SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
ST CATHARINES PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF NIAGARA FALLS
NIAGARA SOUTH ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
PORT COLBORNE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICAST CATHARINES AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Thursday 11 January 1996
Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, Bill 26, Mr Eves / Loi de 1995 sur les économies
et la restructuration, projet de loi 26, M. Eves
St Catharines Professional Fire Fighters Association
Terry Colburn, president
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Tom Charrette, Ontario membership development
Taxpayers' Coalition Niagara
Charles Atkinson, president
Project SHARE
Roxanne Felice, executive director
Amy Begnucolo, president, board of directors
Chamber of Commerce of Niagara Falls
Ted Salci, incoming president
Glen Gandy, managing director
Niagara South Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation
Dale Ford, president
Ted Krasowski
Port Colborne and District Labour Council; United Steelworkers of America
David McIntosh, vice-president, Port Colborne and District Labour Council; president, Niagara Peninsula Steelworkers area council
Rose Bisson, president, Port Colborne and District Labour Council
St Catharines and District Labour Council
Gabe MacNally, president
Ed Gould, representative, Coalition for the Unemployed
Cliff Kostyniuk, representative
Malcolm Allen, representative
John Dawson; Jane Hughes
City of Niagara Falls
Wayne Thomson, mayor
Women Against Bill 26
Darlene Fisher, representative
Pamela Jones, representative
Sharon Bassett, representative
Belinda Yorke, representative
Emilie Fowler, representative
Wendy Sturgeon, Niagara Chapter of Native Women
Carrie Macfie, representative
Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association
Peter Skowronek, executive vice-president
Henry Labenski, district vice-president; past president, Welland Professional Fire Fighters Association
Jim Lee, president
Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy Society
Laura Dodson, president
Gracia Janes, vice-president
Pens
Steve Balz, co-chair
EVIDENCE SUBCOMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)
*Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)
*Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L) for Mrs Pupatello
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Grandmaître
Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND) for Mr Wood
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Froese, Tom (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Hudak, Tim (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0859 in the Sheraton Fallsview Hotel, Niagara Falls.
SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.
The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome, committee members, to Niagara Falls. I guess it's safe for me to say welcome to Niagara Falls on behalf of my constituents also.
We will commence this morning, as we have throughout the committee process and as defined for us by the Legislature, with a half-hour per presenter. The presenter can use that time as he sees fit and the remaining time will be divided equally between the three parties for questions.
Before we begin this morning, I believe we have a motion by Mr Silipo.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to move the following motion:
Whereas there has been overwhelming public interest in Bill 26 and 45 groups and individuals have requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Niagara Falls, which far exceed the 15 spaces available today for hearings;
I move that this committee recommends to the government House leader that when the House returns on January 29, 1996, the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended and the bill be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further public hearings can be arranged for the community of Niagara Falls;
Further, this committee recommends that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss this issue.
I'd like to give my time to briefly speak to this to Mr Kormos.
The Chair: Quickly, I'd like to welcome Mr Kormos, Mr Agostino and Mr Hudak to the committee.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I live in the region. It's okay. This is home.
To the motion: I was aghast to read in this morning's paper a quote from one of the Tory members that suggested that those approximately 75% -- and that's consistent with what has happened here in Niagara region, a mere 10 or so out of over 40 groups and individuals that had important comments to make about this incredible piece of legislation -- the fact that they were being denied access to a committee was of no great concern because, after all, they could file their submissions and the committee members could read them.
What's shocking about that is that the Tory government members never even read the bill before it was tabled, because they weren't told about it. It was kept secret even from the caucus, and they were as shocked as anybody to see this bill tabled in the Legislature. It is an egregious breach of traditional, democratic and parliamentary procedure to see so gross a denial to a public process as has been demonstrated by this government and this committee.
Chair, with all due respect to you, I'm shocked that you, as Chair, would tolerate this denial of access to a very important and what should be a public and democratic process by members of the community.
Quite frankly, I suspect in your heart that you're as ashamed of this as anybody in the Niagara region is and that you are as embarrassed by it as anybody could be. Surely you recognize that this bill, fraught as it is with loopholes and dangerous, unprecedented powers for a government and for individual ministers and containing in it powers to impose incredible new taxes on property owners here in Niagara region, should be the subject matter of far fuller and far more complete and far more thorough public participation.
I can tell you that there's a whole lot of folks here in the Niagara region, including members of the Welland and District Labour Council among others, who are royally pissed off at the fact that they're not going to be able to make their contribution to this hearing. They've got plans for you, let me tell you.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): This is not the first time, of course, we've seen this motion, and my reply will be consistent with my previous reply, with the exception that I would like to note that I believe it was in London we had a deputation from a group that started off by saying, "It's unfortunate that other people can't sit and make deputations to this committee," and then went to the gist of their presentation, but that individual was also part of a group that made the same presentation, almost identical content, to us in Toronto.
My point is that it's important for us to hear from people and we are prepared to hear from people. That's why we're here. It's not unusual that not everybody can attend committee hearings. That has happened in previous government committees, and the way to deal with that is if individuals who are unable to make physical presentations, ie, be at the table, on the committee day are prepared and are more than willing or more than capable, and we're prepared to receive written submissions, which we will. I have read the ones we received, which so far total two, by the way.
We are listening. We intend to listen. This committee process was established with the consent of all three party leaders at the time. The statement by the Leader of the Opposition was that it was more than sufficient time, in her view, to review this piece of legislation, and we are performing our hearings here in accordance with orders from the House that cannot be changed.
I would suggest to the individuals who feel they are not able to speak to us today that we are prepared to receive and respond to the written submissions as we are prepared to receive and respond to the submissions made at the table here today. Most of the submissions we've received, by the way, have been people literally reading their written submissions to us, consuming most of the time that's allocated to them. We've had about two or three minutes each on average, each side, to pose questions.
I would put it to the people who are here today who will not be making presentations, please submit your written presentations to us and they will be reviewed and received.
Mr Kormos: That's the same thing you've said every time.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Phillips has a question.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just to speak on the motion and to support the motion -- and if that motion is defeated, we have one that's just slightly different that we'd also like to move -- I'd say to the community here that I don't think there has been a brief presented yet that hasn't brought us some new information and new insight into the bill, and I suspect when we hear from the groups today, each group will bring us some new perspective. Once the groups get into looking at the bill, they raise for us some issues around the bill. We're going to hear from one third of the groups in the Niagara area that want to be heard. I make the assumption that the two thirds we don't hear from would have had something significant to say to us.
I would also say that when the government says we can read the briefs, you should be aware that next week this group will be starting in Timmins on Monday, flying to Sudbury Tuesday, Thunder Bay Wednesday, Ottawa Thursday, Friday morning in Kingston, and we finish these hearings at 9 o'clock next Friday night in Peterborough. We begin what we call clause-by-clause hearings at 9 o'clock the following Monday morning, and then this bill becomes law one week later.
The point I'm making is that the public is not having adequate opportunity for input into the bill, and I would just say that the input we've been getting is significant and important. We are going to hear today from one third of the groups in this area that want to be heard, and the other two thirds no doubt have meaningful contributions to the bill; otherwise they would have not asked to appear before us. The groups that are selected, frankly -- it's not totally random, but the two thirds that aren't being heard should have an equal opportunity to be heard, but we won't hear from them.
We will be supporting Mr Silipo's motion. I'll be proposing another motion. I would just say that the opposition have been very up front with the government in saying: "Listen, if there are parts of this bill that you have to get passed for desperate fiscal reasons, we're quite prepared to pass that on January 29. The rest of it we think can be held over for an opportunity for meaningful public debate." So we'll be supporting this proposal.
The Chair: I'd like to put the motion. All those in favour of the motion?
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It's my understanding that neither Mr Cooke nor I can vote.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: If there's only one New Democrat member of the committee, two Liberals and four Tories, no matter what kind of motion's brought, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being passed because the Tories are going to oppose it.
The Chair: Committee membership is representative and proportional to that of the Legislature. Eligible to vote today for the Conservatives are Mr Tascona, Mr Sampson, Mr Hardeman and Mr Young, for the third party Mr Silipo and for the opposition party Mr Phillips and Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Silipo: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion?
Ayes
Gerretsen, Phillips, Silipo.
The Chair: All those against?
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
0910
Mr Phillips: I don't want to take the time of the firefighters' association. I hope you will give them their full half-hour. I'll just quickly move our motion. I'm not sure we need to debate it.
Whereas Bill 26 impacts in a major way on every individual in Ontario;
Whereas Bill 26 requires broad public input before being passed into law;
Whereas there are 44 groups in Niagara Falls that want to provide input into the bill but only 15 will be heard;
I move that when the House returns on January 29, 1996, the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended such that the portions of the bill that do not require urgent passage for fiscal reasons be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further hearings can be arranged for the community of Niagara Falls.
I think I commented on the reasons for adding that the government believes there are urgent portions of the bill. We would be prepared to deal with them on January 29.
Mr Sampson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think the motion is very similar to the one Mr Phillips moved back in Toronto that you declared out of order. Would you rule on that?
The Chair: There are some differences. I don't think we need to have debate on the motion. It's substantially similar to the debate we've just had. I will allow the motion and I'd like to put the motion right away.
All those in favour?
Mr Silipo: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Gerretsen, Phillips, Silipo.
Nays
Hardeman, Sampson, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
ST CATHARINES PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. I apologize for the delay this morning. We have before us members from the St Catharines Professional Fire Fighters Association. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you would introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Terry Colburn: My name is Terry Colburn. I am president of the St Catharines Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 485 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. With me this morning is Rod Edmands, the vice-president of our association.
Today we're here representing 150 members of the fire service in St Catharines. Our goal this morning is to bring to this committee's attention our opposition to Bill 26 in general, and in particular to schedule Q and schedule M. We are going to attempt to put a local flavour to our points in order to show you, the committee, the ramifications and ripple effect of this near-sighted legislation.
This bill contains 17 schedules which enact or amend over 40 separate pieces of legislation. If passed, this bill would vest in cabinet and ministers of the crown the unconstrained power to make decisions affecting the delivery of public services together with the operation of public institutions. In many cases these decisions could be made by regulation, ministerial direction or administrative order, without parliamentary debate or meaningful opportunity for public scrutiny and without community, local or stakeholder input.
The bill also contains provisions authorizing cabinet or ministers to extinguish contractual rights and obligations contained in existing binding agreements. All this done by a government that has been in power for such a short period of time only leaves us to believe that common sense was not used.
With the formation of Bill 26 being put together with no consultation with any of our people leaves me no other thought than that the government does not care about the health, welfare and safety of Ontarians. This government is hiding behind the skirt of the deficit and only using tunnel vision in dealing with the deficit problem. Whenever anyone tries to open the government's eyes they cry deficit and stare straight ahead. This bill goes far beyond merely enacting the provisions of the Treasurer's economic statement of November 29, 1995.
Without hearing the vested interests by all the stakeholders, this government clearly could not weigh the deficit versus the health, safety and welfare of its citizens to come up with a balance which could both reduce the deficit and still protect the people of Ontario.
As you are all aware, Premier Mike Harris, in a pre-election pledge to professional firefighters in Ontario in a video last April, which I witnessed personally, said:
"We have serious concerns about some of the changes that are being contemplated with respect to the Fire Departments Act. Today I simply want to leave you with my personal assurances. No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted, and we will insist that all changes are fully costed both from the point of view of the workers as well as management."
The statement I just read, from the Premier of the province, was a statement which showed common sense; too bad it didn't happen.
The Fire Departments Act has been under review in this province for several years. We appeal to the government to use your good judgement and common sense and continue to allow the investigative process into the merits of the amendments to the Fire Departments Act to return to those who know it best: the stakeholders.
Schedule Q of the bill, as it will relate to interest arbitration under the Fire Departments Act: Under the proposed legislation, arbitrators will be obligated to take into consideration five criteria in making an arbitration award by imposing these types of guidelines:
"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.
"2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased.
"3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality.
"4. A comparison, as between...other comparable employees in the broader public sector....
"5. The employer's need for qualified employees."
In the city of St Catharines, firefighters are trained and responsible for fire protection, including prevention, suppression, dispatch, extrication, hazardous material spills, water rescue and medical emergencies, with firefighters being certified in standard first aid, CPR and defibrillation. Yet the health, safety and welfare of the community are not addressed in the criteria, as services are to be reduced based solely on funding levels. What happened to the government that campaigned on the premise of safe streets?
This government recently reinforced its commitment to a paramedic program in the province of Ontario, guaranteeing $15.5 million to the program. The firefighter defib program, which has just started in the city of St Catharines as well as other municipalities in the Niagara region, will allow those cities to qualify for full paramedic funding from the government. The criterion required for the cities to qualify for this funding is an early defibrillation program, which is being instituted throughout various fire departments because of our excellent response times. You must respond to 90% of your defib calls in less than eight minutes for a year in order to qualify.
Now, we can only attempt to forecast what the outcome of this legislation may be. You are certainly creating a window of opportunity for the employer to possibly prioritize the fire service as less than essential; certainly less than desirable, in our opinion. Morally, the employer's actions may be wrong, but under this legislation their actions will be legal. Risk management is named properly: It's a risk.
You very well could be risking the paramedic program your government supports by implementing this legislation as it stands. If service levels are reduced based solely on funding levels, response times will increase and funding for the paramedic program will be jeopardized. The city of St Catharines is eligible for $500,000 for the program. Without this funding, there probably won't be a paramedic program.
The provisions set out in schedule Q handcuff the arbitrators and interfere with the independence and integrity of the arbitration process. Arbitrators have stated that basing an award on the ability to pay could render the interest arbitration process largely irrelevant. To impose the ability-to-pay criterion on arbitrators will force an arbitrator to reach a predetermined result. Employers will have the ability to unilaterally fix or reduce the budget for employee compensation, knowing full well the arbitrators are bound to the employers' budgetary decisions.
What would be the point of the employer participating in the collective bargaining process, since there would be little incentive, if any, for employers to reach an agreement when it's clear that arbitrators will have no choice at the end of the day other than to award the employer's position? Do you think any of us will have any confidence in the arbitration system if arbitrators are directly appointed by a government which lays down in legislation certain criteria which arbitrators are bound to follow in determining awards? Ability to pay amounts to no more than willingness to pay, and to our knowledge there is no objective test for measuring an employer's ability to pay.
0920
By imposing this bill unchanged, the government is implementing wage controls indirectly using arbitrators as buffers. This bill, as stated in the second guideline in schedule Q that I read previously, may involve arbitrators in decisions respecting the level of service that should be provided by employers, thereby relieving the employers of their responsibility for making decisions for which they can be held accountable.
User fees, as stated by some mayors, are a recipe for disaster. People will attempt to extinguish their own fires, thereby risking their own lives and that of their families and the public in general for the sake of saving money. Minor fires become major fires very quickly. Without proper training, everyone is at risk. I understand what the intent is meant to be, but under the emergency aspect of the service this type of management only looks good on paper. This is not in the best interest of the citizens of Ontario. There comes a time when you must protect the citizens from themselves.
What ramifications will there be when someone disconnects a remote alarm system because they cannot afford the user fee for excessive calls due to problems in the remote system? Trust me; this will happen. People will disconnect panels. This type of problem will rarely be detected early. Discovering this after the need for the system to be activated will only result in larger property loss and possibly loss of life. How do you really prove who disconnected the panel?
Municipalities may find it could cost them money in order to try to collect from people who refuse to pay user fees. What option do they have? Refuse service to people who don't pay? This certainly doesn't make the streets safer.
Allow me now to show you our overview of this political disaster. We have just been through three years of a social contract by another government. They froze our wages and benefits and the corporation reduced our staffing level to a point that any further reductions will no doubt affect the service level. Now we get a provincial government who campaigned and promised a Common Sense Revolution. That same government also promised us a voice so that our concerns would be taken into consideration in regard to our rights, our safety and that of the public safety within their plans to reduce the deficit.
That government changes their mind, breaks their promises and acts swiftly, without consultation or regard for the public safety and welfare, with a bill that far exceeds the needs required to deal with the deficit. The government's only promise is to reduce the deficit and return 30% of personal income tax at the same time.
They reduced funding to our municipality by approximately $3 million. At this point I do not know what the final figures are. Meanwhile, local politicians, prior to this development, made commitments of their own to not increase property taxes. They are committed to keeping their word, and you have to respect them for that, but after going through the social contract there are not many options for the local municipalities.
At this point it is almost inevitable that service levels will have to be reduced or everyone who works for a municipality will be expected to work for substandard wages and benefits so that the deficit can be paid off the backs of the workers. Even if personal income tax gets reduced and with an increase in property taxes to maintain service levels, an individual homeowner could still bank money.
Local politicians will not break their word, so we see the service level being reduced. I don't honestly know, and I doubt if this committee knows, what effect this reduction in fire service will have on one individual homeowner's insurance. One can only speculate that a reduction in fire service will result in an increase in property loss or loss of life. How do you think insurance companies will deal with this situation? Will your homeowner's insurance cost outweigh what your increase in property tax may have been in order to maintain this essential service for your protection?
Now let's compound the problem by incorporating user fees, to put the public at greater risk by them trying to extinguish what they see as a bill, not as a harmful fire.
So that no one is happy, let's amalgamate with another city so that all union contracts are null and void. This can only serve one purpose: to keep our minds off the fact that we're in greater personal danger due to reduced service levels. Even if this legislation worked to a certain degree in reducing the deficit, the actual cost of reducing the deficit may be a greater loss of property or loss of life itself. People die every day. That's a fact. Do they need the government's help?
Labour unrest may be unprecedented in dealing with this bill, hindering business from moving into the province.
Yet when all the dust settles, there is nothing now, there was nothing in the past and we see nothing in the future that will restrict and guide either this government or any other government from letting this disaster with the deficit be created again and having this or another government come back to the workers to have us pay the bill again. It is very hard on us being caught in a "common sense" revolution.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
The Chair: Thank you. We have four minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm certainly pleased that the firefighters' associations have taken advantage of the opportunity to make presentations. I note that when we were in London we were given a letter by that association from Mr Runciman to Jim Lee, the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, encouraging them to make the presentations, and everywhere we've been, we've had either a written or an oral presentation from the firefighters.
I'd like to bring you up to speed in terms of some of the discussions we've had in different cities. Certainly we've emphasized and everybody knows about the fiscal reality this province has in terms of the debt and the decreasing transfer payments from the federal level to the provincial level; also the accountability we have to bring to the system for the taxpayers we represent.
Also there is a fiscal reality to the arbitration process that we've had to look at, and you've addressed it under schedule Q. I just want to address a couple of points. There are mandatory criteria that are to be considered, but Mr Runciman did point out in his letter that there is no restriction on arbitrators to consider other factors. That's pointed out right in the letter, and the London firefighters made us aware of that. We want to make it clear that there are no powers given to arbitrators to decrease service levels or order tax increases. That's the independence of them, to decide through the factors, which are not exhaustive, and all they have to do is consider those in place.
What we have to focus on is the ability to pay, which is a reality. Our approach focuses on restructuring the government to do better for less. That's a reality, and it was brought in through the previous government by the social contract etc. We have to save taxpayers' money and we have to operate as best we can in the fiscal reality.
What I posed to the London firefighters, and it was also endorsed by one of the CAW locals there yesterday, was productivity bargaining in the public sector in terms of a cost-effective and a safe-operation approach in saving money. That was supported by the London firefighters -- they felt productivity bargaining was a good way to go -- and the CAW bluntly said: "Why don't you as the government deal with your unions and have a system where you basically do productivity bargaining with them? We do it. When we have a situation where the employer says they can't pay, that's what we do. Why don't you do it?"
Based on the realities we're facing, and in terms of saving money and being more accountable to the taxpayer, would you agree with the approach of productivity bargaining, which is basically that you look at the operation, maybe reshuffle the compensation package, look at, "Maybe this is the way we want to operate"? And you are looking for more flexibility under the Fire Departments Act in adding more service. Is that an approach you would endorse as an association, as supported by the London firefighters?
Mr Colburn: I don't think I could endorse that. When you talk about productivity, the city of St Catharines has had the same service level since approximately 1977, yet firefighters now are far more certified and advanced in medical assistance. Our call ratios have gone up considerably since 1977, our staffing levels have not, but what a firefighter is expected to know and do for his community today far exceeds what was already done.
The community gets the best bang for a buck out of its firefighters. If in doubt, other than somebody pointing a gun at you, in the city of St Catharines if you have a problem, you call the fire department. We'll come and straighten it out. If it's an emergency, we'll handle it.
0930
Mr Tascona: Is there no room in your negotiation process to find more savings, to find a more efficient operation? Have we reached the limit?
Mr Colburn: We have constantly worked with the corporation in free negotiations. It goes outside of what the arbitrator does. We negotiate with the city. They have told us that we have to get more for our money and we have done that. But what you have put forward in your legislation is one-sided to an arbitrator; it is one-sided from the point of view of the corporation. It states right in there that the arbitrator does have a right to rule on service levels. We are afraid that if an arbitrator rules on service levels, it takes away the responsibility from the community to make that decision on its own. It shouldn't be made from an arbitrator.
The Chair: We must move to the opposition caucus. Before doing so, I want to welcome Mr Bradley to the committee today. Mr Bradley, I believe, would like to start the questioning.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On reading your brief, I noted that you were under the impression from a video you saw of the Premier that there would not be changes to anything to do with fire services or emergency services before there was very extensive consultation with those who are directly involved in those services. Would it be safe to say that you are not satisfied with that, that you do not feel that commitment has been lived up to?
Mr Colburn: It's very obvious that commitment has not been lived up to. Further to that, I know our provincial association received a letter from the Honourable Mr Runciman in regard to the same thing: that it is under review by the committee that has been struck and working on it for several years. It's a very in-depth piece of legislation dealing with various aspects of the Fire Departments Act.
Mr Bradley: At the beginning of the meeting, Mr Phillips, the Liberal Finance critic, moved a motion that "when the House returns on January 29, 1996, the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended such that the portions of the bill that do not require urgent passage for fiscal reasons be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further hearings can be arranged for the community of Niagara Falls." Do you believe that not only across Niagara Falls, but across this province, before this legislation is passed, there should be much more extensive hearings than have been contemplated to this point?
Mr Colburn: Most definitely. We can speak to lawyers who have gone over the bill since it came out, and they're still not sure and want to go through it further to find out just what the extent of the bill will be.
Mr Bradley: What do you believe the implications would be of arbitrators determining the level of service, as opposed to the local community which is familiar with it?
Mr Colburn: The problem I have with arbitrators making that decision is that if you have another situation like what happened in North York, you're going to have an inquiry into it and you're going to try to find out who's responsible. Everyone has it at arm's length from them. That's not acceptable.
Mr Bradley: You've talked about the commitment that municipalities have to service and that all of us have to emergency services in the province. We all recognize there is a problem with the provincial deficit. Do you believe it is wise for the provincial government to be making the kinds of cuts it's making in order that it can deliver a tax cut of 30% to the people of this province?
Mr Colburn: No, I don't think that's fair at this time.
Mr Bradley: We also noted that there would possibly be, and there's some discussion of this in the Legislature, some kind of actual fees levied for people who utilize those services, in other words, user fees. You mentioned a couple of instances yourself. Is it your view that this would more likely weigh heavily on those who do not have the ability to pay than on those who do have the ability to pay?
Mr Colburn: Yes.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much, Mr Colburn, for your presentation. I think Mr Phillips made the point earlier that as we continue to hear from organizations, we continue to get new insights, and certainly your presentation, as the first one here this morning, very much does that.
I was struck very much by the kind of situation you described that may likely happen that goes beyond the initial impact that the cuts and this legislation would have, obviously as it affects you as an organization around the question of bargaining, but also more particularly around the issue of safety and what may happen in terms of not just increases in property taxes or user fees, but also such things as house insurance, those things we haven't heard much about yet. As we are hearing more and more from people, we are finding that people are beginning to reflect upon the kind of implications that flow from this type of legislation and that it's not just sort of the immediate impact, that there are things that go beyond that.
Obviously, within your organization this is something that has taken place in terms of this realization. Do you see that happening in the community that you serve in any kind of a broader way?
Mr Colburn: I'm sorry?
Mr Silipo: Do you see that kind of realization beginning to take place, about people realizing that what the government is doing will in fact have far-reaching implications beyond just the initial impact of making some cuts?
Mr Colburn: Every citizen is going to pay. No matter what the government gives them back, no matter what the government takes away, it will affect them in another way. Either their insurance rates will go up or they will have greater loss to their personal property or to someone they love. It will affect them in other ways.
It's also going to affect the people who maybe live in a three-storey walk-up that has an alarm system, that a person who is just trying to get ahead in life owns that property, works somewhere else and he can't afford those user fees. Those people in that building are in jeopardy if anything happens to that panel.
We've been pushing legislation and the previous government put in further legislation in regard to protecting the public with legislation on your three-storey walk-ups and your granny flats, and now it's all being challenged under this bill. We don't have enough inspectors out there to constantly go around and make sure that everything's kept up to snuff. But it's going to happen.
Mr Kormos: A person totally unknown to me just gave me a button that said "Harris's common sense makes no sense to workers." I'm proud to wear it. Are you inclined to agree --
Mr Colburn: Do you have more of those?
Mr Kormos: Are you inclined to agree with the proposition?
Mr Colburn: Most definitely.
Mr Kormos: I've got a feeling there might be more of these showing up before the end of the day.
I just want to say that as a former municipal councillor, prior to being elected to the provincial Legislature, firefighters certainly in this region, and I'm sure they're reflective of firefighters across the province, as you've indicated, have been trained and have developed their skills to a level unthought of even 20 years ago. To see a government diminish, devalue the role of firefighters, the women and men who protect our families, our homes, our lives, to see a government devalue firefighting as a valuable public service is disgraceful. There's simply no justification for it, no moral, no ethical justification, and quite frankly, not only should firefighters -- and they are ticked off -- but every homeowner, every member of this region ought to be extremely concerned about their welfare, their families' welfare, their communities' welfare, when we see firefighting services under attack as they are in Bill 26. I want to commend you for your participation in this hearing --
The Chair: Sorry for interrupting, Mr Kormos. The time for the third party has ended. Gentlemen, I appreciate your coming forward today to make your presentation to the committee.
0940
CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION
The Chair: Could I please have members of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to field some questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Tom Charette: Thank you for the opportunity for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to comment on Bill 26. I'm Tom Charette. I'm a resident of St Catharines. My role within CTF is primarily that of membership development within the province of Ontario. I can tell you our Ontario membership is growing at a very good rate.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a federally incorporated, non-profit, non-partisan organization. We were founded in 1990. We've got 85,000 supporters across Canada, 7,000 in Ontario. We exist to give taxpayers a way to control taxes and eliminate the waste of taxpayer dollars.
The CTF supports the intent of Bill 26 because of the context in which the bill is being introduced. My remarks this morning are primarily concerned with this context rather than with the details of the bill, although I'll speak to some of those. There are three significant aspects to this context: (1) the size of Ontario's debt, debt interest payments and continuing annual deficits; (2) the likelihood of the situation getting much worse without quick action; (3) the existing level of taxation. I'd like to look at each of those.
The chart on page 2 shows Ontario's recent fiscal performance. The numbers speak for themselves. From Confederation to 1986, the province accumulated $35 billion in debt. In the last 10 years, the debt has tripled. Debt interest payments have almost tripled to nearly $9 billion a year and the annual deficit is approaching $9 billion. This is clearly unsustainable. An increasing proportion of this province's resources is going to debt interest payments, and a lot of these payments are going to bond holders and bankers in foreign countries. This is a provincial tragedy no matter where you're located on the political spectrum.
An interesting note: Thanks to the biggest tax increase in Ontario's history, tax collections this year will be $4 billion higher than in 1990-91, but because of huge provincial deficits, interest spending will be up by $5 billion in that same period. The taxpayer cannot even keep up with increased interest expense, let alone any demands for more program spending.
This situation can and will get much worse if it's not addressed quickly and decisively. One merely has to look at the federal government's fiscal situation to see how bad things can get when deficits are ignored. Ottawa has had deficits in 37 of the last 40 years and hasn't balanced its budget since 1969. The most recent federal budget shows the result, and this is what's in store for Ontario if we don't address our situation. Tax collections are going up by $21 billion; program spending, what Canadians get for these taxes, is going down by $12 billion. We'll all be paying significantly more for significantly less. Tragically, total spending is not decreasing, because as you can see, the program spending cuts are being more than replaced by an increase of $12.7 billion in debt interest spending. We're trading our programs for debt interest.
By the end of the budget period, almost 40 cents of every dollar Canadians send to Ottawa will go to interest payments. That's up from nine cents in 1966. Now that path is tragic and is clearly as unsustainable as the one the province is on. Whether you're on the left or right of the political spectrum, there are only two questions. The first is, how do you eliminate the provincial deficit and debt? The second is, how fast you do it? How do we eliminate the debt and deficit, tax increases or spending cuts or both?
Let's look at the taxation side.
Personal taxes: The average Ontario family earns $57,700 a year as a family unit. According to the Fraser Institute, this family pays 46% of this income to government. This amounts to $26,500 a year, or $2,200 a month, or $510 a week. That's certainly enough government -- far too much in the minds of many of these average Ontario families. This is up from 30% of income in 1960, and it's up despite the fact that never in the last 35 years can anyone ever remembering anyone running for election on a platform of increasing taxes to the point of taking almost half of the average family's income.
Payroll taxes: They raise the cost of hiring employees and act as direct job killers. It's an all but foregone conclusion that the provinces and Ottawa will attempt in the near future to increase payroll taxes for their joint Canada pension plan program while cutting and delaying benefits currently promised to Canadians under this program. Again, we'll be paying more for less and we'll be paying in a form, payroll taxes, that guarantees job losses. There's no room for more payroll taxes. Indeed, in the interests of job creation, they should be reduced.
Business taxation: Here's what Canada's Liberal Finance minister, Paul Martin, told the House of Commons finance committee in October 1994:
"While virtually everyone is aware of higher personal taxes, many believe, erroneously, that the tax burden on business has diminished. The opposite is true. Total business taxation has risen sharply as a percentage of pre-tax income. Because about 70% of business taxes must be paid regardless of profit level, they have produced extremely high effective tax rates during economic downturns."
In other words, just when our economy goes into one of its periodic downturns, the effective tax rate on business goes up. No wonder mass bankruptcies and high unemployment are the result.
In our view, it would be economic suicide to increase business taxes. We would be sacrificing not only many of our own jobs but those of our children and grandchildren as well.
Of course, there are a lot of groups that would endorse higher levels of taxation, and we know exactly where each of these groups would increase taxes: on somebody else. In the mid-1960s, the late American Senator Everett Dirksen was quoted as saying that taxation was a game of, "Let's not tax me and let's not tax thee, we'll tax that fellow behind the tree." Well, the fact of the matter is that we've reached the point in Ontario where there's nobody left behind the trees, and the growth of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, as well as the diversity of our membership, is testimony to that fact.
If taxation's not the answer, what is? The answer is contained right here in the Canadian Taxpayers Federation taxpayers protection pledge. It was signed by Ontario's new Premier, most of the PC members of the Legislature and even by a few candidates from other parties during the course of Ontario's recent election. It contains the answer.
The second item of the pledge requires the Ontario Legislature to pass legislation which gradually gives up the power to borrow money on behalf of the citizens of Ontario by requiring it to eliminate Ontario's operating and capital deficits within the next five years, along with interim targets for each of the years, that is, by cutting spending. Cutting spending is the answer, and the only answer.
Now let me turn to Bill 26. In the above context, our view is that Bill 26 or something very close to it is necessary in order to permit the Ontario government to manage its affairs in a way that will allow the government to achieve the necessary spending reductions in a timely fashion, that is, within the five-year time frame established in the taxpayers protection pledge. One might have a concern about one or another of the aspects of the bill, but the overall thrust of the bill is to permit the government to deal quickly with its spending problems, and that we endorse.
Let's look at some of the concerns with this bill. Many groups are concerned about the concentration of power to make spending cut decisions in the hands of government ministers. Our view is it's about time this happened. The annual reports of the Office of the Provincial Auditor, the likes of which I've got in my hand right here, are a continuing indictment of the failure of successive governments in this province to manage our spending in a prudent manner.
To bring government spending into line with what taxpayers are willing to pay is not going to be an easy task. It'll require that the government actually get into the details of where all the cheques are going and then make some hard choices regarding priorities. Given the deep hole we are in, the government must have the power to act and act quickly.
It is far, far easier, let's remember, for government to function in an era of increased spending. Really, all you have to do is announce a program, hire some civil servants, let the affected individuals and groups know where the trough's going to be located, and that's all that's needed. Then it's on to planning the next spending program.
If the thought of government having this power is frightening, we should not make the current government the focus of our concern. Rather, we should focus on the size to which government has grown and the lack of financial prudence by previous governments. Many of the groups now petitioning the government to back off its mandate and in effect let the status quo continue should see what is happening now as a direct and necessary result of their own past successful efforts to increase the size and scope of government in the province.
0950
Another concern is the lack of consultation. We believe that all of the groups appearing before this committee and others making submissions are making good-faith presentations, but all of us should remember that the Ontario electorate was consulted on June 8 last year and the electorate has already rendered its decision.
The amount of time currently scheduled for hearings on the bill is about right. Instead of additional staged and costly consultations which are dominated by groups, this government might investigate legislation that would permit citizen initiatives and other forms of direct democracy.
Let's remember also that many lengthy consultations in the past have proven to be a waste of time and money. Within the past few years, the province spent about $90 million on consultations to develop a long-term plan for Ontario Hydro. The result? Near the end of the planning period, it was decided the plan wasn't needed after all and all of that time, effort and money went down the tubes. The province spent $56 million recently on the location of garbage dumps. Result? No verdict. More time and money down the tubes. Closer to home, the province spent 13 years and $40 million on consultations re the Ontario Waste Management Corp. The previous government didn't like incineration, and apparently the current government does under certain conditions. The fact is, the $40 million is gone.
Another concern one hears about is privacy. Let's consider this: Once a government starts writing cheques, it has one of two choices, keep its nose out of the issue of whether or not the cheques represent the proper use of public funds or try to make darn sure that they do. No one in this room is ever likely to take his or her vehicle into a repair shop, hand the keys and a blank cheque over to the mechanic and say, "Fix it, I'll be back at 5." Not many of us in our private lives ever hand over blank cheques very often.
The Ontario government writes lots of cheques. It writes cheques for medical services, for legal aid, for business loans and grants, for workers' compensation, for prescription drugs, education, social assistance and on and on. We take the view that the province had better make darn sure that each of these cheques is legitimate and proper, and if one receives a government cheque, one had better be prepared to cope with such inquiries as may be necessary to ensure the funds were properly spent.
I'll tell you, there's one thing that drives our supporters wild. It's that sense of entitlement to get into the public purse that finds its expression in phrases like, "Just give me the cheque and keep your nose out of my business." It's about as close to operating in a dark alley with a gun in hand as you can get.
In the final analysis, if one is concerned with privacy, one always has the option of not taking the cheque.
Now, we do have a major concern with the bill in connection with the taxation powers of local governments. We think the bill needs to be clarified as to the type of taxes that local governments may impose. We believe that the only appropriate addition to the current power to tax is the imposition of revenue-neutral user fees, and we stress that the fees must be revenue-neutral.
As noted earlier, this government has pledged to pass legislation that would require it to obtain voter approval in binding votes for any increases in existing taxes or any new taxes. We believe, therefore, that Bill 26 should require school boards, cities, towns, counties and regional governments to also seek voter approval of increases in property taxes and other fees and levies or for the imposition of any new fees or levies. These bodies are, after all, creatures of the province and should be required to live by the same rules. Alternatively, the government could bring in legislation giving Ontarians the right to vote on mill rates in local elections every three years.
In conclusion, let me say that this province was once one of the finest prosperity-creating machines in all of human history. Let's not forget, we have something extremely valuable here. High taxes and wasteful government spending have severely damaged this machine. The province is being eaten alive by the effects of fiscal mismanagement and compound interest. The CTF supports the intent and purpose of Bill 26 to restore fiscal sanity to the province.
The Chair: Thank you. We have about four minutes per caucus for questions. We start with the opposition caucus.
Mr Phillips: Four minutes? I'll ask one, and then my colleague.
Your presentation is not unlike virtually every presentation we've had that is in support of the bill. The groups that are in support of the bill I think are in support of the title of the bill. They all like the title of the bill. But then they express major concerns in the areas of interest to them. I know you're with the taxpayer group. I just wanted to make sure that we're clear on what you're supporting.
The purpose of this bill is to give what's called unlimited flexibility to municipalities to impose fees or taxes, to eliminate any right that anyone has to appeal that to the OMB and to eliminate any requirement to get voter approval. All they need to do is pass a bylaw, and this includes things like gas taxes and what not.
Then on the business licensing side, it also provides virtually unlimited flexibility there. We heard yesterday from the mayor of Guelph that Guelph is very much looking forward to it so they can take licence fees up I think 25-fold. Where they used to charge $20 they now want to charge $500, and business licence fees can even be in the form of I think what's called taxation. Yes, "requiring the payment of a licence fee which may be in the nature of a tax."
So I understand the taxpayers' group likes the name of the bill, but in the area of your big interest, I just want to be clear: You're supporting the introduction of virtually unlimited fees and local taxes and no appeal to the OMB or to the electors, and in the business licensing area the imposition of business licences that may be in the form of taxation. Am I interpreting your support properly?
Mr Charette: No, quite the contrary. In fact, if you look at my submission, the last page of it, we're quite out of tune with that expression.
We think, first of all, that the kinds of fees and levies and so on need to be clarified. Second, we believe that anything imposed should be revenue-neutral. In other words, if you're going to impose a user fee on garbage collection, you ought to reduce the mill rate accordingly. Third, we believe that the local property tax owner ought to be able to vote on any increases, whatever you call them. Call them property taxes, user fees, levies, they ought to be given the right to ratify those in a binding vote.
Mr Phillips: Let me just make a comment on that, because your concerns are not going to happen. I'm sorry about that. As much as some might like it to happen, the intent of the bill is exactly opposite of what you want. So I was just a little surprised that the taxpayers federation didn't say, "We are against the bill unless you amend it this way," because the government's made it clear. They promised the municipalities this flexibility. That's the heart of the bill.
I'll make one last comment and then my colleague, but I know Mr Harris promised you immediate passage of taxpayers' protection legislation and I would just in passing comment that none of us have seen any immediate passage or even introduction of that.
Mr Charette: We'd appreciate, by the way, your bringing that to the Premier's attention.
Mr Phillips: Well, he probably knows.
Mr Bradley: The Chairman's allowed me to have a very quick question, and that is, the effect of Bill 26 is to transfer authority and power from the elected representatives you can get at to those who are unelected and concentrate that power in the hands of a few. Does this fit in with the taxpayers' coalition view of how democracy should work, taking powers from the elected representatives and giving them largely to appointed people?
Mr Charette: Our view is this, Mr Bradley: If somebody's going to tax you, they ought to be accountable to you. To the extent that the provincial government is spending I think about $11 billion a year at the local level on things like education and municipal and regional governments, it's their responsibility to make sure that that money is spent properly and they ought to be accountable for it.
Unfortunately, as you know, our levels of government are quite entangled, and that does present a problem. But our consistent view is that voters at every level ought to be able to ratify any future increase in taxes. When the average family's paying 46% of its income to government, that's enough, and anything other from any other source ought to be given specific approval by a vote.
1000
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I thank the presenter. Your brief is not unlike the brief that we got on Monday, I think, from your brother in Windsor. I just want to make a couple of comments and get a couple of reactions from you.
First of all, I do want to say that in your conclusion, when you say, "This province used to be one of the finest prosperity-creating machines in human history," I think we've got to keep some of this in perspective. Canada constantly is labelled by the United Nations as the finest country in the world in which to live. That hasn't changed. And Ontario, as part of Canada, is the richest province in Canada. So let's keep it in some perspective; this is a good country.
You talk about the mandate that this government got in the election. Let me remind you of part of that mandate: Not one cent will be taken out of health care; no cuts to the justice system; no cuts to agricultural spending; no cuts to classroom education; and agreement and promises that people like the firefighters will be consulted before any changes are made to any pieces of legislation.
That is the mandate this government got. So we've got to keep in mind the entire mandate that Mr Harris got, not just a mandate that's perceived by the taxpayers' coalitions that the deficit is to be brought down. All of us, and all three political parties, agree that the deficit needs to be brought down. It's a matter of how it's done and it's a matter of whether you bring the deficit down before you start promising 30% tax decreases, much of which is going to go to the wealthiest people in the province.
We've also got to keep in mind that there have been deals that have been struck. There was a deal struck with the municipal sector, and I would even go as far as saying a backroom deal, that, "We will cut back your grants considerably and, in return for that, we're going to give the municipalities the so-called tools" -- well, a tool to completely destroy the arbitration process in the province and to basically impose wage controls through the arbitration process -- and then to give municipalities the ability to have a head tax, an income tax, a sales tax, a gas tax and all sorts of new licensing fees.
The mayor of Guelph, as Mr Phillips said yesterday, made it very clear, and he gave a very specific example. Restaurants in this province, when they're receiving their business licences at the municipal level, currently can only be charged up to $20. The cost of producing that licence, with the inspections and everything, he said is between $200 and $500. Guelph, and I suspect most other municipalities, intends when this legislation is passed to go to full cost recovery, which means businesses, and that particular business, will be paying a licensing fee of about $500. We suggested yesterday, after that statement was made, that we might want to call back to the committee every chamber of commerce that's appeared before the committee endorsing the bill, because I suspect the business community might have a different view when they start seeing what they're going to be paying at the local level under this legislation.
But specifically in the pledge that Mr Harris made in the last election, if in fact municipalities start imposing these types of taxes, part of the pledge to the taxpayers' coalitions in this province was that if there are any new taxes introduced in this province, Harris will resign. Do you not believe that if this legislation is passed as it is currently proposed and those new taxes go into place across the province, Mr Harris would be breaking that pledge and would have no choice but to resign?
Mr Charette: I should let you know, in all honesty, that Gerard is my younger brother and there are five other Charettes between him and me.
Mr Cooke: We've only been in the south; I don't where your other brothers live.
Mr Charette: You may hear from some of the others; I don't think so.
All I can say in respect to your question is that our pledge did not ask him to resign. That may be a promise he made, but he didn't make it to us.
Mr Cooke: Part of his mandate.
Mr Charette: We are consistently taking the view that school boards, cities and towns, regions, counties and townships are creatures of the province, and the pledge we've got we understand to mean that if there are any increased taxes, fees or levies, the voters will be given a chance to vote on them.
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Thank you, Mr Charette. I enjoyed the presentation and I regret I didn't get to see your younger brother's presentation as well. Perhaps if there had been more Charettes and they'd been listened to five years ago, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today with higher taxes and such high debt payments.
My question to you: The object of this bill, Bill 26, the way I see it, is basically to give municipalities the tools to come into the 21st century, to give them the flexibility to deal with funding situations, to allow them to do better with less, make partnerships, rationalize services. To make the changes necessary, municipalities did gear up to attract businesses coming to the turn of the century. People across the floor just seem to say that the only option municipal politicians have is to raise fees, raise taxes and such. I have much greater faith in municipal politicians to make wise decisions and to do better with less. What's your opinion on the expected behaviour of municipalities after Bill 26?
Mr Charette: Sorry, I didn't --
Mr Hudak: What kind of behaviour do you think we will see among municipal politicians after Bill 26?
Mr Charette: I think one can anticipate that there's going to be a wide variety of reactions. School boards worry me as much as the cities and towns and regions. I think that if, as Mr Cooke described, that's the mayor of Guelph's reaction, that's where our organizers are going to go, because he'll just drive more members into the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and local ratepayer groups. Governments that tax, spend and borrow are really our marketing department as far as membership goes. I may have one of the easiest jobs in the province, to tell you the truth. So I think to the extent that people reach for increased taxes or fees or levies, they're going to meet a terrific amount of resistance from local ratepayers or from groups such as ours, because there is no room. We will drive people out of business with increased property taxes and levies. We will drive people out of their homes. There's no more room. So my answer is we'll just continue the fight to keep the taxpayer free of additional burden.
Mr Hudak: I also enjoyed the debt presentation and the growth of the debt and deficit. I'd like to follow that up a little bit, and how Bill 26 affects us, in that I understand that right now $1 million an hour more than it takes in is spent by this government. That's not a 9-to-5 job for the deficit; the deficit grows 24 hours a day. It doesn't sleep, it spreads. That means there's $1 million less for hospitals, $1 million less for high schools, $1 million less for the QEW, $1 million less for fire protection services, police services -- per hour.
My question to you is, what impact does the increased spending on debt financing, and this reduction in services as a result, have on low-income people and on job creation in the province of Ontario?
Mr Charette: Paul Martin told the House of Commons standing committee on finance in October 1994 that the debt we've got publicly -- and it certainly applies to Ontario -- is a shameful legacy to our children and grandchildren. He made the clear point that federally, and it certainly applies to Ontario, we didn't invest in anything; we consumed all of this money that was spent. It's gone. It's not there in buildings or any productive assets. It was used up. So it's a shameful legacy.
One of my comments would be that one of the groups you won't hear from will be the one-year-olds and the two-year-olds and the three-year-olds in this province. None of them are organized or represented. But those are the people who have got to pay that $9-billion interest bill for ever and a day unless somebody someday pays the debt down in Ontario. I would urge everybody in this room, the organizations that are yet to present and all the members of the Legislature, to think of those people. They can't put any political pressure on you folks. They have no voice.
The Chair: Mr Charette, I apologize to have to interrupt, but we've come to the end of your half-hour. I'd like to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
Can I please have the Taxpayers' Coalition of Niagara representative come forward.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The Niagara Region Police Association was denied an opportunity to make submissions to this committee. Why is it that this committee isn't concerned about policing and the concerns of the women and men who serve in our police force? Why is it the committee doesn't give a damn about the cops in this region to the extent where they would let them come here and make a submission?
The Chair: There's a process for presenters that all three parties agreed to, Mr Kormos, and that's been followed. If they didn't get on --
Mr Kormos: Damn it, Chair, come on. They were denied from making a submission to this committee --
The Chair: No doubt that's the case that they're important, but they have the same ability as all other groups to make written submissions.
1010
TAXPAYERS' COALITION NIAGARA
The Chair: Mr Atkinson, you have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you and your colleague would introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members.
Mr Charles Atkinson: I appreciate having this opportunity to comment on the provisions of Bill 26 on behalf of the members of the Taxpayers' Coalition Niagara. My name is Charles Atkinson. I'm the president of the taxpayers' coalition. I would introduce my colleague, Maurice Gomme, who is a member of the coalition and has been very active in monitoring activities of local bodies.
The coalition was formed in 1990, following a number of informal meetings among concerned local taxpayers who viewed the escalating public expenditures and public debt in Ontario with alarm and decided that concerted action by local taxpayers was necessary. We direct our efforts towards local municipal and regional councils and school boards with the intent of increasing accountability and concern for the ability of taxpayers to pay local taxes. Our membership includes both private individuals and businesses.
Clearly, the efforts of the provincial government to rein in the provincial deficit and accumulated debt by reducing transfer of provincial funds to local public bodies has the possible impact of motivating such local bodies to increase property taxes, their principal source of local financing. We are determined to pressure local bodies not to increase local taxes to make up for reductions to provincial grants and to seek alternative ways to maintain essential local services.
My primary intent is to say three things to this committee:
First, we believe that the intent of Bill 26 is correct and, in general, we support the provisions of the bill as a necessary step for the province to implement the cost-cutting measures which must be taken to get Ontario's public expenditures under control.
Second, the simple expedient of increasing property taxes must be made out of bounds to local bodies. There are other alternatives that must be explored and adopted. In this respect, we have been concerned for some time that public sector workers have been allowed to take advantage of a privileged and protected position to attain levels of salary and fringe benefits which are excessive in terms of the remuneration levels in the private sector. Action is needed to bring these costs into line before implementing any service reductions.
Third, we observe that while local municipalities have made a major effort to control costs and avoid annual property tax increases, school boards and regional governments have not acted with comparable restraint and have continued to hit local taxpayers with unreasonable increases. Requiring regional government and school boards to submit their budgets to municipal council for scrutiny and approval would be one way to bring accountability to these bodies.
Returning to the first point, which is Bill 26, the presentation by Mr Charette has covered this point very thoroughly and I endorse all of his logic and comments. We recognize that Ontario has been living far beyond its means for three decades, and the time has now come to abandon the tax-and-borrow-and-spend policies which have been particularly evident in the past decade and which have brought Ontario to such a powerless financial state.
The next point, public sector cost containment: We could highlight the success of Niagara Falls in contracting out garbage collection. Last April, it was reported that the cost of $45 per tonne for municipal garbage collection would be reduced to $25 per tonne by using a private contractor, a cost reduction of 45%. We recommend privatization and competitive tendering for essential services before any consideration is given to reduction of services.
There is also the question of pay levels of public sector workers. I draw your attention to a study completed in October, 1992, by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and entitled Wage Watchers: Measuring the Excess in Municipal Government Salaries and Benefits. The first paragraph of the executive summary of this report is as follows:
"The results of this analysis strongly suggest that better employee pay and benefits in the municipal public sector is not a myth. The nationwide advantage is shown to be in the order of 27% in favour of municipal employees compared to the private sector. Better public sector salaries and wages account for one third of the total pay gap and the combination of paid and non-paid benefits account for the rest."
The last paragraph of the executive summary is also germane and is as follows:
"It has become clear that the systems and procedures that determine public sector pay and benefits levels, while very beneficial to employees, leave taxpayers with very little say -- even though they ultimately pay the bills. Public sector controls are needed to ensure that the interests of all parties are taken into account because it is the obligation of government to act in the best long-term interests of all citizens. Without action, Canada is in danger of becoming a two-class society -- employees of the private sector suffering while the economy becomes overtaxed and less competitive, and employees of the public sector who are able to live in insulated comfort through their working lives and through retirement. The larger the gulf becomes between these two classes, the greater the public cynicism will grow against government and the civil service."
To summarize, the study arrived at the conclusion that on average across Canada, municipal public sector workers received salary and benefits 27% greater than those received by comparable workers in the private sector. Obviously, major cost reductions can be attained by implementing pay equity -- that is, by making public sector pay levels a direct proportion of comparable private sector pay.
It follows that apart from other measures which might be taken to restrain costs in local governments and boards, there is a clear need to complete a thorough and credible comparison of salaries and benefits in the public and private sectors in Ontario. The prompt completion of such a study by a credible, independent economic research organization will provide the basis for local bodies to bring their staffing costs into an equitable position with respect to the taxpaying private sector. Such a study must be based on a comparison of remuneration on the basis of each hour worked, not on the basis of annual or monthly pay. It would be useful also if the study conclusions could include a recommendation on the relative levels of remuneration in the public and private sectors.
My personal view is that public sector remuneration on an hourly worked basis should not exceed 90% of that of comparable private sector workers, to take into account the higher level of security and better working conditions generally enjoyed by public sector employees.
We are all very aware of the ending of the social contract which has limited salary increases in the public sector over the past three years. Already, we are hearing voices from the public sector claiming that a catch-up is needed to alleviate the supposed hardship arising from the salary freeze. Steps are needed and appear to be included in Bill 26 to restrain the wholesale augmentation of public sector remuneration which can only come at the expense and to the detriment of the private sector worker who could well have suffered a remuneration decrease over the past five years.
If the pay differential cited above is found to exist, there would be no reason to implement any public sector pay increase when the social contract ends, and in fact, reduced pay levels could well be justified as equitable. We also need to pay attention to the manipulations at which public sector bureaucrats are so adept. For example, the Niagara South Board of Education approved a restructuring of some departments in May, 1995, with the result that several senior positions were upgraded by one wage level. This is a neat way to provide a covert salary increase while apparently maintaining unchanged salary levels.
1020
As noted earlier, the responsiveness to taxpayers' ability to pay has been most evident at the municipal level and most municipalities in this region should be applauded for avoiding municipal tax increases over most of the past five years. In fact, the mill rate in Niagara Falls was lower in 1995 than it was in 1990. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for regional government, which has continued to impose tax increases amounting to 28% over the past five years. School boards have also been very resistant to considering the taxpayers' ability to fund their operations and excessive aspirations. For example, the Niagara South Board of Education has introduced increases in four of the last five years, for a combined increase of 24% over these five years.
With respect to regional and school board taxation, I have alluded above to the success of local municipalities in avoiding tax increases and the failure of regional government and school boards to perform in similar fashion. One significant factor in the poor performance of the latter is their isolation from the taxpayer and the legislated requirement that municipalities must impose taxes as defined by regional governments and school boards. The role of the latter in increasing local taxes is not well known and unless a person is particularly interested in such bodies, the elected representatives will be totally unknown. The representative who will be known most locally is the municipal alderman, who thus becomes the focal point for taxpayer concerns. However, the alderman has no direct voice in controlling cost and taxes from the region and school board.
A change in legislation to require that all taxes imposed or collected by local municipalities be subject to municipal approval is suggested as a means of ensuring greater accountability on the part of regional government and school boards.
To limit the ability of a municipality to hobble the activities of regional government and school boards, the power of municipalities to review and approve their budgets could be limited to reviewing and approving any increase in mill rate proposed by them. In this way, regional government and school boards will be subject to scrutiny on behalf of the local taxpayer.
The need for such scrutiny is evident when we consider the foolish spending by public and separate school boards. As an example, both boards compete with each other trying to lure students from the other board. Each of the local boards competes for students and wastes substantial funds hiring staff whose function is to enumerate the public and separate school supporters and then try to persuade them to switch to the other school system. Legislation or regulation is required to stop this wasteful nonsense which can be characterized as competing with the taxpayers' dollars to get more taxpayers' dollars.
In summary, the Taxpayers' Coalition Niagara supports the general direction taken by the Harris government over the past six months and supports the initiatives contained in Bill 26. The coalition recommends that every avenue of cost containment be explored at the local level before services are reduced. As part of this effort, a thorough, credible comparison of all the remuneration levels in the Ontario public and private sectors should be performed and published. A recommendation on the relative levels of public and private remuneration should also be made.
The coalition recommends that Bill 26 make provision for elected municipal representatives to scrutinize the budgets of the regional government and school boards and to reject any tax increases not seen as justified.
In conclusion, I refer to the January 1996 issue of Today's Seniors, which contains the following apt comment by Reg Stackhouse: "An economy has to produce goods and services that add wealth to a country. Canada is in economic trouble because it has too many governors moving money around and too few producers bringing it in." Let's remember that the next time we want to protest when a government program is cut out or even cut back.
The Chair: We have four minutes per caucus for questions and we start off with the third party.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. Just by the way, with respect to seniors, you should know that representatives of seniors in the region were denied access to this committee. The Niagara Falls seniors wanted to make a submission to this committee, and they were told they can't come here and make a contribution to this committee process.
With respect to privatization -- and you appear to have some affection for it; I couldn't help but reach that conclusion -- are you suggesting that firefighting services be privatized?
Mr Atkinson: It could be looked at.
Mr Kormos: What about policing?
Mr Atkinson: Probably not.
Mr Kormos: Or we could go back to the era of Pinkerton, where only the rich people could have policing in their communities rather than the whole community across the board. What about education? Might that well be privatized too so that only rich children could receive education?
Mr Atkinson: Responding to the one on education, the fact of privatization does not necessarily mean that only rich people or affluent people could partake. I might point to the fact that the telephone service is private, and yet everybody has a telephone.
Mr Kormos: Not with the new rate increases, I'll tell you. There's a whole lot of folks who are going to have to be giving up their phone, including seniors.
Mr Atkinson: There are many, many services which are delivered by private organizations, and in my view are delivered much more effectively and economically than they would have been in a public organization. I can point, for example, to the telephone system in the United Kingdom, which I happen to be familiar with. That organization was privatized, the service has improved immensely, the costs are decreased, and everybody is happy.
Mr Kormos: A lot of things have improved over the last 20 years because of technology, not because of privatization.
Mr Silipo: Mr Atkinson, I just want to go back to the question of taxes. You said earlier that you endorsed Mr Charette's comments presented to us earlier. I just want to be clear, if you agree with him, as I understood him, that the taxpayers protection pledge which Mike Harris signed on May 30, 1995, should, in your view, cover any tax increases by municipalities and school boards given, I think as Mr Charette said, that those two bodies are creatures of the province. Do you agree with that as well?
Mr Atkinson: Not totally.
Mr Silipo: Not totally. So you don't have any trouble with the provisions of this bill that allow municipalities to charge user fees and as well allow them to be able to tax?
Mr Atkinson: I'm delighted with the provision, principally because the local municipality is extremely responsive to local taxpayers, and I've demonstrated that by looking at the past five years in this region. The municipalities are the organizations which have constrained their costs. It is those bodies that are somewhat distant from the taxpayer who have not constrained their costs.
Mr Silipo: Do you think that it's going to be just as easy for municipalities to constrain their costs when they're facing over the next couple of years 47% cuts as opposed to 1% or 2% cuts that they've had to deal with over the last couple of years?
Mr Atkinson: I take the view that the cuts have to be made. From a national and a provincial viewpoint, the cuts have to be made. In so far as they are brought to the local level, where people can express their views and make their choices, then it is better to have them at the local level than at a higher level.
Mr Hudak: Mr Atkinson, thank you also for your well-thought-out and researched presentation. I'd like to follow up on what I think is refreshing, what I'm hearing from you in a sharp contrast from what I'm hearing across the floor, in that municipal politicians are clever. I get the impression -- perhaps even from questions that were addressed to you -- that some people here think that municipal politicians are dullards who, when funding is cut, have no choice but to raise taxes. You point out a great local example when costs were cut by 45% in garbage collection. I know my own home town of Fort Erie and in Port Colborne they've done some great things with public-private partnership and such.
My question, Mr Atkinson, is: Do you think that Bill 26 will cause municipal politicians to simply raise taxes or do you think that we'll see some other changes in behaviour?
Mr Atkinson: I fully anticipate, certainly on the part of municipalities, that there will be other options looked at. I would hope, and I'm a little less confident, that the regional council and the school boards will also look at other options. But the coalition exists to represent local taxpayers, and it is our intent to put our views to the region, to the school boards, so that they do take the taxpayers' views into account.
1030
Mr Hudak: You had another excellent point, Mr Atkinson, that the municipal politician is always in the public eye. Federal politicians can go to Parliament Hill and we can hide in our offices in Queen's Park, but the municipal politician --
Mr Phillips: Maybe you can.
Mr Hudak: -- whether they're shopping at Niagara Square or on Jarvis Street in Fort Erie, they're always there and they always have to be accountable, around the clock, for their actions. My belief is that the more decisions are going to be made at the municipal level, the more input taxpayers can have, in groups such as yourselves, and working people, who may not have the time to travel to Toronto and Ottawa but follow that. Would you agree with my thoughts in that area?
Mr Atkinson: Yes. I'm much happier with control and power being in the hands of local politicians to a relevant degree than having it far distant in Queen's Park or, worse still, in Ottawa.
Mr Hudak: One of the mandates of this government that this bill tries to address is to restore hope and opportunity to this province, to bring jobs back again to Ontario and especially here to the Niagara Peninsula. Do you think, sir, that Bill 26 is a step in the right direction in terms of restoring hope, opportunity and job creation? And how will it do that?
Mr Atkinson: Definitely, yes, 100%.
Mr Hudak: Mr Atkinson, further, how do you think this bill will help restore hope and opportunity to Ontario again?
Mr Atkinson: Primarily by reducing taxation levels. The coalition, beginning in 1990, documented many circumstances where businesses decided that they could not function profitably in Ontario, and we had a lot of people heading over to the States. In fact, we even documented quite a number, and for a time we had an advert which said that the government of Ontario is the best advertising agent for Buffalo, New York.
Mr Bradley: My impression is, and I think it's correct, that you see the provincial deficit as being an extremely important concern to you and your organization. The government has promised to cut provincial income taxes by 30%. That will cost the government of Ontario some $20 billion over five years. The interest on that will be $5 billion. Do you believe the government of Ontario should be borrowing money to deliver a tax cut to the people of this province, a tax cut which is likely going to favour those who are in the most favourable financial position?
Mr Atkinson: First of all, we have to take a very broad view, in response to that question. Taxation has an impact on people's motivations. When a person works and earns a dollar and ends up paying 60 or 70 cents of that dollar to government, the motivation to work is decreased. I have personal experience of that situation. Consequently, if we want to motivate people to work -- and that is, to my mind, a most essential feature -- then the level of taxation must be such that people are encouraged to work, pay a reasonable share of taxes and still feel that it's to their personal benefit to put in major effort. From that point of view, a tax reduction could be seen as a step in the right direction.
Mr Bradley: So you support the government of Ontario borrowing $20 billion and paying $5 billion in interest rates to be able to deliver this tax break?
Mr Atkinson: I didn't say that.
Mr Bradley: Well, that's how they deliver it.
Mr Atkinson: I have said that a tax reduction could be a major motivating factor in the lives of individuals. The second part of my response -- you jumped in just a little too fast there -- is that you could quite rightly do an analysis of how much tax reduction would provide what kind of increased job opportunities, increased economic production, and set that against the cost of the tax reduction. Obviously, there's an optimum in there, and an economic study would define that optimum. I'm sure that many of the economic research organizations could conduct that and come up with an estimate of where the optimum lies.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Very quickly, sir, the reason why people aren't working in the province isn't because of the tax rate that's being charged; it's because there aren't any jobs out there. Just ask the half a million people who are unemployed right now.
Secondly, sir, I have a great belief in the local government. I was a municipal politician for 16 years and mayor for eight. The problem is, the deal was this, sir: We give less in grant money to the cities and the municipalities of this province, and we give you more taxing power. Mayor after mayor after mayor feels that they need that power in order to effectively run their municipality. So whether you like to believe it or not, if you expect to get the same kind of services municipally you are now, you're going to have to pay more in user fees and in taxation, and that's a fact. Regardless of whether or not these people on the other side want to fudge that, that's an absolute, given fact. Just consider that, sir.
Mr Atkinson: I'm very happy with that fact, because that puts the power to purchase in my hands. I would much rather spend my money for the things that I want to have rather than give that money to a faceless body that is going spend it as they see fit. Spending my money is my prerogative, not somebody else's.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I note that the Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre was denied access to this committee. Why does this committee not want to hear from aboriginal people?
The Chair: Again, Mr Kormos, there was a process that had been agreed to by all three parties. That determines which people end up presenting from a list of people.
Mr Kormos: They were the only aboriginal group that requested, and it was the only one that was denied.
The Chair: That's the process that all three parties agreed to.
PROJECT SHARE
The Chair: May I please have a representative from Project SHARE come forward. Welcome to the committee. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of committee members and for Hansard.
Ms Roxanne Felice: I am Roxanne Felice, the executive director of Project SHARE. On my right is Amy Begnucolo, the president of our board of directors. On behalf of the board of directors, staff, members and volunteers of Project SHARE, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in these hearings. Let me first give you an overview of what Project SHARE does.
Our mission statement reads, "Project SHARE is committed to helping people who live on low income in the city of Niagara Falls through programs that involve and assist with providing basic needs. The programs are designed to create positive, proactive alternatives in order that people can help themselves and their families with dignity in times of crisis."
Project SHARE is an acronym for support, housing, awareness, resources and emergency. Project SHARE of Niagara Falls is a non-profit social service agency assisting and involving individuals and families who are primarily residents of Niagara Falls.
Project SHARE has adopted a multi, one-stop-shopping action model. Programs are positive, creative and take a proactive approach. All programs are of a self-help nature, empowering consumers to use the services.
The criteria for using the service are based on two factors, (1) being a resident of Niagara Falls; (2) if your income falls below the poverty line. Consumers must show proof of income to qualify, and the poverty guidelines that we use are from Statistics Canada.
Project SHARE provides the following programs: a food cooperative, emergency food, a housing help centre, emergency services that provide accommodation, transportation and utilities, support and advocacy, public education and Christmas baskets. We also assist with providing cereal to the children's breakfast programs in Niagara Falls, bulk supplies to collective kitchens, reports on poverty and hunger in Niagara Falls, and we distribute bulk food supplies from national suppliers to other food banks in the region.
Most significantly, in the years 1989 to 1994, the agency saw over a 300% increase in demand for service. In the first six months of 1995, we started to see our statistics stabilize and we were quite happy about that. In some months we even saw a decrease in people needing service. Since October 1995, after the social assistance payments were cut by 21.6%, we have seen a staggering increase. In October 1995 we saw a 33% increase over October 1994. November saw another 16% increase. In the past our highest numbers have been in the winter months, that of January and February. Therefore, I would expect to see a higher number in 1996.
1040
Inadequate income and lack of employment opportunities in our community are the reasons for our increases. We have great concern about the state that human beings are in in our community. Families that have never had to ask for help before are coming to our agency, often desperate and destitute. This desperation has no dignity attached to it.
To date these problems are experienced in a very quiet way. Being hungry, homeless or in crisis are often hidden problems in our community. We attempt to be a voice for these people. We have become storytellers of those who fear for their livelihood. We think everyone now knows someone who has lost their job, employment, house and dignity.
Lack of income is a dilemma to those who are suffering. Families are often not a unit any more. Churches are stretched to their limit and municipalities are facing deficits. We know the solution lies with everyone working together. However, this does not exclude government. We wish to work together and not blame one another for the problems that are now facing Ontarians.
We have one major concern with Bill 26, and that is the impact of fees for service. The fee for prescriptions and dispensing fees will put extreme hardship on those families with children and on seniors, both of whom in many cases rely on some form of social assistance. We have survey data that tell us that families are already spending over 60% of their income on rent. Extra fees will be impossible for families to manage. Children will definitely be the ones that suffer the most.
If this bill passes, municipalities could choose the option to implement user fees for services. The impact on the most vulnerable people in our community will be enormous. People on low income often use recreational facilities that are free in order that their children and themselves have options for recreation. Fees for library use, for instance, will be difficult to pay. This often is the only outlet for families. Possible user fees for garbage pickup, snow removal or police or fire services will be devastating for the poor in our community.
Another fee that could be instituted could be concerning the issue of transportation. Transportation costs are high in Niagara region, especially for those who live in Niagara Falls, who often need to go to St Catharines for appointments. If transit and bus fares rise, people will become isolated and be unable to meet these needs.
The ability to access information is another issue which we have serious problems with. Instituting user fees to access information, records or reports will place hardship on those needing information. This will affect consumers and also non-profit agencies. These fees will make it improbable to receive information that is needed.
Fees for services in every sector will be a serious problem for those who are already facing difficulty in feeding their family. At present in Niagara Falls, 43% of the people we serve at Project SHARE are children. These children often go without necessary nutrition, suffer more health problems, and have limited recreation offered to them.
In conclusion, we believe that user fees are a regressive measure. The wealthy would be asked to pay the same as the poor. This is an unreasonable method to pay for services, as the most vulnerable in our community will suffer the most. It is the impact on these individuals that is our greatest concern.
User fees mean that families and children will do without necessities. All evidence shows us that our recipients have exercised stringent control of their spending, have sold possessions, and have very little left to survive.
We believe that if this legislation is passed with such limited input from the public, it will create devastating, lasting social deficits in our province. We therefore ask you to reconsider the direction of user fees that Bill 26 endorses.
I thank you again for the opportunity to express our concerns.
The Chair: We have about seven minutes for questions per caucus. We'll start off with the government caucus.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Thank you for an excellent presentation. I admire and I'm sure I can speak for members of my caucus who admire very, very much the work that you do. I know it's heartfelt and I know it's not easy. So I admire you very much.
I don't think that Bill 26 endorses user fees. It allows municipalities, if they want to bring in user fees for specific things, they can, but I don't think it necessarily endorses user fees. But I share your concerns.
In the province of Ontario we have $100 billion of debt. We're spending another $9 billion this year that we don't have and it will probably be a little bit less next year. We're trying to turn it around. We're doing what we have to do and it's not easy. We're spending $9 billion a year just on interest to service that debt, so we have to make a lot of very tough decisions. The delegations that come before us say: "We know you have to do something, but don't cut us. Don't cut here, don't cut there." Do you have any suggestions where we can find the savings, where we can reduce government spending to make those changes?
Ms Felice: I believe, first, that this government needs to listen to people.
Mr Young: We are listening and that's why we're here.
Ms Felice: I think groups are often labelled as special-interest groups and I believe people form groups because they have public interests. I believe groups like ourselves and others that have things to say need to be heard. That is the dignity and respect all people in this province need. We vote politicians in to be responsible and I think part of that responsibility is to have respect for those who are in the community, all who are in the community.
If some more formal conversation did occur, maybe we would know the vision. I think some of our dilemma in our organization and our board is that we don't know the vision of this government other than to cut the deficit. We don't know the whole thinking of where you are going, and it places a lot of fear and blame in different parts of communities and in the whole province. I urge you to try and stop that.
Mr Young: I would be happy to meet with you. I'm sure your local MPP will meet with you. We will meet with you to explain the vision. The purpose of Bill 26 and our primary mandate is to create an environment in Ontario to attract business, new investment and jobs. Would you agree that the best thing that could happen for the majority of your clients is to have a good, permanent job?
Ms Felice: Yes, but I don't think at their expense. Like I said, we believe that this legislation is regressive and that the wealthy and the poor are treated the same. We do not believe that is the way to go.
Mr Sampson: You represent community groups and people in the area and no doubt you have a pretty active association with the community levels of governments?
Ms Felice: Yes.
Mr Sampson: Would you say that it would be beneficial to you to have that government stronger, to have more power in that local government as opposed to the other way around? Would it be beneficial to you and your group that you represent to deal with a stronger local government?
Ms Felice: The local municipality, the municipality of Niagara Falls: We have a representative who sits on our board. We send in a monthly report and we do have support from our municipality.
Mr Sampson: But with respect to, for instance, the allocation of moneys that you could spend and with respect to the activities you perform here, would it be beneficial for you and the people you represent and this community in general to have a local government with more authority and more responsibility for the dollars it spends?
Ms Felice: It could be. Fifty per cent of our own budget is fund-raised through community efforts. So we have contact with a very large representation in the community. I'm not sure. Amy, could you comment?
Ms Amy Begnucolo: I think the response or the answer he's looking for is yes. We're not too sure, but I think controlling your own future, of course, in your area makes sense.
1050
Mr Sampson: Yes, kind of like controlling your own destiny as opposed to somebody -- or maybe three levels of government kind of pointing fingers at each other saying, "No, it's your responsibility," or somebody else saying, "No, it's your responsibility." You'd like to know who it is who's responsible to deal with that issue, wouldn't you?
Ms Felice: I think so, but I also think this bill is more far-reaching and has far more ramifications even for us at this point to answer yes or no. Yes, we like to have some control over our own municipality, and for the citizens of Niagara Falls, I think that would be a yes. To say yes and try to endorse the whole bill I think would be unacceptable for us to do at this time.
Mr Sampson: But that being perhaps the theme of one aspect of the bill, that would be something you'd be prepared to endorse, as a theme of that aspect of the bill.
Ms Felice: Yes, possibly.
Mr Sampson: Because it would help you. It would help you deal with the situation.
Mr Bradley: Don't let him fool you.
Ms Felice: Yes, I know.
I think to take this one section is very difficult at this point.
Mr Bradley: Very clever.
Mr Sampson: I'll pass to the clever municipal politicians over here.
The Chair: We've come to the end of the government caucus's time, so we'll move to members of the opposition.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Let me say that I fully agree with the presentation, the content of what Project SHARE has given to this committee today.
As the Community and Social Services critic for the Liberals, we have heard the points you have talked about constantly since June. I'm astonished that you're sitting at one end of the table talking about hungry children, talking about people being homeless, about people being on the street, and our friends across the floor are talking about the debt and are talking about the fact that we've got to bring this debt under control even if it's on the backs of hungry children across Ontario.
My friends across the floor talk about this bill helping you; that somehow this bill is going to help the people you represent; that somehow a single mom with a couple of kids is going to benefit by a municipality now having the power to impose more massive user fees, on the swimming pools, on the libraries, on garbage pickup; that somehow they're trying to tell us that it's going to benefit the needy in Niagara, in St Catharines and across this province.
I think it's almost embarrassing the way you've been treated and the attempt to try to get you, at their end of the table, to somehow go on record as saying that you agree with this bill that continues to impose the most regressive, cruel, meanest attack on the needy that we have seen in the history of this province.
What this government has done since June, and continues with this bill, is to devastate what has been 40 years of progressive social policy across Ontario. They have continued to beat up on the poor, they've continued to beat up on the disabled, they've continued to beat up on senior citizens with user fees, and then to have the nerve to suggest that somehow Bill 26, in giving municipalities this total blank cheque to impose user fees on anything that moves, breathes or makes dust is going to help the needy, I think is an insult to every Ontarian and to every person who needs help from this government.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Al Leach, made a comment in the House, and I'd like you to respond to this. He said, "I am encouraged to hear that Mayor Lastman plans to seek corporate sponsors to sponsor such activities as library use and others." Do you believe that children who cannot afford the user fees that would be imposed should have to rely on the goodness and the will of maybe some corporate sponsor who maybe out of the goodness of their heart will cover off their cost or subsidize them for them to be able to access a local library, or should every child, regardless of income, regardless of where they come from, have free and total access to our library services across this province?
Ms Felice: I believe they should be free. I'd like you to try to take into consideration really what is happening here to poor people, especially who are on social assistance. There is no money in many cases left over to buy food. They are incapable in many cases of feeding their children. A free service like being able to go to the library or swimming or to a park is needed to have some quality of life for these children. I really think that is the essence of our presentation, that we would like you to see how these kinds of things would affect people on low incomes. They're already coming to a food bank. I would ask all of you to try and put yourself in a position to come to a food bank and see how you would feel.
Mr Gerretsen: I believe I have three minutes left, because I timed it that time, Mr Chair.
First of all, if you want a suggestion, we've made a suggestion on a number of occasions: Forget about your ridiculous tax cut that's costing the province $5 billion, which means in effect, to fund the tax cut, they will have to cut $5 billion more. There would still have to be cuts, but they wouldn't be half as severe as they currently are. That's number one.
Secondly, with respect to municipalities, as a former municipal politician, I'm really getting sick and tired of this. Municipalities want more power, but they also want the dollars and the resources they had before. As I mentioned earlier, you cut off their funding, and the reason you're giving them more power is that for them to deliver the kind of services the local people need, they will be able to impose fees and different taxes etc. That's why you're giving it to them. There's nothing wrong with giving municipalities more power, but you have to give them the resources to do that as well.
An income tax cut: Is that going to benefit any of the people you're working with?
Ms Felice: Absolutely not.
Mr Gerretsen: Right, so the net effect is going to be that either you're going to have a loss of services or you're going to have to pay. If the municipalities are going to get less money and if they want to provide the same level of service, they will either have to impose user fees or greater local taxation, which will hurt your people more. The bottom line is that your people will be worse under Bill 26 than they would if it wasn't passed.
Ms Felice: Yes.
Mr Agostino: I want to thank the presenters for what I think was a great presentation and I think we can't lose sight -- this is the first opportunity a group like yours has had to come and talk about this impact. This government cut benefits by 21%. They put fees on the disabled and seniors in their prescriptions, and not once did they have the guts to go to groups such as your organization and say, "How's this going to impact you, how's this going to help or hurt the people you represent?" I commend you for being here today. In a warped way, Bill 26 has given the government members, for a change, the opportunity to listen to some of the pain and agony and hurt that your group, and the people you represent, are going through. I commend you for continuing to fight and keep fighting against these brutal cuts.
Mr Kormos: They wouldn't let the police come here to make their case. They wouldn't let aboriginal people, be it the native friendship centre --
Interruption.
Mr Kormos: I'll speak up. They wouldn't let the police come here to make their case. They wouldn't let aboriginal people be it representatives of the Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre or the Niagara Chapter of Native Women come here to make their case. I'm pleased you managed to slip through what was virtually a closed door. We've witnessed already the death of homeless people on the streets of Toronto. My community suffered the tragedy of the suicide of a young mother and grandmother who was a victim of the welfare cuts of Harris's government.
Let me flesh this out for you, and some of us here are not members of the committee. There are four Tory members, plus the Chair, two Liberals and one New Democrat. I'm here visiting because we're here in Niagara region. In addition to what are not unattractive salaries for MPPs, members of this committee -- ones who are members -- receive a $76-a-day tax-free per diem, plus a $23-a-day tax-free food allowance. Four days of that food allowance is more than what Mike Harris told a person on social benefits to live on for a whole month. There is something incredibly repugnant about the proposition in Bill 26 and this committee process when members of this committee in a mere four days receive more for a food allowance than an unemployed poor person is entitled to for a whole month. I find that repugnant.
There's something repugnant about the fact that Frank Stronach, I have no doubt a friend of this government, took home his pay envelope last year in the province of Ontario of $47 million. That was his pay envelope, yet nobody told Frank Stronach to take a hit, or a 21% reduction in his pay or to help pay off a deficit.
The banks in this province, and the bulk of those profits coming from the province of Ontario, made profits in excess of $5 billion last year -- profits -- and are now telling their workers that they're going to be laid off, that they're going to contract, that they're going to restructure the same way this government proposes to restructure. I find something incredibly repugnant about that, because nobody in this government, or quite frankly their friends by way of Paul Martin in the federal government, has told the banks to take a hit or to take a 21% reduction in their take-home.
You and your sister organizations across the region and across the province are coping with incredible reductions in whatever modest grants you might have been able to receive in the past from either municipal or provincial, or on occasion federal, governments. How do you explain to the people you work with -- the homeless people, the poor people, the single mothers, to their children -- how do you explain, how do you purport to explain, that the members of this committee get more in four days by way of a tax-free food allowance than they're entitled to receive in a whole month to eat on? How do you explain that Frank Stronach gets a pay envelope last year of $47 million, how do you explain that the banks made over $5 billion, when they're being told they're going to have to pay for the most basic and modest and traditional of community services, like parks, like libraries, like swimming pools?
How do you explain that they may end up next month, the coldest month of the year, living in a cardboard box, perhaps not just by themselves but with their children too? There are going to be more deaths, and you know it and I know it and this government damn well ought to start realizing it, because I'm afraid the responsibility for those deaths can be attributed directly to them and to nobody else. How do you explain that to the people you work with?
Ms Felice: It's very difficult, and in most cases you don't explain. Most families in this situation are more concerned with surviving from one day to the next and in most cases -- not all, but in most cases -- do not have the energy to think politically. I apologize on their behalf for that, but that is the reality. We at Project SHARE do not feel we're government-bashing. It wouldn't matter right now who is in power. These measures that are taken affect these people in the ways I have explained, and that is our point. In many cases, Peter, people do not have the energy to be able to listen and know the facts that some of us are capable of doing right now.
Mr Kormos: A brief response: To compound the tragedy, what the cuts are all about is a 30% tax break for the rich buddies of the Tories of Mike Harris. I'm not a rich buddy of Mike Harris, and I don't know what a 30% tax break will mean for me, and I acknowledge that MPPs make more money than most working people do in the province of Ontario, but I don't want the damn tax break -- I don't want it, I reject it -- if it's going to mean the pain and the suffering and the injustice that's being propagated right now through the province of Ontario. I can tell you that right now.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies, for coming forward and making your presentation.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF NIAGARA FALLS
The Vice-Chair (Mr Joseph N. Tascona): May I please have representatives from the Niagara Falls chamber of commerce come forward. Good morning. Could you just identify yourselves?
Mr Ted Salci: Good morning, Mr Chairman. My name is Ted Salci. I'm here today with the managing director of the Niagara Falls chamber of commerce, Mr Glen Gandy. I'm the incoming president of the Niagara Falls chamber of commerce and I'm also the owner and president of a small business, R.T. Salci Real Estate Ltd.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee today on Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, and to give a brief overview of this chamber's position regarding this government's omnibus legislation.
The chamber of commerce is an incorporated body, managed by volunteers with support staff. The objective of the chamber is to maintain and improve trade and commerce and to promote the economic, civic and social welfare of the municipality of Niagara Falls. We represent an interest of over 500 businesses in our community at both the local and regional levels with regard to changing legislation and policies by establishing effective communication between business and government.
With respect to Bill 26, the Niagara Falls chamber is in support of Bill 26, its aims and objectives and its purpose to achieve fiscal savings and promote economic restructuring. It is evident with the deficit in the vicinity of $10 billion annually that government structuring is long overdue. Strong measures are needed now. It is imperative that the Ontario government get its finances under control. Restoring confidence in government is essential in order to create a climate that is conducive to help business grow, both by expansion and investment in new jobs and in new businesses.
As businesses had to adjust to changing times, so must government. Restructuring is not new to business. Our members are facing this daily in order to be competitive, so government must restructure as well. If we are to survive and once again maintain our position as a province of strength, we must restore confidence, and that will only come through the government restructuring at this point. The chamber believes that there is a need to send a strong message that Ontario wants to work with the business sector to foster economic growth and create jobs, and that is why we support Bill 26.
With respect to the proposed changes of the Municipal Act, the Niagara Falls chamber is concerned that this proposed amendment will allow municipalities the capabilities to impose fees on services already being provided for in the tax base that would not correspond to the value of the service being provided. Already we are seeing indications that such fees are being considered and our concern is that these fees would be solely for the purpose of revenue generation.
In a city such as ours that has to deal with the inadequacy of market value tax assessment, we believe such fees would have a devastating effect on our businesses and community and our ability to create jobs and further growth.
The chamber supports introduction of fees for service, but we are concerned and recommend that Bill 26 and the broad powers given to the municipalities to impose such fees should clearly define that such fees are not to be direct tax for generating revenue but rather revenue needed to supplement a shortfall of taxes necessary to maintain the present service. The chamber is of the opinion that the opportunity to appeal such fees to the Ontario Municipal Board must be allowed.
As we have stated, we support restructuring and the introduction of fees for service, but we are also of the opinion that it should be clearly defined as to the types of fees that may be permitted.
With respect to the general licensing powers, section 17.1, the chamber is concerned that the municipality will view this new part being added to the Municipal Act as another alternative to generate revenue and impose additional regulatory requirements that could impede the ability of business to compete. As in the proposed changes to the Municipal Act, we believe the needs should be defined and clarified.
With respect to restructuring in the municipal sector, the chamber believes that restructuring must take place at the regional and municipal levels. The present method of servicing the taxpayer has become cumbersome and overburdened. We believe that municipalities need the ability to establish private sector partnerships and the flexibility to develop efficient methods among municipalities to deliver all the services required.
We also believe this will only be accomplished by the amalgamation of municipalities. The Niagara Falls chamber supports Bill 26 and the amendments to the various pieces of legislation that are necessary to restructure the public sector. The message is there. Government, by its action, is telling the private sector that Ontario is open for business.
Thank you for the opportunity to come before this committee today and to offer the chamber's opinion regarding Bill 26.
1110
The Vice-Chair: Is that the completion of your presentation?
Mr Salci: Yes, it is.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Thanks very much. At this point in time, we'll have some comments or questions from the three parties. Each party has, I would say, about six and a half minutes each, starting off with the opposition party. Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the chamber's position. I don't mean to be unfair, but most chambers have come and they're very supportive of the title of the bill. We've had unanimous support for the title. But when we get into the detail of the bill, virtually every chamber has expressed some significant concerns about the content of the bill. I just wonder if I'm interpreting you properly here.
As you know, on the licensing side of this, essentially what the bill does is it will provide virtually unlimited flexibility for municipalities to change the way they license businesses. We heard yesterday the mayor of Guelph is looking forward to the bill because licences that used to cost $20 will now cost $500.
As a matter of fact, in the bill it says under the licensing provisions that the municipalities can require the payment of licence fees which may be in the nature of a tax -- may be in the nature of a tax. It's possible that, for example, you could say to local business outlets: "You are selling so many packages of something or other. We will tax you per package of what's sold." Also, it says that if there's any conflict in this between any provision and any other section of this act or any other act, the section that is the most restrictive of a local municipality's power prevails.
I just want to make sure you understand that. In other words, municipalities say they need this because the deal that was struck between the government and the municipalities was: "You cut our transfer payments;" -- the amount of money the province gives to the municipalities -- "we want unlimited flexibility on licence fees and we want unlimited flexibility on other fees."
That's not me speaking. Virtually every mayor who has come before us has said, "Get this bill passed right away because we need to impose all sorts of new fees to compensate for the cuts in funding." That's not me; that's the mayor of London, the mayor of Mississauga, the mayor of North York, the Metro chairman, the mayor yesterday of Guelph. The mayor of Mississauga said, "We're going to hold property taxes, but we're looking forward to a gas tax to fund our inter-boundary transit systems."
I just want to make sure I've interpreted the chamber's support for the bill properly. Are you supportive of those unlimited powers in the licensing area?
Mr Salci: We expressed our concerns that the introduction of licensing fees, and maybe we've incorporated this in the general comments, but we don't want the introduction of fees to replace revenue that would really be generated by tax.
We said that we are concerned that the proposed amendment would allow municipalities the capability to impose fees on services already provided for and that will be provided for in the tax base. We know that the government needs money to operate, but we expect the government to be responsible. I think our chamber's position is that we appreciate the fact that the government is now becoming more responsible and doing what it should be doing in terms of cutbacks that are necessary.
Mr Phillips: On the fee one, Deputy Mayor Hopcroft from London -- because the mayor couldn't present; she happened to have a scheduling problem -- told the committee he welcomes the ability to introduce new user fees and impose direct taxes. In fact, he was very angry about delaying this bill for four weeks because he said any delay will undermine London's ability to charge new fees.
In the briefings we've gotten about this bill, it says that the intent of the bill is to provide what they call "unlimited flexibility to impose new user fees." It's clear that no municipality has said, "We're going to reduce property taxes and charge fees." They are looking to the new fees to replace the cuts in the provincial spending. In fact, it is pretty clear, according to the legal opinions we've had, including the government's own opinion, that this bill permits the imposition of a direct tax.
Would your chamber be in support of this bill if it permitted the imposition of a municipal gas tax, a municipal sales tax and virtually unlimited flexibility with new fees?
Mr Salci: I think you should be aware that Niagara Falls is one community that is probably exceptional in that the municipal taxes in this city have been held back to a zero increase for the last several years. The imposition of increases in taxes comes by way of regional governments and also by way of school boards.
This city has undertaken measures that we support as a responsible operation or administration would, and we do have concerns, yes, that the introduction of licensing fees or user fees would be implemented to replace tax dollars. However, in our municipality we have an administration that has seen the problem and has dealt with the matter and has cut back. I don't think anybody wants anything for nothing, but I think we support the idea that government must have funds to operate but should not require excess licensing fees to substitute for tax revenue.
The Vice-Chair: Next, to the NDP.
Mr Silipo: I want to pursue this discussion because I think, and as Mr Phillips has pointed out, one of the things that was a little puzzling was the approach we've had from a number of chambers of commerce coming before us and saying, "We support the bill," and then you go on to list a number of things that you don't support. I guess I'm left a little bit puzzled as to what it is in the bill that you support.
I understand your clear support for restructuring as it relates to amalgamation. Beyond that, what is it that you support in the bill?
Mr Salci: We're saying to you that we're concerned that we don't substitute tax revenue or tax deficiencies by increasing licensing fees to an unreasonable point. I'm not necessarily differing from some of the concerns that you may share. We do support the bill in general, and I'm talking again with respect to the government's approach now with regard to value for service and in respect to required fees for services rendered.
Mr Silipo: But is it fair to say that for you to be completely comfortable with this bill, or even comfortable, there would have to be some significant changes made, I presume by way of amendments, that would limit the licensing powers, the extent to which those fees could be used, or the taxing powers that might flow to municipalities?
Mr Salci: I believe so, appropriate changes, and I think that's the purpose of our attendance here today.
Mr Silipo: In terms of the restructuring and your support for amalgamation of municipalities, is there more that you can say to us in terms of what you would envisage might happen here in the Niagara area?
Mr Glen Gandy: If I may respond to that. In the regional municipality of Niagara Falls we have, I believe, 12 different municipalities, all of them worried about the same problem: where their funds are coming from. This goes further than just the operation of the city hall; it goes right into the public utilities, the police departments, fire departments and all the services that are being provided by the municipalities.
We think, like everyone else today, that government spending got out of hand and that certain controls had to be put in place. In order to do that, you can't have all the administration that we have in a population of 365,000, I believe, here in the city or the region, and have more elected officials than you have in the province of Ontario. That just doesn't make sense.
So of all the questions that have been asked by the presenters before you, we're saying a service fee, for example, is appropriate provided there's not a tax being charged for it at the present time. You can't replace good government by just charging service fees to generate revenue, and that is what we're trying to say here.
Mr Silipo: I want to come back to the restructuring issue, if we have time. How would you deal, on the issue of user fees, with the concerns that were expressed to us by the previous presenters -- I don't know if you were here to hear them -- about what that does to people who are living at or below the poverty level, that a $1 or $2 fee to use the skating rink or to borrow a book is not a luxury that they quite frankly have?
1120
Mr Gandy: I think that's why the chamber has indicated quite clearly that each service fee that is going to be applied or could be applied or is requested to be applied by the municipalities should have some form of appeal. It shouldn't just arbitrarily be carried out.
Mr Silipo: On the question of restructuring, is it safe for me to assume that if there was going to be any serious restructuring of municipal governments here in the Niagara area, you would expect the chamber to be involved in that process in discussions?
Mr Gandy: We would hope we would be. If we weren't asked to be, we would certainly try and participate, no matter what.
Mr Silipo: You might want to take a look, then, at the provisions in the bill that relate to restructuring which give virtually no assurance of any public process, of any public discussion or any public input and would just allow municipalities to either submit proposals or, through the establishment of a commission by the minister, have changes imposed without any public discussion.
Mr Gandy: That, again, would be reason for us to present ourselves again, when that took place.
Mr Silipo: The only other point, if there's time: You said earlier that Niagara city council -- I think that's whom you were referring to; correct me if I'm wrong -- has been fairly prudent in the way in which they've gone about dealing with property tax increases. I'm assuming that in previous years they would have had to deal with, just like other municipalities, relatively minor cuts from the province relative to what they're doing now -- 1% or 2% cuts. My understanding is that what they're looking at this year is a 28 1/2% cut in grants from the province.
How do you think they're going to be able to continue the approach that they've taken in light of that pretty significant cut relative to what they've had to deal with in past years?
Mr Salci: I don't have the exact answer as to what the mayor has decided. However, this has been dealt with recently, and in our recent discussions with the administration they anticipated the tax cuts that were coming. They were a little more severe, obviously, than was actually anticipated. I believe they're going to have to look at maybe cancelling some improvements. That was the comment that was offered to us, so maybe some streets and replacements may not take place this year and have to be deferred. I think those are responsible measures that the administration is undertaking.
I believe that our elected municipal officials, through the direction of the mayor, have made certain that the moneys have been spent wisely. They've looked at the budget deliberations. They sent budgets back and they cut where they thought was necessary. So yes, it's been fed right down the line, and we believe they've been responsible and we've lauded their efforts for that.
Mr Gandy: If I may, hopefully part of the solution to all this is that if here in the peninsula we can keep our costs down, like the rest of Ontario, we'll be able to retain the business that we have to date and attract new. That has been one of the biggest problems we've had to date.
We are in a worldwide competitive business these days, and if we don't have people who can generate dollars, businesses, and they're leaving to go elsewhere, then we are in a more serious problem. But we believe that this bill will send a message, as has been pointed out quite clearly, that business can come here, can locate here. We're interested in your expanding here and we want to see new business. But if we continue to have to increase those taxes, then we're in big problems.
The Chair: The government side.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): In fairness to that point you just made, in your opinion how do we, in the province of Ontario, go about stimulating the economy as far as attracting of businesses and jobs to the Niagara region is concerned? How do we do that? Does the government do that? Does the private sector do it? Do individuals do it? In your opinion, how do we really go about doing that?
Mr Gandy: I think we have to work in concert with each other. Right now, what we are hearing from our chamber members, and all businesses alike, is that the cost of operating here in the peninsula -- and that's what I can address at this point -- is just getting out of hand. It's very difficult for them to even retain here. Expansion doesn't take place because they're competing with their partners around the world. So we have to keep our costs down; we have to work with government to try and help them reduce their costs so that we can create more business that will create the wealth and the jobs that will flow from that. That's our belief.
Mr Froese: So what you're saying is that in order to stimulate part of the economy, keep the cost of government down so that business can create jobs. Is it the government's role to create the jobs, in your opinion, or is it the private sector?
Mr Gandy: I don't want to sound facetious here, but I don't know of many governments that have created a job, nor do I know of economic development departments or mayors or MPs. I don't mean that in a facetious way. The only ones who are going to create jobs are the business people, entrepreneurs, out there. They have to have the environment that's conducive to doing that.
Mr Froese: So in order to create that environment and to create that stimulation, would you not agree that giving money back to the people, so that they spend it and it is not the government spending it, would be a good way to do that?
Mr Gandy: I believe what you're talking to is the tax rebate that has been promised by the --
Mr Froese: Whatever.
Mr Gandy: Certainly, we've found that people today are ultracautious. They don't want to spend any money. The 30% that you're talking about, I know there are probably a lot of people who would spend that money and it would go back into the economy. There are a lot of people who have expressed that if it's of any value to our government, to hold back on that 30% and pump that into creating jobs; that's a different thing too. But to answer you directly, yes, I believe that 30% discount and putting money in the bank will certainly help that consumer out there.
Mr Bradley: Even if we have to borrow it.
Mr Froese: You are business people and I was a businessman as well. If you were faced with the situation that we are as a province, where we're spending $1 million more an hour than we're taking in, where 70% of our budget from the provincial level we don't control, what would you do as a business? Would you not do similar things, if not the exact same thing, under our restructuring: to look at every aspect of every part of your operation to ensure that you get it in the black, in a positive light?
Mr Gandy: Absolutely. That's why we're in support of it. In fact, if business had been operating the way governments have in the past, we wouldn't be around.
Mr Salci: Mr Froese, I'd like to suggest to you that -- I'm sure you're well aware, being a small businessman -- we've done this for the past several years and we've had to do things necessary in business to survive. Downscaling our costs or eliminating unnecessaries have been part of our everyday effort. Our banks expect it. Certainly the bottom line has been drastically affected. We wouldn't be here if we were spending money like the government had been spending money.
Mr Hudak: Gentlemen, thank you for your presentation. I'd like to address another part of the bill and get your opinion on it: schedule Q, with respect to arbitrators. An earlier presentation spoke to the fact that public sector wage and benefits increases have been well out of line with the private sector. What is your opinion on the provision that asks arbitrators in public sector contract negotiations to look at the ability of local governments to pay?
Mr Salci: As an entrepreneur, I support that part of the bill. Obviously, we shouldn't be held for ransom to pay excess costs and levels that we can't afford. We can't do it in our business and we don't think governments should be as well, so the government should not be held for ransom. The fairness of an arbitrator, we believe, is reasonable.
Mr Hudak: Excellent. If I could ask one more question, Mr Chair?
The Chair: You have about 30 seconds, Mr Hudak.
Mr Hudak: Some groups that have appeared before this committee, instead of supporting the bill and the reduction of government spending, have advocated tax increases. As somebody who has been well in tune with the job market over the last five years -- the government had increased taxes 32 times, increased spending -- what was the experience in Niagara Falls businesses with the kind of tax-and-spend governments we've had in the last five to seven years?
Mr Gandy: I think it's quite evident. You've seen no expansions take place because of that, and that's again why we're here today. You can't go on that way.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
May I please have representatives from the Niagara South Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation come forward.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, if only Brian Mulroney hadn't brought in the free trade agreement, we wouldn't have --
The Chair: That's not a point of order or a point of privilege.
1130
NIAGARA SOUTH ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: Welcome to the committee, Mr Ford. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you would introduce yourself to the committee members for the benefit of committee members and for Hansard.
Mr Dale Ford: Thank you very much, Mr Maves. My name is Dale Ford. I'm president of the Niagara South Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. I've been a teacher for 24 years. I'm a local person; I've been here all my life. I have degrees from Brock University as well as a degree from Buffalo State, and I'm an adjunct professor from Drake University.
On behalf of the members of the Niagara South Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on general government to present our views and concerns regarding Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act.
Our members are the teachers of Ontario's publicly funded elementary schools. I am here today because I believe in parliamentary democracy and because part of the task of our profession is to educate the children and youth of Ontario about its values and process.
With Bill 26, the government is moving too far too fast and with too little open debate. We cannot accept this as a legitimate way to do the government's business. Bill 26, tabled on November 29, 1995, introduces a new strategy of government: Change 44 laws and statutes in hundreds of ways in the name of increased efficiencies and savings. It bundles the changes together in a great tangle, makes those changes with only minimal public hearings and without the separation of the whole into its parts.
I suspect the government is taking this approach because, examined separately and carefully, some or many of these changes will cause public concern and outcry. As vast as it is, Bill 26 does not address the number of issues announced on November 29, such as the changes to entitlement in funding for junior kindergarten and for secondary school programs for adults over 21. As the president of the Niagara South Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, I wonder what the next omnibus bill will bring.
Finance Minister Eves defends the government's actions by saying unprecedented circumstances call for some very decisive action to bring this expenditure and debt we have in this province under control. I say that the need for decisive action does not cancel society's entitlement to frank and open debate and to have the opportunity to understand fully what changes are being proposed. I would like to highlight some of the changes included in this legislation and their ramifications for the society in which we live.
Collective bargaining: The premise of the amendments contained in schedule Q to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act governing arbitrators is that education costs in Ontario are unjustifiably high and that therefore arbitrators must be instructed to keep compensation settlements low.
Paragraph 2 requires arbitrators to consider "The extent to which services may have to be reduced, if the current funding levels are not increased." Arbitrators heeding this section would take on the powers that democratically elected and accountable boards of education normally exercise in deciding the appropriate level of service that will be delivered. No arbitrator should venture anywhere near this essential area of board jurisdiction.
Paragraph 5 is equally disturbing, requiring that an arbitrator consider "The employer's need for qualified employees." What possible justification is there for an arbitrator's intrusion into an area that has been established through careful, sometimes regulated, practice that relates the level and type of qualifications to the type of service delivered?
When the Conservative government of Ontario introduced similar requirements in the Inflation Restraint Act of 1982 for public sector arbitrators to take into account the employer's ability to pay and the province's financial situation, those provisions of the legislation were the subject of a complaint at the International Labour Organization in Geneva and were the subject of a ruling in favour of the employee organizations in 1985.
Several respected arbitrators, including Owen Shime, Mr Justice George Adams, Kevin Burkett, Kenneth Swan and Martin Teplitsky, have all clearly challenged the validity of such a requirement in the arbitration process, noting that it has always been a part of the evidence which employers could introduce.
The requirement to apply the ability to pay has been criticized by arbitrators as nothing more than a code for "willingness to pay." In effect, this provision of the bill allows public sector employers to impose wage control through another means. As with many other provisions in Bill 26, the government is offloading the responsibility to implement its policy to other agents while centralizing more and more control and authority over public policy in the government.
Teacher-board negotiations have always reflected the economic condition in the province and, more importantly, in the local communities. There is no need whatsoever for the amendments to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act contained in schedule Q.
Health: As a member of the public, I'm concerned about the provisions of the bill which affect access to confidential records by the Minister of Health. Other proposed changes, such as deregulation of drug prices, privatization of some health facilities, ending the preference for non-profit facilities and for Canadian ownership, threaten the fundamentals of our health system. The legislation would allow the minister to close hospitals unilaterally.
Terence Corcoran of the Globe and Mail described Bill 26 and its health provisions as "the ominous bill, a draconian power grab by the Health minister. The changes for doctors are the most extreme coercion imposed on any group of employees since able-bodied men were drafted into the military."
Municipal restructuring: Section 8 of schedule M amends the Municipal Act to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs much greater powers to restructure municipalities and, I assume, school board boundaries. The amendments refer to various municipal structure, including "boards" as defined by the Municipal Affairs Act.
School boards are included in this definition. Despite a few well-publicized exceptions, local school boards have served the province well. Such a structure should not be abandoned lightly in the name of short-term fiscal expediency, and this bill must be amended to remove school boards from that definition.
The Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force has been working since early spring on a report for the Minister of Education and Training. How will the amendments proposed in Bill 26 affect that work? We are convinced that Bill 26 will be in place with the power to dissolve school boards before the government has listened to its own recommendations from the task force.
There are amendments which will make the privatization of municipal utilities and the imposition of new user fees much easier. Previously, the privatization of public utilities, including electricity, water, sewer or transportation services, required the holding of a municipal referendum on the issue. Schedule M has the potential for radically reshaping the face of public life in Ontario communities across the province.
Power-hungry municipal councils could take unto themselves total jurisdiction over decision-making affecting every local citizen. Municipal reorganization will no longer require public involvement. There could be an erosion of standards and services and the downloading of costs to the municipal ratepayer through bylaws enacted to provide for fees and charges.
The impact of user fees will lead to disparity across the province, pitting municipalities that will impose fees against municipalities that may be able to afford to raise taxes. Where will our provincial community standards for service and infrastructure be? How attractive will Ontario be without good roads, garbage collection, water treatment etc?
1140
Pay equity: The amendments to the Pay Equity Act contained in schedule J remove proxy comparisons for public sector employees lacking appropriate comparator groups. It will affect thousands of child care workers, others in health care, seniors homes etc. This is an unjustified and retrograde step. Schedule J violates all standards of fairness and fundamental justice. The proposed changes in these provisions will continue the ghettoization of women.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts: One of the great advances in the area of civil rights that recent governments have initiated is legislation governing freedom of information and the protection of privacy. By giving the public access to information that is in the public domain, either as an individual citizen or through the vehicle of the media, potential abuses of power that depend on secrecy and suppression of vital data can be avoided.
Schedule K allows institutions covered by the legislation the ability to deny access on the ground that a request is "frivolous or vexatious." All costs associated with a request can now be charged to the individual making the request. Tom Wright, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, has suggested that the proposed changes threaten the fundamental right of Ontarians to know what is going on.
The debate about this legislation is about public scrutiny, public debate, public knowledge and consent. A fundamental tenet of democracy is an informed electorate. This legislation not only doesn't facilitate informing the people of Ontario, it creates barriers. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has also expressed his concerns about the effects of the changes on access to confidential health records.
Conclusion: We are experiencing at first hand a lesson in Ontario civics in 1996. This legislation transfers power from community institutions like school boards and hospital boards to centralized provincial bureaucrats and allows the cabinet to impose its will over a broad swath of Ontario public life without seeking legislative approval. The legislation itself and the government's insistence on speed before public consultation debate demonstrates disdain for the citizens of the province.
As teachers, we would not treat students or parents in this manner, nor should our fellow citizens be subjected to bullying. It is incumbent on a government that is truly committed to governing democratically to respond to the public. It is clear that the complexity of this bill is confusing to even the government's own ministers. It is astounding that those who will be responsible for the administration of the laws created should this bill pass in its present form have so limited a knowledge of the legislation.
The government should withdraw this bill and reintroduce it and its schedules as separate bills. Bill 26 should be broken up into manageable sections with a longer period for discussion. More time is needed to assess properly the contents and the effects of this proposed legislation before its passage.
I am concerned about the lessons this government is teaching our students about the exercise of power and disregard for the democratic process. According to Lord Acton, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It is disturbing that this government, which was able to develop a 211-page document with little or no input from the groups affected, shrouded in secrecy and hell-bent on passage, didn't plan to schedule public hearings. The people of Ontario deserve more. They deserve the opportunity to understand what these changes are and to voice their opinions about the acceptability of the proposals.
On a personal level, even though I voted for you and I respect that the Progressive Conservative Party was elected by a majority of voters who clearly wanted change, I'm worried that the current pace and sweep of change will create long-term problems in its wake. I understand the province is in a fiscal crisis that you are trying to fix, but I'm disturbed by the legislating of tools that allow unnecessary broad and invasive powers that could be misused.
Rather than giving the people a sense of government in charge, there's widespread anxiety that this ominous omnibus bill has fanned. If you're so confident that the revolution you propose is a matter of common sense, why don't you trust that you're able, through consultation, deliberation, argument and persuasion, to take others along in this vision?
Mr Gerretsen: An excellent question.
Mr Kormos: But will there be an answer to the question?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ford, for your presentation. We have five minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the third party. Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Thank you very much for the presentation. I have to say I think you left the best gem for the end. I think the fact that you're someone who voted for this government, presumably believing it was going to move the province in a direction that you obviously support and thought was necessary, and you're now sitting here before us telling us that you're very concerned about the way in which they're going about doing this, I think is something that hopefully the government members will listen to, because we have seen a tendency in this process, as we've seen generally by the government since its election, to categorize anyone that opposes them as simply being another special interest group that is trying to hold out for its own particular interest. I think what you've done on behalf of your organization is to flag for us a number of significant concerns that certainly we've heard during these hearings.
I want to just spend a second on this question of the process and particularly your point about what this is teaching our young people, because I think that sometimes we tend to be accused, as parliamentarians or any of us that are interested in the political process, that somehow this concern that we have with the democratic process is kind of either a frill or is something that we are just interested in. But it really is fundamental, as we see it, to the way in which we are governed as a society. In fact, it is one of the things that makes us a good and healthy society: that we have a process of government that allows for the public to be involved before final decisions are made. That takes nothing away from the government of the day having the right to, at the end of the day, pass whatever laws it deems fit.
One of the things that's continued to trouble me about the Conservative government members is that they think they consulted during the election and that therefore they don't need to consult any further on any changes. Do you have a comment on that?
Mr Young: That's not true at all.
Mr Silipo: That's what you've been saying.
Mr Gerretsen: You guys have been saying that dozens of times.
Mr Silipo: You've been saying that time after time. You put questions to people saying exactly that point.
Mr Young: Why do you think we're here?
The Chair: Gentlemen, we've got a question.
Interjection: We're listening.
Mr Silipo: You're listening. Why are you listening? You're listening because the Liberals and the NDP forced these hearings on you. That's the only reason that you're here.
Mr Kormos: But you won't listen to seniors, you won't listen to aboriginal people, you won't listen to -- there's any number of groups --
The Chair: Gentlemen.
Mr Silipo: Perhaps I can put the question that you put at the end of your brief. Why do you think the government has so little trust in its ability to persuade people about the common sense, as they put it, of their vision? What are they afraid of?
Mr Ford: I won't answer their question for you. My concern was that this is such a broad piece of legislation, affecting many, many laws in such a short time span; the way it was brought in, as you indicated, when everyone else was in lockup with Mr Eves; the last-minute setting up of these public forums; the difficulty in even finding the bill to examine it was a very onerous task. I believe that there was very little preparation and forethought that went into it. I know for a fact my organization at the provincial level was never called upon for any input into this legislation. I've heard from a number of others, the affiliates that were involved, that they had neither been contacted nor briefs sent in.
Mr Young: Thanks for coming, Mr Ford. Thanks for your presentation. We were very glad to hear the teachers' views. We've heard, including your presentation today, from seven teachers' unions or their locals. By the time the hearings are finished, we will have heard from 13 teachers' unions or their locals. There are recurring themes and there are nuances, and we'll be listening carefully.
1150
This is a very real process. If I had to guess, and I don't want to prejudge anything, there will be amendments to the bill. Those are the kinds of things we're here to decide. But I did want to ask you, with regard to the arbitrators act, would it allay your fears -- actually, I have two questions, if I may. Would it allay your fears if the arbitrators act were clarified to say that arbitrators cannot lower the level of services? That's the first question.
The second question is with regard to school boards. We don't think it's included in the definition of local boards, but would it allay your fears if it was clarified that it's not under the definition of local boards?
Mr Ford: To respond to your second question first: Yes. It should not be inclusive of the definition that has come up.
Mr Young: That's not the intent. I can tell you that.
Mr Ford: As far as your first question about restructuring is concerned, I would have to say that you'd have to -- could you repeat that again, please?
Mr Young: If the arbitrators' direction says that the arbitrator does not have the power to lower the level of service or the power to order the raising of taxes, would that satisfy your --
Mr Ford: Okay. Thank you, sir. I lost my train of thought there for a minute. I believe that it shouldn't be in the purview of the arbitrator at all. I really don't. I think the arbitrators in the past historically have made decisions based on the local communities where the contracts are being negotiated.
Mr Young: I'd like to ask you one more question. Have I got time?
The Chair: Yes, you do.
Mr Young: In Toronto there are 42 hospitals. The Toronto district health council has said: "We're financing far too much bricks and mortar. We have 6,700 empty hospital beds in Ontario. If you put it all together you'd have 30 medium-sized hospitals." So they have said you should close them, take that money, put it into front-line health care, which is what we want to do. But there's no board of directors or governors in any hospital that have a mandate to close. So what would happen if a board of governors put up their hands and said: "We quit. The funding's not there; we just quit"? The bill is designed to give the minister the power to appoint a supervisor the next morning so someone's in control and can make the change happen. That's what it's designed to do. Does that concern you?
Mr Gerretsen: Your volunteers are going to be so irresponsible and just say they're going to quit?
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Ford: It definitely does concern me. I know in this area, and I can only speak to this area, the hospitals that are in these communities have already sat down together and discussed where there could possibly be amalgamation to save costs.
Mr Young: You mean in Toronto or in other communities?
Mr Ford: I'm talking about the communities that I live in.
Mr Young: And Windsor and London, where we've been. I'm thinking specifically of Toronto, but please go ahead.
Mr Ford: I understand that there are negotiations right now determining where they could close the beds, what hospital would specialize in specific health concerns. I think that is fair game.
Mr Young: So if there were a sunset clause that said the minister has this power to make these changes and it disappears in three or four or five years, would that address your concern?
Mr Ford: That would not address my concern, no. I don't believe that any law that has a time line on it can be changed --
Mr Young: That's been the tradition, but we're looking at changing the way government works, as you know. We have 168 school boards in Ontario. One of the school boards has more trustees than schools. We have to make change happen. We're waiting for the Sweeney report. How are we going to make that happen, because, as you know, bureaucracies grow and school boards grow and there's no one to make it happen. How can we make that happen without such a bill?
Mr Ford: Okay. My concern was that you were arbitrarily passing this bill before the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force was even going to make its report. From what I understand, they're going to make that report in mid-February, and this bill in fact could be law by the end of January.
Mr Phillips: It will be.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Young. Your time has expired for the government caucus. I now move to the opposition.
Mr Bradley: This morning Mr Phillips, the Liberal member for Scarborough-Agincourt, moved a motion which would require that the government move forward only with the urgent aspects of this bill and that this committee return to Niagara Falls for further hearings which could be arranged within the community. Would you be in favour of further hearings being held on this legislation so that more individuals and more groups would have the opportunity to have input and suggestions brought forward to the government?
Mr Ford: I definitely would be in favour of that, Mr Bradley. We're talking about 44 pieces of legislation. I alone today have only talked on maybe five aspects of it. I think there's a definite need for other people to provide that input to the government.
Mr Bradley: As a citizen who has observed government and as one who, as you say, voted Progressive Conservative in the last election, did you anticipate when you voted for the Conservative Party that in fact the government would be moving in a direction that would give more power to unelected people and concentrate power in the cabinet and take it away from the individually elected members?
Mr Ford: I definitely did not.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe that is healthy for democracy to have in fact the Premier's advisers, the advisers to the ministers and bureaucrats with far more power than the individually elected members of the Legislature?
Mr Ford: I definitely do not.
Mr Bradley: The fact has been pointed out that we would not have these hearings across the province at this time in January when people are actually paying attention to this if indeed they were not forced upon the government, and I'm glad to hear that you believe that hearings should continue, because we think it's important as well.
You mention the freedom of information. Perhaps you were not happy when it happened, but one of the groups that wanted access to government on many occasions was the Taxpayers Coalition, which wanted to obtain information from government. Do you believe that the government should be making it more difficult for the Taxpayers Coalition to get information from government by making changes which infringe upon its right to obtain that information?
Mr Ford: No, I don't. I believe it's the citizens' rights in Ontario. One of their rights is the free access of information, as long as it's not classified in some way. I think it's doubly erroneous to charge people to get that information, because, once again, you're limiting people who may not have the ability to pay to get the same access to information as the next person.
Mr Bradley: One of the members indicated, and the minister I believe as well, that by regulation he is going to remove the right to have municipalities eliminate local boards of education. Do you believe that it would be better to have that contained within the legislation, where your duly elected members have access to those changes, or do you believe it should be left strictly in the hands of the cabinet?
Mr Ford: Once again, it should be with the members of the Legislature who make that decision.
Mr Bradley: There is an anticipation in some quarters that bigger is better, that is, by merging boards of education or merging municipalities, there are savings to be effected. Sometimes that happens, perhaps. I haven't noticed with regional government in Niagara that it was a particularly useful exercise in reducing costs or having access by the local people. Do you believe that it is automatic that when you amalgamate boards or eliminate boards or restructure municipalities so that they are larger in jurisdiction rather than smaller, that that automatically produces cost savings and better government?
Mr Ford: No, it automatically does not, especially in this area where Niagara South and Lincoln are very cost-efficient. In fact what you're doing is removing the trustees from the local populace one step further on the line. You're decreasing the number of trustees; you're moving them further away. It may make sense by having a confederated board with the separate school board in Niagara South, but it does not make sense amalgamating Niagara South with Lincoln at this point.
Mr Phillips: I want to follow up on the arbitration, because I think this absolutely, fundamentally changes the way bargaining will take place, with fire, with police, with hospitals, with teachers. There's no doubt, and it is a very significant step of taking away the bargaining position from the employees and it transfers it to the employers. That's the whole intent of it. In fact, the government has told the credit rating agencies -- these are the organizations that rate Ontario's credit -- that this proposed legislation has been introduced to guide arbitrators in making decisions and that this is a very important mechanism that will offset part of the impact of the reduction in grants. In other words, this is a big cost-saving move.
I guess my question to teacher organizations, because I think all of us are anxious for good labour relations -- we're all in favour of that -- do you think this will enhance the relationship between the teachers and their school boards, this change in the arbitrators, or will it make it tougher to reach negotiated settlements between the teachers and the school boards?
Mr Ford: I don't know about reaching the final agreement. It will certainly colour the relationships between the trustees, the board and the teachers' groups involved, because now you have an arbitrator who's saying that he absolves himself by saying to the board of education, "How much money can you afford?" "This is the amount of money: X dollars." Then he's going to make his ruling in favour of that board of education. So it undermines the rights of people to negotiate freely a collective agreement.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ford. I'm sorry that the time has been exhausted. Thank you for coming forward today, Mr Ford, and making your presentation to the committee.
The committee now stands in recess until 1 o'clock.
The subcommittee recessed from 1200 to 1302.
TED KRASOWSKI
The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the standing committee on general government.
The first presenter this afternoon is Mr Ted Krasowski. Welcome, Mr Krasowski, to the committee. You have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and comments from the three caucuses. I know you personally so I've pronounced your name right, so you can dispense with introducing yourself to the committee members if you so wish. Go ahead.
Mr Ted Krasowski: Thank you very much. Mr Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for affording me the time to speak with you today. I hope my comments are useful in your deliberations on this omnibus bill.
I will be addressing specific parts of this proposed legislation which I feel are not in the best interests of the people of Ontario. I will also be raising more general points about this bill. I believe the points I raise should be taken into account if it is the goal of the government to bring forward legislation that is beneficial to Ontario and understandable to the people of Ontario. While some of the issues I will raise may have been discussed at previous meetings, some of the reasoning behind my comments may be new.
A specific area I find myself anxious to comment on deals with the relationship between municipal and provincial governments. It is obvious that Bill 26 will allow municipalities more power not only in the area of raising revenue and taxation, but also in the area dealing with citizens. I think there is a real potential here for the interests of citizens to be compromised by these changes.
My concern is based on the structure of municipal government. I'm sure you will agree that Canadian parliamentary democracy is strengthened by the party system, which is a cornerstone of its foundation. Unlike the American system, where the bonds of party are exceedingly weak, the Canadian party system at both the federal and provincial levels acts firmly against extreme and undue influences of special-interest groups, lobbyists and other moneyed interests.
However, this system does not exist at the municipal level. As a result, while it is true that municipal governments are the closest to the people, it is equally true that individual municipal politicians are the most vulnerable to unwarranted pressure from outside interests. We must also remember that municipal councillors are only semi-professional or part-time politicians. Most hold other jobs and careers, with sometimes insufficient resources to fully attend to their council duties. In fact, in at least one case in Niagara Falls, a city councillor has questioned and lamented the short time frame available for budget deliberations.
In light of these facts, it seems inefficient and basically irresponsible for the provincial government to add more obligations to these overworked and sometimes ill-prepared representatives. Their vulnerability, coupled with the devolution of power and increased responsibility arising from Bill 26, could result in decisions contrary to the interests of individual citizens. There must be competent guidelines that oversee the functioning of municipal councils and that ensure no undue influences come into play. I believe there are sections of this bill where those guidelines are being eliminated.
Examples are obviously useful here. To reiterate, there are clauses within this bill which remove the safeguards for municipal governments to act as agents of the people. Specifically, clauses exist which will have the effect of limiting, if not eliminating, the inclusion of citizens in decision-making at the municipal level.
One such clause is found in schedule M, section 25, involving the Municipal Franchises Act. Section 1.1 of the amended act would permit a local municipal corporation to "pass a bylaw to eliminate the requirement...to obtain the assent of the electors before the corporation exercises a power under this or any other act." Clearly this is not in the best democratic interests of citizens.
The same wording is included as section 33, involving the Public Utilities Act and the selling of public utilities. In this case, not only do I find the clause objectionable, I wonder about the reason for its inclusion. Is this amendment designed to facilitate the ultimate privatization of public utilities such as Ontario Hydro? Such a situation would be at odds with the assertion made by the Progressive Conservatives during the election that privatization of public utilities would not proceed until proper evaluation and public hearings were undertaken.
In short, I believe these amendments, sections 25 and 33 of schedule M, should be eliminated from the legislation.
Section 10 of schedule M, dealing with the Municipal Act, is subject to the same sort of criticism. This amendment adds subsection 220.1(9) to the Municipal Act. Under this clause, we also see a weakening of the ability of citizens to voice disapproval with actions of their municipal government. The clause withdraws the right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by citizens wishing to challenge what they may view as unfair practices on the part of a municipality or local board.
Prior to this amendment, the OMB would hear any application where there is a feeling that a toll charged for operating a railway or a public utility is in excess of those approved or prescribed by lawful authority. While this clause makes it easier for a municipality to impose user fees or charges, the fact that the right of appeal has been taken away from citizens cannot be seen as being in their best interests. I would urge that this amendment also be deleted from the proposed legislation.
Other amendments contained in Bill 26 also must be viewed with suspicion regarding their effect on the ideal of treating citizens in a fair manner.
Examples include sections 7 and 19 of schedule K affecting the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Both of these amendments require individuals to pay a fee prior to obtaining personal information about themselves. In my view, these are unfairly restrictive amendments. Put simply, if an individual has provided personal information to the government, why should he or she have to pay a fee to access that information? Looking at it another way, this amendment will undoubtedly stifle the ability of people to access and correct information -- personal information -- that has been gathered from another source.
On this topic, the idea has been put forth that the fee issue is merely to discourage frivolous and vexatious requests for information. To me, this reasoning is bordering on self-righteousness. What may seem troublesome and of little worth to some may be very important to others. Once again, amendments of this type will have the effect of choking off the ability of citizens to act in their own best interests. Surely we can do without such amendments.
These are the specific issues concerning Bill 26 that I wish to raise today. Time limitations have compelled me to deal with only a few sections of the bill, while I'm sure you will agree that many other areas require in-depth study. In particular, and just one last point in this area, I think it is necessary to take a good, hard look at the power given to various ministers under this proposed legislation. Once again, I fear that the voice of people will be diminished and their best interests compromised with a concentration of decision-making powers in the hands of a few perhaps sheltered individuals.
1310
I'd now like to make some general comments about this bill and about the public hearing process that we are going through.
In my view, the most glaring deficiency of this bill is its enormous size and great scope. Moreover, it is unclear why such a massive bill must be passed as only one piece of legislation. Obviously, it would be much more efficient and fair to people for this bill to be broken up according to the major issues. This is not a new idea. It is being echoed by many within the province: by journalists, leading editorial writers, politicians and, perhaps most importantly, ordinary citizens.
I am sympathetic to the predicament of the members of this committee. The amount of information you are receiving on a wide variety of issues must be very difficult to digest. At the same time, you're being asked to make informed, detail-oriented judgements on the impact of this bill. Clearly, this is not an optimal situation. In fact, to continue along this path will undoubtedly lead to the same problems which arose with respect to the government's welfare reform initiatives. In that case, rushed decisions, without regard for the finer points, led to a great deal of confusion and many people in Ontario suffered needlessly as a result.
As for this bill, questions and contradictory statements have already arisen with respect to the taxation powers being conferred on municipalities. Certainly, we cannot consider this continuing confusion to be representative of good and efficient government.
I'm not advocating a total dismemberment or indefinite delay of Bill 26. In fact, there has already been an offer from the official opposition to pass some parts of this legislation in return for extended public hearings on other areas. This is a reasonable approach. In fact, there does not seem to be a suitable reason for not following this course.
There's also a moral and yet realistic rationale for breaking down Bill 26 and allowing more input from citizens. It stems from the relationship between elected officials and their constituents. Times have changed greatly in recent years. While at one time people were content to elect their MP or MPP every four or five years, send them to Ottawa or Queen's Park and let them make the decisions, I think it is fair to say that today people want much more of a say in decisions that affect their lives. More and more, people are demanding to be heard, and rightly so. I think it is clear that people are becoming much more involved and informed about what is going on in this province, in this country and in this world.
The fact that any government forms a majority today cannot be seen as a blank cheque. It cannot be seen as a reason to proceed with an agenda without meaningful debate and the input of citizens. These truths must be recognized by elected officials, both for the good of the constituents they serve and for their own good in terms of their chances for re-election.
I believe the role of government today, and of MPPs with respect to Bill 26, should be modified to reflect the growing awareness and desire to participate on the part of citizens. If the people are to understand what this government wants to do in Ontario, it also behooves the government to provide as much information as possible. In this situation, the government and individual MPPs should act as liaisons with their constituents, explaining the meaning of their legislation and taking the questions and comments back to Queen's Park to be considered before a final decision is made. In the case of Bill 26, it is obvious that the size and scope of the bill make a process like this inefficient and virtually impossible.
In concluding this portion of my comments, I would like to formally urge that Bill 26 be split into more homogeneous sections and that extended public meetings be undertaken. Perhaps these meetings could be arranged by individual MPPs in the form of town halls. Undoubtedly, such an exercise would allow people a more efficient means of communicating and commenting on this legislation.
In general, throughout this presentation I have attempted to deal with subjects and issues contained in this bill that decrease the ability of citizens to exercise their basic democratic rights and have more control over their lives. Indeed, as we move into a time when government is relinquishing responsibility and asking citizens to take more responsibility on to themselves for themselves, for their family and for their neighbours, it seems illogical and even reckless to legislate roadblocks to these people who are trying to participate more actively in their government.
I'd like to thank you for your time today once again. If you have any comments or questions, I'll do my best to respond.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Krasowski. We have five minutes per caucus, starting with the government caucus.
Mr Froese: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate it. Not directly stated in your comments but what can be read into them, at least on my part -- and we've heard comments before about going too far too fast, too quickly, more consultation, and those are good and valid comments. Given the fact that we are spending $1 million dollars an hour more than we're taking in and the fact that since the election the debt has grown by $4 billion, what are your recommendations with respect to solving that whole problem and situation?
Mr Krasowski: I think the primary objective of your government should be to generate jobs and get the economy going, and you should be checking very carefully and examining what cuts you are making. For example, there was a green program that was a provincial initiative in various municipalities, and in Barrie that program over a year created 4,000 jobs and brought into the economy of Barrie about $34 million while the cost of the program was $12 million, yet the program has been cut.
You're obviously making money off something like this -- the money coming in is outweighing the money being spent -- and you should concentrate very much on ways of stimulating the economy such as that to bring in more money and create jobs. I don't think drastic cutting at this time is going to solve the problem. I think it might have the real, serious effect of driving us back into a recession.
Mr Froese: Do you believe in the statement that you should live within your means, that you shouldn't be spending more money than you're receiving?
Mr Krasowski: Yes, I do believe that, but at the same time I think we're in a situation now where smart spending is required. In the example I just gave you, where you have to spend on these programs but you are receiving more money from these programs, we are living within our means in that situation.
Mr Hudak: Thank you for your presentation. I enjoyed your comments, especially your comments about the effects of the bill on privacy issues. Schedule A I don't think was touched on in the presentation. Schedule A basically will put some sunshine on salaries and benefits of civil servants who make over $100,000 a year. One thing I've heard over and over again from people in Fort Erie and Port Colborne and Wainfleet is about the great deal of perks, benefits and high salaries that civil servants --
Mr Kormos: And politicians.
Mr Hudak: -- and politicians make, and the high expense accounts.
Mr Kormos: You won't refuse your per diem. What about your per diem?
Interjection: He doesn't get a per diem today.
Mr Hudak: My question to you is, what do you think of the aspects in schedule A that are going to put some sunshine on salaries and such in the public service?
Mr Krasowski: I haven't had adequate time to review schedule A in depth, but I think you will realize from my comments that I will say we should be giving information to people to help them make decisions. But that information has to be accurate and straightforward. There is a feeling out there that public servants are making too much money. Is that accurate? How many hours are they working in a week? Things like that. Let's get the information out there. It's very easy to criticize somebody, but it's much more difficult to propose arguments that really address the issues.
Mr Young: Can I expand on that issue a little? For publicly traded companies in the private sector, their benefits and salaries are published now, and now we'll publishing the benefits and salaries of those in the public sector who make over $100,000 a year. These people have a lot of influence on our lives, so there's sense in that. Union leaders also have a lot of influence on our lives. What would your feeling be about publishing the benefits and salaries of union leaders who have a package worth over $100,000 a year?
Mr Krasowski: You're trying to get me to say something I don't want to say right now. I really can't comment on that. I'd have to look at the legislation itself and research the in-depth ramifications of everything in that area. I work as a statistician; I know you can turn numbers around to make them say anything you want, so we have to very careful, and we have to be responsible as a government and as citizens that the information we are putting forth is accurate information.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): In your presentation, you talked about the local responsibility and the pressure that may be put on municipal politicians to do what special-interest groups want. I take that to mean the user fee and licensing area, as those are the areas being transferred. Do you not see that as a better ability of the issue to be represented in the best interests of the people, because they can pressure or they can speak to their local representatives?
1320
Mr Krasowski: The real crux of what I was trying to say is that there are amendments in schedule M that let a municipality pass a bylaw that will eliminate the consent being received from people for certain powers the corporation has.
Mr Hardeman: Do you recognize --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Hardeman, we've come to the end of the time for the government.
Mr Phillips: I'm actually going to talk about the areas that you commented on because I appreciate that you as a private citizen don't have the resources to go through and detail every single section. I appreciate that you've brought us your views on a couple of sections, not section A, but you've commented on section M. Perhaps you can elaborate a little bit. Here's the situation, as we see it, of what the intent is of this.
It's very clear that many municipalities want the right to implement a municipal gas tax. We've had at least three mayors say that is what they believe the bill provides and that's their intent. That's what they want to do. As you rightly point out in your brief, if the citizens don't like that, they cannot appeal it any longer to the Ontario Municipal Board. It says that no one can appeal to the OMB on the grounds that fees or charges are unjust or unfair. So even if they're unjust or unfair, you can't appeal to the OMB.
It then goes on further, as you pointed out in your brief, to bylaw waiving assent, which is legal jargon for, by a bylaw the municipality can say, "We're not going to have a referendum."
I might just parenthetically say that I always find it mildly curious for a government to think that a gas tax doesn't need a referendum but a casino does need a referendum. There's a juxtaposition there that's interesting: They're still saying that wherever there's going to be a casino they'll need a referendum; where there's a gas tax, no referendum.
I just want to get your feeling, as a citizen, of what they're saying to the people of Ontario by not allowing an appeal to the OMB and not allowing a plebiscite on it, but allowing by bylaw the introduction of a municipal gas tax.
Mr Krasowski: I would think that, as difficult as this is for me to say, the government is of the opinion that the opinions of the people do not really matter, "If we feel that we want your advice, we'll ask you for it."
The point I was trying to make was that it is incumbent upon the government, wherever possible, to get input from the citizens and also through the elected members of the Legislature. I think the whole situation with Bill 26 is something that borders on scandalous, in the way it was introduced into the Legislature, the way it was debated and the basically drastic steps it took to get the committee here, to get public hearings to be held.
Mr Phillips: It's actually probably apropos that we're in this community, talking about the ability to eliminate municipal electrical associations through the elimination of a plebescite and the mere passing of a bylaw. Yours actually has been one of the few presentations that have focused on that area. I appreciate that very much.
But again, as you point out in your brief, the passing of a bylaw, "Despite this or any other act, a municipal corporation may pass a bylaw to eliminate the requirement of this act to obtain the assent of the electors," as you point out, that's essentially eliminating the need for a plebiscite on the elimination of local electrical boards.
Again I ask the question, I guess as a citizen: Do you think that most communities view their electrical organization as fairly important? And do you think that most people would like an opportunity, before it is sold off, to have a direct say in that or do you think that any municipality should have the right, by passing a bylaw, to sell off their local municipal budget --
Mr Krasowski: I don't think that any municipality should have that right. I think the people should be consulted on this, especially in something as important as power.
Mr Bradley: I have one question in the 30 seconds I have, and that is regarding user fees. Your municipality in Niagara Falls has spent a lot of time trying to bring its budget under control. It's already effected a number of cuts. If you were to get into user fees, what do you think, for instance, could be the effect on children who are trying to take advantage of recreational opportunities in the community?
Mr Krasowski: I think their opportunities would be very limited. To me, whether you impose user fees or taxes, it's really the same thing. You're cutting back on spending at the provincial level but you're bringing in user fees to make up the differences.
Mr Kormos: Mr Krasowski, in the very first part of your submission you talk about the strength of the party system traditionally in Canadian politics. I tell you I'm inclined to agree with your observations. Several members of the Conservative caucus agree with you too. They're not necessarily here. They've confided in me, but of course are extremely fearful --
Mr Young: That's hearsay.
Mr Kormos: -- of expressing their views publicly because they'll be denied the gravy train that exists in government. Do you think any of those Tories could possibly show the courage of their convictions and truly represent their constituents by voting against truly bad legislation and bad process? Do you think there's any prospect of that at all?
Mr Krasowski: I don't think there's any prospect of it, but it would be something that would make a lot of people sit up and take notice.
Mr Kormos: It sure as hell would be refreshing, wouldn't it?
Mr Krasowski: Mr Chairman, if I could just finish a comment quickly. I think it's important to realize that our party system is not perfect by any means, and I think that the better part of the system is that within caucus, views are made known. If those views are not taken into account, there is a lack of leadership, probably, and of good judgement at the top as well.
Mr Silipo: I wish we had more time, Mr Krasowski, to talk about the whole parliamentary system, because I actually do have some thoughts as well about how it could be made more democratic overall in terms of the role of the individual member. But that's perhaps a discussion for another time.
I wanted to just focus in on what I saw as a recurring theme in your presentation, which as I understood it was the array of examples that you put before us taken from the legislation that really diminish power, the rights of the public to be involved, and really make the whole process more autocratic; and your pointing out, as you did, that a majority government doesn't mean a blank cheque to do what you want and ignoring the whole democratic process.
What came to mind as you were saying those words were the words of the now Premier, Mike Harris, who kept talking a lot, as I recall, both prior to the election and during the election, about what a different kind of politician he was going to be. One of the things he was going to do was, yes, to take the tough decisions, but he was going to continue to talk to people, he was going to continue to consult with people and he was going to keep his promises. One of the key promises he made, of course, was that there would be no cuts to health care, and we know what happened to that promise with the $1.3 billion in cut to health care announced in the economic statement.
It seems to me that we're seeing here a number of measures that either one can categorize as continuing the breach of those promises or, at the very least, that they go far beyond what people expected when they voted for the Tory government. Is that a fair assessment, in your view?
Mr Krasowski: It is a very fair assessment. Just to emphasize something, I think it's very easy to cut. It's not easy to bring in programs that will decrease costs and provide benefits at the end.
Mr Silipo: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Krasowski, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
1330
PORT COLBORNE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
The Chair: May I have please have representatives from the Port Colborne and District Labour Council and the United Steelworkers of America come forward.
Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd both introduce yourselves at the beginning of the presentation for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr David McIntosh: Good afternoon. My name is David McIntosh, vice-president of Port Colborne and District Labour Council and president of the Niagara Peninsula Steelworkers area council.
Ms Rose Bisson: Good afternoon, I'm Rose Bisson, president of the Port Colborne and District Labour Council.
Mr McIntosh: We're here today representing over 1,400 members of the Port Colborne labour council and the over 3,000 members of the United Steelworkers in the Niagara Peninsula working in a wide range of industries in the public and private sector.
I'd like to begin by thanking the members of the Liberal and NDP caucuses at Queen's Park whose actions resisting this government's intention to ram through Bill 26 with little or no debate and no public hearings were responsible for these hearings today.
Bill 26, introduced as the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, is an unprecedented and sweeping piece of legislation containing 17 schedules which enact or amend over 40 separate pieces of legislation.
If passed, this bill would grant cabinet and appointed officers the unconstrained power to make decisions affecting the delivery of public services and operation of public institutions by regulation, ministerial direction or administrative order, without either parliamentary debate or public scrutiny.
It also removes any assurances we have of political accountability, and in many cases our recourse to the courts on decisions made affecting important group and individual interests, such as the denial of public benefits, interference with vested rights and the disclosure of confidential information.
The bill authorizes cabinet or ministers to make regulations or issue directions extinguishing the existing contractual rights and obligations with no legal recourse. Further, it allows cabinet to override the provisions of any contractual agreement and provides exemption from the provisions of other legislation to the point of reversing and rendering of no effect certain decisions already made by the courts under existing legislation and agreements. In these respects, the bill goes way beyond enacting the provisions of the Treasurer's economic statement.
I have a few comments to make on some specific issues. Many workers who are employed in the essential services sector, such as fire, police and hospitals, are denied the right to strike in support of their collective bargaining demands. Instead, these workers have access to a process of interest arbitration where a neutral arbitrator makes a determination by comparing compensation paid to workers doing similar work in the private sector.
Among other changes, this bill would require arbitrators to consider the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation. Arbitrators have been unable to define ability to pay in the public sector arguing that ability to pay in the public sector really means willingness to pay, something which is unilaterally determined by the employer.
We believe that by imposing this criterion on our arbitrators the government will be able to effectively implement wage controls using arbitrators as a buffer to escape responsibility. This would in effect undermine the independence of arbitrators, the integrity of the arbitration process and the process of collective bargaining as there would be no incentive for employers to reach an agreement when it is clear that the arbitrators have no choice but to award the employer's position.
In fact, the adverse impact of the ability-to-pay factor in the independence of arbitrators was recognized when similar legislation was temporarily adopted by a Conservative government in the early 1980s. This legislation was not renewed after a one-year period.
The effect of this and the other proposed provisions would serve only to relieve public sector employers of the responsibility for making decisions for which they can be held accountable, and to require employees to subsidize the levels of service through substandard wages.
The Pension Benefits Act provides for additional rights for plan members whose service is terminated as a result of a major layoff or a shutdown. The superintendent of pensions has, at present, the power to order a partial windup of a pension plan. Bill 26 removes the power of the superintendent to order a windup or partial windup of either of the two pension plans for which this government is responsible.
This move denies the government's employees facing layoff their pension entitlements that are the right of every worker in the province, and to add insult to injury it makes the provisions retroactive to January 1, 1993, also giving the employers the right to demand repayment for any amount paid as a result of these provisions after that date.
It's quite frankly beyond our understanding as to why the government is so unwilling to deal with the pension issues through the collective bargaining process as should be properly done in any democratic society.
Continuing this government's attack on women, this bill, by eliminating proxy value comparisons from the Pay Equity Act, removes pay equity rights from over 100,000 women in the broader public service -- this in a province where women doing work comparable to a man's are still paid less than 72% of the man's wages.
The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care has stated that the end of proxy pay equity will further undermine child care funding, forcing parents, in particular single mothers, to expend a greater portion of their low income on child care in order that they can go to work. We hope the government will remove this regressive amendment to the Pay Equity Act.
In a move that has nothing to do with either saving or restructuring, but everything to do with hiding government's decisions and procedures, Bill 26 grants wide rights to agency heads to refuse access to records under the freedom of information act. Individuals in all cases would be required to pay a user fee at the time of making a request for a record, and also as a precondition to appealing a refusal decision to the commissioner. The bill also allows for different fee amounts to be charged for different records or to different persons.
Bill 26 would amend the Municipal Act to provide government with wide powers to restructure existing municipalities and localities. This includes the amalgamation of municipalities, dissolving all or part of a municipality, or annexing part of a municipality or a locality to another one. This may occur either when the Minister of Municipal Affairs receives a restructuring proposal from a municipality or other local body, or as a result of a restructuring commission established by the minister. This commission will have wide-ranging powers including the power to apportion its costs among the municipalities or local bodies affected by the commission's report, even if they had not requested any restructuring.
Furthermore, any order of the minister or a commission implementing a restructuring proposal prevails over any other legislation with which it might conflict, provided it complies with the regulations made under the Municipal Act. This raises the question of whether the minister would be able to ignore or override the provisions of other legislation; for example, to override successor rights provisions contained in collective bargaining legislation. It also gives the minister the power to change or dissolve local boards, such as school boards, public utility commissions, public library boards and boards of health, to name but a few.
The bill will provide the authority for municipalities to eliminate or alter the structure and delivery of municipal services. Municipalities may argue that this power stands to relieve them of any obligations under other legislation or collective bargaining agreements, leading to significant contracting out or elimination of municipal services.
The bill permits municipalities and local boards, with the exception of hospital and school boards, to pass bylaws imposing user fees that may discriminate among different classes of people. The fees or charges that may be made appear virtually unlimited, including fees that are in the nature of a direct tax, such as a municipal gas tax, or even an American-style municipal or county sales tax. This would also appear to permit municipalities to impose a poll or head tax, a host of user fees and charges for municipal services, and possibly municipal charges based on income.
The minister may make regulations disallowing certain types of taxes, but only at his sole discretion. This conveniently lets the government off the hook. It provides a way out of its promises not to raise taxes and shifts the blame to local governments for anything that is unpopular, or in the event that the new tax proves unpalatable, it can disallow it.
Additionally, Bill 26 grants municipalities expanded licensing power over various business activities. However, the amendments appear to give the municipality final say in whether or not a licence is granted, revoked or suspended, without any right of appeal to the divisional court.
Finally, where there is a conflict between these expanded powers and the provisions of any other legislation, this bill provides that the provision that is less restrictive of a local municipality's power prevails. These provisions are an obvious and disturbing attack on the democratic principles on which this province was built. As has already been stated, this bill will have far-reaching effects on our society and is deserving of much more time for public scrutiny and input than the scandalously short period already allotted for these hearings. We feel that at least a six-month time frame would be in order to allow for full consultation.
1340
The Chair: We have about six minutes per caucus for questions, starting with Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: First of all, I want to compliment you on an excellent brief that you've provided for the committee. You've highlighted, among all the provisions of this bill, some which are important obviously to you and to others in the community. One of the concerns that has been expressed and I think it's a fairly consistent theme out there, and it was expressed by the opposition, is that this bill will bring about or make worse the circumstance in Ontario where a person's ability to obtain government services will be based on the size of the person's wallet as opposed to an entitlement that is there for all people in our community.
What examples in the bill would you say would be an indication that we're indeed going to be moving to what I see south of the border in many states, a circumstance where we have two levels of service, a person unable to get service because they don't have sufficient money. Can you think of any instances where that would be the case, where the kind of service a person gets will depend on his pocketbook?
Mr McIntosh: Initially, we'd be looking at the freedom of information, where we're now going to be paying a user fee just to access it and where it's proposed that the average person no longer have any free time. The first two hours right now are supplied free of charge; after that we pay a charge for so many hours. This government's proposing that the charge apply right from the first hour.
There's a variety of user fees -- taxes, if you will -- that this government is proposing throughout this bill, primarily in the health care sector.
Mr Bradley: When you were trying to deal with this legislation and react to it, representing a significant number of people in this area, you no doubt found the bill extremely large and very complex. What is your view of the practice of any government bringing forward a piece of legislation that would, in one piece of legislation, amend 44 different acts and I think create three new acts and abolish two other acts? What is your view, in other words, about omnibus bills that contain so many different provision which are unrelated?
Mr McIntosh: In this particular case, this omnibus bill is so regressive it should be broken down into its various components and discussed piece by piece.
Mr Bradley: You as an individual and the organization you represent have the opportunity to make direct representations to those of us who are elected. If you don't like the job we're doing, you have the ability to turf us out. Indeed, in the last three elections we've had three different governments of three different political stripes. The public has exercised its ability to do that. Do you see any danger in this legislation in taking away from the elected members, whom you can get at, and providing more powers to those you can't get at, in other words, a few select people in the cabinet and the advisers to the Premier?
Mr McIntosh: Quite frankly, as I discussed this legislation with some of my members as we were putting the brief together, it was compared to a South American junta or perhaps the government in South Africa that's recently departed. When you concentrate the power to control people's lives solely in the hands of a few people, with no public accountability, you can no longer call it a democracy.
Mr Bradley: When we look at other circumstances, I have heard people say that this is not unique to Ontario, that this program we're seeing presented in fact appears somewhere else. You're an international union which has large dealings in the United States as well. Do you see any pattern developing between, say, some of the legislative initiatives that are beginning to come forth in the United States and those that we're seeing in Ontario today?
Mr McIntosh: They seem to be following fairly closely -- I can't really say fairly closely to the United States; it's more along the line of Margaret Thatcher's Britain. But in the States itself we appear to be going downhill, trying to achieve the status of one of the poorer southern states where there's very little industry, wages are low, benefits are non-existent and workers' rights are also non-existent. Ontario seems to be heading in that direction today.
Mr Bradley: Mr Phillips has a question on pensions.
Mr Phillips: Just to focus on one part of your presentation, the Pension Benefits Act, I want to get your comments as the head of the labour council.
The Ontario government's in negotiations with its public union. This part of the bill is designed to take probably $250 million to $300 million out of the public sector pension for the government. The government tried to do it through regulation. The public sector union took them to the courts. The courts said, "You are acting illegally." So this bill by law exempts the government from the Pension Benefits Act, the act that protects all pensioners across the province. It exempts the government only from that.
My question is, what kind of climate will that create? The bill will pass on January 29 and the big bargaining takes place in February. What will be the climate at the bargaining table when the members recognize that the government passed the law, exempting itself from the Pension Benefits Act, to take at least $250 million of pensioners' money out of the pension fund?
Mr McIntosh: If that's the case, I don't think you can call it collective bargaining in any form. Any employer, be it the government or a private sector employer, who would stoop to such a low level as to practically steal the money from the workers' pockets is certainly not going to be bargaining in good faith. As I understand it, this government, in its short history, has been very aggressive against the labour movement in Ontario and it's just one more step in that direction.
Mr Kormos: First of all, Sister Bisson, Brother McIntosh, I want to congratulate you because you're among the very few people and group representatives who have managed to penetrate the brick wall the government has built around these hearings and gotten on the list, as compared to the Niagara Falls and District Labour Council. They didn't let the Niagara Region Police Association come here to make presentations. They didn't let seniors come here to make presentations. They didn't let aboriginal people come here to make presentations. So I congratulate you for having penetrated those barriers put up.
Mr Young, during the course of the previous submission, with a motive I suspect, asked the presenter whether he'd be as interested in learning about labour leaders' salaries as the public might be interested in learning about public sector employees' salaries who are above $100,000. Mr Hudak wanted to make a point about how little schedule A of this incredible bill provides for disclosure of public sector salaries above 100Gs, but it took legislation -- is there anything secret about labour leaders' salaries?
Mr McIntosh: Not to my knowledge. As a matter of fact, in the Steelworkers the leaders' salaries are set at convention by the members.
Mr Silipo: Send Mr Hudak a copy of that.
Mr McIntosh: No problem. I'll send him the constitution, if he chooses.
Mr Kormos: Then what the hell was Mr Young talking about?
Mr McIntosh: I have absolutely no idea and I doubt Mr Young does either, quite frankly.
Mr Kormos: Here you are representing hundreds, thousands of working people in Niagara region. You're a trade unionist. You're participating in this process today, and we appreciate it. Do you think Bill 26 is part and parcel of Bill 7, among others, and an outright attack on trade unionism here in the province of Ontario?
Mr McIntosh: This government campaigned on attacking trade unions, so it comes as no surprise that they would put together legislation with little or no thought as to how it's going to affect the average working person. But yes, it is an outright attack on trade unionism in the province of Ontario.
Mr Kormos: Let me tell you what happens. It's been a few years since I've been doing committees like this. Again, one of the sad things about this government is that things really haven't changed a whole lot at all. These people don't understand the difference between a revolution and a putsch. That's their problem.
What happens is this: The government has its little people sitting here, its little functionaries, its spin doctors and advisers, they overhear and monitor the hearings and then they run to their people during the course of breaks or during the lunch period. You know, we New Democrats have got a couple of staff people here and so do the Liberals.
Mr Gerretsen: No, we only have one staff.
Mr Kormos: Only one?
Mr Silipo: So do we.
Mr Kormos: And we have one. That's what happens when you're in opposition. Your budgets for those sorts of things drop significantly, but the Tories spend money on bringing these people around with them whose job is to stroke the press and try to massage things.
You see, the government members get scripted. They get advised on, for instance, raising schedule A because that leaves the impression that somehow it's good news, right? "We're going to learn the salaries of people who make more than $100,000 a year." Although it may be of interest to a whole lot of people, is the fact that you find out what people make in excess of 100Gs going to do anything to improve your life or the life of your workers here in the Niagara region?
1350
Mr McIntosh: It's going to do absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, rather than go through the large process of grandstanding on the salaries of people making in excess of $100,000, I think the government would probably be better put if it looked at the type of job the individual was doing. Are they worth the dollars they're being paid?
Mr Kormos: This government is going to reveal the salaries of the six-digit-income people, but the real attack by this government is on the little folks. The 20,000 members of the public sector -- and let's understand what that means here in Niagara region -- is in excess of one person per 1,000 population. That means over 400 members of the broader public sector will lose their jobs here in Niagara region, and that's going to range from cops to nurses to social workers to teachers to day care staff. Over 400 jobs are going to be destroyed by this government during the course of its depopulation of the public sector.
Why do you think it is that they're attacking the little people in the public sector instead of those six-digit-income people?
Mr McIntosh: At the risk of seeming somewhat facetious, I would guess that the people with the six-digit incomes are the people who supported this government during the campaign.
Mr Kormos: You know, I have addressed you as brother and sister and I take no shame in that, and some of those fellows across the way are probably going to suggest that the New Democrats and Kormos and Silipo are in bed with labour. I tell you I feel entirely comfortable being in bed with labour. It beats being in the back pocket of Bay Street.
Mr Hudak: Thanks for your presentation, Mr McIntosh and Ms Bisson. It's good to see you again. Mr McIntosh, in your presentation you mentioned the fear that the public service may practise at substandard wages. I know you represent a large constituency of private sector union members who in the past 10 years have faced some tremendous layoffs, who have had to take wage cuts and who have suffered through 32 tax hikes in the last government and who face $100 billion in debt payments that they or their children or grandchildren will have to pay off in higher taxes or in fewer services down the road.
I would think that a large number of your constituents, the private sector members, will have to pay through their taxes, which I would argue are high enough already and should go down, the wages of public servants. Do you think that in arbitration decisions the arbitrator should look at the ability of people in your private sector union to pay government wages and salaries?
Mr McIntosh: Are you suggesting that the private sector should follow your lead in the public sector and downsize the wages? Your question's a little unclear. Would you expand on it a little?
Mr Hudak: Given the difficult situation of a lot of your members -- pay cuts, tax hikes, a tremendous number of debt payments to make in the future because of the actions of the previous government -- do you think that, in making a decision on public sector wages, an arbitrator should look at the ability of the taxpayers you represent to pay for future wage hikes?
Mr McIntosh: I think the arbitrators in the province of Ontario have evolved a system in interest arbitration that's fair to everyone. If you compare the public sector and comparable private sector industries, if you will, you'll find that the wage differential is very little, if there's any at all. As vice-president of the Port Colborne labour council -- we also represent a fair-sized number of public sector workers. So we're in a position where we can speak from both sides of the fence, so to speak. If you're going to interfere with an arbitrator, they're an independent body and must remain so without government interference.
Quite frankly, when you're talking about lowering wages, I don't think that's going to go a long, long way to paying off the public debt or the deficit. In fact, there's very little in this bill that I've seen, and I've scrutinized it as closely as I possibly could in the short period of time I had -- I see nothing there at all that's going to cut the costs of government. All I can see is where this government has made a big noise about giving everyone a tax cut somewhere down the road and about cutting services and about cutting costs. All they're doing is downloading on to the municipality level and giving them additional powers to tax. Call it a user fee, call it what you like, but it's still a tax.
Mr Hudak: Let me follow up on the municipalities question that you mentioned that I addressed a couple of times earlier today. In my opinion, the municipal councillors are always in the public eye, whether they're at council meetings, at work, shopping at the A&P or walking down Steeles Avenue. They're a very responsible group of individuals, whereas sometimes the members at Queen's Park won't be in the constituency; they'll be at the Legislature or members will be in Ottawa, travelling often.
Would you agree that if we were to put some trust in municipal councillors to respond to the voters and the taxpayers in Port Colborne and Fort Erie and Wainfleet, if more decisions are made at the municipal level with a greater degree of influence from the taxpayer than if decisions are made by bureaucrats and politicians in Toronto or Ottawa, we'd be off to a better system?
Mr McIntosh: I think the municipal politicians in Fort Erie, Wainfleet or the Port Colborne area do exercise their powers quite well as they have them right now. I don't know if you're suggesting that we shouldn't have trust in our provincial members. It would appear that way.
However, I don't think that it's fair -- if I can use the analogy of giving a desperate person a loaded gun -- of the provincial government to slash, burn and cut the way it's doing without thought to what's happening, particularly to working people, and then turn around to the municipalities and say: "Well, we've cut you off at the knees but we're going to give you a pair of shoes. Run with it." You give a person a loaded gun and sooner or later he's going to be desperate enough that he's going to use that gun. This is what this government's doing.
Mr Hudak: I'll just address a final point to you, Mr McIntosh, on your thorough presentation with respect to freedom of information requests. There's a gentleman from Toronto, a young man, who has filed more than 770 requests of the OPP, including information about how much officers eat and drink while on duty, how many sightings there have been of UFOs, how the police washrooms are cleaned, the kind of toilet paper that the chief uses. The cost to the taxpayer, the individuals you represent and I represent, is over $75,000 of what I would call frivolous requests.
Mr Kormos: Why don't you tell your research department to cool it?
Mr Young: You've had your time.
Mr Hudak: Do you think we should look at ways of limiting the expenses that are caused by these frivolous requests like the ones I've just listed?
Mr McIntosh: We've got approximately 11 million people in the province of Ontario and you're talking about one instance of one individual. I think it's highly unlikely that the other almost 11 million people are going to be calling up the privacy commissioner, wanting to know what type of toilet paper the OPP uses. I think you're picking at a tiny little point that's terribly insignificant, and in the process of doing that, Mr Hudak, your government is infringing on the democratic rights of the people of the province of Ontario.
The Chair: The time for questions is exhausted. I'd like to thank you both for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
1400
ST CATHARINES AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the St Catharines and District Labour Council come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit.
You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions from each of the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if, for the benefit of committee members and for Hansard, you'd introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Gabe MacNally: My name is Gabe MacNally. I'm president of the St Catharines and District Labour Council.
Mr Ed Gould: My name is Ed Gould and I'm here representing the Coalition for the Unemployed.
Mr Cliff Kostyniuk: My name's Cliff Kostyniuk. I represent the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and I am a representative of the labour council.
Mr Malcolm Allen: My name is Malcolm Allen. I'm a member of Local 199, CAW.
Mr MacNally: Good afternoon, ladies, gentlemen and brothers on that side of the table. On behalf of our 15,000 members, we address you today pleased -- and I repeat "pleased" -- with your introduction of Bill 26, what your government calls An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda. We refer to it as an act to achieve fraudulent savings and to promote economic disparity through public sector reductions, steamrolling and exorcism and to implement other aspects of the government's economic attack.
As a labour body with our community partners present, you might think that strange, but let me explain. We are pleased that this Tory government attempted to sneak this bill into the Legislature on November 27, 1995, while the media and the opposition members were preoccupied with the economic statement that you also delivered the same day. The government's intention was clear: Ram the bill through before Christmas and make it law. We thank you for the wake-up call you have given millions of Ontarians with this blatant and unscrupulous power grab.
Extremely revolutionary to Ontarians is the idea of imposing sweeping, fundamental and irreversible changes without public debate. Thanks, however, to the creative tactics of the two opposition parties, at least we have these hearings to let you know how we feel about this most authoritarian power grab in Ontario's modern history.
I've perused -- I haven't read -- the 211 pages of the mini-document but, like most people, have not read the over 2,000-page compendium that goes with it. It's extremely difficult to get, let alone read, as I understand from comments from the ministers of Health and Municipal Affairs, who were unable to explain the meaning of important sections which their ministries are directly responsible for.
I doubt that very many Ontarians, including members of the public, the media, opposition parties, perhaps even the government backbenchers themselves, have had adequate time to study the bill or to speak together about the changes it brings to our fundamental social values and how it will impact on our lives and our communities. But then again, wasn't that the intention? And you wonder why we say this government is anti-democratic and revolting -- not revolutionary, but revolting.
Thomas Walkom wrote in the Toronto Star that Bill 26 is "nothing short of revolutionary." It "centralizes power in the hands of cabinet to an unprecedented degree.... It lets some of the province's largest corporations off the regulatory hook....
"He [Mike Harris] talked of direct democracy. Yet the omnibus bill removes requirements for citizen referendums. He talked of defaulting power to the grass roots. Yet in certain areas" -- in most areas of the bill, actually -- "the bill centralizes power to a degree unsurpassed in this province.
"Indeed, if power is devolved at all in this bill, it is to the corporate world -- to mining firms, drug companies" and to "those waiting in the wings to privatize public services....
"Harris is getting government out of the business of helping the poor. He is getting government out of the business of environmental and business regulations. But where Harris figures state action is needed to promote private enterprise, government power is strengthened.
"If fiscal probity requires that doctors be shipped off to Wawa, so be it. If municipal privatization is hindered by the requirement of a referendum, eliminate the requirement. In the world of rational order, there is no room for dissent and precious little role for the elected representatives of the people. The government marches on." We couldn't agree more.
Some of the substantial changes in Bill 26 include the rollback of pay equity for women; the enormous power shift to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to unilaterally restructure, amalgamate or dissolve municipalities; the increase of powers of cabinet and the Minister of Health over hospitals and doctors. You will be hearing from the labour council next week, on January 18, when the hearings are here in regard to health care reform.
Under this bill, the Minister of Health will be able to close hospitals, appoint a supervisor to take over hospitals or tell individual hospitals what services they can or cannot offer. Next, we'll have the rewriting of rules of bargaining with hospital workers and all other workers in the broader public sector, including police officers and firefighters, and then we'll force arbitrators to consider the possibility of service cuts when they decide wage levels.
It will limit access to government documents and increase fees to be paid under the freedom of information act, and the sweeping immunity of government at all levels from legal challenges.
In our limited time, we will touch on just a few of those areas, and I'll ask Ed Gould from the Coalition for the Unemployed to address some of those concerns.
Mr Gould: I have a few areas here but, first of all, realizing the bill is some 2,000 pages in length and it would take about nine days to read it, I've found nothing in there about jobs. There's not a mention of jobs in there -- nowhere. What's this government preoccupied with, just making more power for itself? Anyway, on with it.
The impact on seniors and social assistance recipients would be far-reaching to a great extent. The members of our social network will be negatively impacted by $2 copayments for all prescriptions, and it will be especially hard on mother-led families and disabled children, who have already seen a 22% cut in their social assistance by your government. You're asking people out there who've already been impacted $4 or $5 or $6 a day to make up the difference with drugs. You should try living on this yourself. Could you tell me how much you guys make? I'd like to know how much you guys make, because I know you're living on more than $6 a day.
Mr Kormos: A hell of a lot more than most working people in this province.
Mr Gould: That's correct. So let's start where the real problem might be. On with it.
The bill also deregulates drug prices and eliminates the payment of differences between generic and brand name drugs, even though the generic drug is not suitable for the individual. This will also have an overall impact on the health of many Ontarians, which could possibly result in deaths. This government must and should be held responsible for these kinds of acts.
The environment: Bill 26 will remove the responsibilities of mining companies to clean up the environment waste when a mine is closed. Whatever happened to the word "greening"? When was the last time you guys ever said anything about the environment? We've got the kids in school cleaning up. How about the mines? What's going on here? Where are you guys from, Mars? This will be a direct result of laying off ministry officials responsible for environmental conditions. Even the conservation authority budget will be cut by 70% over two years. This is unbelievable.
Energy and environment grants worth $24 million are being cut, and blue box moneys will be eliminated. So now what do we do? Just throw them in a cardboard box?
Heavy cuts will also lead to privatization and will lead to less accountability for the environment and other public services. The Forest Fires Prevention Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Public Lands Act -- these will all be amended and just cut. Funding for the Ontario Energy Board, the Environmental Appeal Board, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Environmental Compensation Corp are being cut by an average of 15%. Again, where are you guys living?
Freedom of information: The Common Sense Revolution failed to discuss the Tory plans to make it harder to get information from the government. Are you guys trying to hide something in the future? I know this is only your first months in office, but I guess maybe down the road you would want to conceal a few things.
1410
Listen, I have a hard time going by a prepared text. You guys could probably read this stuff later. But really, there's a lot of people out there looking for jobs, and before we leave today I'd like to know, is Mike Harris really coming to town on Monday, January 22, to the chamber of commerce? Can I have a yes or a no on that? I know a lot of unemployed people would like to meet him that night.
Public sector interest and arbitration: We are assuming that the schedules that form part of this massive piece of legislation will hold surprises for many workers in the public sector, specifically the police officers, the firefighters, the teachers, the hospital workers, exempt from strike under any circumstances. This matter goes to interest arbitration. Teachers often have their bargaining end up in arbitration and it's usually settled peacefully.
This government apparently does not trust arbitrators, and that's funny to believe this, but they impose severe pay cuts on these workers without any very specific orders. These amendments provide that arbitrators must consider the provincial economic situation, they must consider an employer's ability to pay and the extent that services must be reduced. It's hard to see why this government wants arbitrators deciding on service cuts for police, fire services, or classrooms and hospitals. Maybe that is not the intention, but how many of our members will read this legislation? The 2,228 pages, at eight hours a day, would take about nine days to read.
This government has already announced drastic funding cuts to area municipalities, and here in the Niagara region it totals some $8.7 million. I live here, and I know some of you do too, but $8.7 million is going to be cutting pretty deep. I know that some local politicians will have a hard time addressing that.
But we are informed that even bigger changes are tucked away in the schedules of the omnibus bill. Historically, citizens of our communities have had the right to consult on major changes to their communities through a referendum process, which is, I guess, going to be eliminated.
Issues to be dealt with: The referendum could include privatizing utilities etc. We are informed that tucked away quietly in the bill are sections repealing these referendums. Why will this committee deny these allegations? Why didn't the Tories make this part of their revolution well known before election time? By the way, a lot of this stuff wasn't in your blue book. I've been reading it in the last few days.
We understand that schedule M, covering some 34 pages, gives the Ministry of Municipal Affairs power to force through municipal restructuring without any public involvement at all. That's not even anywhere close to being democratic. It also gives this ministry total discretion over funding to transit operations and capital projects, thus ensuring hikes in transit fares to all municipalities. Still, we are informed that there are other sections that would lead to an explosion of municipal user fees and licence fees. It's even possible that some of the police and fire services could be subject to user fees.
In the old days, they used to put that little shingle up in the corner of the house and if you paid your fire tax, you'd have fire service. You guys should start paying your share too.
Mr Kostyniuk: Good morning. We're talking on the women's issues here. Since Mr Harris has come into government, his cuts attack women. Since his election, Harris has proved that his government has been the most anti-women government in the history of the province. I hope you're proud.
Cuts to day care, welfare, non-profit housing, legal aid, education, violence against women, shelters for battered women, employment equity, pay equity and labour laws will hurt women and children more than any other group. The cuts include $2.6 million in counselling service for women trying to escape violent spouses; 21.6% welfare cuts to 200,000 single women who support about 400,000 children; $35 million in cuts to day care; cancellation of 385 non-profit housing projects, some intended for elderly women and single mothers with kids -- disgraceful -- caps to pay equity; employment equity legislation cancelled; hospital closures that will put front-line workers, mostly women, out of work and move the responsibility for sick and disabled into communities, where women will have to carry the responsibility of care in the home. As much as 60% to legal aid, used primarily by women.
We'll talk about the rollback in pay equity for women, as proposed in the proxy value provisions permitted by pay equity. Effective on January 1, 1997, Bill 26 repeals the proxy provisions for the estimated 100,000 low-paid women in such areas as nursing homes and day care centres who work for employers with no male-dominated classifications. These women will have their right for fair pay abolished.
Bill 26 also has complex transitional provisions which make it likely that pay equity raises for women already covered by proxy will be lower between now and January 1997 than they already would have been under the existing law. The end of proxy pay equity will make it possible for the Harris government to make still more cuts to child care funding.
Just before Christmas it was proposed that the current rate of income for MPPs be increased considerably. Is the source of this increase coming from women and children of this province?
Just as in the 1960s and early 1970s, when the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity, so is the Harris government committing a crime against the population of Ontario by passing legislation which attacks the poor and their children. This labour council and nation should declare this government as being guilty of committing crimes against humanity. Many people already recognize this government as giving a new meaning to the term "women and children first."
Mr MacNally: In conclusion, we find it hard to understand why this kind of legislation is lumped together, other than for expediency's sake and to concentrate power into the hands of the few. Under Bill 26 there is too much potential to govern by regulation rather than by legislation. This is surely the sign of a government that sees little value in consultation or democratic principles. Democracy entails more than the right to vote every four or five years; it entails the right to participate in government and have input into legislation as we in Ontario have known historically.
A 211-page bill that covers everything from labour law, health care, policing, municipalities, taxation, mining, firemen, privatization, pensions and public disclosure to conservation authorities etc says to us that this is an attempt to avoid meaningful dialogue. The 2,000-page schedules and appendices that form part and parcel of this bill again, by the way, are almost impossible to get, let alone digest. This confirm our belief that this government is authoritarian, autocratic and profoundly undemocratic. Bill 26 is nothing short of a naked power grab by an extremist government. It does nothing to address the real needs of the people of this province, which are jobs.
If this government is so afraid to take the scrutiny that comes with putting legislation through in its proper historic form that it has to implement these overwhelming types of omnibus bills, we would like to give it a commonsense piece of advice: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; or, as that noted reformer Tory Francis Sheehan would say, "Give them the boot." We look forward to just that.
I just want to make a response, in closing, about union leaders' wages. I think the previous presenter addressed that most union leaders' wages are public information in bylaws and public information in constitutions approved by the membership. But I wouldn't be so concerned about anybody's wages, because we always fight to improve people's living conditions and standard of living.
I would be more concerned about the amount of tax dollars that individuals pay out of their paycheques who don't run away and hide in some tax shelter. That's a concern. That's the reason that the middle class feels upset about having to pay all these taxes: because others are not paying their fair share. If others started paying their fair share, there would be little need to cut back on programs that are needed out there by single mothers and other individuals, the disabled and so forth.
Those are the concerns that you as a government should be addressing, not how you can cut and where you can cut and where you can download expenses.
1420
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We have three minutes for questioning, starting with the third party.
Mr Silipo: As quickly as I can, let me just say thank you for the presentation. I just wanted to address the point that you made at the outset, which is that you saw the government's actions on this bill as being a wake-up call to people. Then you went on to outline very clearly a number of steps they've taken to attack the poor, the average Ontarian, attacks on women. Pay equity, as you noted, will mean that not only will about 100,000 women no longer have the benefit of pay equity, but those are also the 100,000 women who are among the lowest-paid women in the province and will no longer be able to have the benefits of pay equity.
My question to you really is this: Are people beginning to heed that wake-up call? Are people beginning to take note of the true colours of what this Conservative government is all about and how different that even is from the picture that they painted during the election?
Mr MacNally: Let me respond to that from my personal experience. It's no secret that probably 45% of my membership voted for the Tory government based on the Common Sense Revolution and the attractive promises that were in that, plus this government was able to touch the button of resentment. But if an election were held today, I could guarantee this government that they wouldn't get the 45% of our membership support that they had back last June.
Mr Gerretsen: They'd want a recall, probably.
Mr MacNally: Yes. Maybe that's what we need: a recall process.
Mr Kormos: Brothers, welcome, and once again congratulations for managing to find your way in here after seeing aboriginal people, seniors, the Niagara Region Police Association, even the Wine Council of Ontario, denied access to these very important and public processes. It should be public; it should be democratic.
Look, you know that the government's doing a whole lot of backpedalling now, doing a whole lot of scrambling to try to put some positive spin on this. They are surrounding themselves with little people, little functionaries. I want you to meet some people. I want you to meet Kim Hume. She's the one staff person here for the New Democrats. I know Mr Lopinski is here. He's the sole staff person with the Liberals; he may not be in the room. Will the Tory staff people, will the Tory spinsters please stand up? Don't be shy. There are four or five of you, I know it. There we are.
Notwithstanding all the money and energy being expended in trying to put some positive spin on this incredibly totalitarian legislation, do you think there's been any success? You've been reading the papers; you've been watching the news programs. Did you see CBC last night reveal the highly secret and devious process that was used to develop Bill 26 without even the knowledge, never mind the consent, of the Tory backbenchers? And they're not pissed off about that? I'd be raving at the prospect of being elected and not being consulted.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. I apologize for interrupting you, but the three minutes for your caucus have come to an end. The member from the government caucus.
Mr MacNally: Can I answer the question, please?
The Chair: No. We have a certain amount of time per caucus.
Mr MacNally: Yes, but he asked a question.
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Mr MacNally: I didn't really get to the see the CBC last night, unfortunately. Because of some of the other pieces of legislation this government --
The Chair: Mr Froese has the floor.
Mr Froese: Thanks for coming and making the presentation. I think Mr Sheehan will be happy to note that you quoted him. I will pass that along.
At the beginning of your statement you had indicated, and rightfully so -- although you talked about it verbally, it's not in your written comments -- that Bill 26 was to achieve fiscal savings, restructuring, streamlining, and create efficiency.
I understand that you disagree with the writing of that bill, and that's noted. However, when we're looking at doing public hearings and getting presentations like yours from different groups, we understand that when groups come forward they want to give their opinion as it relates to their own group, to the people they represent, and that's good. We need to hear that because I'm sure there are going to be amendments to the bill and we need to get input and that's why we have the public hearings, to get that input. I probably will address this later on in the afternoon to several other groups as well.
When groups come forward they just specifically talk about their own area or what's in the bill, how it relates to them or how it affects them, but I'd like to see the process broadened a little further. I'd like to ask you to give, if you can, a positive criticism.
If you were given the financial situation that we are in, where we're spending $1 million an hour more than we're taking in, where we have $100-billion debt and it's growing, what would you do to change the situation where we can bring this whole province back into the proper fiscal responsibility that we are elected to do, that we campaigned on?
What amendments or criticism or what positive feedback can you give to us in specific areas, how we can solve our situation?
Mr MacNally: I think the first thing you've got to do is take this and the 2,000 pages and throw them in the garbage. That's the first thing. That's positive criticism.
The next thing you have to do is strike job creation programs. The reason you're in this situation is because there's not enough revenue coming into the government to support the programs. If you're really sincere about the government financial situation -- we keep hearing about the deficit and the money that government has to borrow, but nobody, not one government in many years, has issued to the people in this province what the total worth of their assets is.
I think if we were all to take the same action that governments do as individuals, there would be no need for banks or lending institutions. We would all stick strictly with what we could purchase with cash and so on. That would certainly hurt a lot of the people who supported your government the last time around.
The Chair: Mr MacNally, I apologize for interrupting, but we're now getting into the opposition's time.
Mr MacNally: He asked me for an answer. I'm trying to give an answer.
The Chair: I realize that. We have a certain amount of time for questions and answers.
Mr Bradley: I have a question that you started to lead into at this time, I think. It emerges from the questioning that Mr Froese began: how you might address some of the fiscal concerns that people in the province have.
Would I be safe in assuming that one way you believe might help to address the fiscal concerns would be to forgo a 30% tax cut, which will cost $20 billion over five years -- I have this from the Common Sense Revolution figures right here -- which will cost $20 billion and force the government to pay $5 billion in interest rates alone? A lot of that interest is being paid to foreign people. Do you think that might be one way in which the government could address its fiscal concerns?
Mr MacNally: Certainly. It doesn't make much sense. It doesn't make any common sense, that's for sure, to make a commitment to pay back to people, and in this case a fairly small handful of people, $5 billion in income tax privileges when you have to borrow to do so. It's not helping the fiscal situation, but it's certainly going to worsen that fiscal situation.
We tried this economic philosophy before, the trickle-down effect, and basically that's what the Common Sense Revolution is, and we all know it has never worked. It has never worked and it won't work this time.
People out there don't really want the tax cut. They want to feel secure in their employment, and because of Tory federal government policies in regard to monetary issues and trade issues, people are very insecure in the private sector and now are becoming even more insecure in the public sector.
Mr Bradley: The CAW, which is part of the labour council in St Catharines, had established a number of years ago an environmental committee. Mr Gould made a few comments about that, made reference to some of the concerns he has, which I happen to share, about the environmental implications of this bill and the general policy.
Do you see, through the restructuring and the clawbacks we see within this legislation, the diminishing of the importance of the protection of the environment, whether it be at the municipal level or the provincial level? Do you see provisions in this legislation that will cause that to happen?
Mr MacNally: I see some very drastic negative impacts on the environment within the province. I would liken Ontario five years from now to being the Maquiladora of the north.
The Chair: Thank you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
1430
JOHN DAWSON
JANE HUGHES
The Chair: Could I please have Mr John Dawson come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee. You have 30 minutes to make your presentation, which you may use as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time for questions and comments from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself and the person accompanying you.
Mr John Dawson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is John Dawson. I'm a regional councillor. To my left is Jane Hughes, who is also a regional councillor from St Catharines.
Thank you for allowing me to convey my personal views on this proposed legislation. I must stress that they are my thoughts on how I feel the bill, if implemented, may affect regional Niagara, not those of the regional municipal government. I am happy to hear that so many individuals who have spoken before me have the same feelings I have in regard to this legislation.
My first area of concern is the municipal regional restructuring process as proposed in the bill. We must first bear in mind that the current two-tier system was put in place 25 years ago by a Conservative government. I can recall running for regional office in the late 1970s, questioning at the time the imperfections in the two-tier idea, the flaws, notably the overlapping of services, duplication of effort, the voter feeling remote from decision-making, or which level of the two tiers had control of the vast array of policymaking decisions. Many of these problems still exist. Conservative governments of the past must take the major thrust of the criticism for not improving the system while in power for many years.
I have to question the haste in these changes now when they may involve substantial layoffs at the region when there is already wide-scale unemployment in the peninsula.
Bill 26 will give the minister the power to reorganize most municipalities that are not part of regional governments, with no public input. The Conservative government has already slashed 47% in grants to the region over two years; someone mentioned earlier $8.7 million. This means much less money will be available for roads, child care, health care and many other services. Further job cuts as a result are imminent.
I would suggest that we establish in Niagara a body similar to the Golden commission in Metro Toronto consisting of urban and rural planners and agricultural experts. Their final report could then be available for public discussion at public meetings throughout the Niagara Peninsula.
However, regional Niagara has not been without its success stories. Waste management has been, after lengthy discussion between the region and neighbouring municipalities, collectively resolved and placed under regional jurisdiction. The waste management concept is slated to save the region over $50 million over five years upon implementation. Market value assessment took years to resolve. MVA still has its dissenters, but it's ready to go on stream.
The point is that these two important areas were resolved with little interference from the province. Indeed, they were encouraged by the previous government at Queen's Park. Market value assessment will bring about a high degree of fairness in municipal taxation, something we lack at the provincial and federal levels of government.
On the topic of a bylaw to assume local power, where an upper tier may pass a bylaw to acquire jurisdiction over local matters, sensitive and parochial politicians and voters, in spite of the majority-rule conditions Bill 26 would place upon the bylaw, it still would be difficult to get consensus. A whole series of bylaw and jurisdictional changes will require time, money and a great deal of effort. This is why I believe Metro Toronto's approach has a better chance of success.
On the topic of regressive user fees that Bill 26 endorses for the cash-short municipalities, I believe it amounts to double taxation, a double whammy hurting the poor in Ontario. Many of the services are now paid through our property taxes. It is indeed ironic that MVA strives to bring about a measure of tax fairness at the regional level and that government is restoring it with a user fee tax. Queen's Park is downloading their financial problems on the backs of municipalities without any regard to the consequences.
The Conservative government, on the one hand, is proposing a tax reduction mainly to benefit the rich, then at the regional level you are sanctioning the imposition of another user fee tax, mainly on the backs of lower- and middle-income Canadians. You are shutting the doors to the libraries, the skating rinks, the baseball diamonds and other forms of pleasure for ordinary Ontario residents. These taxes will fall on those least able to pay. Even police and fire services could be subject to extra charges.
I would like to now address the potential decline and fall of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, whose budget will be cut by the Harris government by approximately 70% over two years. In my view, this is extremely short-sighted. Parks may be shut down or additional hefty user fees could be added. I feel the NPCA serves a good purpose in our watershed and in the maintenance of sensitive environmental areas in the peninsula. Confining their function to flood control only does not make good economic sense.
Bill 26 makes the privatization of public services much easier and removes the requirement to have a municipal referendum. A casino, on the other hand, required a province-wide referendum, according to the Premier. Will the passage of Bill 26 mean that services that don't make money are abandoned? In a free society, people have a right to know about the stability of their transit, water and sewer services or their local electric utility.
Energy and environment grants worth $24 million are being cut by the Harris government, and to make matters worse, the highly successful blue box money will be eliminated over two years, with nothing to replace it. Will the cost to finance the blue box program fall as well to the user fee tax or to the cash-strapped municipalities? The taxpayers have a right to know the answers to the hidden agenda of Bill 26.
Funding for the Ontario Energy Board, the Environmental Appeal Board, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Environmental Compensation Corp are being cut by an average of 15% with no doubt accompanying job losses. How are these worthwhile agencies expected to function properly?
The Forest Fires Prevention Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and the Public Lands Act are all being amended to allow more activities to take place without a permit. This includes damming of rivers and streams. Will these new rule changes proposed in this bill reduce the safeguards on public lands owned by the parks commission, the escarpment commission or the conservation authority? These are questions the public wants answers to now.
Finally, your drastic funding reductions to the region are forcing them to consider public-private partnerships in service areas under their jurisdiction. Public money has built an envied public health system in this province. I am not willing to cede social policy, especially in the health field, to the private sector. Bringing in private partners will raise the cost of health care to the citizens of Niagara.
Everyone is aware of the relationship full well by now, that Canada's health care costs are around 9% of GDP while in the US they are in the 15% range, with 35 million Americans without any health coverage. Our public system is much more efficient without private interference. If Bill 26's objective is to achieve fiscal savings, citizens of the region of Niagara will surely not share the bonanza, but the US-based private health firms will. We can't seem to get these financial facts into the minds of the ideology-driven Conservatives. We have, of course, several coming into Ontario already.
1440
Another casualty of your policies are the children of Niagara, through the diminishing day care spaces available. Young people with children making only minimum wage simply can't afford the high cost of private day care. If you remove funds from regional day care, then the young families may have to resort to welfare. By cutting the funding to municipalities for Jobs Ontario training spaces from 100% to 80%, 14,000 subsidized child care spaces have been threatened in the province and are under review at the regional level.
In short, the government's actions since elected have created financial chaos in regional and municipal finances and operations, be they day care, seniors homes or the lack of protection for farm land. I refuse to accept the proposals in this document.
Finally, I find it unacceptable for the government to charge interested and concerned citizens $20 with tax for a copy of this hard-to-obtain omnibus bill and for each presenter to have to make an additional 25 copies, at his or her expense, of his or her presentation material. If one were cynical, they could be looked upon as obstructions to inhibit citizens from speaking out as one should be able to do in a free society.
The Chair: We have six minutes per caucus for questions. Let's start with the government caucus.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon, sir. From your presentation I can assume that you've been involved in regional government for some time, as the presentation suggests that you were running for office in 1970.
Mr Dawson: Yes, I have been in Niagara for 44 years.
Mr Hardeman: I'm sure you have considerable experience in this area. I'd like to explore the issue of the restructuring initiatives and your suggestion that the process that's being proposed for municipalities outside the regional areas and the county of Oxford is not appropriate. But then you go on to suggest that a study, such as has been done in the Metro area, should be looked at in other areas such as the Niagara region. Could you highlight for me the difference you see between the process of the commission in the legislation and the Golden task force appointed by the former government?
Mr Dawson: I don't know really what you're getting at here.
Mr Hardeman: The legislation outlines a form of restructuring where the local municipalities can request, in certain numbers, or one municipality can request the minister to appoint a commission to look at restructuring. The minister can then appoint that commission to go through that process. That's the same process that I believe was followed in the Metro area. Some concern was expressed about the form of governance and the former government appointed the Golden commission to look at reforming that. I wonder what you see as the difference between those two.
Mr Dawson: Are you're saying that if a municipality requests that, or a region, the Minister of Municipal Affairs would grant this request?
Mr Hardeman: Presently the minister would look at that request for areas outside of regional government. My question is just that if that was added to the regions, would you see that as a good alternative? Is that the type of approach you would want for Niagara and the other regions?
Mr Dawson: I like the idea of the Golden report, whereby you have experts assessing the situation and then going out and getting public response. We're not getting too much public response in this way.
Mr Hardeman: It's fair to say then that your suggestions would imply that if we amended the legislation or added in regulations the requirement of commissions to actually go out and hold a regulated amount of public hearings to get the public's view, this would be a good --
Mr Dawson: I would like, sir, far more public input than presently is taking place in regard to changes.
Mr Hardeman: But you would agree that the present structure before Bill 26 has absolutely no opportunity, no mandated place for public input? The minister decides at a certain point in time that municipal government isn't working properly -- as the case in London -- Middlesex, the minister appointed an arbitrator and then implemented the arbitrator's report.
Mr Dawson: But, sir, Bill 26 doesn't give us much leeway in that regard either, does it?
Mr Hardeman: No. I bring it out that the appointing of a commission is one step further than what previously was required. I was just asking if you see that adding on mandatory public consultation, whether that would serve your needs?
Mr Dawson: Yes, I think so.
Mr Hardeman: I think the other issue that you're concerned with, the municipal user fees or the ability to charge user fees is of some concern. Do you not feel that presently municipalities have considerable leeway on user fees as they exist, with no restrictions? I use garbage collection as an example. There are quite a number of municipalities in Ontario that presently charge user fees for garbage collection and disposal. A lot of municipalities, even though they have had financial difficulties in the past in setting their budgets, have decided, because their ratepayers would not take out an acceptable method of raising funds, not to do it. Do you see that changing, that we are going to get less responsible municipal politicians because they have more options or different areas to look at?
Mr Dawson: I hope they don't have to resort to this unbridled use of user fees at the municipal level. I certainly don't think the people out there want this or give their municipal politicians that mandate. Little people have been taxed enough already. I can suggest to you many ways of improving the deficit position, if you feel you'd like to hear my views on that.
Mr Hardeman: I'm sure we would. I'm just curious why we would presume to think that giving more options, more local autonomy, would take away the local political concern for the ratepayers and that they would then all of a sudden go hog-wild, so to speak, in charging user fees when they've had the opportunity to do that in the past and the majority have decided not to exercise that.
Mr Dawson: If they're cash-strapped -- I've heard and read in many instances where some municipal politicians are ready to jump into the user fee concept, and I don't think the people want all these user fees when they're already paying for their services in property taxes. I can't see huge numbers of user fees at the municipal level. People are not going to --
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr Dawson. Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Gerretsen: It's always nice to talk to a municipal politician since I was privileged to serve in that field for 16 years as well. I've certainly a great admiration for the local level of government.
I was also heavily involved with AMO and I know where all these recommendations come from. They come from AMO, because the government did consult with AMO but not with the general public, and the general public in the whole restructuring model have been completely left out of the situation.
Mr Dawson: That's right.
Mr Gerretsen: And would you agree with me, sir, that Mr Hardeman's or your own -- comparing it to the Golden commission is something totally different. In this act, the minister can appoint a commission and that commission can do unilaterally what it wants and there's no appeal to anybody, not even the minister; whereas the Golden report goes to the minister and then the minister can do whatever he or she wants to do with it. Would you not agree with me that this is a totally different aspect to that?
1450
Mr Dawson: For the government to holus-bolus accept AMO's views on changes to the municipality and this sort of thing without more public input -- I don't think we should do that. We could look upon AMO as a interest group, can't we? They're an interest group with an axe to grind. Why not get more public input on changes at the municipal level?
Mr Gerretsen: And would you not agree with me that what makes a local government work is the fact that a lot of the processes have to involve the public by public hearings or otherwise?
Mr Dawson: Yes, I would agree. We've got to get more public input, certainly.
Mr Phillips: I'm interested in your views on restructuring, and the shifting of powers from the lower tier to the upper tier. My understanding of the way the bill is written is that here in the Niagara region, if a majority of the local council, and a majority of the region, want to have, for example, one fire department for the whole area, even though perhaps the city of Niagara or perhaps the city of St Catharines didn't want to do it -- but if a majority of local municipalities and the region want it, that the amalgamation of the fire department has to take place. Is that something you and the region favour?
Mr Dawson: It was done in regard to waste management, but it took a great deal of time and effort on market value assessment. Yes, but I'll tell you, it takes an awful lot of time to get consensus on these things from the municipalities.
Mr Phillips: I don't think you need consensus here; you just need a majority of the municipalities voting in favour of it. You could even have five or six local municipalities that have no interest in amalgamating the fire department, but if a majority --
Mr Dawson: Would you bring in the fire department personnel themselves for interviews?
Mr Phillips: Me? I'm saying this is what the bill does, sir. I'm just trying to get a feeling of whether the regions support that portion of the bill that would allow, for example, the amalgamation of the fire department, even if five or six local municipalities were dead set against it. Is that a provision you favour?
Mr Dawson: If the rest of the municipalities were dead against this?
Mr Phillips: Yes.
Mr Dawson: Is this your interpretation of the bill?
Mr Phillips: Yes, that is the bill.
Mr Dawson: I couldn't agree with that. Perhaps my colleague has something to say.
Mrs Jane Hughes: What you have to look at is, in the case of the waste management, for instance, the region has not yet officially taken over waste management because there are still three or four municipalities that are uncomfortable with it. So we're deferring until we have comfort from all the municipalities. This is the way the Niagara regional municipality works. It's not a straight sort of "51/49, you lose; sorry."
Mr Phillips: That's what the bill says.
Mrs Hughes: That's not the way the regional municipality of Niagara is working right now.
Mr Phillips: You would prefer not to support a bill that provides that provision, then.
Mrs Hughes: I think you have to allow for flexibility here. You can't just say, "This is the way it's got to be, 51/49 is no good, therefore it's got to be 75/25." You're still playing with numbers. What we have here is a local issue and a local way of doing things --
Mr Phillips: I'm just saying that a big part of this bill is to provide for forced annexations and forced merging of services, and I'm trying to get a feeling from some senior people like yourself in the area whether you like the provision of the bill.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, it's time for the NDP.
Mr Silipo: Perhaps I can pursue that a little bit. I think the point Mr Phillips was making was to try to point out the differences between the experience you described, which is that through a process of discussion and consensus eventually over all of the municipalities and the regional municipality, agreement was reached on the issue of MVA and the waste management issue as well. Under this bill certain municipalities would be able in effect to get around that consensus-building by -- as long as you had a majority of certain municipalities, then certain changes in shifts of power could take place, and that I think is one of the problems that we see with the bill.
The question I wanted to ask you was to ask you to talk a little bit more about the kinds of things that you see, and I appreciate that you're here as individual members and not speaking on behalf of the whole regional council, but could you give us some sense of the kinds of choices and your sense of where the decisions may go, if you have that, in terms of how the regional municipality is going to deal with the over $8 billion in cuts that are coming this year, and whatever else is coming next year?
What, if any, from among the provisions that are in this bill is a municipality likely to use? Are we likely to see more user fees? Are we likely to see the municipality looking at adopting some of the tax measures that are in this bill? Are we looking at cuts in services? What do you see is going to happen?
Mr Dawson: Unfortunately, regrettably, I see there may be cuts in day care. The day care spaces will be privatized, unfortunately. I see they are talking about public-private partnerships in health care and other areas of the region, which I do not agree with. I'm afraid it will be cuts in roads, day care, in senior citizens' homes. There are already talks about cutting there as well.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, do we still have time?
The Vice-Chair: Yes, you still have four minutes.
Mr Silipo: One of the things that we've heard from the government members on this committee and from government spokespeople before even is that the extent of the fiscal crisis, as they describe it, really warrants these kinds of extraordinary measures that they are putting into this bill, both in terms of powers to the minister, in the case of Municipal Affairs and Health, and in terms of giving, as they've also to municipalities, these broader powers to tax so that things could be tuned to the local circumstances. What's your reaction to that?
Mr Dawson: I don't feel that's necessarily good with these broader powers to the municipalities. For example, I mentioned earlier about public-private partnerships in the health field. That may alleviate costs to the region, but what is that going to do to the consumer out there in the area of health costs? My colleague would like to --
Mr Silipo: Please speak.
Ms Hughes: I've just been looking a little bit at the New Zealand situation. Ten years ago New Zealand put into effect exactly the same sort of thing that this government is putting into effect. Their deficit has doubled. Their public debt is 350% higher than it was before. Their private debt is 300% higher than it was before. Basically, these measures which our government is putting in effect which are supposed to reduce the deficit are not going to reduce the deficit if we go by New Zealand.
Mr Silipo: One of the things that I found striking in following this process has been comparing what we've been hearing from municipalities against the 44%, 47% cuts that are coming starting this year and following into next year, comparing the reactions, and I appreciate very much that your sentiments are different than what I'm about to describe.
But if I can be blunt about it, comparing the kind of generally lukewarm reaction against the government's cuts from municipalities versus the kind of hysterics that we heard a couple of years ago when we were dealing with 1% and 2% cuts, the only thing that I can keep going back to is this backroom deal that we've been talking also about, in the sense that in discussions with AMO, it's becoming more and more obvious that what's happened in this case is that the government has basically said to that organization: "Yeah, we have to cut. We're going to cut you in terms of funding, but don't worry, we're going to give you all these additional powers so you can raise taxes and you can raise user fees and you can basically get the taxing power that you want and therefore make up for the shortfall in provincial grants." Is that kind of an oversceptical view of things or is that what you're seeing out there as well?
Mr Dawson: I'm disappointed that some of the heads at the region and perhaps at the municipal level are not fighting back strongly enough against what's going on, but there are some at the region who are deeply concerned about cuts that are affecting day care, senior citizens' homes and other services like this. We're really concerned.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Dawson and Ms Hughes, for coming forward and making your presentation today.
Mr Dawson: Thank you very much, Mr Maves, and to the rest of the party here. I knew your grandfather, by the way, sir, many years ago. I used to sign him up, by the way. I just wanted to know, where did you go wrong?
The Chair: I guess, Mr Dawson, I should have cut your mike.
1500
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
The Chair: May I please have Mayor Thomson from the city of Niagara Falls come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may decide to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd both introduce yourselves at the beginning of the presentation for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Wayne Thomson: I'd like to introduce myself, Wayne Thomson; I'm the mayor of the city of Niagara Falls. With me is John MacDonald who is our director of community services. I want to start off with a little preamble before I start reading the brief.
It was interesting to hear the comments about regional government. I think the comments about Niagara Falls with respect to regional government are fairly straightforward. We're I guess known as the municipality of referendums. We had a referendum in 1991 and an overwhelming majority of the community voted against eliminating regional government. So I think that states basically what the citizens of Niagara Falls feel.
I also want to just give a brief word that it's very difficult to be here today to justify further cuts in the budget to the city of Niagara Falls. In the last four years -- actually five years counting because we've already basically established our budget for 1996 -- we have taken a very active approach to looking after our spending, controlling the budget, and we have had great success.
We have just finished, and if we continue the way we're going, this will be our fifth year of a reduction each year in our municipal budget. We have attained over 9% reduction in our municipal budget over the past four years. I think we have been very responsible in trying to control our spending and making sure that we became more efficient, effective.
We reduced our municipal staff over 70% and cut over $2.5 million from our budget annually and we have done that in spite of a deep recession, a decline in tourism, and also with a market value assessment situation where the city of Niagara Falls had paid $4.2 million annually over a period of 10 years. I think that along with that we had a substantial amount of unemployment, sometimes being number one in Canada, which was very difficult to deal with. We had arrears to the tune of 24% in our taxation, which is probably unheard of in municipal government.
We've had a very difficult time in the past many years, and I want to suggest to you that we have done our job over the last four and five years, and now in spite of all of the effort that we'd put forward, when other municipalities have not been responsive, we have found that we are now asked to take further cuts, after we've been through the previous government with its social contract, taking a $1-million hit last year, and now we're taking another substantial hit again this year.
We're really at the bottom of the barrel with our spending cuts, and in spite of an article that is headlined in the Niagara Falls paper today where the mayor indicates that Niagara Falls has no worries with respect to money as a result of a casino, and we're very thankful for the opportunity, that relates to spending for infrastructure and other tourism-related activities. It does not relate to the fact that we have some very difficult problems in dealing with the spending cuts and are going to have a very difficult time to deal with that over the next year.
I might also say that we also have been proactive with respect to our preparation of our budget. I would suggest that the government take into consideration early preparation and information available so that municipalities can prepare their budget prior to the end of the year. That way, we have a financial plan for the year. We've done this for three years, four years in a row now, where our budget was passed by December 15, so that we can spend properly. We do not have rushes to spend money at the end of the year. Any of the agencies we provide funds for are also given fair indication of what happens with respect to their budgets and their spending.
I think if there was a cooperative effort with the government, with the assessment people, to try and get the information to municipalities so that we could have our budgets prepared and have a financial plan for the year, it would certainly be positive for all of us. It's done across the border in Niagara Falls, New York. There's no reason why it can't be done here.
On behalf of the city council, I want to suggest that this brief has been endorsed unanimously by the city council of Niagara Falls. On behalf of the council of the city of Niagara Falls, I would like to extend our thanks to the committee for holding a hearing in the city and providing us with the opportunity to make a presentation on issues which are important to our municipal government.
In view of the very short time provided to respond to this bill, neither staff nor city council have had the opportunity for full discussion of its potential impacts. However, we do wish to make this brief submission today. Ideally, we should have a much longer period of time to consider a bill which proposes amendments to 47 different acts and contains over 200 pages.
We appreciate that the current Ontario government is actively pursuing control of provincial debt. The city of Niagara Falls has successfully worked without deficit and has continually been accountable to the public on its spending; thus we applaud the province's efforts to be similarly responsible.
Sadly, the step towards provincial deficit reduction represents a dramatic impact on local government with the reduction in our municipal transfer payments of $700 million. Our city has learned just last week, after we had prepared our budget, that its transfer payments will be $700,000 less. We thought initially it was going to be $350,000, but with the final figures coming in this is $700,000 additional to what we thought it was going to be reduced, less than the original projected, thus resulting in a $1.7 million or 40% reduction in provincial revenues to the city.
The pain of this substantial loss in revenues will be eased only slightly by the introduction of Bill 26. While we support the concept of Bill 26, a major concern we have is the vagueness with which this bill is written and the lack of regulations to provide the detail required for clarification. We are also concerned that, on one hand, the bill purports to provide power and autonomy to the municipalities, but through the bill reference is made to the minister "may" make regulations. We are left with an uncertain feeling as to the powers we are receiving.
The reforms proposed in Bill 26 will provide the city with some of the tools necessary to deal with these funding reductions. That is not to say that these changes will not be without cost to our citizens. Each resident and business operator may be faced with additional expenses, reductions in service and increased fees, and this is not very palatable to us, nor to our citizens in the city.
We encourage you to ensure that the reduced share of provincial funding and municipal activities will be reflected in reduced provincial taxes paid by our citizens. It would be unfair to expect that each of these taxpayers would have to pick up the additional costs borne by the municipality because of the reduction in provincial transfer payments, while continuing to pay taxes at the current level to the province of Ontario. The provincial government, accordingly, must make good on its promise to reduce the level of taxes paid by the citizens of Ontario.
1510
I wish to direct my comments to the key issues in schedules M and Q of Bill 26, which have the most relevance to the city of Niagara Falls.
With respect to restructuring, the powers to restructure municipalities do not affect Niagara Falls because of its location within a regional municipality. We wish, nevertheless, to go on record as supporting the effort of the province to provide for reorganization of municipal government to improve efficiencies.
What we cannot support is the proposed legislation which will allow for the unilateral restructuring of municipalities by the minister upon recommendation of a commission established by the minister. The city supports and calls for the modification of this section, in that the minister will establish a commission only at the request of a municipality. Solutions to improve efficiencies by restructuring must be locally driven, since it is at this level that the citizens are most affected.
The provision of services: Powers to transfer municipalities between the city and the region of Niagara are a welcome change. This will place the ability to determine which municipal government provides what service squarely at the local level. This will allow for the disentanglement of government services currently being experienced. The city and the region have worked through a number of transfers in the services in the past, such as reallocation of road jurisdiction and waste management as well as participation in combined purchasing programs. These efforts to achieve efficiencies have not always been easy, given the legislative parameters requiring provincial rubber-stamping. Therefore, we support the provision in the bill which allows local governments to decide which level of government is most suited to provide specific services.
The absence of regulations which prescribe services and facilities to be transferred becomes an issue. We are concerned that these regulations could nullify the municipality's ability to truly determine areas where real savings and efficiencies could occur.
With respect to boards and commissions, the powers to change or dissolve local governments and bodies is seen as a very important component of this bill. While it is not the intent of the city of Niagara Falls to dissolve existing special-purpose bodies, it is recognized that greater municipal accountability can be achieved through these proposed changes. The city of Niagara Falls maintains healthy relationships with its various boards and commissions. We are happy with the present system of volunteer appointments and with the contribution made by these individuals.
Through municipal appointments and the budgetary review process, the city of Niagara Falls has been able to achieve responsible management. Further, we have been able to avoid duplication of services by assuming certain responsibilities with these boards. The Niagara Falls Public Library is a case in point. The city provides accounting services to the library, gives legal assistance and participates in building maintenance. Therefore, the city supports the intent of the legislation to give the municipalities more autonomy over decisions involving the provision of services and the use of municipal tax dollars should it be the wish to avail itself of this service of the bill in the future.
Fees and charges: The charges proposed to allow municipalities to charge user fees for the purposes of raising revenues is a really double-edged sword. On one hand, the taxpayer already pays for the basic level of service, but on the other hand, the individual may be expected to pay another charge to use certain facilities, and thus experience what equates to a double payment.
Further, the utilization of fees for service will hit the low-income person hardest because percentage of income is higher for the individual than for a middle- or a high-income earner. Excessive charges will not be tolerated by the local citizen, and we have already had that experience. While the city supports the provision to expand municipal powers to charge user fees in response to provincial cutbacks, we must be cognizant of the person receiving these services.
With respect to licensing, the powers to license and expand the range of businesses are welcome by the city of Niagara Falls. The ability to license the types of businesses which establish and set regulations for operation will provide an opportunity for local control which is long overdue. The municipality will not be able to control the type of business which may come into the municipality. The city recently experienced the frustration of not being able to regulate a business when it learned a legislative mechanism did not exist to license tatoo parlours or studios. In addition, the opportunity to charge licence fees will provide an alternative source of income which will be necessary, given the diminishing provincial funding, which again we feel is another tax on our citizens.
The Ontario municipal support grants: The city welcomes the autonomy being afforded the municipality as a result of proposed legislation to replace conditional and unconditional grants with block funding. Although we lament the reduction of the provincial funding to municipalities, we view the introduction of the Ontario support grant act as an opportunity to allow the city to manage its moneys in a way which is consistent with local needs and priorities. However, these support grants would be tied to provincial regulations not yet established, which concerns us.
We recognize that the province has the responsibility to set standards and monitor performance, yet we have concerns with the wording of Bill 26. This section would allow the minister to make regulations which would require municipalities to comply with provincial standards. Accordingly, we ask that the draft legislation be modified to require that municipalities "have regard to" provincial standards rather than requiring compliance.
If the intent of the proposed changes is to give local government more autonomy, the opportunity must exist to allow municipalities to participate in setting any standard. In the case of Niagara Falls, the local needs may be unique because of the volume of tourist traffic. The act must not be overly restrictive, otherwise the city's ability to act in the best interests of the community may be jeopardized. Furthermore, we believe the establishment of provincial standards should not be tied to block funding.
With respect to arbitration, with regard to Schedule Q concerning amendments to involving arbitration, I will restrict my comments to the area of the Fire Departments Act. The provision which requires arbitrators to consider the employer's ability to pay before making an award is supported by the city. We would ask that this provision go forward by adding "consideration of ability to pay be without additional increases to property tax."
In 1991, the city of Niagara Falls was successful in obtaining an interest arbitration award with respect to the 1991 firefighters collective agreement, which was tied to the city's ability to pay. We are pleased to see these being reconsidered in this legislation.
In conclusion, I would like to re-emphasize that the city of Niagara Falls, unanimously as a council, supports the changes outlined in Bill 26 to give the local municipalities more autonomy, the ability to exchange services with regional government, the opportunity to charge fees and license businesses. The changes introduced by this bill will not totally negate the impact which will be experienced by the city of Niagara Falls because of the provincial government reductions in payments, but will help ensure services are delivered efficiently and cost-effectively.
The change to the Ontario municipal support grant structure is viewed as a positive step forward in providing local government the ability to function in the best interests of the community. It is none the less imperative that the municipality be given the autonomy necessary to run its affairs without undue regulation in order to be responsive to the community priorities.
On behalf of the city of Niagara Falls, I want to thank you for the time and the opportunity for appearing before you.
1520
The Chair: We have just over three minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start off with the opposition caucus, Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: I'm quite interested in many of the points that you have made, the criticisms of the bill and the fact that you didn't have much time with it.
One point I would like to clarify: When your council unanimously endorsed this, were you aware that the Ontario government would have to borrow $20 billion over five years and pay $5 billion in interest in order to finance the income tax break? In other words, they're going to cut the most progressive tax and leave you to increase the most regressive taxes, and that's going to cost $20 billion and $5 billion in interest. Was your council aware of that when they said they wanted to see a provincial income tax cut?
Mr Thomson: The short answer has to be no.
Mr Bradley: If the council were aware of those figures, do you think the council might have had a different viewpoint? I know this was thrown at everybody at the last minute. I remember what it was like when I sat on council and provincial governments would, at the last minute, fire something at you.
What I see happening is that the provincial government would like to give a tax break, take credit for the tax break, and stick you with the increased costs so that you're unpopular locally. You have to raise these regressive taxes which hit the poor the hardest and then they get away with giving a tax break to the rich, or at least cutting the tax which is the most progressive. Do you, in the light of that, feel that it would be advantageous to extend the hearings so that people would have more opportunity to make representations to this committee before the bill finally passed?
Mr Thomson: I don't think there is any question that we would like to have had a lot more time. This was thrust on us over the holidays. Many of our senior staff were away. Many of the political people were on vacation. We really have not had the opportunity to research this as we would like. We would like to have had more time.
We're also being thrust in the middle of the other changes that are taking place with respect to restructuring of government, which is another committee, and we have emergency meetings being called at the region, even as early as tonight, to try to deal with that. This is a tremendous amount of pressure being brought on the municipalities in a very short period of time, at probably the worst time to try and consider these things. So we're not happy.
We appreciate the government's responsibility in trying to control spending. We don't like the opportunity of having it thrust down on the municipalities. We're the ones who are passing it on at the local level. We're passing that on, and we're trying not to, to the local level. It's not being accepted very well, and we're trying to control it here, but it's very difficult.
Mr Bradley: Your municipality, I say to the committee by the way, deserves a good deal of credit for making very difficult efforts that you've tried to make over the past five years to hold taxes in line at a time when it's been very difficult to do so. I can certainly understand your consternation when you're cut by $700,000 more from the province at the very time that your council has made some really gut-wrenching decisions in terms of the services it provides.
Mr Silipo: Mayor Thomson, you've mentioned at least three times that I've noted down, and perhaps more, the uncertainty that you see is being caused in various areas, whether it's the shift of taxing powers, the shifts between levels of powers, or the fees and the new grants, the absence of the regulations and the fact that there's a lot that is yet unknown because of the way in which the legislation is written because you haven't had an ability, because of the time, to look at it in detail, and presumably because the regulations still aren't there.
Let me ask you this: Is there anything in any of those sections that you believe needs to be passed by January 29 that is so crucial in terms of the issues that affect your city and other cities, as you see it? Or, on the other hand, would you think that it would be more useful to have, say, another couple of months' time, which would also allow the government a chance to table its regulations so that you and other municipalities could see the full gamut of what they're intending to do, perhaps look at what amendments they're proposing to this legislation, together with regulations, and have a more proper package, fully thought out, within a couple of months' time?
Mr Thomson: I think I've made that point in a couple of statements I've made already today. We would certainly like to see some more time. We would certainly love to see the opportunity to review the regulations with respect to this act and legislation.
Mr Silipo: And there's nothing in here that's urgent as far as you're concerned that needs to absolutely be passed by January 29?
Mr Thomson: Not in my opinion.
Mr Silipo: Could you comment just a little bit on what the additional $700 million, or indeed the whole gamut of the cuts that are coming from the government to you, means in terms of the kinds of decisions and the kinds of choices that council's going to have to make this year?
Mr Thomson: I think I made that point early on that we have been responsible. There are other municipalities in this province that really haven't come to grips with their spending and have had minor increases over the past several years in their budgets, where we have had a 9% overall decrease. We've cut our budget, and yet now we're being subjected to the same cutbacks as every other municipality in Ontario. I think if we hadn't been responsible in what we were doing in the last four or five years and we received this kind of cutback, we could have handled this without any problem whatsoever.
We are now in the position where there are going to be some pretty serious cuts. We have to cut out a volunteer bureau that organized volunteers in our community. We have eliminated our social planning council board completely. These are some of the cuts that have taken place, and these people have been wiped off the map as far as the municipality is concerned. They no longer exist because of the cuts. And I suggest that we've already set our budget for this year, for 1996.
Mr Hardeman: Good afternoon, Mr Mayor. First of all, a quick question on how many times the city of Niagara Falls was consulted about the borrowing of previous governments each year. Incidentally, the cost of borrowing and the amount of borrowing exceeded or was as high as it is now. I wonder if you were consulted on those.
Mr Thomson: I can't say that we were.
Mr Hardeman: It's been brought up a couple of times today in previous presentations about backroom deals and so forth with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to deal with the M section of the bill. I was wondering, going through the M section, if you found much in the section that has not been discussed in your, I presume, long time in municipal government, that has not been discussed at one time or another between governments and the municipalities of Ontario.
Mr Thomson: Most of these things have been discussed for years. Some people were suggesting user fees are new. User fees have been around for years. They're just giving us the opportunity to expand and utilize them further. But that is not new, and most of the information there has been discussed for many years.
Mr Hardeman: The other issue is, would you say it is important that the municipal portion of the bill be passed very quickly? Niagara Falls, of course, has been very quick in its budget-setting, but a lot of municipalities would be presently setting their budgets and would require the information within this bill and the direction that it's going to give them the opportunity to deal with that in this year's budget. Do you not say that this needs to be done so they have the assurance that whatever it is they need to do can be done?
Mr Thomson: Certainly most municipalities are deep into the budget discussions at this time, and if these changes are being made, they would have to be made relatively quickly. It's too bad that the information was not available sooner to provide more study, and particulary the regulations with respect to what we can really see as happening. It would have been nice to see.
Mr Hardeman: Finally, on average, what time of year are the announcements usually made for municipal funding from the provincial government?
Mr Thomson: Usually prior to budget discussions or budget preparation, but they've come at different times, in my opinion.
The Chair: Mr Hudak, you have one minute.
Mr Hudak: Mayor Thomson, thank you for coming here today. A very thoughtful and thorough presentation. I'd like to offer my congratulations to yourself and the city council who have held, and in fact reduced spending, as you said, by 9% in the past five years. Unfortunately, the previous provincial government went in the opposite direction, with almost five consecutive $10-billion deficits.
You said you saved over $1 million last year and, I think, quite a substantial amount in the past five years. Unfortunately, with the debt payments, we're spending $1 million an hour more than we're taking in in revenue. All the efforts of the tough decisions, the very difficult choices that you councillors and the mayor had to make in the Falls, were waved away in a matter of an hour because the previous governments could not get spending under control.
1530
The question came up from Mr Bradley objecting to our tax cuts to bring jobs back to this province, to restore prosperity, and our commitment to balance the budget. The previous government went the opposite route, raising taxes 32 times with vaulting debt ambition. Can you please tell us, the committee, how the previous government's policies affected the economy of Niagara Falls? What's been the experience under that kind of regime in the Niagara Peninsula and the Falls in particular?
Mr Thomson: I was sure there was going to be a question in there somewhere. Is everybody having the same problem that I am trying to determine what the question is? Could you repeat that?
The Chair: Actually we've come to the end of your half-hour. I'd like to thank you both for coming forward today and making a presentation.
WOMEN AGAINST BILL 26
The Chair: May I please have the representatives from Women Against Bill 26 please come forward. Welcome, ladies, to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time maybe from right to left to introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and for Hansard.
Ms Darlene Fisher: Darlene Fisher.
Ms Pamela Jones: Pamela Jones.
Ms Sharon Bassett: Sharon Bassett.
Ms Belinda Yorke: Belinda Yorke.
Ms Emilie Fowler: Emilie Fowler.
Ms Wendy Sturgeon: Wendy Sturgeon, Niagara Chapter of Native Women.
Ms Carrie Macfie: Carrie Macfie.
Ms Jones: My name is Pamela Jones. I'm speaking with Women Against Bill 26. I would ask the Chair to allow us three minutes after questions for a short special presentation to yourselves. Could you let us know when at the end of questions we will have those three minutes, Chair?
The Chair: Sure.
Ms Jones: We are a group of women from diverse walks of life who are unified in ending this unprecedented attack on women and children. We all share a vision of a caring and humane society which sadly cannot be manifested under a Harris government, a government set on destroying the lives of those who have only hope to help them through a turbulent time in their lives.
Ms Bassett: Once there was a large corporation called Canadiana. This company specialized in making dreams come true. It was a company with a vision, one that operated with a democratic flair. Once a week management and staff sat down to discuss problems and solutions to those problems. Input from each side was asked for and encouraged.
Smooth-running companies make more than financial gains, it was believed. Staff who contribute to company policy become part of a team. They work harder, they are more dedicated, they're more committed, they want to keep customers happy. They often ask for customers' views. They know there's no sense in producing a product if people won't buy it.
It's early December. The company appears to be in financial difficulty. It has been overspending. This becomes the week's topic for discussion. The executive director believes that in order to achieve fiscal savings --
Mr Kormos: Excuse me, but I'm going to go look for the rest of the Tory members.
Ms Bassett: Should I continue, or --
The Chair: Continue.
Interjections.
The Chair: No, continue. You should continue because we have a limited amount of time for each presenter, just a half-hour. We've been strict on this throughout the presentations last week and before, and I encourage you to please continue.
Ms Jones: I'm sorry, sir, but I thought the point of this was for your Tory members to hear what we are saying. If they are not here, there's little point of us carrying on.
Mr Kormos: I'll be damned if I can find them, Chair.
The Chair: Members from all sides often leave for a few minutes for several reasons. I can't speak for where other members are.
Ms Jones: Maybe they're still eating their expensive lunches.
Mr Silipo: I'll move a five-minute recess.
The Chair: A five-minute recess.
The subcommittee recessed from 1537 to 1542.
The Chair: Thank you. The five-minute recess is over.
Ms Bassett: It's early December. The company appears to be in financial difficulty. It has been overspending. This becomes the week's topic for discussion. The executive director believes that in order to achieve fiscal savings, the company must immediately introduce a proposal that will give management and staff the sweeping power to make decisions without customer input. Cutting and chopping services to its customers will change this out-of-control spending, he believes.
"Wait," shouts Mrs C, the company statistician. "Company stats show that our spending per customer was 9% below the national average and we are national leaders in cutting programs. I suggest we take a closer look at our figures before we ram this through."
"No," Mr Director continues. "If we ask for input, it will hold up the works. We have a plan for this company and I intend to implement it."
"Regardless of the ominous consequences?" shouts Mr K. "It's going to hurt the poor and the vulnerable."
"Look. I know what's best and I'm in charge," said Mr Director.
"What about our democratic policy of asking our customers for their say? After all, some of these proposals you make, like charging welfare recipients and seniors for prescription drugs, telling doctors where to practise, changing pension laws -- I mean really, Mr Director, do they affect you? Do you want to lose your credibility? Do you want people to think this company sits in an ivory tower, unaware of the wellbeing of its customers? I mean, they do pay our salaries. They do buy our services."
"We have to show them we are listening," shouted another. "We have to have public hearings."
Mrs L slowly stood up and said: "This proposal has the potential to change 47 laws. I will not leave this boardroom until we can agree to follow our company's democratic process, even if I have to sit here all night."
"Fine," said Mr Director. "Let's not quibble over the process. All my board members agree with me anyway and ultimately we have the final say, but we will agree to a public hearing in return for the passage of this proposal on January 29. Let me see now. There are 26 of us here today, so hereafter we will refer to this proposal as Bill 26."
Thus began the ominous downslide of Canadiana and its democratic process.
Ms Sturgeon: Good afternoon. My name is Wendy Sturgeon. I'm here representing the Niagara Chapter of Native Women. I called early and tried to get on the deputation list and for some reason wasn't able to. This group here decided to let me have three minutes, so I'm grateful. Thank you very much.
Canada is the envy of the world. To be a child in Canada means that you are safe, it means you are protected and it means that your life is valued. Canada is a recognized leader in human rights and has been re-elected for a third term to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In 1993, Canada became the first country in the world to recognize domestic violence and other forms of persecution targeting women. This is from United Nations Reform, 1995.
We all know Canada played a key role in getting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. We know Canada has a reputation for peacekeeping, but did you know on the same day that UNICEF opened the World Summit for Children, as on every day of the year, it was estimated that 20,000 children died from preventable diseases, 100,000 children became malnourished, 115,000 children dropped out of primary school and untold millions faced another day of exploitation and abuse. This is from the World Summit for Children, 1994.
Our Niagara region statistics are nowhere near that. In fact, a fax that I received I think just this morning informs me that there were 53 deaths in Niagara region in 1992 that were under 20 years old; one was possibly a preventable disease.
We do live in a very wonderful country and we can understand why Canada is the envy of the world. May I remind you that the poor standard of living and lack of power of most women are reflected in the condition of children. Yes, in Canada our children have fared better than in many parts of the world. That's because we do value human life; we value our children. It must have been embarrassing, and I know it was disheartening, for many politicians and many of the public, as well as myself and many teachers, to read the headline in the Toronto Star on November 26, 1995. I have a copy here:
I didn't find this in Toronto Press Today lw"UN Slams Social Cuts. `Canada is violating the human rights of children by failing to ease poverty and cutting social programs that already are insufficient to meet basic needs,' says a senior United Nations official." And it goes on.
That brings me to why I'm here today. You see, I'm an early childhood educator. I've always believed in the ideals and the humanitarianism of the Convention on the Rights of the Child even before it was in existence. I've always believed that all my representatives believe it as well. Do you? Do you believe, for instance, that every child has the right to a name, a right to a bed every night?
I'd like to refresh our memories and read from the convention, part 1, article 3, number 3, which has a pertinent meaning with some of what we're discussing here today.
It states:
"Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health and the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision."
Let us remember that Canada is the envy of the world. We're not just playing a name game here when we say this. Many of you have travelled abroad and you know how Canadians are greeted with a smile and a handshake almost everywhere they go. Ontario is almost one third of Canada's population.
When you are considering these block payments to the municipalities, my recommendation is to add a rider statement regulating that a specific percentage go to directly operated child care programs and to the purchase of service programs -- not vouchers and not a compromised program; in other words, an unregulated program.
"It has been proven that every tax dollar invested in regulated early childhood education programs for children saves taxpayers $7 in long-term social costs, including health care, mental health care programs and social assistance." This is from Significant Benefits, a high school study through age 27. "It has further been proven that for every dollar a municipality spends on child care, $9 is generated in the local community" -- A Business Case for Child Care, Metro Toronto, 1995.
You know that child care services are discretionary. At this point you know that they will not be high on the municipality priority list. John Dawson, just minutes ago, named child care as the first thing that would be cut in this region. It was the first thing on the list. Do something about it. It's up to you. Do not legally compromise the care and education of young children.
I want to leave you with one thought. You have an opportunity to be a hero or to be a bully, and bullies end up not being very well liked, for one thing. So I say be a hero. Stand up and do something.
1550
Ms Yorke: Good afternoon. My name is Belinda Yorke. When I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis five years ago, a brick wall was put up in front of my face. After one year of allowing that wall to stand and interrupt my life and my daughter's, I decided to knock it down and plow through the rubble and fight. With the assistance of many people around me, such as doctors, volunteers and friends, both working and collecting FBA, a system of hope and support has been established. Today I am a single mother of one who earns my FBA by volunteering my time, since I can't keep a regular job, which is not by choice but rather by an unforseen ability to acquire a disease.
I have been a successful fund-raising coordinator for many events in Niagara to raise money for people like myself who have MS. I have also implemented a program of hope for people who have MS who are in hospital or chronic care facilities where children from kindergarten to grade 5 learn to voluntarily give of their time and heart to instil hope and strength in these people. Their message is, "Don't give up."
I believe very strongly that what your Bill 26 is going to do is to take away hope and build a new wall that in Germany was just knocked down. Already we are feeling some of the results of your so-called Common Sense Revolution. It's a revolution all right, but fails at common sense. Already the effects have been seen by city cuts that are a direct result of the cuts made by this government.
You claim to stand in glory that your commonsense agenda is working? All you have done is shifted the weight from your shoulders to the shoulders of every local and municipal level so that they can hear the problems of the people instead of you, the creators of the problems.
Our casino is the icing on the cake, but without a good cake there will be nothing to ice. You are creating a split society of those who have and those who have not, and it will result in the survival of the fittest. Life changes occurs due to chance and circumstance, not by government demand.
Ms Fowler: My name is Emilie Fowler. There's much I'd like to say about this bill but I'll stick to schedule J.
I recommend that the proxy method of achieving pay equity be maintained. This government has totally destroyed any hopes of wage justice for women, first by repealing the Employment Equity Act and now by proposing to remove the proxy method of determining pay equity, effectively leaving many women out in the cold. The free enterprise marketplace, ladies and gentlemen, is not a fair and equitable place or we would not be having this discussion today.
According to the International Labour Organization in a paper presented at the fourth United Nations world conference on women in Beijing, it will take another 475 years for parity to be achieved between men and women in top managerial and administrative positions. Recent media accounts indicate that women still earn only 66% to 72% of male earnings. Aboriginal women, members of racial minorities and women with disabilities are further disadvantaged, and yet this government seems hell-bent on making it even more difficult to earn a decent wage. Contrary to some popular opinions, women have never asked for preferential treatment. We simply asked to have the same opportunity to play on a level playing field, preferably in the same game. It's really difficult if you're playing football up at the top end and we're playing broomball down at the other end.
The legislation regarding pay equity under the previous government had many flaws, but at least they made an attempt to recognize systemic discrimination. This government, prior to the election in June, promised to proceed with the review of pay equity legislation to determine if it is effective, affordable and sustainable. There was no review as required by law.
These actions indicate your total lack of regard for women in the workplace, most especially those in lower-paid jobs. As you continue to wantonly destroy any small gains women have made, you will no doubt succeed with your old divide-and-conquer, patriarchal methods of achieving your goals, which seem to put large corporations first and people last.
The Premier is correct: We will not recognize Ontario in five years' time. The poor, the elderly, women and children will be shoved aside in your frantic rush to reduce the deficit. No one is denying the need for fiscal responsibility. Any woman who manages her own home knows about budgets. It's your tendency to take from the poor and give to the rich that is questionable. It is so much easier to look at spreadsheets filled with numbers than at the faces of people. It creates a certain distance, does it not? It's so much easier on a man's conscience if he does not see the woman on welfare, the hungry child, the battered woman or the bag lady huddled in a bus shelter.
Ms Macfie: My name is Carrie Macfie. I'm here today to speak on behalf of myself and my friend Julie, who couldn't be here today because she had to run from a job interview to a serious doctor's appointment for one of her children. Julie and I had a really tough time trying to figure out how to approach this presentation today. There was so much that offended us; where would we start? It's a huge bill, there was very little time to prepare, and what difficulties we had in even getting a copy of the bill to look at. We eventually decided to pick a piece of the bill that we could easily see some implications for.
Before I get into that, I want to give you a little background information that might help out. Julie and I are both unemployed. I'm receiving UI benefits, but because my last job was a minimum wage job, the benefits are so low that I'm also being supplemented by welfare. Julie was cut off from mother's allowance due to changes in eligibility. We're both trained workers: I have a degree from McMaster University and Julie has received computer training over the last few years. We're certainly not here to whine or bitch about our situations. We're strong women; believe me, we prove that every day, in our daily lives. But we are most definitely at the end of our financial ropes. With a fixed income of $1,000 a month for a family of three, my future is uncertain. Hell, next month holds the uncertainty of losing my home.
Enter Bill 26, and more uncertainty. For instance, municipalities are being given incredible powers to tax us in this bill. It seems like pretty gutless government to me: Cut funding to municipalities and then give them the power to do whatever they want to raise money. User fees imposed by cash-starved, power-hungry municipalities are going to put services out of my reach. User fees affect the poor unfairly and disproportionately.
Back to Julie and me specifically, and if your minds will allow, to a few thousand other women in Ontario. We enjoy taking our children to the library and using the library ourselves. I'm going to try to put this in a way that might help you understand. If we look at a $7 user fee for a library membership, this represents approximately 21% of my income on any one day, while it represents only 3.6% of a person's daily income who earns $70,000 a year. More importantly, perhaps -- and these are terms I can easily understand -- the $7 isn't there for me. With an income of $1,000 a month and expenditures of $1,200 a month, there isn't $7.
User fees won't stop there either. Where will they be used, and how much will user fees be? Beyond that, what will the other effects of Bill 26 be? This is too much uncertainty. This is not the kind of government we can afford.
This ominous omnibus bill needs to be broken down into sections that can be intelligently discussed. Conflicting stories and uncertainties need to be cleared up. These hearings need to be continued over a longer period of time. What could be served by a bill like this one except for a government agenda that does not consider the needs of the people of the province and which is a self-serving one?
Ms Jones: We have a short skit for you right now which we hope will contrast the plight of women from 200 years ago, which will show you that very little has changed.
"Can you spare a penny, sir?"
Ms Fisher: "Please help me. I can't feed my children."
Ms Jones: "Oh, where do I live? Oh, I have a spot tucked away from the wind. It's real cold, though, in the winter."
Ms Fisher: "The women's shelter has closed. I'm really afraid of my husband, but I may have to go back to him because my kids need a roof over their head."
Ms Jones: "I don't care what work I do, as long as I can afford gruel for the family, maybe a chicken for the holidays. Oh, the kids will really love that."
Ms Fisher: "Just a job, that's all I ask. The food bank can't give us enough food. If I keep them on the Tsubouchi diet, they'll get sick. What can I do?"
Ms Jones: "I really worry about my children playing in these cobbled streets while I'm out working. I'm so scared they'll join the street thieves, and then they'll end up in the orphanage."
1600
Ms Fisher: "How can I concentrate on my work? There's no more day care. I can't just leave them with anyone. I have no family to help out. They have become latchkey kids."
Ms Jones: "I really envy women of the future. Women will have good jobs. No one will go hungry any more. There will be good medical care for everyone. I'm leaving for Canada. Haven't you heard? I hear it's a land of opportunity and hope, a land envied by the world for its dreams."
Ms Fisher: "No work, people hungry; this government doesn't care. The founders of this land worked hard for this?
"A vision was seen and accepted by all government parties. It was Campaign 2000, the House of Commons resolution of November 24, 1989. The Campaign 2000 declaration provides a vision of the commitment needed to eliminate child poverty. It challenges all political parties to declare their own commitment to one million poor children in Canada `to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.'"
Ms Jones: "When government loses all empathy towards the needy in society, we are no longer a country forging ahead, no longer a country to be proud of, but one that is regressing in care and concern, with a government to be truly ashamed of."
The Chair: You've got three minutes remaining in your presentation. You may wish to use that time or have a minute per caucus.
Ms Macfie: As government cutbacks are affecting everyone, we've put together a box of Tsubouchi's goodies to assist you in defraying the cost of expensive restaurant meals. We've also included some multivitamin tablets because if you live on this diet, you're going to need them.
The Chair: We will see to it that we --
Ms Jones: We haven't finished.
Bill 26, is this a joke?
Democracy gone up in smoke.
Give to the rich, take from the poor,
We're just not gonna take it any more.
Mr Tsubouchi, you look quite pale,
Is that tuna you've just thrown up in your pail?
Your can of tuna, is that true?
Well, if it's good for us, it's good enough for you.
Oh, Mr Mike, why the frown?
Did you really think we'd take this lying down?
Well, did he?
Interjections: No.
Ms Jones: What's that you say?
You're worried now,
Then please go home and throw in the towel, the towel,
Please go home and throw in the towel.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies, for coming forward today and making your presentation to the standing committee on general government.
ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Welland Professional Fire Fighters Association come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have 30 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you'd introduce yourselves.
Mr Peter Skowronek: Thank you, Mr Chair. That's a pretty tough act to follow, but we'll do our best.
I'd like to introduce, on my right, the district vice-president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and the past president of the Welland Professional Fire Fighters Association, Henry Labenski and, on my left, the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Jim Lee. My name is Peter Skowronek. I'm a full-time firefighter in the city of Niagara Falls. I'm also the executive vice-president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association.
The OPFFA is comprised of 53 associations throughout Ontario, in the south as far as Windsor. In the east we have Ottawa and Cornwall, and to the north and west we have Thunder Bay and Kenora. We represent over 4,000 full-time professional firefighters from associations as small as three members, such as Gananoque, to a 650-member association, such as North York.
I realize all of you know how vast the scope of the omnibus bill is, and I won't put you through that again. But I would like to make some overall comments on Bill 26. The provincial government, in an attempt to deal with our present economic situation, is about to hand over unconstrained power to political representatives, the like of which has not been seen since the War Measures Act. You have to go back through many years of legislation to find such sweeping powers vested in municipalities to pass resolutions. This power applies despite any other legislation.
This Conservative government was about to push this bill through without any public hearings; no chance for any input from the opposition parties or the citizens who would be affected by the legislation. This is not the democratic way. If you read through the bill, you will find time and again the public are not given the opportunity for scrutiny and, in some cases, have lost their right to vote on specific issues.
Yes, the province of Ontario is in need of change, but at what cost? Do you trample on the rights of the citizens of Ontario all in the name of economic stability? Changes to the level of fire protection, without any checks and balances, could cost people their lives. When the quality of fire service provided to the citizens of Ontario is determined unilaterally, without consultation, our only voice is at the polls come election time. It could be too late and the consequences could be irreparable.
Having said all of the above, I would like to move to schedule Q of Bill 26. The bill would require arbitrators to consider the five following criteria. I'm sure you people have heard them enough; I won't put you through them again. They're there for your perusal.
Any criterion whatsoever affects the impartiality of the arbitrator, because the imposition of criteria will always tip the scales of fairness one way or the other. That is why some arbitrators have stated that they will resign before they will arbitrate in the shadow of government interference.
The free collective bargaining process cannot operate if one party believes it will always do better at arbitration than negotiation. If you tamper with the sensitive balance that now exists in collective bargaining in the arbitration arena, the provincial government will be blamed, no matter what award results. If the award is too high, it's because of the criteria. If the services are cut and people die: "Don't blame us. Blame the Conservative government's criteria."
Statistics over the last 14 years show that over 85% of our association freely negotiated collective agreements. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario would have you believe it's the other 15% that is the problem. Out of 141 boards of arbitration in 14 years, how many times did the municipalities take the firefighters to arbitration? In my home association, the city of Niagara Falls applied for arbitration, even though both parties had a signed memorandum of settlement. But being an election year, the councillors preferred that the arbitrator award the increase so they could blame the arbitration process, even though their negotiators agreed with the settlement.
If you go back through the statistics, you will find many of the 141 boards of arbitration fall on election years. This is because councils are reluctant to agree to an increase, even if councillors believe the local firefighters deserve the same remuneration as other firefighters in municipalities of similar size and geographic location.
The purpose of the arbitration system is to replicate the free collective bargaining process. How can the arbitration board imitate a freely negotiated settlement if they are forced to deal with criteria put forth by the government? The need for criteria for arbitrators has been on the wish list of the association of municipalities for years. AMO's purpose for this request is to tip the scales in their favour. If the firefighters are holding their own in the collective bargaining arena, and also in arbitration, it is because of hard work and education.
1610
Before any preliminary submission containing our proposals is brought to the negotiating table, it must first pass a threefold test. It must be morally sound, it must be legally defensible and it must be reasonably practicable of attainment at this time. By applying this simple test to every proposal before it becomes a submission, we separate the wheat from the chaff and it prepares us by starting negotiations on a strong foundation.
Secondly, if we fail to come an agreement at the bargaining table, we, the firefighters, present our own case at the arbitration hearing, because nobody knows a firefighter's job better than the firefighters themselves and why there is merit to what they are requesting.
Arbitration occurs when the parties fail to come to an agreement. In the long run, no one wins by going to arbitration, because no matter what the award, one party may feel it has fared better than the other, and that always has a negative effect on the next round of bargaining. Our association practises relationship bargaining because it works. It is based on the fact that we have much more in common than we have at variance.
The quality of the service that the firefighters provide is their number one concern. Firefighters have a record in Ontario, under the umbrella of the Fire Departments Act, unmatched by any other province or any other country that I'm aware of: over 50 years of uninterrupted protection for the citizens of the province, no work-to-rule, no strikes, no situations where they're using public lives as blackmail to solve labour disputes.
In the country of France right now the firefighters are on strike along with many of the other public workers. I wonder how secure the residents of France are knowing that there may be no firefighters to respond in an emergency situation. The citizens of Ontario can go to bed every night secure in the feeling that if they need firefighters, we will be there.
This excellent record is partially derived as a result of a fair arbitration system, where arbitrators hear all of the arguments put forward them and then weigh these facts before they make their decision, without government intervention or criteria. An independent arbitration system is paramount.
The second area of Bill 26 that impacts on public safety is schedule M. This schedule would amend the Municipal Act to provide municipalities or the Minister of Municipal Affairs with wide powers to restructure, amalgamate or regionalize existing municipalities and localities and, I'd like to highlight here, with no democratic consultative procedure. The citizens or the stakeholders of the affected municipalities would have no opportunity for public hearings or a vote in such a reorganization.
The provincial government has announced a cut in transfer payments to the municipalities. AMO, in turn, has provided the Premier with a shopping list of powers that would help them endure these provincial cuts. The powers found in schedule M are more sweeping than even AMO could have hoped for. These provisions, taken together, would appear to allow for a municipal poll tax, gas tax, a host of user fees and other charges for municipal services, and may even permit municipal charges based on income.
Under Bill 26 the council of the municipality would have the power to dissolve or make other changes to any local board, simply by passing a resolution. Again, this power applies despite any other legislation. The definition of a local board, according to the lawyers, is broad enough to encompass a fire department. This power would enable the municipality to privatize the fire service with no democratic consultative process. If the fire service is privatized, who will be accountable for the actions of the private contractors' inability to provide adequate fire protection? Upper-tier government will be given the power to assume services provided by local municipalities, for example, firefighting services.
David Burnside, legal counsel for the Solicitor General, when questioned about upper-tier government assuming the function of fire protection, informed us that those employees affected would have no collective agreement or employment protection whatsoever. The employees' existing collective agreements, which took years to develop, would not be binding on a new employer. In fact, the present employees could be dismissed simply because they do not fit in the plans of the new employer.
In travelling throughout the province and having experience in dealing with many of the municipalities, if Bill 26 provides this unfettered authority, the municipalities will do their utmost to utilize their new powers to the extent of the law. I pray that the councillors throughout the province of Ontario have the divine wisdom to exercise these proposed powers in a fashion which will still provide the citizens of Ontario with the fire protection they have come to expect and deserve.
The problem with many of the restructuring, regionalizing or privatizing proposals is that no one is accountable when things go wrong. Bill 26 unleashes all these powers. What it has failed to do is provide any checks and balances.
The fire departments of Ontario, unlike most public services, have no standard for protection. A municipality that receives less money may have less fire services, to a point where this type of risk management will cost public and firefighter lives. It will be very difficult for the minister to scrutinize some 800 municipalities throughout Ontario exercising their new-found power. It was in the late 1800s that Sir J.E. Dalberg said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The firefighters are currently involved in a review of the fire service in the province of Ontario under the direction of the Solicitor General, the person appointed by the government to be responsible for the fire service in Ontario. We are dealing with the Fire Departments Act, a specific piece of legislation which has the potential to directly affect the level and delivery of fire service in Ontario.
Prior to the election of the Conservative government, firefighters solicited comments from potential candidates who were seeking election on what their position would be on proposed changes to the Fire Departments Act. We called it our grass-roots campaign. We received written responses from a great number of potential MPPs seeking election on behalf of the Conservative Party. In those written responses, we received letters from the now Premier of the province of Ontario, Mike Harris, the now Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, the now Minister of Labour, Elizabeth Witmer, and also the now Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, just to name a few, all stating the following:
"No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted, and we will insist that all changes be fully costed, both from the point of view of the workers as well as management."
Under Bill 26, the Fire Departments Act is about to be drastically altered with virtually no consultation or input by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. In a conversation on December 14, 1995, the Solicitor General, Mr Runciman, agreed with president Jim Lee that we had not been thoroughly consulted, as was promised by the Premier and other ministers of the current government.
Decisions in the fire service directly affect public safety. We are here today to ask the Conservative government to live up to their commitment to us before there are any changes to the Fire Departments Act. We are requesting the government to remove the fire service from the impact of Bill 26 and to continue discussions on the Fire Departments Act, as was promised by the Conservative government prior to their election.
Thank you on behalf of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters. We appreciate the opportunity to speak.
The Chair: We have a little more than four minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with the third party.
1620
Mr Kormos: You indicate in your brief in appendix 1 that questionnaires were sent out to a number of MPPs, and in appendix 1 you have some of the responses. Those questionnaires were sent out during the course of the election period?
Mr Skowronek: Yes.
Mr Kormos: And they were clearly a part of the election process, and it's not unusual for organizations to elicit positions by various candidates during the time of election?
Mr Skowronek: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: So there was no confusion, because these were sent "Dear Candidate," is that correct?
Mr Skowronek: I don't understand.
Mr Kormos: These were sent to a named person as a candidate?
Mr Skowronek: Yes. Many of us met with these candidates and went through a questionnaire.
Mr Kormos: Whether they were incumbents or not?
Mr Skowronek: That's correct. All three parties. Everybody running for office.
Mr Kormos: So it's clear that the people receiving this correspondence received them as candidates in the election?
Mr Skowronek: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: And that their response was a part of their campaign process?
Mr Skowronek: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: And there was nothing that you said or did that would indicate otherwise to them?
Mr Skowronek: That's right.
Mr Kormos: It's interesting that several of the responses that you've included in your appendix were responses done out of legislative offices or Queen's Park offices while they were candidates in election being solicited for responses during the course of election. As an aside, I trust, among other things, the commission on election expenses might be interested in that. Thank you very much for the material.
Now, Mr Labenski, you're the past president of the Welland Professional Fire Fighters Association. We've heard the submission on behalf of the trio. What's the experience in terms of being able to negotiate settlements, for instance, in the city of Welland?
Mr Henry Labenski: Well, in the city of Welland, we go in exactly like Peter Skowronek said. We prepare ourselves, we go in and we have the threefold test to make sure they are proper before the board. We have a problem with the city of Welland where they, many times in the course of negotiations, do not want per se, say, to give us the money because they don't want to feel they are giving it to us. They always want somebody else to be the master, I guess, or somebody else is going to be the one that's doing it. So we have gone to a few boards of arbitration, for that reason and that reason alone.
Mr Kormos: You've been a firefighter for how long?
Mr Labenski: Close to 20 years.
Mr Kormos: And over the course of that time has there been a change, in your view, in the type of role that firefighters play in the community?
Mr Labenski: The firefighters in the community of Welland right now are involved in everything from body pickup, VSA calls to water rescues to ambulance assistance to car accidents. It's really funny that you mention it, because just the other day at work one of the firefighters mentioned that I guess we're called the bag people of Welland too, because whatever has to be done, they call the firefighters first. We had a few VSA calls going out just the last night I worked, and naturally we did respond and did what we had to do.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. I'm sorry I interrupted; it's a little more than four minutes.
Mr Kormos: Are you sure?
The Chair: Yes, sir. From the government side, Mr Hudak and Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hudak: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. It's good to see a few of you again. I've met you before. I understand your arguments, especially with respect to the arbitrator and taking the ability to pay into account. Is it my understanding that you would like to see an amendment that will take the firefighters out of consideration, take that part of the bill out with respect to firefighters?
Mr Skowronek: Yes, and let us complete the consultative process we've already begun with the Solicitor General.
Mr Jim Lee: I'd like to make a comment about that. I think what we're asking for, and I think it's very clear in the letters we received from the Premier and the Solicitor General and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour, is that they made a commitment to us prior to the election that we would be thoroughly consulted prior to any changes to the Fire Departments Act. They've unilaterally changed the Fire Departments Act. The Solicitor General agreed with us that we were not consulted. All we're asking at these hearings is that you people, as the current government, live up to your commitment.
We had a question put to us at one of these hearings, do you think you were lied to by the Conservative government? Well, I would like to know what we were told by the government if it wasn't a lie. We haven't been consulted. They've changed the act, but we have these letters stating that we would be consulted. If they haven't lied to us, what have they done to us?
Mr Kormos: Prevaricated.
Mr Hudak: If I may follow up on my question as well, you gentlemen are aware of the spending crisis in this province. We're having $9 billion in interest payments. That means $9 billion go to our debtors before they go to pay for firefighters, highways, transportation and such. Do you think the ability of a locality to pay for an arbitrator's decision should be taken into account for other services aside from firefighters? Should be firefighters be the only exemption?
Mr Skowronek: No. What we believe is an arbitrator must be independent. You've got to let him make the decisions by the facts put before him, like I stated in my brief. The mayor of Niagara Falls made it very clear to you that in Niagara Falls the arbitrator did take in ability to pay. They do do that.
I ask you: It's very explicit in the Fire Departments Act. It says that the parties get to pick who the arbitrator is. Why would you ever pick anybody who wasn't going to give you that argument? And how easy an argument it is to make for you people right now, when you've just cut the city of Niagara Falls' payments by $700,000. It's pretty tough to make an ability-to-pay argument when you start chopping away at these people. They've got that argument, and there isn't an arbitrator who doesn't do that.
Following that, if you couldn't pick the arbitrator you wanted, the next step in the Fire Departments Act is very explicit again: It would be appointed by the minister. Why would the minister appoint someone who wouldn't look at ability to pay already? He'd done that in his history somewhere, made an award where he ignored the ability-to-pay argument.
I'm saying to you people, that's just not done. They do not ignore the fact they don't look at ability to pay. That's an argument that comes in everywhere. How strongly that argument is made follows upon the people who are representing them at that arbitration.
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Hardeman. That's the time for the government side's questioning. We must move to the members of the opposition.
Mr Bradley: My first question is one to which I believe I know the answer but I just want everyone to know the answer. In the private sector, the ultimate sanction that the employee has to apply, if that employee wishes to use it, is for the most part the right to strike, the right to withdraw services. You do not have the right to withdraw your services under legislation in Ontario. Is that correct?
Mr Skowronek: Well, Mr Bradley, that particular thing has come up a lot lately, and nowhere is it written that we do not have the right to strike. We have voluntarily given up our right to strike, because, like I said, that's one of the premises we use for negotiations and we believe in the quality of service. So we voluntarily gave up that right, at the same time knowing that we were dealing with a fair and equitable arbitration system.
Mr Bradley: So your objection is that having given up the ultimate weapon that an employee has, you are now being asked to give up unfettered arbitration.
Mr Skowronek: Correct.
Mr Bradley: That would be your position.
My second question is this: In regard to fees being charged, potential fees being charged for various services, and they always use examples of so-called frivolous services, do you have a fear that if there are fees imposed, there are going to be individuals who are not going to call upon your service if indeed there are fees and that therefore life and property could be placed in jeopardy?
Mr Skowronek: Absolutely. There is one mayor who's thinking of putting a $300 fee for a car fire. Our fear is there that these people will be trying to put out their own car fires, and it's a very dangerous job, or trying to drive their car to the border, just so they don't have to pay the $300.
A bigger fear is with a charge for false alarms. These people, if they're charged enough times for false alarms -- many of them aren't the owners, they're concerned about the repercussions they'll get from their boss -- will shut these alarms off and leave hundreds and hundreds of people unprotected.
I'd just like to touch on that a little bit. And that only has to happen once. There's a case in North York right now, from 2 Forest Laneway, where six people died in a high-rise. What's outstanding from that case -- and the inquest is complete -- is that there's a $64-million lawsuit.
What you tamper with over here on this hand, you've got to remember the scales tip on the other hand. So when they start to play with user fees or whatever, someone is ultimately responsible, and it gets back to the accountability that I was saying in the brief.
Mr Bradley: You had anticipated my next question, I believe, which was that you anticipate that there will be more legal challenges as a result. So I'll go to a different question, which is the cost of insurance premiums. If indeed services are reduced as a result of an arbitrator declaring that there is simply not enough money for a service to be provided, or, because of provincial cutbacks, municipalities make a choice not to service an area or not to provide the same degree of service they provided before, can we anticipate that there will be an increase in insurance premiums?
Mr Skowronek: Absolutely. The minute that the fire losses go up -- these people have to make money. Eventually they'll raise the rates, and quickly raise the rates when they see there's an added risk, before they get caught up not being able to pay the money they owe. You can be assured of that.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We're out of time right now.
1630
NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE CONSERVANCY SOCIETY
The Vice-Chair: Our next group is the Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy Society. Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. Can you please identify yourselves for the record.
Ms Laura Dodson: My name's Laura Dodson and I'm the president of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy Society. With me is Gracia Janes, the vice-president of the society. She also wears other hats.
Ms Gracia Janes: Yes, I'm with the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society. I'm also with the Niagara SARC Network and we have been rejected with the great unwashed majority of two thirds in speaking to you today. But I feel, having heard the presentations, that our concerns were very well expressed by the Project Share group, by Mr Dawson, by Mr Krasowski, by the Women Against Bill 26, and by the labour council.
You have a copy of our brief and any questions you might have, I'd be pleased to dialogue with you further another time.
Ms Dodson: Thank you, Gracia. I am speaking on behalf of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy Society.
Mr Sampson: You indicated we had a copy of your brief. I don't have a copy.
Interjections.
Ms Dodson: I've brought four other copies I will leave with you. Because we didn't get an opportunity to speak as the SARC Network, it's a separate brief that was handed out to you in the morning by your clerk. This is a different brief. This is the Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy, and we don't have copies, apparently.
Mr Phillips: I might add it frightened me when I saw the name. I thought it was the committee for the Savings and Restructuring Act. I thought that was what SARC meant, and I thought, my God, I hope there aren't community groups supporting this thing.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Phillips. Sorry about the interruption; perhaps we can just continue.
Ms Dodson: I'll start again. I'm speaking on behalf of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy Society, a citizens' organization with approximately 550 members, most of whom reside in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Our mandate is to ensure the preservation and conservation of our town's unique heritage of buildings, open spaces, streetscapes, micro-climate etc, and to protect our town's future by ensuring that development is appropriate and in accord with the town's official plan and zoning bylaws. Thank you for this opportunity of addressing you regarding our concerns about the sections of Bill 26 whose impact on our heritage could threaten or destroy that very heritage.
Please may I too at the outset express our deep concern -- and when I say "our" I means our society's -- about the inability of this committee to hear the briefs of all groups and people who wish to speak to you in the government's haste to have the bill implemented. As members of a democratic society we're also very concerned about the number and magnitude of changes the bill encompasses, and about the lack of time and opportunity for full response and debate on this bill in our Legislature.
We also apologize for misunderstanding or for incomplete research, because the bill has been in our hands for less than a week and we do not have all the documents necessary for full study. It also needs a lawyer to decipher the bill in places.
We live in and are deeply concerned about our historic community of Niagara-on-the-Lake, first capital of Upper Canada, site of the first Canadian Parliament meeting, site of the beginning of the Law Society of Upper Canada, among other historical events.
We're concerned about the blank-cheque approach to restructuring municipal government proposed for the Minister of Municipal Affairs as outlined on page 134 of Bill 26, and a municipality's power to restructure itself, all without any public involvement in the process.
The slight exception is that the public would be allowed to see the minister's order to allow the restructuring, an order which has been published in the Ontario Gazette -- we must put that on our regular reading list -- and which has been filed with the town clerk. We're not told how the non-readers of the Gazette will know when or where to look for the order. Presumably that fact is not important.
As well, no legislative change need take place when a municipality is restructured, which could also mean dissolved, according to the bill. Hence, no debate could take place in our Legislature should the minister decide to dissolve all or part of our historic town. The fact that my provincial government, in what I have always regarded as the most democratic country in the world, would propose such a process without full and continuous involvement of the taxpayers whose communities are being restructured in any of the proposed ways is utterly appalling and totally unacceptable.
One of our society's constant struggles is to be listened to by our municipal council when it comes to decisions that threaten our heritage. We have never been faced with the prospect of having our town dissolved by another level of government, however. This bill is being thrust upon us with far too much haste to allow for sound or even carefully thought-out government policies. Good government at all levels requires allowing the time necessary to ensure that legislation is the best it can be.
Some serious problems arise in understanding words or in defining important concepts. Page 133 of the bill, 25.1(c), refers to "municipal representation systems." Who or what in the world are these? They're given blank-cheque power again without public input. These bodies seem to us faceless entities. How can people deal with systems? It sounds more like a body in a non-democratic society.
The preservation of heritage is low on the list of priorities, perhaps understandably in times of crises, and our provincial government has categorized this as a time of great crisis. The fact that our town could lose its historic identity and could do so without the taxpayers' right to participate in the process or appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board is staggering. We wish, nay demand, to be permitted to be full participants in all stages of any initiative, ministerial or municipal, to restructure our community. Neither did we elect our municipal council to agree to such a mandate as that of restructuring.
On page 135 we read of criteria that will be provided on this whole matter. Surely the government knows what these are before they suggest the radical restructuring possibilities. There isn't even one example given. And the section that follows, subclauses 25.2(9)(c)(i), (ii) and (iii), is not understandable at all to us.
We all benefit from our heritage in tangible and intangible ways. Thousands of volunteers work to protect and conserve it, but public money is also needed. We can see one possibility under this bill to pay for the upkeep of our heritage. Our town, if it is not dissolved or otherwise altered to its historic detriment, could make Highway 55 one of the new toll roads mentioned in the bill. But we would insist on toll booths rather than electronic devices for collecting the tolls because they would provide employment. We could also ask each visitor to pay a user fee of, say, $10. Thus we would be sure that people who might otherwise have been able to enjoy our lovely town will not be able to do so.
Another threat to our heritage posed by the bill and by the cutbacks to our municipality is the prospect of uncontrolled development. We've already heard one of our aldermen say, "Because we have less money coming from the provincial government, we'll have to develop, develop, develop." Development is fine if it is appropriate and in accordance with official plans and zoning bylaws, but not if it's just for the fact that it's supposed to make up shortfalls from provincial governments. And the Golden report, as you well know, indicates that development does not produce revenue of that kind.
1640
Another chilling part of the act, section 43, allows conservation authorities to sell off some of their lands without the minister's permission, if that authority has not been given grants by the minister. The implication is our heritage of open space could be lost -- the open space of our heritage could be lost to developers, to be given to developers. Since most conservation areas, at least those that I know of, are suitable for the most prestigious development, how much would such land sell for? Can money make up for heritage that's forever lost?
In our town, we are discussing the ward system right now. We are at an OMB hearing. We were there yesterday and the day before. Thank you for the OMB. We are discussing this because many people in our town feel the need for a very close consultation with members of their governing body. We want to be able to, many of us, elect people in our ward to whom we can speak, who will hear us, listen to us. This bill is the antithesis of direct responsibility and direct contact with people who are responsible for our future and our political future. We're very, very concerned about that in this bill.
We ask our provincial government, therefore, to: (1) amend each act on the bill separately in the manner that is normally prescribed for doing so; (2) delay the approval or implementation, whatever it is, of this bill to allow that to take place, that each act be amended; (3) if the above fails, first of all, then allow enough time for the opposition in the Legislature to study the bill and consider all the implications of it and allow time for full debate in the House, also allow for full public participation by all who wish to present their views publicly; (4) provide for full public participation in all stages of any restructuring of any community; (5) allow appeals to the OMB of any decision by a municipality which is deemed not frivolous, that is, an appeal of a decision to restructure; (6) ensure the protection of our heritage in any restructuring; and lastly, do not permit or allow or encourage the sale of conservation authority lands. Respectfully submitted.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Any further comments? At this time each party has an opportunity to discuss your presentation with you. We have roughly about six minutes for each party and we'll start off with the government party.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for the presentation. First of all, dealing with the restructuring of communities, you are aware in the act that it does exempt or it excludes the restructuring process in the M schedule, it exempts the regions from that section. So in the Niagara region, it could not --
Ms Dodson: It cannot take place.
Mr Hardeman: It would not follow that same procedure.
Ms Dodson: I see.
Mr Hardeman: But I just want to go back to where in fact it did happen in the Niagara region some number of years ago, before it became the region. It was done under the present process. In fact, it was done by a government of somewhat the same stripe as the present government, but it was done by coming in and telling the community that change should take place and implementing it through legislation.
Ms Dodson: That was when the township and the --
Mr Hardeman: That was when it became the region of Niagara.
Ms Dodson: Oh, the region. Okay.
Mr Hardeman: Do you not see a need for that to be changed, that we do have more local input and local requests, that the municipalities want the change as opposed to Queen's Park wanting the change?
Ms Dodson: I would think only after much public consultation as to whether councils wanted it, because I think the involvement of the public is of prime importance. We didn't elect aldermen to make enormous decisions without any public input. I think that's a very important point. Do I understand you correctly?
Mr Hardeman: Yes. The act actually, as it's written now, will require a request from the local constituents before the minister would appoint a commission. If there was no one in the region today who wanted restructuring in government, the minister would not appoint the commission.
Ms Dodson: He would not.
Mr Hardeman: It has to be at a local request. Would it solve some of your concerns if it was included that the commission must hold a mandated number of meetings to have the public participate in the process?
Ms Dodson: Oh, very definitely. This has to be fully aired and so on. In some communities, it might not be a problem; in other communities, it could be and it could require a great deal of public --
Mr Hardeman: Your position is, then, that restructuring should take place to the local wishes, not to Queen's Park.
Ms Dodson: Oh, yes, definitely.
Ms Janes: I think there could be a problem in terms of the simple majority. I look at things like dumps and the problems they've had, where a few municipalities say, "No, no," and in the case of the region if a simple majority decided they wanted to do something, when it applies to restructuring, that simple majority could win the day. It seems to me that maybe you need a bigger majority or a consensus, as Mr Dawson was talking about, or Ms Hughes, getting to the point where all your municipalities actually wish to do that.
Mr Hardeman: I would agree with you, but recognizing that unanimity in any project is very difficult to achieve. I'll turn the rest over to Mr Froese.
Mr Froese: First of all, welcome here. I'd like to welcome my neighbour, Laura Dodson, here to the committee, and your presentation. I first want to commend your group on the many years of ensuring the preservation of both the historical value of the town and other things within that realm, the preservation of the way Niagara-on-the-Lake is. Certainly, I don't think Niagara-on-the-Lake would be the way it is today if it wasn't for your group ensuring that the balance is there between development and the historical aspects.
Like any other community, there is always that struggle between what needs to be developed and what needs to be preserved. As probably everybody in this room knows, in Niagara-on-the-Lake it's always a contentious item as to what gets developed, what is preserved. That pressure is certainly always there.
You already stated earlier that you believe the decisions should be made at the local level wherever they can be. We talk about the ward system and what's happening there. Before the election, it was an issue. Some say in town that the voters had made a decision. The ward system has come up again after the council had dealt with it before the election and after the election. In your opinion about the elected representatives making the decisions -- I just use the ward system as an example -- if we truly believe that the decisions should be made at the local level, do you have the confidence in the local politicians to make decisions for the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake in particular?
Ms Dodson: Not the existing council completely, no; I would say, with a lot of local participation, yes. The ward system business, if I can quickly reply to that, was not a major issue in the election. The mayor would have liked to have thought so. I don't think most people were even aware that it was on the table. The people who wanted the ward system got a petition, approached the town council, asked them to put it on the ballot. Town council refused. The same six of the eight people have refused, again have voted against it; I think seven of the eight.
The Vice-Chair: I have to stop you. We're into the opposition's time.
1650
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for the presentation, first of all, extremely thoughtful. If you think Bill 26 is interesting, wait till you see Bill 20.
Ms Dodson: I can't wait. What is that one, the planning?
Mr Bradley: That's the amendment to the Planning Act, which will undo what has been done over the years.
Ms Dodson: Oh.
Mr Bradley: Anyway, I won't deal with that because it would be out of order to deal with that. I'll deal with this particular bill.
Are you familiar with the Westminster township issue where the city of London annexed Westminster township and all of the prime farm land that existed around London, and did so with opposition from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party to that particular process? That process allowed for significant hearings. It took a bill of the Ontario Legislature, where there was full debate in the Ontario Legislature before that legislation passed. Do you fear that you could see that, if not in Niagara, because it's a regional government, in other parts of the province where one municipality would simply annex another municipality without the consent of the Ontario Legislature?
Ms Dodson: I can't believe it. I really can't. I find this staggering in its possibilities. I truly do.
Mr Bradley: I can tell you that under this legislation that's exactly what can happen. There can be annexations take place in places other than regional governments and without the consent of the Legislative Assembly -- your elected members of the Legislative Assembly.
Ms Dodson: With no public input?
Mr Bradley: It would simply require the nod and the wink of the Premier's advisers, who make the decisions, and some senior civil servants for that to happen. Your members of the Legislature who sit here today, duly elected, would not deal with legislation governing that annexation, and that is a fact.
The next question is, do you have a concern -- I thought I heard this somewhere along the line -- that municipalities desperate for funds of some kind, desperate for assessment, will allow unwise, unfettered and uncontrolled development to take place to try to fill in the money that was lost by the province cutting back?
Ms Dodson: No question. Developers are always knocking on the door, of course, in our community, and we have been told by one of our alderman several times that because of the cuts we must promote development, that that's got to be our sort of watchword now. We believe in development that is appropriate to the neighbourhood, that's in accordance with the official plan, the zoning bylaws, but not uncontrolled development, because first of all it would destroy neighbourhoods if it were inappropriate and all the rest of it, and it would not bring in the necessary funds. It could end up costing us money for extra infrastructure and so on and services.
Mr Bradley: Again you would be aware from the legislation of the possibility of conservation authorities losing a lot of their funding.
Ms Dodson: Yes.
Mr Bradley: Do you think it's a possibility that conservation authorities, again desperate for funding, will sell off prime environmental land for the purposes of development in order that they may continue at least some of their efforts to protect the environment? Is this a possibility?
Ms Dodson: I'm sure they wouldn't want to because all the people I know in the conservation authority are very concerned about their mandate and what they look after. It would be heart-breaking for them, I'm sure. Some could feel forced to do that and I can't imagine a more backward step for our future generations than to lose those wonderful areas that anybody can enjoy, whether they can pay user fees or not; let's not get into that.
Mr Bradley: The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, and I would say the Niagara Parks Commission, both established by the previous Conservative government, have served the Niagara region extremely well --
Ms Dodson: They have.
Mr Bradley: -- and have protected much of the environmentally sensitive land. We see a contrast, for instance, between Niagara Falls, Canada, and Niagara Falls, United States, partially because of the efforts of the Niagara Parks Commission and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.
Ms Dodson: Yes.
Mr Bradley: Do you have a fear that again, with the diminishing of funding and the desperation for cash, we won't see that kind of environmental protection which has distinguished us from the American experience over the years?
Ms Dodson: That would be a great fear because those are wonderful groups, and I would certainly fear that. The Niagara Escarpment Commission is another fear I have, too, along the line, but that's another --
The Vice-Chair: At this time we move on to the NDP.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Dodson. Quite frankly, you've brought an interesting and new perspective on the impact of Bill 26 as it applies to, I might call it, especially sensitive communities, unique communities, like Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Ms Dodson: Or Queenston.
Mr Kormos: Not alone in the province, so by no means a singular example. It's interesting. Have you sought an audience with the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Ms Mushinki, so that she could advocate on your behalf with the Premier's office and with the backbenchers to plead the special circumstances of unique communities like Niagara-on-the-Lake?
Ms Dodson: We shall do so.
Mr Kormos: The problem is that I understand that Ms Mushinski has not met, in the course of some seven months, with hardly a single constituent. She hasn't met with Peter Herrndorf from TVO. Remarkable that in seven months she wouldn't meet with the president of TVO. She certainly didn't meet with Karen Kain --
Ms Dodson: Oh, dear. Yes, that's right.
Mr Kormos: -- perhaps out of fear of being beaten by a ballet slipper; the security problems, you understand. She hasn't met with members of the artistic community, with members of the performing community. I raise these, you see, because Niagara-on-the-Lake is a historical community.
Ms Dodson: Arts.
Mr Kormos: It's also a very integral part of the economy of Niagara and Ontario, not just the economy dollar-and-cent-wise; the economy because of the presence of the arts there, and in particular the Shaw theatre, a world-renowned theatre.
Do you know whether or not Ms Mushinski has visited the community in the course of the last seven or eight months?
Mr Froese: Yes, she has.
Ms Dodson: Has she? Oh, well, has she been to the theatre? Well, no, I didn't know that.
Mr Kormos: I'm surprised that she wouldn't have contacted or had her staff arrange or Mr Froese arrange for a day of meetings with local leaders like yourself who are concerned about the future of the town. So there was no contact with you?
Ms Dodson: No, but that's a super idea. Mr Froese will arrange it, we're sure. He's our neighbour. He's my neighbour.
Interjections.
Ms Dodson: I'm sure he will. I really mean that.
Mr Kormos: Now that the casino's coming to Niagara, we could perhaps make a bet on that.
Ms Dodson: He will. He's writing it down and he will, I'm sure.
Mr Kormos: Can he equally assure you that Ms Mushinski will effectively advocate for the interests of Niagara-on-the-Lake and it will be culturally and historically distinct?
Ms Dodson: We'll introduce her to Marguerita Howe, Order of Canada. Marguerita can get anybody to do anything. We'll try.
Mr Kormos: But that car and driver is awfully persuasive. If she won't meet with Karen Kain, by God, one questions exactly how much advocacy there's going to be for culture in this province. That's something that's equally fearful. The future of Niagara-on-the-Lake as an important cultural community is, in my view, very much at risk because of this government's abandonment of the cultural and artistic community, its abandonment of the film industry, its abandonment of the arts. It really is sad and shameful.
Ms Janes: Could I respond again? I think all of this points to the short-term-pain approach, and I was hoping Mr Froese would ask that financial question about the debt and such. You say short-term pain for long-term gain. I look at it as short-term pain for long-term pain: long-term social pain, long-term environmental pain that involves the heritage, involves farm land, involves all those things that we value in Niagara-on-the-Lake and elsewhere in Ontario.
Mr Kormos: Never get them back.
Ms Janes: We are not going to get them back; that's right. It's going to cost a fortune. Conservation authorities selling off their lands is a horrible thought, and the fact that this government also turned down a marvellous proposal that would have gone further than the Niagara Parks Commission, further than the conservation authorities, that would have involved trusts and easements and the saving of our tender-fruit lands in perpetuity, a wonderful concept. It costs money, yes, and I think you're going to have to spend some money; I'm sure you're going to have to spend some money in the next few years. But the cuts --
Mr Bradley: They're going to have to spend for the tax cuts.
Ms Janes: Well, yes, we have those tax cuts, but really, those cuts to the well-off or the somewhat well-off are just going to be used up with user fees and other costs, and then my children and my grandchildren are going to have to face the cost of the loss of the environment, the loss of the heritage, the loss of these things. The heritage is very important because it's part of our economy in Niagara. It's part of it, the tourism, the heritage, the farm lands. It all is jobs and money, and if you start turning that so that it's going the other way, it's going to be hard to get it back, and I really think you should think very carefully about that.
The Vice-Chair: That's all the time we have. Thanks very much for your presentation.
1700
PENS
The Vice-Chair: Our next group is PENS, with Steve Balz, the co-chair.
The Chair: Thanks, Mr Tascona, for filling in for me.
Welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour to make your presentation. You may wish to leave some time at the end for questions from the three caucuses. Please introduce yourself for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Steve Balz: My name is Steve Balz. I am co-chair of PENS. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak and make this submission to you.
I'll start with a little of what PENS is about. We're a volunteer community group based in St Catharines, Ontario. We work to facilitate and enhance communications between the citizens of St Catharines and local government. Attached is a copy of our mission statement and objectives.
Over the past five years we've provided information and assistance to individuals and other groups regarding procedures of municipal governments, as well as making suggestions to improve the accessibility of municipal governments and their boards and commissions to the public. We have been fortunate to have members of municipal and regional councils attend our meetings and work with us on a regular basis.
Underlying our efforts is the belief that government works best when public input is both encouraged and considered. It is with this belief in mind that we wish to bring the following concerns to the attention of the committee.
Our concerns regard changes to the Municipal Act regarding restructuring of services and user fees, as well as changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Regarding municipal restructuring and user fees, Bill 26 proposes to grant powers to a commission set up by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to restructure municipalities. Restructuring includes annexing part of a municipality to another, amalgamating municipalities, separating or joining a municipality to a county, and dissolving all or part of a municipality.
The concern with this section of Bill 26 regards the lack of provision for public input either through public hearings or meetings, or appeal. It is assumed that restructuring would take place in an effort to improve the efficiency of service delivery; however, input from those ratepayers who would be most affected and who pay the bulk of the cost of these services in question in essential. There may be good arguments against restructuring if it entails major changes in the way in which services are delivered or if it means giving up control over the delivery of these services. Public input and involvement leads to better decision-making.
Similarly, Bill 26 makes provisions for the transfer of powers or provision of services from lower- to upper-tier municipalities, as well as from upper- to lower-tier municipalities. This transfer could take place only under certain conditions, including the consent of the majority of local municipalities forming the upper-tier municipality, and then only if the local municipalities represent a majority of electors in the upper-tier municipality.
Again there is no mandatory provision for public input through public meetings or hearings and no opportunity for appeal. Furthermore, the formula regarding the consent of lower-tier municipalities permits a situation in which any one lower-tier municipality may lose certain powers or have powers thrust upon it by action of other lower-tier municipalities within the same region or county regardless of the wishes of the electors of the lower-tier municipality or their elected representatives.
For example, in Niagara we're currently facing a situation where we must find new locations for landfill sites in the near future. The regional municipality of Niagara could decide to locate a landfill site within a municipality under its jurisdiction despite the objections of the lower-tier municipality. Combined with the lack of provision for public input, there's a potential for misuse of this authority.
Finally, Bill 26 appears to grant sweeping powers to levy user fees for municipal services. These services potentially include police and firefighting. One consequence of charging user fees for such emergency services is that individuals may hesitate to call police or firefighters in an ambiguous situation. By the time it is evident that the situation constitutes an emergency, it may have escalated considerably.
The proposed changes do not make clear who would be charged user fees for emergency services. If a person calls the police because he or she witnesses an assault on a third party, who pays the fees? What if it was a false alarm? Creating ambiguity regarding emergency services invites disaster. Emergency services are an important and highly valued aspect of a structured society. It is important that such services be provided in as uniform a manner as possible across the province for the sake of safety.
Moving on to our concerns regarding access to information under the freedom of information act, currently the legislation is based on the premise that every person has the right of access to a record or part of a record in the custody or control of an institution, with certain reasonable exceptions and conditions. The changes to the act under Bill 26 appear to continue that assumption while limiting the opportunity for certain abuses of the legislation.
Under the existing legislation, a person making a request can receive the information at no cost provided the time involved in locating the information does not exceed two hours. It is likely that the vast majority of requests fall into this category and are quickly dealt with by the institution having control of the information. However, there are examples of individuals making repeated requests for the same information or otherwise abusing the legislation, and we assume that the changes are designed to eliminate this abuse.
Under Bill 26, institutions would be required to charge an application fee for access to records. The amount of the fee is not specified. If the amount were excessive, the application fee may discourage persons from requesting information to which they are entitled. The application fee might also be expected to encourage institutions which had previously routinely disclosed information without a formal request under the act to now require formal application, thus creating a climate in which information is strictly controlled as a commodity rather than given as a right.
A nominal application fee of $5 should serve to discourage abuses without discouraging those individuals who have a genuine interest in accessing the information.
A second fee may be charged for every hour of manual search required to locate a record. Persons requesting information which might otherwise be routinely provided are forced to pay a second fee, and the majority of rather routine requests become unduly onerous procedures. PENS is familiar with examples in which exorbitant search fees have been charged for providing information that ought to be readily available to the staff of the institution. Again, information which ought to be readily accessible has become a commodity rather than a right.
Further, a fee may be charged for any other costs incurred in responding to a request for access to a record; the sections of the bill are listed in the brief. This provision is vague and may be misused by an institution seeking to discourage a request. For example, the institution may charge a fee to cover the cost of seeking legal counsel for the purpose of interpreting the act under which the request is being made. The current legislation already has provisions for recovering all reasonable costs incurred in responding to a request, provisions for photocopying costs, computer search costs and so on.
A third fee is charged for appealing a decision regarding a request under the act. As with the application fee, the fee to appeal a decision would have to be nominal in order to have the desired effect of discouraging large-scale abuses of the system without discouraging the earnest citizen making a request in good faith.
It should be noted that Bill 26 creates a situation in which a person may be charged three separate fees for information which is or should be routinely provided. Such a situation could occur if a request is made but the person making the request disputes the fees charged by the institution for locating and providing that information and is required to make an appeal.
PENS is familiar with a number of instances in which a very conservative interpretation regarding the release of information by an institution has resulted in a refusal to release information. Upon appeal, it was determined that the information should be accessible and the information was subsequently released. In some instances, there appears to be genuine confusion regarding what should be released, and in other cases the institution appears to have had an interest in denying public access to the information. In either case, the person requesting the information was entitled to the information and should not be held responsible for the actions of the institution, as would be the case if a fee for an appeal was charged.
1710
As one specific example, I made a formal request to the city of St Catharines under the acts for access to a specific document, a piece of correspondence from the St Catharines Transit Commission to the city of St Catharines referring to a proposed zoning bylaw. The response to my request indicated that the document did not exist. In subsequent telephone communications with municipal staff, staff were informed that the document had been discussed in open council only days before the request was made. Information was provided in the request as to the date of the correspondence and to whom it was addressed. The information was still not forthcoming. An appeal to the commissioner and subsequent inquiry by the commissioner's staff resulted in an admission by the city that the city did indeed have the document, and the information was then provided. However, in the interim, the date for appeal of the zoning bylaw had passed. A suspicious person might suspect that the delay created by the refusal was a deliberate attempt to delay the release of the document.
Unfortunately, institutions are also capable of abuse of process, and the creation of an appeal fee seems biased in favour of the institutions which control the information and against those making a request for access.
There is also a concern regarding access to personal information. All three fees discussed above apply to requests made by an individual for access to his or her personal information. Under the current legislation, no fee is to be charged for access to personal information. It would seem that information of this nature ought to be fairly easy to locate and provide to the person making the request, and that no charge should be made for such a service. Access to information is a vital part of a free society and serves as a check on publicly funded institutions, ensuring that they treat individuals in a manner consistent with the standards expected by the public.
Furthermore, it is a generally accepted principle that individuals have a right to privacy. That right includes having control over the information they provide and the uses to which that information is subjected. However, governments often require individuals to provide personal information and use such information without consent. Providing access to such information balances the government's needs to provide for the public interest and the individual's right to control personal information.
A further concern regarding access to information has to do with the inclusion of a clause denying access to information if the institution finds the request to be "frivolous or vexatious." Characterizing the request as frivolous or vexatious is not consistent with the premise that individuals have a right to information. Such a right should not be denied because the request is annoying to those who control the information or because the value of the request is not readily apparent to the institution.
It has been our experience that requests for information under the act are frequently the result of a difference of opinion between the person seeking the information and the institution having control of the information. Occasionally, the relationship becomes antagonistic in nature and the normal process of communication breaks down, leaving a formal request under the act as a last resort. Under such circumstances, there is the possibility that the institution may be too quick to interpret the request as frivolous or vexatious, or to be perceived by others as doing so. Generally, it is best to leave judgements about the nature of the request or the requester to a third party.
A similar situation existed in the Planning Act, which gave upper-tier municipalities and other delegates the authority to approve plans of subdivision. These delegates were also given the right to refuse a request to refer a plan of subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board if they believe the request to be frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith. Because the delegates were reluctant to give up authority to the municipal board, there were instances of abuse of this right to refuse to refer a plan to the municipal board. The Planning Act has since been amended to make referrals of appeals about plans of subdivisions automatic.
It is understood that the proposed changes are the result of attempts to streamline government and reduce operating costs. However, in a democracy in which every individual has reasonable access to information regarding the operations of government, every taxpayer is an auditor. This provides an excellent check on government efficiency and operation.
I'd like to perhaps break with some of the normal procedures at this point and ask a couple of questions of the committee, if I could.
The Chair: That depends. You can ask questions all you want but there's no stipulation that says they have to be answered. I'm sure that those who can will do the best that they can.
Mr Bradley: Just like the House.
Mr Young: We'll respond.
Mr Kormos: Etiquette.
The Chair: Just to let you know that under the standing orders there's no requirement that anyone does.
Mr Balz: I appreciate that, and I'll ask the questions and hope that if they can't be answered at this point, they will certainly be considered and whatever changes necessary to answer these questions would be made.
The first question: How can the province ensure that the electors of a municipality have input into decisions regarding restructuring of their municipality? That has to do with the concern that changes could be made to a municipality through restructuring without any of the electors in that municipality having input into the decision, and in fact without any of their elected representatives having input into that decision. That was the first question. Should I ask the rest of the questions?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Balz: The second question: The provisions under Bill 26 regarding transfer of municipal services appear to create a tug-of-war situation between upper- and lower-tier municipalities. What is the purpose of creating such a division between municipal governments? How does the committee foresee such conflicts being resolved?
The third question: Given that the government anticipates the passage of Bill 26 by the end of January, there must be some ongoing preparation of the regulations regarding fees for access to information under the freedom of information acts. What fee structure is being considered at this time? There have been reports from the media about a search fee of $55 per hour. Is this correct?
That concludes my questions. I'll be happy to listen to any answers or answer any other questions.
The Chair: We have four minutes per caucus for questions. We begin with the opposition caucus.
Mr Bradley: My first question is an answer to one of your questions in terms of your asking about, number one, having input. I can tell you that your locally elected members of the Legislature will not have input, because this is not going to be a legislative change. This is going to be a regulatory change. The minister will nod his head and that will be it. There will be no vote in the Ontario Legislature on that, as there always has been, as there was over at Westminster township, where there was a vote.
You mentioned a concern about fees that could be charged at the local level, so I'll ask you this question and try to see how people are feeling about this. While it's allowing municipalities to impose fees, while it's cutting transfer grants to municipalities and while it's allowing municipalities to embark upon new forms of taxation, do you believe that the provincial government should be providing a tax break of 30% on the most progressive tax, which is the provincial income tax, in order to allow local municipalities to raise the most regressive form of taxes, that is, user fees and property taxes, when this will cost the government of Ontario and the taxpayers of this province $14 million a day to do it? We will have to borrow $20 billion, which will cost $5 billion in interest, to pay for this tax break. So are you in favour of a provincial tax break, which costs the province that much money, only to have the local tax rate or user fees raised?
1720
Mr Balz: I'm here today as a speaker for PENS, which is mostly concerned with the process of government, communication between voters, residents, citizens and their various levels of government, particularly concentrating on municipal government. That's really beyond our area of interest or expertise. Although it might be tempting to answer it as an individual, I think that would be inappropriate at this time.
Mr Bradley: I think PENS should be interested in that, because that's what a municipal government is all about. It's the powers that you're getting and how much money you have to spend or not spend to provide services.
My next question relates to a concern you've expressed about who pays if there's user fees. Am I right to suspect that you are worried without clarification that if someone calls the fire department because a neighbour's house is on fire, that person in fact could be charged or the person whose house or car is on fire could be charged, or a person calling police, because they're spotting something happening? Are you concerned that we're going to be in a mishmash of trying to determine who's at fault for making the telephone call?
Mr Balz: I'm concerned that it's not clear who would be paying. If my house were on fire, I would not want my neighbour having to consider whether or not he or she would be charged if they call before doing so. In fact, I think it would be tempting perhaps for municipalities to charge a fee should there be a false alarm.
However, there are two types of false alarms. Some are malicious, and there's already legislation dealing with that sort of situation, and some are accidental. I may see something that looks like smoke coming from my neighbour's house and I may call the fire department. It may turn out to be my neighbour trying to tune up his or her car, out of my view. I don't know of any fire department that would advocate anything but erring on the side of caution in a case like that.
Mr Silipo: I'm going to try to answer some of the questions. It seems to us, Mr Balz, that probably the best way that the province could ensure that the electors of the municipality have input into decisions regarding restructuring would be to withdraw this bill and to start again and to put together a useful process.
No one that I've heard, certainly not we, would argue against the need for restructuring municipalities or many other services. The problem that we are having is with the kind haphazard way in which this is being done. One of the fundamental things in that is exactly the point that you've made throughout your presentation, which is that there is no provision in any of this for citizens to be assured that they will have a voice in the process. We believe that could be done, while at the same time still allowing restructuring to happen in a useful time frame and in a way in which political decisions at the end of the day could be made, and could be made, if need be, by the Legislature if there wasn't agreement reached at the local level.
The back-and-forth which I think you get at in your second question that's there is also, we believe, part of the kind of, at best, core planning that's coming forward in this bill that we think, again, some more thought going into this might help with. It was interesting that when we asked the mayor of Niagara Falls earlier today, even with all the problems that they have to deal with, he was pointing out that there was nothing, in his view, that warranted this legislation as related to municipalities having to proceed at this point; that in fact taking a bit more time and reflecting upon the things that people like yourself and many organizations have said to us would be quite useful at this point.
We hope that's something the government does, including, to get to your third question on the issue of regulations, coming forward with the information that the government has put forward undoubtedly so far, as you say, in terms of regulations regarding fees or many of the other changes. We know that it is the government's intent to put a lot of the information into regulations, not into legislation, and we think it would be useful if those regulations were also out in the public arena before they become finalized so that the public has a chance to take a look at them and that we also see those alongside whatever amendments the government is prepared to put forward. That would be part of our answer to that, and I'm sure that the government members will hopefully shed some further light on this.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you for the presentation. Just to carry on with the last comment as to how we would answer the questions, on the first one, having the electorate involved, I would see that the process is put in place that the most appropriate way to have restructuring take place, and the preferable way, is the initiative coming forward from the local municipalities. When they have done that, they have to have met the criteria set out by regulations, which could and should include the requirement for the public input. So if the minister was going to implement that through regulation, then he was convinced that it was the wish of the local people.
The reason for the process is that in the past number of years many of these studies have been going on. Very few have been able to reach a point of unanimity, which is presently required to implement anything. The only ones that were able to be implemented were the ones that were implemented by Queen's Park, some would suggest through great public debate by having it go through the Legislature for three readings in two days of debate. That was not the public involvement in the process. We see this as a far more publicly oriented process than the former system.
You ask why the division between the upper and the lower tiers and the need for that part of the act. In the restructuring process or in the need to rationalize government, there is a need to look at, depending on the service, which level of government could best deal with that service. When that's decided by the majority of municipalities, representing the majority of the population, they should then be allowed to implement that to provide the best, cost-effective service for the ratepayers.
Recognizing that that service is already being provided by one of those tiers, the municipalities -- they're not talking about new services; they're providing that now -- if the majority decides that it can be provided in a better and more economical way, they should have a forum to be able to do that. That's the reason for that part of the section.
The last question I would ask Mr Sampson to address.
Mr Sampson: I find your discussion about the freedom of information issues related to Bill 26 rather intriguing because one of the things we want to get out of this series of meetings is some indication from people like you what appropriate rate levels and fee levels work. I was interested to see that you think that a $5 transaction fee is an appropriate number. It helps reduce the volume of requests. I'm not aware of a $65 figure, to give an answer to you, but that number has yet to be determined, as far as I understand.
But you tell me. Is it your sense that costs with respect to information recovery should be covered by the person asking for it -- photocopying costs, human resources time that's consumed in getting the information -- or should the public purse, in your view, bear some or all of that cost?
Mr Balz: I think the present legislation is an attempt to balance the right of the individual to have access to that information with, of course, the need of the municipality not to spend huge amounts of money on this service and the right of those who don't have an interest in the information not to necessarily being paying for that. The existing structure in which people pay a reasonable amount of money for anything over two hours' research time and for photocopying costs, I don't think, is particularly excessive.
I believe that the vast majority of requests are fairly small, made by people who aren't making hundreds of requests. They want a specific piece of information and it can be found fairly easily. This gives them access to it without too much difficulty.
Mr Sampson: The problem is, as you probably know, it's not the vast number of requests that cause the cost problem. It's the people who say, "All right, this is the information I want; stop after two hours," and then they have a series of those requests. There's no recovery of costs, but sort of half the information or three quarters or a quarter or an eighth of the information is produced and eventually provided. How do we deal with that? That's where the lion's share of the cost of all these freedom of information requests is borne.
Mr Balz: I'm not aware of the abuses. The reports of abuse that I was aware of are individuals who continually make requests either for the same information or for information that they've been turned down for. They appear to be not terribly sincere in getting that information. It seems to be just more an opportunity to, I guess, irritate people.
Certainly I wouldn't be concerned that overall there be a great amount of volume. In St Catharines, in speaking to our city clerk -- this was a year or two ago -- there were only about a dozen requests under the freedom of information act in a year.
If I understand your question correctly, you're saying that some people are requesting part of something and then going back and making another request and gathering a huge amount of information by requesting it in parts.
Mr Sampson: There are a number of ways in which you can get around the two-hour limit.
Mr Kormos: Fill us in.
Mr Sampson: I'm sure you know what they are.
The Chair: Mr Sampson, I apologize for interrupting, but the half-hour has come. I'd like to thank you, Mr Balz, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.
The committee is adjourned till tomorrow morning at 9 am in Hamilton.
The subcommittee adjourned at 1732.