the public." So I would assume that (7) does not eliminate meetings that are attended inviting -- they are open to the public other than by videoconference or other means of distance communication.
Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could clarify. I would hope that the intent of (7) and (8) is an adjunct to regular meetings that are regularly held in the open.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, just from your comments, after the enabling "may" in (8), do you still want to move forward with this amendment?
Mr Bisson: I want to be really helpful in this one and be very clear. If Mr Sergio is done, I will try to clarify --
Mr Sergio: Yes.
Mr Bisson: You are? OK. The second part of it, the striking of (8) was something that came from one of our other members. I take it this must be an error because I can't see us wanting to get rid of that particular section. I want to put on the record that we in the New Democratic Party are not going to advocate that position. Second, once we realize an error has been made, we want to fix it and apologize for bringing that forward.
In order to speed this up, I move that we're going to withdraw our amendment, as the government is telling us under (7) that the meetings will be permissive when it comes to teleconferencing and videoconferencing. So we'll withdraw that amendment.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Withdrawn.
Mr Bisson: Can we still speak to that general section, 40? We still can, right? There was one other little matter I wanted to raise. I'm just going to put in my notes here, that amendment is withdrawn, then I want to go back to 40(6) because I want to clarify something that I didn't catch earlier. It reads:
"(6) All meetings of the board shall be open to the public unless the board is of the opinion that the subject matter being considered is a financial, personal, security or other matter which would not be disclosed in the interests of any person affected or in the public interest."
I want to make sure that's consistent with the Municipal Act.
Mr Sergio: Madam Chair, didn't (6) carry already? Did you vote on that?
Mr Bisson: No. We're still on that section generally.
To the parliamentary assistant, if you read 40(6), I just want to make sure that language is consistent with how municipal councils operate.
Mr Spina: And you're withdrawing it subject to that?
Mr Bisson: Yes. We've already withdrawn that other one.
Mr Spina: I'm just trying to understand where you're at.
Mr Bisson: I just want to make sure. I think the answer is yes, but I want it on the record.
Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure that I could unequivocally say that it is the exact wording of the Municipal Act, but the interpretation of it would be that in municipal terms, if it's legal or personal, that would be an in camera meeting, or the purchase of property or something that may at some point in time appear in a court of law, and I think this has the same thrust. There are no added features to it that they could go in camera for other persons.
Mr Bisson: Just so you understand why I raised that, last week I was talking to some school board trustees who were saying that under the old boards there was a practice of doing almost everything in camera and that incensed one particular trustee. I just wanted to make sure that it's not opening up that kind of thing. I saw Mr Dimatteo and I saw the counsel for the ministry sort of nod that it was in keeping with other ministry guidelines under municipal affairs, so that answers my question.
The Vice-Chair: We are ready to move on to the Liberal motion.
Mr Sergio: We are moving to section 10 of the bill, section 41 of the Local Services Boards Act.
I move that section 41 of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by striking out section 41(1)3 and adding the following clause:
"41(1)3(a) Public health services that meet all provisions of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, including the board assuming responsibilities as a board of health.
"(b) The initiation of the provision of public health services by a board shall not result in a disruption of services mandated by the Health Protection and Promotion Act, for any reason."
To comment briefly, just to clarify the section in itself, I think it does not impinge on any other part of the act or the clauses in here other than making clear the intent that it's included in the act. I think it deserves support.
The Vice-Chair: Comment?
Mr Bisson: I have a question, not a comment. I'm not sure I understand what that motion is attempting to drive at. As I read it, under 41(1), one of the mandated services, if we go by way of an ASB, is public health services under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. So public health, as we call the Porcupine Health Unit, would be part of an ASB. What I'm questioning is, under the motion brought forward by the Liberal Party, what exactly are you attempting here? I'm not following this one.
1710
Mr Sergio: That is ensuring the boards assume responsibilities as a board of health, which is not included in subsection 41(3).
Mr Bisson: Can you give me one moment? Can I ask for a two-minute recess just so I can read that, unless the parliamentary assistant can clarify it for me.
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to respond to that, Mr Spina?
Mr Spina: Yes, if I may. First of all, we have to keep in mind that the intent of the act is to create more efficient governance structures, not change program standards. I just want to reiterate that. This act does not intend to change the standards of any program the government delivers now. That's my preamble.
The minister, through the order that would establish an ASB, if and when an ASB was created, could deem the ASB to be a board of health for the purposes of the health act. Bill 12 specifically says the minister's order "shall not derogate from standards for the provision of services imposed under any act." The concern we have is that if an ASB was created in the way you described earlier hypothetically, if you have one existing health unit, you could end up with two health units -- and we don't want that -- that would not be able to deliver the same standard.
Mr Bisson: That doesn't jibe with what this amendment's about, but I never --
Mr Spina: The amendment's objective seems to indicate that if an ASB is created, a board of health will no longer exist.
Mr Bisson: That's what's being proposed?
Mr Spina: That's what's being proposed. That's what the Liberal amendment is about. It says, "Public health services that meet all provisions of the...act, including the board assuming responsibilities as a board of health." It does. It's designated by the minister.
Mr Bisson: Sorry, I didn't hear the last part.
Mr Spina: If they adopt public health services as part of an ASB, they do assume the responsibility of a board and the minister designates it as such, and must designate it as such in order to comply with the health act.
Mr Sergio: We amended the words "operating under the act."
Mr Bisson: To the critic from the Liberal Party, if you're attempting to do what I think you're attempting to do, I can actually support what you're trying to do here. That would be another way of solving my problem.
Mr Sergio: Let's vote.
Mr Bisson: I take it the amendment is not clearly understood by the member; it was brought by somebody else.
Mr Sergio: No, it was brought -- I'm not the critic, but that's not the reason. It's fairly clear. I think the parliamentary assistant has given a clear description of the intent of our amendment. I appreciate your support.
Mr Bisson: Is this the only chance we're going to have to deal with section 41?
Mr Spina: No, this is section 40, I think.
The Vice-Chair: No, it's 41.
Mr Bisson: I ask the question to the clerk, because I have some concerns. If we vote on this, can we still deal with the content of 41? I'm prepared to bring it to a vote if I can raise my concern after.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments?
All in favour of the Liberal amendment, raise your hands. Opposed? Motion defeated.
We'll move on to the next one.
Mr Bisson: Chair, before we move to the next one, which is 41(2), I have something in 41(1) that I want to deal with. It's not an amendment, but it comes back to a debate that we've had.
The Vice-Chair: Just a second. Mr Bisson, you wanted to make comments?
Mr Bisson: Yes, on subsection 41(1).
The Vice-Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Bisson: This is where the rubber is going to meet the road when it comes to my problem. As I understand it, we're going to form a DSSAB in Timmins and area, through the Cochrane district, probably imposed by the province because of what I explained earlier, that's going to say child care, Ontario Works and social housing will be services carried out under the DSSAB.
My problem is that now if we try to form an ASB, we're not going to be able to form a Highway 11 ASB because of what's in 41(3), very much because of what you raised a little while ago, parliamentary assistant, which is, we have a public health board in our area now that covers the entire Cochrane district. If I understood the parliamentary assistant, we're in a situation where if Cochrane Highway 11 people say, "We're going to form an ASB to take over those services we couldn't quite get right under the DSSAB," the minister would be in a position of being forced to change the geographical boundaries to include Timmins in order to include the Porcupine Health Unit. Am I correct in assuming this?
Mr Spina: If I may clarify, if you made that assumption, you might be correct. However, the ASBs have the flexibility, and in fact you and I both know it would be far more practical to leave the health unit intact. It does not preclude separate ASBs from sharing the services of a single health unit.
Mr Bisson: I thought in response to the question from the Liberal Party that you were saying you couldn't form an ASB that did exactly that. I thought that's what you were saying a little earlier.
Mr Spina: That's one of the dangers. If it was designated as such, the concern was that if you create an ASB -- I'll take northwestern Ontario as an example. You have a northwestern health unit that goes from Atikokan to Kenora and up to Red Lake and so forth, basically everything but Thunder Bay district. If you had two ASBs up there, the concern was that you now would split the one public health unit. We're saying that was a concern that was raised, that you now end up splitting a health unit. But on the other hand we're saying no, under an ASB you would have the flexibility to share one unit to deliver the services to the different boards -- or three boards, for that matter.
Mr Bisson: But as I understand section 41, those six services, which include public health, are core services that the ASB must deliver.
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: So you're saying that if, in our area, for whatever reason, you created an ASB that went from Matheson to Moosonee, and Timmins said, "We're remaining on our own," the Cochrane Highway 11 ASB would be able to do a sort of purchase of service to the Porcupine Health Unit to cover off that responsibility as required under section 41, and Timmins would do the same?
Mr Spina: Right now the Porcupine Health Unit has representatives from all those municipalities. It wouldn't change. The fundamental difference is that the area services board for the area outside of Timmins, for the sake of discussion here, would then assume the representation on that health unit.
Mr Bisson: It's really important for me to properly understand this. I think I don't understand it, the more I'm looking at this. I understood when I first read this legislation that the Porcupine Health Unit, if we went the way of an ASB, would cease to operate in its present form and would then reconstitute itself under the umbrella of an ASB. You're saying that's not the case.
Mr Spina: It is and it isn't. I'll clarify that. The current public health unit is under the direction of a medical officer of health. Each health unit is under a medical officer of health. The medical officer of health has a board of representatives which is appointed from all the communities that health unit covers. That would not change.
1720
What changes is that at this point, under the current structure, if you have eight municipalities that are paying their share into the public health unit, if five of those municipalities become part of an ASB, then the ASB would be the body responsible for paying its fair share for those municipalities to that health unit on behalf of those municipalities.
Mr Bisson: I want to try to put this in my own words because this is where the rubber meets the road on the other issue. You're telling me that in the end if we form a Highway 11 ASB --
Mr Spina: If you did, yes.
Mr Bisson: If we did, what would end up happening is that the ASB would have membership on the Porcupine Health Unit. Rather than all the individual municipalities, it would be the ASB that would decide who the representation was going to be to the Porcupine Health Unit. The ASB would then send over their portion of the costs to the Porcupine Health Unit.
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: The city of Timmins would keep on doing what it's doing now but the Porcupine Health Unit would basically remain the way it is. So in fact -- and this might be a good thing -- it means that if we go by way of the ASB after Christmas, they would not be precluded from forming a Highway 11 ASB on the grounds of the public health services, because of paragraph 3 under subsection 41(1).
Mr Spina: That's a technical argument. Hypothetically that could be the case.
Mr Bisson: What I understood earlier, and that's why my antenna went up, I thought what you were saying was that you were precluded from forming an ASB if your ASB in geographical terms did not encompass what used to be prior boards that were in place delivering services such as social housing or health units etc. So you'll be able to do an apportioned cost.
Mr Spina: The ASB has the capability of contracting or agreeing with any other bodies for the delivery of services.
Mr Bisson: So if this legislation is utilized in our area, this will not in the end do away with the Porcupine Health Unit.
Mr Spina: It should not.
Mr Bisson: Because either way, they would be able to have membership on the board and the health unit would do its thing. The ASB would basically play the role of all the municipalities, as they do now.
The second question is on the same thing. When it comes to social housing, in our area we have a bit of a unique situation. We have Timmins Housing that contracts services in the cities of Timmins, Moosonee and Chapleau-Foleyet, and we have the Cochrane group that do their own along Highway 11. So it's a bit of the same question: If they go the way of the ASB, do they have to reconstitute the Timmins Housing Authority and the Cochrane district housing authority in any kind of way?
Mr Spina: I don't say they have to. I think it all depends on how they choose to structure their proposal, but they have the flexibility to work with it as long as the province is assured that the level of service that's being delivered is consistent or better than we started with.
Mr Bisson: Technically what could happen is that if we put together an ASB proposal on Highway 11, again for the sake of argument, they could say, "We will, in the Moosonee area, continue purchasing services for social housing from the city of Timmins through Timmins Housing, and as for the rest of our area, we're going to use what we used to use before."
Mr Spina: If that's in the proposal and it's acceptable to the minister, then --
Mr Bisson: That's the point I'm getting at here. It's acceptable to --
Mr Spina: You know I can't answer that.
Mr Bisson: It comes back to the point that the Liberal caucus raised a little while ago. I want to make sure we don't end up in a situation where our municipalities say, "Hey, we can use Bill 12 to fix our DSSAB problems," and then are handcuffed because they have to get Timmins Housing reconstituted and Cochrane district housing reconstituted and the Porcupine Health Unit reconstituted in order to form their ASB. Do you follow where I'm coming from? I just want to make sure in the end, if they do form a Highway 11 ASB, that they can purchase services in some part from Timmins Housing and from the other part of the Cochrane district that is doing it now.
Mr Spina: Those powers are all within the act to the best of my knowledge.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, thank you. We'll move on to --
Mr Sergio: He spoke in support of the motion and then he voted against it.
The Vice-Chair: Yes. I have Mr Spina first.
Mr Bisson: He was voting? I didn't know what was going on.
Mr Spina: I believe we voted on -- you and I just had a discussion.
Mr Bisson: Just for the record, I saw the parliamentary assistant's hand go up and I thought he was voting on something.
The Vice-Chair: No. I was acknowledging him.
Mr Spina: I was trying to get the Chair's attention.
I'd like to move a deadline for receiving new amendments. I think all parties have had sufficient opportunity now to propose amendments. I just want to make a motion that the deadline for receiving new amendments be 6 pm tonight.
Mr Bisson: I agree.
Mr Spina: I seek unanimous consent on that. I'll make the motion.
The Vice-Chair: I think it is in the power of the Chair to make the decision on a deadline. Because the Chair is in the House right now, I think we'll defer on that decision until he comes back. We'll ask him to do that.
Mr Bisson: Can you tell us when the Chair is returning from the House?
The Vice-Chair: I understand momentarily. He's speaking now.
Mr Bisson: Oh, he's up on his feet.
The Vice-Chair: I think we want to move on to the NDP motion.
Mr Bisson: I believe we're dealing with section 10 of the bill, paragraph 9 of subsection 41(2) of the Local Services Board Act.
I move that subsection 41(2) of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by striking out paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9 refers to "Any other service designated by the minister."
I'll give you my rationale behind this. We may or may not have a problem here because of amendments we know are coming. The reason we put our amendment forward is that when we read originally how 41(2) works, these are the additional powers that the ASB can ask the minister to deliver as far as services. As the legislation was originally written, we understood that the minister can also foist these services on to the municipalities. If you read through it, it listed a whole bunch of services -- waste management, policing etc, but at the end it said "any other service designated by the minister." That seems pretty open to us. That's why we've put forward this particular amendment.
My question to the parliamentary assistant is, I take it we can actually strike out paragraph 9 without causing the government any problem because of the amendments that you and I have coming up which basically say the minister can't invoke any other services on to the municipality or the ASB in the first place.
Mr Spina: I believe we have to leave it in there, and it's for this reason: As we talked about earlier, when other services are being considered, it gives the minister the authority to designate it. That's the reason it's in there.
Mr Bisson: Run that by me again.
Mr Spina: If you go to the beginning of the paragraph, it says, "If required to do so by an order...." In other words, you're looking at that little number 9. Go back to (2).
Mr Bisson: Yes, I see what you're saying.
Mr Spina: "If required to do so by an order, a board shall provide or ensure the provision of one or more of the following services to the extent that a service delivery agency is required by law to provide them or ensure their provision." Then it lists all these other optional services and "any other service designated by the minister." When the services are applied for, if there are services beyond those eight optional, I'm sure something could be found. But if an ASB had a totally different service they wanted to deliver, then they could include that in their proposal. This empowers the minister to designate it as one of those optional services.
1730
Mr Bisson: It would remain, then, if we accept the amendment the government is going to put forward, or I'm going to put forward, because we have the same amendment.
Mr Spina: That's the check and balance. The other amendment that we agree on is the check and balance to this one.
Mr Bisson: That's just what I want to clarify for the record, that, in the end, if we adopt the amendment that both the government and the NDP have, it would limit the ability of the minister to pass on additional services other than the core services established in 41(1). I'm fine, because I think what you're saying is that 9 would then be enabling, in a sense.
Mr Spina: Yes.
Mr Bisson: I think we understand each other.
In that case, I'm going to withdraw our amendment.
The Vice-Chair: OK. We move on to the next motion.
Mr Bisson: I have an amendment here. I just want to get my page back.
The Vice-Chair: Just note here that it is identical to the government motion.
Mr Bisson: Yes, and I am about to move it.
Mr Spina: What I'm prepared to do, Madam Chair, is withdraw the government motion in favour of the NDP motion.
Mr Bisson: Oh, that's interesting. Let me order my papers and say thank you to the parliamentary assistant.
I move that section 41 of the Local Services Board Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Restriction
"(2.1) An order shall not require the provision of any service mentioned in subsection (2) unless a proposal requesting its inclusion in an order has been made."
For the record, I don't think we're going to debate this at any great length, because we've already gone through it. We understand this amendment to mean that the minister will not be able to add on any services that are listed in 41(2) unless the ASB requests them.
The second point I want to make, as I said earlier to the rest of the government committee, is that this was an issue that was raised, as you know, in committee. People were quite concerned about giving the minister those kinds of powers. We can now see that the government did indeed hear those concerns and came forward with an amendment identical to the one brought forward by the NDP. It shows me you listened on that one.
I want to say to the parliamentary assistant -- it's not often that you get a lot of praise from me, Joe. In this particular case, the parliamentary assistant could have chosen to say --
Mr Michael Brown: Same old gang.
Mr Bisson: I want to put this on the record, because I think, as parliamentarians, this is important. The government could have said: "To heck with you. We're going to vote down the NDP motion just to make it our motion in the end." In this particular case, the parliamentary assistant decided, "I'm going to try to be a fair kind of guy, and I'm going to allow the NDP motion to stand." I want to thank the parliamentary assistant, on the record, for being a good sport about all this and recognizing that we in opposition do have valid concerns, we bring them forward and we try to work legislation as best we can. So, my thanks to the government and the parliamentary assistant.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? Can we vote on this amendment?
All those in favour?
Mr Bisson: Can we record this one? Just for posterity.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Carried.
Mr Bisson: I called for a recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: You want a recorded vote?
Mr Bisson: Yes, for posterity. I'm going to pin that up on the wall.
Ayes
Bisson, Michael Brown, Danford, Froese, Hardeman, Spina.
Mr Bisson: Chair, if you wouldn't mind, I'm going to take this Hansard and post it to show that the government actually voted with me for a change. It's a good feeling.
Mr Hardeman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I want to point out that I did have great difficulty. As was mentioned, the government motion was identical to this, and I was quite prepared to vote for that, but I did have to strongly consider whether the same issue proposed by the opposition was still worthy of the vote. It was a difficult challenge, and I appreciate that I was able to support it.
Mr Bisson: That's very good, and I thank the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs for having supported it.
The Vice-Chair: Let's move on.
We're looking at a government motion.
Mr Bisson: Chair, just one quick thing.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Spina has the floor.
Mr Spina: This matter was raised during the committee hearings in the Soo.
The Vice-Chair: Are you going to read the motion, please.
Mr Spina: I move that section 41 of the Local Services Boards Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Agreement with other board
"(5.1) A board may enter into an agreement with another board for the provision of a required service by that board in the board area of the first board."
This matter was raised during the committee hearings in the Soo. The motion clarifies, and it was part of our discussion earlier with the member for Cochrane South, that an ASB can contract with another ASB for the delivery of any of its required services. We thought that was an important element, flexibility of the boards.
Mr Bisson: My only problem is that I can't find the amendment. If you can give me a moment. Sorry, I didn't get at the beginning what section it was.
The Vice-Chair: Section 10, subsection 41(5.1).
Mr Bisson: Why do I have (2.1) here? It's 5 on the top? Whatever happened to 4? That's why I'm confused here. Have we already dealt with what was 4, the government's 4?
The Chair: Yes. That's the one that was withdrawn.
Mr Bisson: If I had read it, I would understand.
Mr Froese: You're glorying in your victory.
Mr Bisson: Hey, listen, they're few and far between, my friend. Let me revel in that as long as I can.
Now we're looking at government number 5.
Mr Spina: "Agreement with other board."
Mr Bisson: To the parliamentary assistant, ASBs would be able to share services between them. Would that also include what we talked about earlier, which was the sharing of services with the health unit, the housing authority or whatever?
Mr Spina: They can contract with other ASBs for the delivery of any of the required services.
Mr Bisson: Including health units etc?
Mr Spina: Yes, all of the services that are accepted and deemed to be authority under the board.
Mr Bisson: I'm not going to hold this up very long. Just to properly understand, I come back to my hypothetical situation: forming an ASB on Highway 11. This in no way would hinder the formation of the ASB on Highway 11, excluding Timmins, because it would basically say that you can share services between the city of Timmins and the ASB if that's appropriate in this particular case or within another ASB or an agent such as the health unit?
Mr Spina: If all of the other elements of the proposal were acceptable to the minister, as was the context of that one, then I don't see where there would be a problem. It falls within the jurisdiction of this amendment. That's why we put it in.
Mr Bisson: I'm prepared to vote for it.
The Chair: In that case, I'll call the question. We're voting on subsection 41(5.1). All those in support? That's carried.
Mr Bisson: Just let the record show that we did vote with the government.
The Chair: We have another government motion.
Mr Bisson: Chair, may I ask for a small break? We're alone for caucus here, and I've really got to go for a walk, if you know what I mean. May we ask for a five-minute break?
The Chair: Yes, a five-minute break.
The committee recessed from 1739 to 1744.
The Chair: We will reconvene the meeting. At this point, we are going to wrap up because we are already scheduled. Mr Bisson had a prior motion, as members would know, to stand down one of the amendments. He wanted to consult with one of his peers and bring that back to the committee.
We are scheduled, as you know -- you've each been notified by the clerk's department -- for next Thursday. At that time, it would be the intention, looking at what progress we've made, to be complete and have the bill concluded next week.
I would entertain any discussion, Mr Bisson, if you wanted to, with respect to the tabling or filing of any other amendments, with no pressure intended, just to more or less administratively say -- Mr Bisson, do you see any of your caucus?
Mr Bisson: No. I thought the decision was already made, because I understood at the subcommittee that we were going to put a date for finalizing when the amendments would come forward. I thought that was actually the day we come back for clause-by-clause.
The Chair: Mr Brown, is that fine with your caucus?
Mr Michael Brown: Certainly we don't anticipate more amendments, but I would say that I have chaired a lot of committees around here and sometimes committees find amendments all by their little selves as they go through sections that nobody anticipated, and I wouldn't want to be precluding the committee from making an amendment. Amendments are always in order, but in good faith we have no intention at this moment of making any. But to say we won't is beyond --
The Chair: I agree, and I completely concur. With that in mind, if anyone has any formal motions with any remaining sections, make sure to expeditiously get them to the clerk, and they'll be circulated. But we'll try to aim and schedule towards completion of discussion. Any technical questions or other questions that you may want to bring to the attention --
Mr Bisson: Chair, just to clarify, you were on the subcommittee, weren't you? I thought we had made this decision. That's why I am a little bit confused here. I thought we had decided we would bring all the amendments forward the day the committee of the whole came back.
Mrs Munro: I thought so too, but I don't have my subcommittee report.
The Chair: I was just speaking with the clerk, and the clerk said there wasn't any formal resolution at that time. But if you would care to move that now, it clarifies it, given that it only takes unanimous consent for this committee to accept amendments. That would be a way to address your concern, Mr Brown.
Mr Michael Brown: On that point, I would just say that it probably is to the opposition's benefit to have no more amendments under any circumstance requiring unanimous consent, because if we do find something that's legally incorrect or doesn't say exactly what the government says, and you require unanimous consent to fix it, one of us could fix you. I just don't think that's very advisable from your perspective.
The Chair: As the Chair, of course, I'm neutral in this discussion; I just want to bring fairness. I would defer to the parliamentary assistant. Is that in order with your minister's and your timing? It's an appropriate suggestion Mr Brown brings up, about other debates that ended up in the need to make administrative changes. Have you any further comments?
Mr Spina: Based on the assurance that has been stated by both members of the opposition here, I think that's reasonable. If there are any points of law, I think that's a good point, that we have to clarify. We just need to leave the flexibility for ourselves to be able to modify.
Mr Bisson: Just one quick question: Just so we know when we're coming back, we'll be coming back and dealing with what amendment now?
The Chair: We'll be working on the current one, one of the government amendments, dealing with section 10, subsection 41(7).
Mr Bisson: So that's where we're at now, right?
The Chair: Yes. With that, I call this meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1749.