STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT
CONTENTS
Wednesday 30 April 1997
Election of Vice-Chair
Development Charges Act, 1996, Bill 98, Mr Leach /Loi de 1996 sur les redevances d'aménagement, projet de loi 98, M. Leach
Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act, 1997, Bill 107, Mr Sterling /
Loi de 1997 sur le transfert des installations d'eau et d'égout aux municipalités, projet de loi 107, M. Sterling
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente: Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr DominicAgostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr TedChudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Ms MarilynChurley (Riverdale ND)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew N / -Nord L)
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)
Mr DougGalt (Northumberland PC)
Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr JosephSpina (Brampton North -Nord PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)
Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1551 in committee room 1.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
The Chair (Mrs Brenda Elliott): Good afternoon, colleagues. We come to order. Our first order of business this afternoon, before we move into work on Bill 98, is the election of a Vice-Chair. It's my duty to call upon you to elect a Vice-Chair. I would ask if there are any nominations.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I would move that the member for Oshawa, Jerry Ouellette, be appointed to Vice-Chair of this committee.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd be pleased to second that.
The Chair: Any further nominations?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'd like to nominate Marilyn Churley. I'm convinced we'll have enough support to win that one.
The Chair: All right. Any further nominations? I then declare the nominations closed.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I thank my friend for the nomination, but I will respectfully withdraw.
Mr Marchese: No speech?
Ms Churley: I know when I'm done. Why put myself through that humiliation?
Mr Marchese: She looked at the numbers?
Ms Churley: I looked at the numbers and thought, "No, this ain't gonna fly."
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I noticed with the lawn signs as I arrived that Mr Ouellette was way ahead in the campaign.
Ms Churley: This is one of the few committees where we actually now will have some gender balance. I'm not as concerned as I am with some of the other committees.
The Chair: Are there any further nominations? Once again, I then declare the nominations closed.
I declare that Mr Ouellette is our new Vice-Chair. Congratulations. We welcome you to our committee.
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms Churley: I'll be watching your every move.
Mr Ouellette: I'm sure you will.
The Chair: Are there any further motions?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): At this time I would like to move that Dr Doug Galt be the government member on the resources development subcommittee, as Mr John Baird is no longer on the committee.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this?
All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT
Consideration of Bill 98, An Act to promote job creation and increased municipal accountability while providing for the recovery of development costs related to new growth / Projet de loi 98, Loi visant à promouvoir la création d'emplois et à accroître la responsabilité des municipalités tout en prévoyant le recouvrement des coûts d'aménagement liés à la croissance.
The Chair: We'll turn our attention, then, to complete the work that we began on Monday, which was clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 98. We found ourselves very near the end of the amendments and had begun work on amendments 72.1 and 72.2. At that point it was noted that unanimous consent was required. It was determined to seek further advice on this issue.
Mr Hardeman: I do believe at one point we did have what I thought was unanimous consent to introduce these amendments, upon which the record will show I started to read. I believe we had almost completed the first page of the amendment. It was then brought to our attention that there was some concern as to whether unanimous consent was what it should be.
I would ask, now that we've come back here two days later, for unanimous consent to continue reading the amendment and put it in the legislation.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to go forward on this amendment?
Interjections: Agreed.
Mr Marchese: No, we don't.
The Chair: No, I do not hear unanimous consent.
Mr Hardeman: Madam Chair, I just wondered who was denying the unanimous consent, whether we could ask where the voice in the wilderness had come from, which caucus.
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I will give an explanation of that so that Mr Ernie Hardeman can hear clearly who gave it. My name is Rosario Marchese, the member for Fort York. I happen to be the NDP member for that riding.
I should point out clearly that I was trying to be very helpful to your government, Mr Hardeman, because we had gone beyond the clock and we didn't have to. As you know, usually when 6 o'clock comes around, the proceedings of our working committee end. I was trying to be helpful to you and to your members and particularly trying to be helpful to staff, who would otherwise have to come back and sit through whatever we had to do. I felt we could do that in a matter of moments and be done with it.
Mr Hardeman: Madam Chair, if I might, the question is whether we have unanimous consent, not whether we are going to debate the issue. I just requested to know who was not giving unanimous consent.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hardeman, are you refusing to have me give an explanation? You asked who it was and now you're saying you don't want to know from the member what the arguments are? You just want a yea or a nay, is that what you're saying?
Mr Hardeman: I don't believe unanimous consent is an issue of why, it's an issue of who gives or does not give unanimous consent. That's the issue.
The Chair: Perhaps this is the place for me to step in and say we don't have unanimous consent, for a variety of reasons, I suspect. Since it isn't possible to move forward with that amendment, then perhaps, Mr Hardeman, it might be useful if you'd wish to withdraw that amendment.
Mr Hardeman: If we do not have unanimous consent, I believe it's your prerogative to rule it out of order.
The Chair: Okay, then I do rule it out of order and we'll move forward --
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, I want to make a point. What I want to say -- because Mr Hardeman clearly knows there might be some regional members here, and I'm not sure who they are; that's why he's playing politics with me -- is that we're quite happy as NDPers to have the government bring forward a bill and pass it within one day, which would be unprecedented in this House. We're quite happy to assist the government and the regional government with respect to the amendments they want, within one day.
What I objected to was the fact that this government, through Mr Hardeman, was presenting a motion at the last moment, unbeknownst to me or the House leaders. It was a complete surprise. We've had discussions with the mayor about this issue and I gave support to the issue, but we had no discussion with the parliamentary assistant or their caucus or their House leader with respect to this issue at all. It was a complete surprise.
As we were reading the amendment, about which I was clueless, I discovered we were dealing with an issue that our House leaders were dealing with. I found it a complete surprise. I objected to that and I object to it now.
I want to let the folks know, if they're from the regional municipality of Waterloo, that we will pass it within one day. All the government has to do is to introduce it at the earliest possible convenience and it will be supported by us. For their sake, I want them to know that, for the record.
Mr Hardeman: If I could, Madam Chair, I would like to commend the member for that encouragement. We appreciate your offer to pass it expediently, to deal with this matter. I was not trying to infer anything different than that. It just would appear to us that the same things could be accomplished today as going through another day of legislative process, when we all agree with the process. We appreciate your offer.
Mr Marchese: On that point, the same could not be accomplished. A process for me is a critical matter. It isn't something that you can just dispense with at will. The government decided it was going to introduce this amendment and attach it to Bill 98. That would be fine, had we known about it.
We had no clue. It was at the bottom of all these other amendments that we had. The only time I got to it was when I allowed the committee to finish all the business because it seemed we had very little left to deal with.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hardeman, I apologize. Just to finish the point based on what Mr Hardeman said, process is critical for me and it was not done properly. Had they told us about it, we probably would have agreed, had they done it right. It wasn't done right. It was a surprise. You just don't deal with issues of this kind in that way.
This has nothing to do with the amendments the regional municipality's trying to deal with, because I have no quarrel with what they're trying to do. I support it. In fact, they've gone through a great deal of consultation with a number of their communities. I think that's wonderful. But with respect to our own processes around here, it has to be done right.
The Chair: I thank you for your words. Clearly, there have been some communication problems in how this was brought forward or dealt with. But we do have to go on with today's business. I apologize to any citizens who may have come to Toronto today to this meeting because of this.
However, Mr Hardeman, I was in error. In fact, when a motion has been brought to the committee and has been moved, it has to be withdrawn by the mover. So for the record you do have to withdraw it -- I can't rule it out of order; I apologize for that -- at this time, is my understanding.
Mr Hardeman: First of all, before I totally withdraw it, I would like to point out Mr Marchese's comments about process being very important. If the issue is that this cannot be ruled out of order, then my question would be, why are we not continuing with the reading?
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): Yes, that's my question, too.
Mr Hardeman: If it had not been declared out of order when it was introduced, then I believe we could continue reading it into the record and make it part of the bill.
Mrs Fisher: My understanding is the only problem the other day was we were of the opinion that there was unanimous consent and there wasn't. Now we're back into our session, in essence --
Mr Hardeman: Having said that, I will withdraw the motion.
The Chair: All right. We'll move now to section 73, which we've already carried, section 74, which was already carried -- we're moving now into section 75. The amendment on section 75 was moved by Mrs Fisher. Since that was a consequential amendment, it has to be withdrawn.
Mrs Fisher: I will withdraw.
The Chair: The next question that should be put is, shall section 75 carry?
All those in favour? Opposed? Section 75 carries.
Shall section 76, the short title of the bill, carry?
All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall the long title of the bill carry?
All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall Bill 98, as amended, carry?
All those in favour? Opposed? The bill carries.
Shall Bill 98, as amended, be reported to the House?
All those in favour? Opposed? It shall be reported.
That completes Bill 98. Thank you, everyone.
The Chair: We're just going to take a one-minute recess until everyone gets settled to begin work on Bill 107.
The committee recessed from 1604 to 1607.
WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT
Consideration of Bill 107, An Act to enact the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997 and to amend other acts with respect to water and sewage / Projet de loi 107, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 1997 sur le transfert des installations d'eau et d'égout aux municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui a trait à l'eau et aux eaux d'égout.
The Chair: We'll begin the afternoon's work on Bill 107, clause-by-clause consideration. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to the bill, and if so, to what sections?
Are there any in section 1? Any discussion? Seeing none, shall section 1 carry?
All those in favour? Opposed? Section 1 carries.
Section 2: The first amendment is an NDP motion.
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, I'm going to be withdrawing this motion.
The Chair: Sorry, was that for --
Mr Marchese: Subsection 2(2). Isn't that what you were asking?
The Chair: The one marked "1," amendment number 1?
Mr Marchese: I thought we were at subsection 2(2). Is that what you were leading to, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Rollins: There are four or five.
The Chair: There are several.
Mr Marchese: I'm withdrawing the first two.
The Chair: Perhaps the easiest way to refer to them would be the handwritten number in the upper right-hand corner.
Mr Marchese: Page 1, yes.
The Chair: You're not moving that amendment?
Mr Marchese: That is correct. I'm withdrawing it.
The Chair: Okay, that's withdrawn.
Mr O'Toole: Chair, are they withdrawing all of the amendments to 2(2)?
Mr Marchese: We're going page by page.
Mr O'Toole: Because there's a whole bunch of them.
The Chair: Page 2?
Mr Marchese: I withdraw that amendment as well, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Page 3? That's Mr Agostino. Could you read it into the record, please.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I move that subsections 56.2(1) and (2) of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Prohibition on transfer of waterworks
"(1) No municipality shall transfer the ownership of all or part of a waterworks to another person.
"Prohibition on transfer of sewage works
"(2) No municipality shall transfer the ownership of all or part of a sewage works to another person."
The Chair: Any discussion or comment on this amendment?
Mr O'Toole: I find this amendment is kind of out of line in cases of smaller municipalities wishing to have an upper-tier municipality take control of their delivery of water and sewage services. This amendment will clearly restrict municipalities from making alternative delivery arrangements, so I can't support it.
Mr Agostino: If we recall, there are a number of amendments with the same overall message to them. I would say that 99.9% of the individuals who came to the table through three days of extensive hearings -- it was almost unanimous, even including the majority of the private sector representatives here, that the municipalities should not in any way, shape or form sell their assets or transfer the ownership of the assets to a private corporation of any type, a private company, in order to give up control of the assets and the setting of the water rates and sewer rates in that particular municipality. So I'm surprised, in view of the fact we had three days of public hearings and almost unanimously -- I can't think of one; I think there was one group that said it was a good idea. Every other group that came forward said it was a bad idea; why we would continue to go ahead and totally ignore those submissions if the public hearings had some meaning. I think that was the biggest message that came across and I would urge the government members to listen to that message and that was that the ownership should not be turned over.
Mr Marchese: We have a similar motion, so we will be supporting this amendment. We are very concerned about the possible privatization of waterworks and we think the government appears to be equally concerned -- we're not quite sure -- because they're saying, "We're not privatizing it," and it may appear as if they are saying they don't want to do that either. If they don't want to privatize it and are equally concerned as we are, then this is the motion to support.
Quite clearly, from our point of view, we are very worried about the potential and probability, I would argue, for many municipalities to privatize waterworks, sewage works, because they're getting less and less money from your government, Madam Chair; we've cut transfer payments to the municipalities by 40% in the last two years. These folks in these municipalities have to deal with that shortage, so they are going to look at this as a very strong possibility of being able to raise some money for themselves or recover some money. We feel many municipalities may not want to privatize it but will consider it in order to be able to deal with the cutbacks that you have already inflicted and with the download that you're about to inflict on many municipalities. We want to work in partnership with M. Harris, if he's equally concerned about privatization and, if that is so, then his members should support this particular motion.
Mr Galt: Just a few points that I'd like to give to the opposition, where our position is on this particular motion. We believe this motion is unnecessary. This provision would even restrict transfer of things like water and sewer plants to the crown or to some other municipality. They pointed out earlier that the grant repayment provision of Bill 107 is really sufficient to protect the public investment in water and sewage infrastructure and that the grant repayment provision makes it uneconomical to sell facilities to the private sector without preventing desirable public-private partnerships to address future needs.
As I listen to the NDP member commenting on the real concerns about privatizing water and sewage works, it comes to mind that we went from 1990 to 1995, when municipalities had all kinds of opportunity to transfer, even without having to pay back these grants, and none of that happened during that time frame. If they were genuinely concerned, I would have expected they would have brought something in at that time.
Just simply with the grant repayment program, that is going to discourage any privatization in the future.
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): With all due respect, I think that's nonsense. I sat on this committee as we travelled around a bit of the province, to London and Toronto. I certainly heard a preponderance of evidence that people were very concerned about the way this bill is worded because of its permissiveness in allowing municipalities to do whatever they damn well please when they get squeezed by the government's downloading. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Once that squeeze really hits those municipalities they're going to be looking around every nook and cranny and under every stone to find a dollar in order to prevent outrageous tax increases. Guess what will jump out at them? It will be the sewer and water services in that municipality.
If the minister, who appeared before this committee in London, was serious and honest in what he said and was not being disingenuous, then I see no reason why this committee would not accept this amendment, no reason at all. Because the minister was, to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, quite clear that he hoped municipalities would not privatize their systems. He was very clear about that. If that's true, then you've got the opportunity to make that a reality, because if you just leave it the way it is now, it's a matter of time. I don't know how many witnesses came before this committee and used the example of Great Britain, what a horror it turned out to be there. You can say this is not Great Britain. Of course it's not Great Britain, but it's privatization, which is exactly what they did, if privatization occurs here.
You have no protections in here if something is privatized -- none. As far as the parliamentary assistant saying that having to pay back government grants is conmcerned, that is not a serious impediment to the private sector purchasing sewer and water systems. It is taxpayers' money that's gone to these municipalities and there's no interest charged over the years on that money, that grant from the long-suffering taxpayers of this province. So I don't for the life of me know how you can in all honesty make an argument that this is not paving the way for privatization of our sewer and water systems.
If you don't believe it and you don't want to see it happen, as the minister indicated, then for heaven's sake here's your chance to do something about it. If you're just playing games with us, then say, "We believe in privatization and we anticipate it will happen," and vote against our amendments. I suspect that's what you'll do anyway, but here's your chance to show that we're wrong and we're blowing smoke -- that I am, anyway; I don't know about Agostino, he doesn't blow smoke. But here's your chance to prove your intentions are honourable and that all you're trying to do is transfer the remaining 25% of sewer and water services to the municipality and nothing more, full stop, and it's part of the tradeoff for the disentanglement, as we called it when we were in government, in the delivery of services between the municipalities and the province.
If that's all it is, that's all that's involved here, and it's part of the tradeoff of the education costs and so forth, then say so: "That's all it is, and to prove it to you, we'll accept this amendment that forbids a municipality from selling to the private sector." That's all you have to do. That's not asking too much, I don't think. I don't think it's an unreasonable request at all. It's simply saying to you, put your money where your mouth is. In other words, accept an amendment like this.
I was very disappointed, given the comments of the minister, that the government didn't move such an amendment. I was taken aback. I can only assume that Mr Sterling knows what's afoot here and knows that you've got no intention of moving an amendment. I would assume he'd have some say in that. I go back a long way with Mr Sterling. We've been friends for a long time. I'm really disappointed that he would say one thing in London and have you do his dirty work and another thing here in Toronto, because that's what he's doing to you. He set you up. He said all those nice things in London and then says, "Now go into that committee room and do my dirty work, Doug." That's what he's saying, and you're obviously prepared to do it.
Anyway, I don't want to prolong the debate, because if there's anything I hate around this place it's a filibuster. I would simply say that I am really surprised and disappointed that you're obviously going down this path and you're determined not to be blown off it. I'm disappointed, and in terms of public policy, I think you're fundamentally wrong.
1620
The Chair: Mr Agostino.
Mr Galt: Madam Chair, if I could respond to that, with all due respect to the member for Nickel Belt, I do indeed take exception to his comments about my minister being serious and honest. I have worked with him since last August and I can assure you that he is a very serious and a very honest individual. I think it's most unfortunate that you would put that into the record.
Mr Laughren: I want to believe that too. We'll see.
Mr Galt: You look at the different repayments that will be necessary, places like the town of Haileybury, with some $5.5 million, 85% would have to be returned; 75% in the township of Red Lake, some $2.3 million. I just don't see how these communities are ever going to repay those kind of grants and then privatize. It's not in their minds. It's just not the kind of thing that's going to happen. This is a big deterrent. Before we even went out with this bill, 60 of 230 municipalities asked for these plants, to have them in their ownership. The argument is totally redundant that we're hearing here this afternoon.
Mr Agostino: I agree with what Mr Laughren said earlier. I think if we went around the room today there would not be one government member who would suggest that privatizing the ownership and control of water and sewer service is a good idea. Not one member of this committee on any side of the House went on record as saying it was a good idea; frankly, the reverse occurred. The minister himself, and the parliamentary assistant through debate hearings, consistently has said, "We don't think privatizing water and sewer services," not privatizing the operation of it but the ownership and setting of the rates, "is a good idea." That has been unanimous by these committee members. If I'm wrong, maybe members of the committee can come forward and say, "We believe it is a good idea." We haven't heard that yet.
The issue of the payback is simply a smokescreen and a feel-good mechanism. The reality is that of all the services that municipalities have and offer, water and sewer would be the biggest moneymaker to the private sector. Nobody is going to want to buy a transit system. I don't think you're going to see a lineup to buy the TTC and charge $15 a ride and think the private sector is going to make money from it. Nobody's going to want to buy a health department and run a health department. Nobody's going to run a social services department. But when you talk about water and sewer services and the ability to control the rates, clearly there'd be a lineup miles long of private sector companies willing to come forward.
The payback of the infrastructure cost is simply a drop in the bucket. What would happen very clearly is a municipality would include that in the price. If there's a $20-million payback to the province, for example, and $200 million to buy that infrastructure, you just make it $220 million and you roll that into the price of doing business. Then of course the private company just turns around and rolls that into the price of what it charges the consumer for water and sewer services. That to me is an absolute smokescreen. It's hogwash to even suggest for a second that is going to be a deterrent.
Outside of this government's obsession with privatization for absolutely everything the government should do -- you very clearly believe that everything government does should be done by the private sector. I'm not sure what our job would be, except we should just lock the doors and go away and let the private sector do everything. I don't share that belief. I think there is a role for the private sector in some operations. There's a role for the private sector in some cases under some controls, but there's not a role, in my view, for the private sector to own, operate and charge sewer and water rates. I'm as astonished as Mr Laughren is that you would not follow the lead that your own minister set in suggesting it was a bad idea. I was surprised that the government members did not. I fully expected there would be a government amendment, because I thought it was so clear and so obvious.
I don't understand. Even playing politics with it, this is the major controversial part of this bill. You could look like heroes, frankly. If you took this out of there, 90% of the people coming to the end of the table wouldn't have been there. I don't understand. You believe it's wrong. You don't think it should happen. You don't think it will happen. Then simply support the amendment and that's the end of the thing. Then you've got a pretty damned good bill, with a few exceptions in it, and one that most people can support. I don't understand why this government is being so stubborn, except simply trying to show: "We're the government. We have all the muscle. We don't care what anybody says. We don't care what the opposition says, we don't care what the public says, we're going to do it simply for the hell of it."
As farfetched as some people on the government side believe, the British experience can be repeated in this province once we allow the private sector to own, operate and set the rates. Without this amendment, you're going to do that.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): What I find so astonishing about this whole situation is that here Mr Galt and the government would like us to believe they've got no intent that these water and sewer projects can be sold, but they're not willing to put it in legislation. I suppose Hansard is full of speeches that have been given by people on all sides of the House, but at the end of the day what you're really left with is whatever piece of legislation is passed. That's the matter that people will be dealing with 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, what it actually says in the legislation and not the kind of speeches that people have made about it.
It seems to me that government is about trust. To me, it seems like such a simple thing to do. If you really believe they wouldn't be sold, why not put it in the bill? It sure prevents an awful lot of arguments in the future if, let's say, a municipality were placed in a position -- and, let's face it, you are putting much heavier loads and responsibilities on municipalities. You can disagree with our figures, you can disagree with the NDP figures, you can disagree with everything, but the bottom line still is that over 100 municipalities, in a non-partisan way, from an administrative viewpoint, have clearly indicated to the government and to the opposition parties that as a result of all of these different Who Does What downloadings that are taking place, they're going to have to raise their taxes if they want to give people the same kind of service as before. Those municipalities and those councils are going to be under pressure, because they don't want to unload a 20% or 30% tax increase to their particular ratepayers etc, so they're going to find ways -- maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but at some point in time -- in which they think they're going to economize. It may very well end up that one of these water plants is going to be sold because some council is under pressure in a particular year to come up with the money etc. Yet you're trying to tell everybody, and your minister's been trying to tell everybody, "Don't worry, it's not going to happen," because of this, that or the other thing.
All I'm saying is that in order to forgo and forestall those kind of situations or temptations that may apply to certain municipalities at some point in time in the future, why don't you just put in the legislation exactly and in precise language what you intend to do? You don't want them to sell these plants? Put it in there. I'll tell you, if you don't put it in there, is it any wonder that a lot of people out there, never mind the opposition, a lot of the people who presented to this committee, are going to say, "If they're not putting it in the legislation, it must mean that at some point in time in the future the municipalities will have the authority to sell these plants."
I know you're not supposed to impute motives here or anything like that, but I'll tell you, that's the only logical conclusion that people can come to. This is a main issue. This is not something that is just forgotten about in a piece of legislation, what have you. This has been one of the central issues, from my reading of Hansard and from the presentations that have been made before this committee. If everybody agrees that municipalities shouldn't be selling these plants, put it in legislation. What could possibly be wrong with it? If it's just a power play, because the government says this and the opposition says that, "We've got to stick to our guns, we've got to do this, that or the other thing," I'm telling you, in the long run you're not doing the municipalities and the ratepayers and our individual citizens of this province any good.
If the public remains very sceptical about the intent of this legislation because of your insistence that a clear statement not be placed in the legislation that these facilities can be sold, I think you'll just have to bear the consequences of that, but it certainly leaves me with only one conclusion.
1630
Mrs Fisher: I won't talk a half an hour to make my points. I'll just make them pretty distinctly and succinctly.
I was in London as well, and I don't remember the minister saying that in fact this would encourage the municipalities towards privatization. If I recall, he expressed his opinion that he didn't feel it would be in the best interests of the communities to privatize the water and sewer systems. I also remember that he said, however, municipalities should be given the right to do business within their municipalities, as they have the capacity in their decision-making to do so.
I do recall, at another time, I think it was only a day or so ago, where one of the opposition members present searched for the word "disentanglement," and in that disentanglement discussion it was outlined that in fact had been a process that had been undertaken in previous governments. I happen to concur with that. In fact, disentanglement was in process prior to this government coming here and, as a result of that, I don't imagine any government that was looking at that restructuring or disentanglement route that it was going would not have considered every aspect of a municipality, including sewer and water. They just never got to doing anything about it and, as a result, we are.
I would agree with -- I don't know his riding -- Mr Gerretsen's statement with regard to government and trust; the member from Kingston, sorry. I would concur that any member sitting in the House today has to assume that we would offer that trust to be earned by the community, so I think in most cases any member sitting there does trust their local municipalities to make decisions in the best interests of the constituents they represent.
The bottom line of all of this is that certain participants came forward in an intervenor status during these hearings and until it was questioned, if one of the question-and-answer sessions didn't result in privatization coming up, I think it wouldn't have even been recorded in most cases. People came with other interests and I think perhaps the overshadowing privatization question has not been driven by the intervenors who came before us but instead by question-and-answer periods of certain representatives.
I would like to remind those present that, in fact, there's nothing today in legislation that restricts the sale of sewer and water systems. My understanding is in the city of Kingston, for example, they own their own water system. There is nothing prohibiting them today from stopping the sale of that system and so I guess they've been trusted in the past to act in the best interests of their people. I'm assuming that we can trust them in the future to do the same. I think the minister was quite clear in that the elected officials at a municipal level will represent their constituents and their best interests.
There is a very large deterrent not to get into the sale of water and sewer systems, only in the fact that the municipality has to raise the funds, any grants that were provided for the construction of those systems, back to 1978, and in most cases, that's prohibitive. If anybody would look at the economic sustainability of running one of these things privately, it wouldn't take them long to run away from that type of required debt repayment. Clearly the minister said it's not his desire to see it happen, but in this transition of responsibility to municipal government, we have to let municipal governments make decisions and we have to allow the elected officials to represent their constituents and their best interests.
The Chair: Colleagues, just for a moment, the legislative counsel, Mr Wood, would like to add a word of clarification on this amendment.
Mr Michael Wood: A number of members have made comments about a matter of interpretation of this motion, and in my role as counsel to the committee I feel it necessary to clarify at this point. The motion before you strikes out and replaces subsections (1) and (2) of section 56.2. It leaves subsection (3) intact. The result of that is that subsection (3), which represents an exception, still stands and the motion would not prohibit the transfer of ownership to another municipality. However, it would prohibit other transfers of ownership.
Mr Laughren: I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things that have been said. One has to do with the whole question of repayment of grants to municipalities back to 1978. Someone said that the municipalities couldn't afford to do that and it would be prohibitive. Municipalities wouldn't pay that; that's not who would pick up the tab for that. That would be built into the sale price to the private sector. The private sector would pay for that charge back to 1978.
The private sector would say, "That's part of the cost of this facility that we're buying," plain and simple. They would have to pass it on back to the province, then -- I appreciate that; I'm not trying to be silly about it -- but the municipality would not have to pay that amount of money. Why would they? They'd just say to the private sector that is buying it, "Look, this is the price, and of course along with that are these grants, but don't think you're being hard done by; there's no interest charged for the last 15 or 20 years on this grant."
Let's put that to rest. The municipality isn't the one that is going to have to ante up to the bar with that amount of money, that grant; that would be looked after.
I guess it was the member for Bruce who in her spirited defence of the bill indicated that deputants didn't raise the issue of privatization unless they were prompted -- I don't want to put words in her mouth -- by members of the committee. That's more or less what she said. I find that a strange comment to make because virtually everybody who came before the committee was concerned about privatization and an amazing number of them -- I didn't know so many people in this province read the international press -- knew what had gone on in Great Britain.
We have a very literate, well-read electorate in this province. I don't know whether they do it through the Internet or whether they pick it up at these bookstores or newsstands and read the UK press. An amazing number of them knew what a disaster privatization was in Great Britain, and I was very impressed by that. I would take issue with the member for Bruce that people didn't come with that in their minds. They sure did, because they knew what the consequences had been elsewhere.
We kept looking for examples, and a number of the deputants who seemed to really be on top of this issue were asked: "Do you know any jurisdictions where this improved the delivery of water and sewer either in price or in quality or in service?" We couldn't extract that from any of the people. Maybe the parliamentary assistant can ream off a string of jurisdictions where privatization of sewer and water lowered the price, improved the service and made everybody happier.
I'd be interested in knowing that because I'm obviously not as well-read as some of the people who came before the committee, because they were really plugged into the international press, particularly the UK press. I'd be interested in knowing more about that.
Mr Agostino: I'm going to protract the debate, but I think this is clearly the fundamental issue of this bill and basically the direction of this bill. Frankly, I think you will be surprised at the level of opposition you will face once you put this bill through, unamended, as it seems that the government members have been given their marching orders to do.
There are certain things that government can privatize and frankly only people affected may care or may respond. The privatization of something as essential and as fundamental as water and sewer, and the spectre of happening here what has happened in Great Britain, I think most Ontarians from all walks of life, all political parties, will see this issue for what it is and will see the risks involved in this.
1640
One of the members on the government side suggested earlier that municipalities have had this power all along; municipalities have always had the ability to do this if they chose to. But you can't look at this in isolation. We can't look at this without reminding ourselves of Bill 26, without reminding ourselves that the provisions that were in there in cases for referendums had been taken away once you passed Bill 26. Therefore, you took away the protection that taxpayers had to approve or disapprove of an ownership transfer.
The reason that municipalities may never have considered this in the past is, first of all, obviously municipalities are responsible but they have never, ever faced the downloading and the dumping from a government in the history of this province that they face from your government. It is that simple.
Municipalities don't want to sell the service. Municipalities are not interested in trying to sell this, but also they don't want to pass 30% or 40% increases to their taxpayers, and that's going to be the tradeoff. Municipalities, as a result of what you have done, are going to be faced with a tradeoff of massive tax hikes, a massive reduction in services or selling or privatizing certain parts of their operation where there's money to be made. It is that simple.
Most municipal councillors do not run on a platform of saying, "I'm going to privatize your water and sewer," but most of them don't run on a platform of increasing their taxes by 30% or 40% either. When they're faced with the two options, this may be one that municipalities will buy into. That's why it hasn't happened in the past, because in the past, provincial governments have seen a responsibility to transfer an appropriate amount of money to municipalities in order to carry on municipal services and operations as part of our responsibility as a provincial government.
You've taken that away. You're out of the business of providing transfer funds to municipalities, so you're going to stick them on the backs of the senior citizen who can't afford it and may lose their home, or of a disabled person on a fixed income. You're going to transfer it on to them. That's a substantial difference between five, 10, 15, 20 years ago and today, with the challenges municipalities have to face.
You can't have it both ways. You can't dump the services you have. You can't dump the cost to the municipal sector and then at the same time expect municipalities not to make decisions that may be difficult. This will be a very difficult decision and one that in the short term they may see as a better option than 30% or 40%, which would mean oblivion for those councillors at the next municipal elections.
You have to think long and hard about what you're doing here. As I said earlier, I would be interested, and if any members of the committee believe it's a good idea for municipalities to privatize water and sewer, please come forward, get on the record and say that. But if you don't believe that, for the life of me, I can't understand why you'd vote against such a simple amendment unless you're simply saying it's okay to do it.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "It's a bad idea, but we're not going to vote against it." If you vote against this amendment, the message you're sending out, despite what you say, is you can talk the talk but you won't walk the walk. You're not willing to do it. You're not willing to put in legislation to prohibit it. That means you believe it's a good idea. If you don't believe it, then I challenge you to come forward and support this amendment.
Have some guts to say to your minister and to the marching orders you receive from the Premier's office, "We don't think it's in the best interests of the municipalities, the people they represent and the taxpayers of Ontario to privatize it." Any other message you send out means you agree with privatizing water and sewer services in Ontario.
Mr Gerretsen: I've already said what I was going to say and I really don't want to repeat myself, but this is in response to the comment that was made by the member for Bruce. It just so happens that yes, the city of Kingston owns it own water and sewage facility, but in the new city of Kingston, which will include Kingston township, there happens to be a plant that was built under precisely these kinds of circumstances and it's presently owned by the province.
That facility never would have been built to the standards it has been if it had not been purely government money that initially went into it. The local municipality never could have afforded that. So that may very well happen to that second plant, the privatization of it.
You've got to remember that the plants we're talking about are basically located in those municipalities that simply did not have the ability to build these plants themselves. That's how the province got into this business however many years ago. They were usually smaller municipalities and those municipalities couldn't afford, even with government grants, to build their own facilities.
Those plants are, by and large -- I've been through a few of them, not recently, but five, six, seven years ago -- of a higher standard than the average municipally owned water and sewage facilities, so they are a very attractive investment to the private sector. The likelihood of them being sold and then in effect the ratepayers in that community being held hostage to whatever the private entrepreneur wants to charge by way of water and sewage rates is much higher than you think.
This isn't just some sort of philosophical argument as to whether or not government should do it or whether the private sector could do it that we could have about a lot of things; in this particular case, people will simply not have any other alternative. They will either have to pay those new rates that come into being or not, unless you're going to structure some sort of system that the people, in effect, will have -- I see Mr Hastings, shaking his head there. I would like to know what that system is going to be that's going to give some --
Mr Rollins: He's not from Hastings.
Mr Gerretsen: That's why the member from Hastings should never sit next to Mr Hastings, and we don't get into this kind of confusion.
Anyway, I've said everything I was going to. You're making a big mistake, and if you really don't think it's going to be privatized, just put it in the bill.
Mr O'Toole: I will be succinct. To make two points, it's clear from the debate here that we disagree. We believe it's a deterrent, the fact that they're going to have to pay back the crown, and it's clear the opposition believes in state control. The government, must we remind members, still has the responsibility for regulating quality standards, whoever owns it.
I'm thinking we should move on. We've heard the debate. It's clear that we have different positions. We're clear that there's enough strength in 56.2(1) that requires the repayment that would make it uncompetitive.
Mr Gerretsen: Madam Chair --
Mr O'Toole: Speak in your turn.
The Chair: Mr Laughren.
Mr Laughren: I wanted to hear what Mr Gerretsen had to say.
Mr Gerretsen: He's yielding to me.
Mr O'Toole: It's not a dialogue.
Mr Gerretsen: It should be a dialogue.
I just want to make sure. Does Mr O'Toole then fundamentally disagree with what the parliamentary assistant said? He's not in favour of privatization, and you are. Is that correct?
Mr O'Toole: You weren't listening.
Mr Gerretsen: Oh, okay.
The Chair: Mr Laughren.
Mr Laughren: I must say that I thought Mr Agostino put the whole package together very articulately and laid it out just the way it is.
Mr Gerretsen: That's why he's our critic.
Mr Laughren: That's why he's your critic, that's right; your personal critic, perhaps.
I won't go on at length about it, but I do believe the downloading has cast this whole thing in a new light, that this isn't disentanglement. If this were disentanglement, I would have no problem supporting it, but it's not.
Mr O'Toole: Get that on the record.
Mr Laughren: No, I wouldn't. I'd have no problem at all. We were engaged in a similar kind of exercise and then it fell apart, for reasons that I hope we won't have to go into this afternoon. But anyway --
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Thank you, we appreciate it.
Mr Laughren: I can tell you why.
Mr O'Toole: It would cost a lot of money.
Mr Laughren: We were engaged in a disentanglement exercise as well, so it would be a bit strange for me not to support the idea of streamlining the delivery of services in the province, which I do. But when we were doing it, there wasn't another agenda called downloading, and we know that's the agenda here.
Some of you were in the Legislature yesterday and some of you, I know, I drove out with my speech. Nevertheless, I pointed out that in the municipality where I live, the regional municipality of Sudbury, the officials at the region have come up with numbers. They've worked very hard on these numbers -- and they haven't changed them since then, as far as I know -- which indicated what this downloading is going to cost that municipality. It's going to cost them, they claim, $1,500 per property taxpayer.
That seems extremely high to me, but even if it's less than that, can you imagine the pressure that municipal council is going to be under when they start staring those kinds of tax increases in the face? I know what they'll do. They will feel they have no choice, and they will privatize.
I hope those numbers aren't correct, but what it boiled down to is that there was about a $105-million increase in costs to the municipality when property taxes were taken off for education purposes and all the other responsibilities were given to the municipality. It came to a net difference of $105 million more to that regional municipality. Those are their numbers, not mine, just to put your mind at ease.
1650
If that's the case -- and even if it's not quite as high as that -- you know and I know the decision that municipality is going to come to when it's looking for dollars. You would do the same; you would, because you'd feel that you had no choice. That's the way it would be. I still await, in eager anticipation, the examples from the parliamentary assistant or from other government members on what a roaring success privatization has been in other jurisdictions.
I really want to know this and I think we have a right to know this before we vote for a bill that makes privatization a likelihood. If you've got examples, bring them forward so we can assess them in the cool light of day, but don't ask us as an act of faith to support a bill that will lead inevitably to privatization when the only examples that have been brought forward to this committee were from the UK, where it was a disaster when the Tories privatized it there; a disaster.
People are shaking their heads, but where's the evidence? There's lots of evidence on how bad it was. I want to see the evidence where it was good and where it served the people well. I'd be very happy to take the time to read that. If the Chair wanted to call a recess while we pored over the evidence, I'd support a recess for that purpose. I'd support even coming back at it next week when we could take a more sober look at it.
The way it is now, this is an act of faith and you're asking us to trust you. While I may trust you as individuals, collectively and ideologically I don't trust you. Although as individuals, of course, you're honourable members, I must say, don't ask me to do this. You wouldn't do it if it were us. If we said that we wanted to nationalize all the non-renewable resources in the province, would you accept it as an act of faith? No, you wouldn't, so don't ask us to accept in an act of faith that what you're going to do --
Mr Agostino: Don't count on that.
Interjection.
Mr Laughren: No, are you kidding? They wouldn't. Don't ask us to accept this.
I think the parliamentary assistant owes it to this committee to take this more seriously, the concerns about privatization, because this is not some kind of debate that's simply designed to oppose the government. This is a really important issue out there at the local level. You may not have heard a lot about it yet, but I think you will over time. I think Mr Agostino was pointing that out. You're going to hear about it as it starts to happen, and I don't think you're treating this issue seriously enough.
I don't think you're treating the committee seriously enough when we ask for information. If you want the committee system to work well, it seems to me you treat the members of the committee in opposition, as well as the government members, more seriously when they ask for information. We're not getting it. We're not getting the evidence on which you're proceeding, if there is any. If you've got the evidence, you owe it to us to give it to us, and if you don't have the evidence, then what the hell are you proceeding for? I don't think this is a complicated issue but, my goodness, I just can't imagine your proceeding the way you are.
I simply ask the parliamentary assistant to give us more information before he asks us to vote, or certainly don't expect us to agree. But it's more important than that. You've got the numbers. When the vote's called, you'll win the vote on every single amendment if you want; that's obvious. That happens in every majority government, and you're no different that way.
That's not the issue, whether you can win the debate and get the bill through. The issue is whether you're treating members of the committee appropriately in providing information that we are seeking. I don't think you're doing it and I don't understand that. If you're so sure you're right, why can't you provide us with the information we seek?
It's not unreasonable information. It's not going to tie up the Ministry of Environment or any other ministry forever. I must say that I have a lot of respect for the public sector and the Minister of Environment, despite what they did with INCO in Sudbury -- we won't get into that today, but I must say that did shake my confidence a lot -- but nevertheless, I really hope the minister --
Mr Agostino: Tell us again about that.
Mr Laughren: You didn't hear about that?
Mr Agostino: No, not all the details.
Mr Laughren: There was a sulphur leak in 1995 -- I think it was 1995, or maybe 1996 -- and dozens of people, who had collapsed on the street went to hospital. A leak from the INCO operations, and dozens of people went to the hospital. Nobody died. The Minister of Environment laid number of charges against INCO, and on two different occasions didn't show up for the court case, until finally the judge threw it out. Then, to be fair, they went back again and now I think it is going to be heard in court.
Interjections.
The Chair: Colleagues, Mr Laughren has the floor.
Mr Laughren: It is going to be heard in court, to be fair, and we hope things will unfold the way they should. But can you imagine on two separate occasions not showing up for the trial? It could have been thrown out forever. Thank goodness it wasn't.
Anyway, back to this bill -- and I appreciate the leniency with which I've been treated in dealing with this amendment, Madam Chair -- I simply say that I don't think it's fair to this committee for the parliamentary assistant not to bring forward information that we seek. I really don't believe it's an unreasonable request that we are making to the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Galt: Excuse me, Madam Chair, if I may respond to the comment as it relates to the gas leak and the trial in Sudbury, the court date that was set --
Mr Laughren: I think that's out of order.
Mr Galt: No, you asked the question and you wanted responses. What did happen was that there was a screwup or mess-up at the court, that neither side, neither party involved in the proceedings, was properly notified. Neither side appeared for the court date, on both occasions, so another court date has been set and there will be the proper procedure through the courts.
The member for Nickel Belt also made reference to how well-read the presenters to this committee were. You may have noticed that an awful lot of the presentations had a common core to them and if you want to find where that common core came from, you can go to the John Sewell website and you can find that information right there. It was a common source, I expect, that they got it from.
The Chair: Do I hear any further discussion on the amendment that has been moved?
Mr Agostino: Yes.
The Chair: Mr O'Toole?
Mr O'Toole: Put the question, please.
The Chair: Mr O'Toole has requested that the question be put. I would like to take this opportunity to caution members, though, that the clerk informs me -- just so I get this right -- that if the motion for closure comes, the proceeding is that we'll go to the original question, which will be: "Shall section 2 carry?" I would point out to the members that all of the amendments to section 2 would then not be put.
Mr O'Toole: Would not be put?
The Chair: That's right.
Mr O'Toole: Or be considered put?
The Chair: No, wouldn't be considered.
Mr O'Toole: So with respect to the request to put the question on this particular amendment, that would imply that all of the amendments for subsection 2(2) would be ignored?
The Chair: Yes, that is correct.
Mr O'Toole: I won't question that ruling. There are Liberal amendments; there are NDP amendments. They're mixed. There are different wordings; there are different intents. I am specifically referring to this, but I'll acquiesce to the ruling of the Chair and the committee.
1700
The Chair: Okay.
Mr O'Toole: I'll withdraw. I'll leave it to the Chair to call the question.
The Chair: Okay, then. Mr Agostino, further discussion.
Mr Agostino: It's withdrawn?
The Chair: Yes, that's what I'm hearing. Mr Agostino, did you wish further discussion?
Mr Agostino: Yes, I would.
The Chair: Excuse me, I would like to please request of the members, though, before we continue, that we do try to keep our comments to Bill 107, please.
Mr Agostino: Absolutely.
The Chair: And brief.
Mr Agostino: I think it's important that members of the committee give this some serious consideration in view of the large number of municipalities that are impacted. I think it's important for the committee members and for the record as well to be aware of those municipalities that are impacted, because it's significant and it stretches right across this province.
We have the village of Ailsa Craig. Of course it affects the Ailsa Craig waste water treatment plant and collection system, the Ailsa Craig water distribution system and the Lake Huron water supply system. All of those facilities would be affected by this bill.
From the township of Aldborough, we have the Rodney waste water treatment plant. That's another facility that can be affected and possibly privatized if this bill goes through.
From the town of Alexandria, we have the Alexandria waste water lagoon and collection system, which could be impacted very negatively by this bill if this committee passes it in the form it's in right now.
We have the township of Alfred. The Alfred-Lefaivre water treatment plant and distribution system would be impacted by this bill.
We have the village of Alfred and the Alfred waste water lagoon and collection system. The Alfred-Lefaivre water treatment plant and distribution system could be impacted if this bill goes through unamended. That could be up for sale on the auction block.
From the town of Almonte, we have the Almonte waste water treatment plant. That plant could be impacted very negatively by this legislation.
From the Amherstburg, Malden and Anderdon municipality, the Amherstburg water treatment plant and distribution system would be impacted, and the people of that community could be impacted negatively if this legislation goes through.
From the township of Anderdon, we have three facilities there: the Anderdon-Colchester North water distribution system; Edgewater Beach waste water lagoons and collection system; McGregor waste water lagoons and collection system. Those facilities could be impacted, and the people in those communities could be impacted very negatively with this legislation.
We have the village of Arkona. There you have the Arkona waste water treatment plant and collection system and the Arkona water well and distribution system, which would be impacted if this bill goes through unamended by this committee.
We have the village of Arthur. That impacts the Arthur waste water treatment plant, lagoon and collection system.
We have the township of Assiginack. That would affect the Assiginack waste water treatment lagoon and collection system as well as the Assiginack water treatment plant. I think that could have negative impacts in those communities if these facilities are sold to the private sector.
From the town of Aylmer, we have the Aylmer-Yarmouth water distribution system. We have the Elgin area water supply system and we have the Aylmer Public Utilities Commission. Those three facilities could be impacted negatively with this legislation if it goes through unamended.
We have the village of Barry's Bay, which is impacted by this. The Barry's Bay waste water treatment plant and collection system and Barry's Bay water treatment plant and distribution system would be impacted by putting this through unamended. It could cause a great number of problems in that particular community.
From the township of Bayham, we have the Elgin area section 2 water distribution system and of course the Elgin area water supply system, which would be impacted.
Another municipality that is going to be affected by this is the township of Beardmore. The facility that will be affected by this legislation and this transfer would be the Beardmore waste water lagoon and collection system.
Then we go on to the town of Belle River, and Belle River-Maidstone waste water treatment plant and the Belle River waste water collection system would be affected by this change. The good folks in that area could be affected negatively if those facilities are sold to the private sector.
Then we can move to the city of Belleville. The Belleville waste water treatment plant is one of the facilities affected. It is being transferred and would have no protection whatsoever from sale to the private sector as a result of this bill going through unamended.
We have the village of Belmont, and the Belmont waste water lagoon and collection system would be impacted as a result of this legislation.
We have the township of Biddulph, and the Granton water system would be affected in that particular township.
We have the township of Black River-Matheson, and the Matheson waste water treatment plant and collection system would be impacted as a result of this.
We have then the township of Blandford and Blenheim, and there we'd impact the Plattsville waste water treatment plant, lagoon and collection system and the Plattsville water treatment plant.
Then from the township of Blenheim, we have the Blenheim area water treatment plant and distribution system, the Blenheim waste water treatment lagoons and the Blenheim water distribution system.
From the village of Blyth, we'd have Blyth waste water treatment plant and collection system.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Agostino. May I ask if it's your intention to read through the entire list alphabetically, or can you summarize that in any way for the committee?
Mr Agostino: I think it's important for the record that we outline the municipalities that are impacted and the ones that could be at risk as a result of this government's move.
The Chair: Are you going to restrict these in any way to your own riding or are these all across Ontario?
Mr Agostino: None in my riding are affected. That's just the rest of the province.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Agostino has the floor, please, colleagues.
Mr Agostino: From the village of Bobcaygeon, the Bobcaygeon water treatment plant and distribution system would be impacted.
From the town of Bosanquet, the East Lambton water distribution system, the Grand Bend and area water distribution system, the Lake Huron water supply system and the Lambton area water treatment plant would be impacted.
From the town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury, the Bradford waste water treatment plant would be impacted.
From the town of Bruce Mines, the Bruce Mines waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the Bruce Mines water treatment plant and distribution system would be impacted.
From the village of Brussels, the Brussels waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the village of Burk's Falls, the Burk's Falls waste water treatment lagoon.
From the township of Caldwell, the Verner waste water treatment lagoon would be impacted by this legislation.
From the township of Caradoc, the Melbourne water treatment plant and distribution system as well as the Mount Brydges water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Carleton Place, the Carleton Place waste water treatment plant would be impacted by this legislation.
From the village of Casselman, the Casselman waste water lagoon and collection system as well as the Casselman water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the village of Chalk River, the Chalk River waste water treatment system as well as the Chalk River water facility.
From the city of Chatham, it would impact the Kent county water supply system.
From the village of Chesterville, it would impact the Chesterville waste water treatment lagoon and collection system.
From the township of Clearview, it would impact the Stayner water treatment plant.
From the township of Colchester South, it would impact the Colchester south water distribution system and the Harrow-Colchester South water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Collingwood, a wonderful community, it would impact Thornbury water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Cosby, Mason and Martland, it would impact the Noëlville waste water treatment lagoon.
From the township of Delaware, it would impact the Delaware water well and distribution system.
From the town of Deseronto, it would impact the Deseronto waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the Deseronto water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Dover, it would impact Mitchell's Bay water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Dresden, it would impact the Dresden waste water treatment plant.
From the village of Dundalk, it would impact the Dundalk waste water treatment lagoons and collection system.
From the regional municipality of Durham, where a number of the members on the government side come from, there would be a number of plants that would be impacted. This would include the Beaverton waste water treatment plant, the Durham water treatment plant, the Brock water treatment plant, the Cannington waste water treatment plant, the Newcastle waste water treatment plant, the Newcastle water treatment plant, as well as the Pickering waste water treatment plant and the Port Perry waste water treatment plant. Of course, it would also impact the Whitby water treatment plant.
1710
From the village of Dutton, it would impact the Dutton waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of Dysart, it would impact the Dysart waste water treatment plant.
From the township of East Luther-Grand Valley, this legislation would affect the Grand Valley waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of East Williams, this legislation would impact the Ailsa Craig water distribution system, the Lake Huron water supply system and the Nairn water distribution system. All three facilities could have a difficult time coping if these facilities were sold to the private sector.
From the township of Edwardsburgh, the sewage and water treatment facilities in that particular township would be subject to ownership by the private sector.
From the town of Elgin, the Elgin-Middlesex water distribution system would be impacted and, in my view, very negatively as a result of changes to this legislation.
In the village of Elora, the Elora waste water treatment plant could be on the selling block as a result of this government ramming this legislation through.
The township of Emo, there would be two facilities in that one; the Emo waste water treatment lagoon and collection system would be affected, as well as the Emo water treatment and plant distribution system.
From the town of Englehart, the Englehart waste water treatment lagoon would be impacted as a result of this legislation.
From the township of Enniskillen, the oil city lagoons would be affected by this legislation.
In the great township of Eramosa, there wouldd be two facilities; the township of Eramosa (Rockwood) waste water treatment plant and the township of Eramosa (Rockwood) water treatment plant.
From the village of Erie Beach, we would have Erieau-Erie Beach water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the village of Erieau, we'd have the Erieau-Erie Beach water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Ernestown, we would have the Ernestown-Odessa waste water treatment plant and collection system and the Ernestown-Odessa water treatment plant and distribution system.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Madam Chair: I would just call your attention to standing order 23, "In debate, a member shall be called to order...if he or she....
"(c) Persists in needless repetition.... "
I think reading every --
Mr Laughren: We went through this in the House.
Mr Baird: We went through it in the House, and that was with respect to amendments, not debate. I think there's a prima facie case here that it's needless repetition with the intent of offending the parliamentary practices and that they should be called to order under standing order 23(c).
Mr Agostino: Madam Chair, may I suggest that each one of these names is different; each one affects a different municipality. If I read the same one over and over, I suggest that would be repetition, but they're all different, they're all different parts of this province and they're all different facilities, so I don't think the repetition argument would hold any water here.
Mr Rollins: That isn't your decision; it's the Chair's.
The Chair: I do not believe these are repetitions. I would encourage you, though, if possible, to summarize the point you're trying to get across. There are a number of amendments, Liberal, NDP and government, that should be addressed in this committee. It would serve the interests of the committee to get to all of those amendments and discussion thereof as soon as possible, please.
Mr Agostino: As I said earlier, I think it's important for the record that each one of these be on the record because they're all affected by this. They all potentially could be sold off to the highest bidder as a result of the legislation that is being put through this committee, and so I think it's important for this to be read into the record and that people are aware that their own municipality may be at risk here. So I'll just continue.
Mrs Fisher: Madam Chair, I would ask if we could get some type of ruling on whether or not the member, if he would agree, and I'm sure most other members will agree as well, could present this as an item for print in the Hansard. We have had on occasion members make presentation who didn't have available that day of discussion something they would have liked entered in the minutes. I wonder whether or not it's suitable. If the member would agree, we'd be glad to look at the full list, and it could be all recorded in terms of something entered before this hearing process.
The Chair: The member raises an interesting question. Would you consider submitting this to members of the committee as evidence, a printed listing as an exhibit?
Mr Agostino: Again, I think it's important for these to be read into the record.
Mrs Fisher: As a supplementary to that question, then, my question is, as an exhibit, would it not be printed into the record anyway?
The Chair: No, I don't believe exhibits are printed into the record.
Mrs Fisher: Is there such a thing that we could request that it be printed into the record?
The Chair: The clerk indicates no, that's not possible.
Mr Agostino: The next municipality that's impacted by this is the township of Essa, and this would impact the Angus waste water treatment plant and collection system in this township.
The next one is the Essex Public Utilities Commission, and the facilities impacted and affected and transferred as a result of this legislation would be the Essex waster water treatment lagoons, the Union water distribution system (east) and the Union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Essex, it would be the Essex waste water treatment lagoons that would be impacted by this legislation.
From the town of Exeter, it would be the Exeter-Stephen secondary trunk watermain.
From the township of Fauquier-Strickland, it would be the pipe crossing agreement.
From the village of Fenelon Falls, it would be the Fenelon Falls waste water treatment plant and collection system and Fenelon Falls waste water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the village of Finch, it would impact the Finch water well and distribution system.
From the village of Flesherton, it would impact the Flesherton waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the village of Frankford, it would impact the Frankford waste water treatment plant and collection system and the Frankford water well and distribution system.
From the township of Front of Leeds and Lansdowne, it would impact the Leeds and Lansdowne waste water lagoon and collection system and the Leeds and Lansdowne water well and distribution system.
From the town of Georgina, it would impact the Georgina-Keswick waste water treatment plant.
From the town of Geraldton, it would impact the Geraldton waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the village of Glencoe, it would impact the Glencoe waste water lagoon and collection system and the Glencoe waste water treatment plant.
From the township of Gosfield North, it would impact the Cottam waste water treatment lagoon, the Union water distribution system (east) and the Union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Gosfield South, it would impact the Union water distribution system (east) and the Union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From Goulbourne township, it would impact the Glencoe waste water treatment plant.
From Grand Bend Public Utilities, it would impact the Grand Bend and area water distribution system and the Lake Huron water supply system.
From the village of Grand Bend, it would impact the Grand Bend waste water collection system and the Grand Bend waste water treatment lagoons.
From the town of Haileybury, it would impact Haileybury-North Cobalt waste water collection system and the Haileybury waste water treatment plant, as well as the Haileybury water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Haldimand-Norfolk, it would impact the Cayuga waste water treatment plant and collection system, the Haldimand-Norfolk water treatment plant and distribution system and the Nanticoke backwash lagoon, the Port Dover waste water treatment plant, the Port Rowan water treatment lagoon and collection system and the Simcoe waste water treatment plant as well as the Waterford waste water treatment lagoon.
1720
From the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, it would impact the Ancaster waste water treatment plant, the Hamilton-Wentworth waste water treatment plant and the Saltfleet waste water treatment plant.
From the town of Harrow, it would impact Harrow-Colchester South water treatment plant and distribution system and the Harrow waste water lagoons and collection system.
From the township of Harwich, it would impact the Blenheim area water treatment plant and distribution system, the Blenheim water distribution system, the Erieau-Erie Beach water treatment plant and distribution system and the Shrewsbury water distribution system.
From the village of Hastings, it would impact the Hastings water treatment plant and collection system.
From the village of Havelock, it would impact the Havelock water treatment plant and collection system.
From the town of Hawkesbury, it would impact the Hawkesbury water treatment plant and collection system.
Mr Baird: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Section 24(a) of the standing orders states, "Except where otherwise expressly provided by the standing orders...no member shall speak for more than 30 minutes." I believe those 30 minutes have expired.
Mr Agostino: No, not yet.
The Chair: I'm informed by the clerk that applies only in the House and not in committee.
Mr Baird: Are the standing orders not applying in thecommittee as well?
The Chair: That particular one applies only in the House.
Mr Galt: Madam Chair, in all due respect, maybe the Chair should be challenged for an opinion.
The Chair: That means the ruling would go to the House.
Mr Galt: Okay, forget it, then. I didn't realize it would have to go to the House to get a ruling on that.
The Chair: Mr Agostino, I think there are a number of committee members who would like to move on to other amendments that are being presented to the committee. I ask you to consider that as you read your --
Mr Baird: Madam Chair, this is legislative tomfoolery.
The Chair: Continue.
Mr Agostino: From the town of Hawkesbury, it would be the Hawkesbury waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of Hay, it would be the Lake Huron water supply system.
From the town of Hearst, it would be the Hearst waste water treatment lagoon and the Hearst water treatment plant.
From the village of Hensall, it would be the Hensall waste water lagoon and collection system.
From the township of Himsworth North, it would be the Callander waste water treatment lagoon and the Callander water treatment plant.
From the township of Hornepayne, it would be the Hornepayne waste water treatment plant and collection system and the Hornepayne water treatment plant and distribution system.
From Ingersoll Public Utilities, it would impact the Ingersoll waste water treatment plant.
From the town of Innisfil, it would impact the Cookstown water treatment plant.
From the town of Iroquois Falls, it would impact the Iroquois Falls waste water treatment plant.
From the town of Kapuskasing, it would impact the Kapuskasing waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the district of Kenora, it would impact the Kenora waste water treatment plant.
From the village of Killaloe, it would impact the Killaloe waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the town of Kingsville, it would impact the Union water distribution system east and the Union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Kirkland Lake, it would impact the Kirkland Lake waste water treatment plant.
From the village of L'Orignal, it would impact the L'Orignal waste water treatment plant and collection system and the L'Orignal water well and distribution system.
From the village of Lakefield, it would impact the Lakefield waste water treatment plant.
From the village of Lancaster, it would impact the Lancaster waste water treatment lagoon and the Lancaster water well and distribution system.
From the town of LaSalle, it would impact the LaSalle waste water collection system.
From the town of Latchford, it would impact the Latchford waste water treatment plant and collection system and the Latchford water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Leamington, it would impact the union water distribution system east and the union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Listowel, it would impact the Listowel water treatment facility.
From the city of London, it would impact the Elgin-Middlesex water distribution system and the Lake Huron water supply system.
From the township of London, it would impact the Ilderton water distribution system and the Lake Huron water supply system.
From the town of Longlac, it would impact the Longlac waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the village of Lucan, it would impact the sewage systems in that village.
From the village of Madoc, it would impact the Madoc waste water treatment lagoon.
From the township of Maidstone, it would impact the Belle River-Maidstone waste water treatment plant, the Maidstone waste water collection system, the Sandwich South-Maidstone water distribution system, the union water distribution system east and the union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Malahide, it would impact the Aylmer-Yarmouth water distribution system, the Elgin area secondary number 2 water distribution system, as well as the Elgin area water supply system.
From the township of Malden, it would impact the Malden water distribution system.
From the district of Manitoulin, it would impact the Billings water treatment plant.
From the village of Markdale, it would impact the Markdale water well and distribution system.
From the village of Marmora, it would impact the Marmora waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of McGillivray, it would impact the Ailsa Craig water distribution system, the Lake Huron water supply system and the Parkhill water distribution system.
From the township of Meaford, it would impact the Meaford waste water treatment plant.
From the town of Mersea, it would impact the union water distribution system east and the union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the village of Merrickville, it would impact the sewage and water facilities.
From the village of Mildmay, it would impact the Mildmay water treatment plant.
From the village of Millbrook, it would impact the Millbrook waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the Millbrook water well and distribution system.
From the village of Milverton, it would impact the Milverton waste water treatment lagoons.
From the township of Moore, it would impact the Brigden waste water treatment lagoons, the Brigden water distribution system, the Courtright waste water treatment plant, as well as the Lambton area water treatment plant.
From the district municipality of Muskoka, it would impact the Huntsville waste water treatment plant.
From the township of Nakina, it would impact the Nakina waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the Nakina water well and distribution system.
From the village of Neustadt, it would impact the Neustadt waste water lagoons and collection system.
From the regional municipality of Niagara, it would impact the East Bertie waste water treatment plant, the Fort Erie waste water treatment plant, the Niagara-Fort Erie water treatment plant, the Niagara-Grimsby waste water treatment plant, the Niagara-Port Dalhousie waste water treatment plant, the Niagara-Port Weller waste water treatment plant, the Niagara waste water treatment plant, the Niagara water treatment plant, as well as the Thorold waste water treatment plant.
From the great city of North Bay, it would impact the North Bay waste water treatment plant.
From the township of North Dumfries, it would impact the Ayr water distribution system.
From the township of Norwich, it would impact the Norwich waste water lagoons and collection system.
From the village of Norwood, it would impact the Norwood waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the village of Oil Springs, it would impact the Oil Springs waste water lagoon.
From the village of Omemee, it would impact the Omemee waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the town of Orangeville, it would impact the Orangeville waste water treatment plant.
1730
From the village of Paisley, it would impact the Paisley waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the Parkhill Public Utilities Commission, it would impact the Lake Huron water supply system, as well as the Parkhill water distribution system.
From the town of Parkhill, it would impact the Lake Huron water supply system, the Parkhill waste water lagoon and collection system, as well as the Parkhill water distribution system.
From the regional municipality of Peel, it would impact the Clarkson waste water treatment plant, the Lakeview waste water treatment plant, biosolids, the Lakeview waste water treatment plant, conventional, the Lakeview-Lorne Park water treatment plant, as well as the Bolton water treatment plant.
From the village of Petawawa, it would impact the Petawawa waste water collection system.
From the city of Peterborough, it would impact the Peterborough waste water treatment plant.
From the township of Pittsburgh, it would impact the Pittsburgh water treatment plant.
From the village of Plantagenet, it would impact the Plantagenet waste water treatment lagoon and collection system and the Plantagenet water treatment plant and distribution system --
Mr Galt: Could you repeat that last one? I didn't quite get it. I didn't understand that last one.
Mr O'Toole: He's going too fast. He's going way too fast.
Mr Agostino: What I'll do is I'll spell it to make it easier as well. I'll repeat it and then spell it. If the members like, I can spell each one as we go along as well, after I pronounce it. If it makes it easier to understand, I'd be happy to do that.
The Chair: Colleagues, I think Mr Agostino has the floor and it might help him if the room was a little quieter.
Mr Agostino: But if it's the request of the committee, I'd be happy to spell each name, if it makes it easier.
The Chair: No. I think if you can read them, that would be fine.
Mr Agostino: That would be okay? Thank you.
From the township of Plympton, the East Lambton water distribution system and the Lambton area water treatment plant.
From the village of Point Edward, the Lambton area water treatment plant.
From the village of Port Burwell, the Elgin area section 2 water distribution system and the Elgin area water supply system.
From the village of Port Stanley, the Port Stanley waste water lagoons and collection system.
From the separated town of Prescott, the Prescott waste water treatment plant.
From the great town of Rainy River, the sewage and water treatment facilities.
From the town of Raleigh, the Blenheim area water treatment plant and distribution system, the Blenheim water distribution system, the Erieau-Erie Beach et al water treatment plant distribution system and the Merlin waste water lagoons and collection system.
From the town of Ramara, the Ramara water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Ratter and Dunnet, the Warren waste water treatment lagoon.
From the township of Red Lake, the Red Lake waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the Red Lake water treatment plant.
From the town of Ridgetown, the Ridgetown waste water treatment lagoons.
From the township of Rochester, the union water distribution system east and the union water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Rockland, the Rockland waste water treatment lagoon and collection system, as well as the Rockland water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Romney, the Wheatley waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of Sandwich South, the Sandwich South-Maidstone water distribution system and the Tecumseh-St Clair-Sandwich South waste water pumping station.
From the city of Sarnia, the Lambton area water treatment plant.
From the township of Schreiber, the Schreiber waste water treatment plant.
From the town of Seaforth, the Seaforth waste water treatment lagoons.
From the township of Severn, the Coldwater waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of Smith, the Smith waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the Smith water distribution system.
From the town of Smooth Rock Falls, the Smooth Rock Falls waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of Sombra, the Lambton area water treatment plant, as well as the Sombra waste water treatment lagoons and the Sombra water distribution system, standpipe.
From the township of South Dumfries, the St George waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the town of Southampton, the Southampton waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of Southwold, the Elgin area water supply system.
From the township of Stanley, the Lake Huron water supply system.
From the township of Stephen, the Dashwood water distribution system, the Grand Bend and area water distribution system, the Grand Bend waste water treatment lagoons, and the Lake Huron water supply system.
From the village of Stirling, the Stirling waste water treatment plant.
From the city of Stratford, the Stratford waste water treatment plant.
From the village of St Clair Beach, the St Clair Beach waste water collection system, as well as the Tecumseh-St Clair-Sandwich South waste water pumping station.
From the village of St Isidore, the St Isidore de Prescott waste water treatment lagoon and collection system.
From the separated town of St Marys, the St Marys waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the St Marys waste water collection system.
From the city of St Thomas, the Elgin area water supply system.
From the regional municipality of Sudbury, the Sudbury waste water treatment plant.
Mr Laughren: Oh, no.
Mr Agostino: That's gone.
From the village of Sundridge, the Sundridge waste water treatment lagoon.
From the village of Tara, the Tara waste water treatment lagoons.
From the township of Tay, the Port McNicoll waste water treatment plant and collection system, the Port McNicoll-Tay water distribution system, the Victoria Harbour waste water treatment plant and collection system, and the Victoria Harbour water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the town of Tecumseh, the Tecumseh waste water collection system, as well as the Tecumseh-St Clair-Sandwich South waste water pumping station.
From the township of Temagami, the Temagami South waste water treatment lagoon.
From the village of Thedford, the Lake Huron water supply system, the Parkhill water distribution system, as well as the Thedford waste water treatment lagoon.
From the town of Thessalon, the Thessalon waste water treatment lagoon.
From the town of Thornbury, the Thornbury waste water treatment plant and collection system, as well as the Thornbury water treatment plant and distribution system.
From the township of Tilbury East, the Merlin waste water lagoons and collection system.
From the township of Tilbury North, the Comber water pumping station, as well as the Stoney Point waste water collection system.
From the township of Tilbury West, the Comber water pumping station and the Tilbury West (Comber) waste water collection system.
From the town of Tillsonburg, the Tillsonburg waste water treatment plant.
From the town of Vankleek Hill, the Vankleek Hill waste water treatment lagoon, as well as the Vankleek Hill water well and distribution system.
From the village of Vienna, the Elgin area section number 2 water distribution system, the Elgin area water supply system, as well as the Vienna water distribution system.
From the town of Wallaceburg, the Wallaceburg waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the township of Warwick, the East Lambton water distribution system and the Lambton area water treatment plant.
From the town of Wasaga Beach, the Wasaga Beach waste water treatment plant, as well as the Wasaga Beach water treatment plant.
From the regional municipality of Waterloo, the Ayr waste water collection system, the Ayr waste water treatment plant, the Baden waste water treatment plant, the Galt waste water treatment plant, the Hespeler waste water treatment plant, the Kitchener waste water treatment plant, the Preston waste water treatment plant, the St Jacob's waste water treatment plant, the Waterloo waste water treatment plant, the Wellesley waste water treatment plant.
From the village of Watford, the East Lambton water distribution system, the Lambton area water treatment plant, as well as the Watford waste water treatment lagoons.
From the town of Webbwood, the Webbwood waste water treatment lagoon.
From the village of West Lorne, the West Lorne waste water treatment lagoons and collection system.
From the township of West Williams, the Lake Huron water supply system and the Parkhill water distribution system.
From the village of Westport, the Westport waste water lagoon and collection system, as well as the Westport water well and distribution system.
From the village of Wheatley, the Wheatley waste water treatment plant and collection system.
From the town of Wiarton, the municipally owned facility.
From the township of Wilmot, the Baden waste water treatment plant, as well as the Wilmot waste water treatment plant.
From the village of Winchester, the Winchester waste water lagoon and collection system.
From the village of Woodville, the Woodville water treatment plant.
From the village of Wyoming, the East Lambton water distribution system, as well as the Lambton area water treatment plant.
1740
From the township of Yarmouth, the Aylmer-Yarmouth water distribution system, the Elgin area section 2 water distribution system, the Elgin area water supply system.
From the regional municipality of York, the Georgina-Keswick waste water treatment plant and the King water treatment plant.
From the regional municipalities of York and Durham, the York-Durham waste water treatment plant.
From the village of Zurich, the Zurich waste water treatment lagoons and collection system.
Madam Chair, the reason I read those into the record is because I think it's important for the public. As we go through this and in years to come they'll very clearly understand what is happening here, the municipalities that are going to be impacted by this change as a result of Bill 107 and the transfer. There are also hundreds and hundreds of other facilities that are now municipally owned that also will be impacted by this bill from the point of view of the new powers that this and Bill 26 and other government legislation have given municipalities to be able to sell these assets, these very valuable assets that the public has come to rely upon to ensure that there's safe, clean, affordable drinking water. All these things are in jeopardy as a result of the legislation that has been introduced in front of us today.
Mr Laughren: I think Mr Agostino has done us all a favour. I'd like to thank the engineers in the Ministry of Environment who provided me with a list of all the communities not affected by this legislation, and I wonder whether you wanted those read into the record as well.
The Chair: Mr Laughren, do you really think that's necessary?
Mr Laughren: No, I wouldn't do that, but I did want to just make my final comment on this particular amendment. I think you do get the sense that the opposition cares about this bill and this particular aspect of the bill.
Interjection.
Mr Laughren: Well, I'm serious. The cameras aren't on us, the galleries aren't packed with people. This is something that bothers us a lot. It's not just one of the opposition parties; it's both. So my final point is that I really do wish that the ministry had come forward with a better rationale for not accepting this amendment and for allowing and basically encouraging the municipalities to privatize when the screws get tightened on them.
I just wanted to express my disappointment in the way in which the parliamentary assistant has ignored what I think are legitimate requests of the two opposition parties, who took their task seriously with this committee, travelled with the committee, didn't play any kind of procedural games on the committee as we went to London, and held the hearings here in Toronto. It was a very straightforward thing. I'm disappointed that we weren't treated in kind in return. I would have thought this was a more legitimate process as we tried to make amendments that in our view would improve the bill. If at the end of the day the parliamentary assistant had come forward with overwhelming evidence that in other jurisdictions this turned out to be to the benefit of the community, then perhaps we could have been persuaded that this was the case.
My own government was not opposed to public-private arrangements. Look at Highway 407, for example. Traditionally, highways were built by the public sector in this province. We pioneered, quite frankly, the building of that highway and the maintenance and the operation of it by the private sector, and arranged the financing for it and everything. So I don't come to the debate on this bill with blinkers on because it happens to be public sector and private sector. It's because I have seen no evidence that allowing municipalities or squeezing them to the point where they'll have to privatize their sewer and water services is in the best interests of those communities or of the people at large in this province.
I did want to make sure that you, Madam Chair, understood, and I think you do, that the opposition cares very much about this bill and is genuinely concerned about the direction in which the government is taking us in terms of public policy.
For those reasons these amendments were brought forward and we have prolonged the debate this afternoon. Perhaps it got the attention of the ministry people and the parliamentary assistant and the government members, because I really think, even though reading off the list may to a casual observer seem a trivial exercise, it was a way in which to drive home the fact that we feel very strongly about this bill and this particular aspect of the bill. I'll leave that with you and just simply close my remarks now.
Mr Agostino: Just further on the point made by the previous speaker, Mr Laughren, I think it's important to again clarify the fact that there are some private-public partnerships that do work, and this is not what we're talking about in this particular bill. I think all of us, regardless of what side of this issue we stand on, acknowledge the fact that there are cases where there's a role for the private sector to play in government facilities. The days of government running everything of course are gone; we know that.
There's also an extreme at the other end. There are partnerships in this field that work, but that does not include ownership. That's the critical element to all of this: It is ownership and control of rights. That is really what matters to the public: Who owns these facilities and as a result of owning these facilities, who controls water rates?
In my own municipality, we have an example that, by most observers, works, but that is not ownership. That is a private company which comes in, makes an agreement with the municipality, insures a number of things for the municipality. First of all, the ownership is fully, totally retained by the municipality. Second, the ability to set the water and sewer rates is totally and fully retained by the municipality.
If this bill had that sort of provision in it, I would not have a problem with it. If this bill had an amendment or a provision in it that said that municipalities will continue to own the facilities, they cannot sell them to the private sector, and that municipalities continue to be the ones who control the water and sewer rates, then I don't have any major problem with that.
In my community the company came in, collective agreements were protected, successor rights for the workers were there, contracts were honoured, negotiations that had been agreed to were followed through. So the protections were there for the workers. They weren't thrown out and a whole bunch of new employees weren't brought in at minimum wage the next day. Their contracts and their bargaining rights were protected and, most importantly, the ability to set the rates for water and sewer where protected.
That is really what is critical here. It is not an issue of simply the opposition trying to stall government legislation here. I think, all politics aside, all of us deep in our hearts believe that power and that ability for an essential service such as water and sewer cannot simply be turned over to the private sector. It is too vital. It is too important.
People can pick and choose certain services. They can do without certain services. No one in the public, no one in this room, no one in this province can do without essential water services. Why would we even risk -- and some members might argue it's a small risk, it's minimal -- that opportunity, to give up control and, by giving up that control of those services, give up the ability to control access to those services?
Nobody today anywhere in this province goes without water services because they can't afford to pay; no one in any corner of this province, regardless of income. The risk that would occur, as it has occurred in Great Britain -- and no one can tell us why it wouldn't happen here -- if you give up control, if under this legislation municipalities can now sell the assets, what protects the consumer from the rates? What stops that private company from being able to go in and, based on the bottom line and profit margin, charge whatever rates they want for that water? What would stop that? Nothing in this legislation.
Mr Baird: Nothing stops it now.
1750
Mr Agostino: Maybe somebody on the government side of the House can tell me what protection the consumer would have or the senior citizen on a fixed income or the single mum with a couple of kids if a municipality, because they're cash strapped, would turn around and sell a facility and sell that ability to set the rates to the private sector?
What protection would you offer through this legislation to those consumers? Absolutely none. Not one iota, not one protection in this legislation, and that is absolutely critical here. I just cannot understand. No one on the government side has said to me yet why it's a good idea for municipalities to sell these services and to lose control of that. No one can argue that. But if that's the case and it's not a problem, then why would you not agree to simply put that in legislation? I would sit here and praise your bill and say it's a great bill and go through with it.
Mr Baird: Ask the question and you'll see.
Mr Agostino: We have seen very clearly here a reluctance to do that. I urge the government members again to do what is right. I will praise this government if they do that. It is the right thing to do and I would urge you to do it. You have the majority and you have the control and you can determine where this is going to go. You can do the right thing today and protect the consumers and ensure that we do not turn over water and sewer services and setting those rates to the private sector.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Mr Agostino: What was the vote on that, Madam Chair, may I ask?
The Chair: Sorry, it wasn't a recorded vote.
Mr Agostino: From the voice vote, you believe it was carried?
The Chair: No, we had show of hands.
Mr Agostino: I didn't see all the hands up, and I wasn't sure what the margin was.
The Chair: I did, and the motion was lost.
Mr Agostino: And every single member on that side raised their hand?
The Chair: We'll move now to the next amendment, which I believe is an alternate Liberal amendment. Is that correct, Mr Agostino?
Mr Agostino: I move that subsection --
Mr Baird: Dispense.
The Chair: No, it has to be read into Hansard.
Mr Baird: Just trying to help you, Dom.
Mr Agostino: Yes, thank you.
I move that subsections 56.2(1) and (2) of the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Conditions for transfer of waterworks
"(1) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a waterworks to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital costs of the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other waterworks that have been used to provide water service to a municipality; and
"(b) the municipality has passed a bylaw setting out the terms of the transfer and the municipal electors have given their assent to the bylaw in accordance with the Municipal Act.
"Conditions of transfer of sewage works
"(2) A municipality shall not transfer the ownership of all or part of a sewage works to another person unless,
"(a) the municipality has repaid to the crown,
"(i) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, 1978 for the purpose of subsidizing the capital costs for the transferred works, and
"(ii) all payments that were made by the crown on or after April 1, for the purpose of subsidizing the capital cost of other sewage works that have been used to provide sewage service to a municipality; and
"(b) the municipality has passed a bylaw setting out the terms of the transfer and the municipal electors have given their assent to the bylaw in accordance with the Municipal Act."
The Chair: Excuse me. Just for the record, "after April 1," should also read "1978."
Mr Agostino: Thank you. The intent of this amendment, and the reason it's an alternate amendment -- obviously, had the government members supported the previous amendment, which they refused to do and in effect opened up the door now to the private sector owning and controlling the facilities and basically setting the sewer and water rates, what in effect this amendment would do is at least do something that government members have always been the great advocates of, and that is referendums.
The Common Sense Revolution makes reference a number of times to the value of referendums and how important they are in determining the future of various pieces of government legislation. If you believe that municipalities have that right, as you do now, to sell those assets, and you've done that already by defeating the previous amendment, then at least allow the public some protection and some direct say.
This is not an issue of privatization where people can take it or leave it. Many of us in this room may oppose the privatization of the LCBO. Privatizing the LCBO, as wrong as it may be, is not an issue of essential service. People can be serviced one way or another, can be happy or unhappy about the LCBO being either in the control that it is now or in the private sector. It's not an essential life and death type of service. We're not talking about privatizing a park here. We're not talking about privatizing Niagara Falls or our park system in this province or privatizing roads or privatizing the LCBO. What we're talking about here is privatizing water, the most essential service that government can provide to any of us across this province. Therefore, very clearly we believe that if you're going to take that step and leave that door open to municipalities, the least you can do is afford the taxpayers of that municipality the right to be able to vote on that particular item through a referendum before a municipality sells it.
If municipality X went out tomorrow and put a tender out for their facility and the water and sewer plant, before that went out, before that tender had been approved, the electors in that municipality would have the right to say, "Yes, we want our water and sewer services privatized," or "No, we do not want that to happen." In Bill 26, that was allowed. Before Bill 26, that would have been the route that would have been taken and that is the substantial difference.
The members say they've had this power for years. Yes, that's been there for years but there was some protection in past years. That protection is not there and that protection can only be given now, as a result of your previous vote, to the taxpayers of that municipality by allowing those people to have a say through a referendum that would be forced upon that council, whether they wanted to or not, which now this does not allow. The way the legislation is now, there's nothing that forces municipalities at all, that compels municipalities at all, to go that route if they were going to sell the service.
I think it's just absolutely unthinkable, unconscionable and amoral that a municipality would proceed in such a fashion, without ensuring that there was a mechanism that the people whose vital services you are now impacting -- you talk about impact on people when it comes to taxes and you like referendums on taxes. You ran a campaign on that. You went through that whole route. If that is important to you, the selling and the privatization of water must be just as important to you as taxes.
You cannot tell me, when it comes to impact on people's lives, that the impact privatization of such a service would have is not at least equivalent to the impact an increase in taxes would have. You're willing to go to referendums on tax increases, you're willing to go to referendums on balanced budgets and all those kinds of things you talked about in the revolution, but you're not willing to do it for water and sewer services, for the most essential service that government can provide its citizens and has a responsibility to provide its citizens.
Mr Galt: In response to this particular amendment, certainly we believe this amendment is unnecessary. The grant repayment provision of Bill 107 is sufficient to protect public investment in water and sewage infrastructure.
Municipal councils have been in the past and will continue to be accountable to ratepayers for decisions regarding the provision of water and sewage works. I think municipal councils have been very accountable, very responsible to the people. Municipal councils are the closest level of government to the public, to the people they serve. They are responsive. They have all kinds of delegations coming to them expressing their concerns. I, for one, have a lot of faith, having been involved both in township council as well as county council, that they will do what is right for the citizens. To say otherwise is an insult to the many councils that we have across this province. I cannot support this particular motion.
The Chair: It being 6 of the clock, colleagues, I think it best the committee stands recessed until Monday, May 5, following standing orders.
The committee adjourned at 1800.