Legislative Assembly of Ontario

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

CONTENTS

Wednesday 5 November 1997

Services Improvement Act, 1997, Bill 152, Mrs Ecker / Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration des services, projet de loi 152, M^me Ecker

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr Mel Springman, counsel, legal services branch, MOH

Mr Dennis Brown, project manager, emergency health services branch, MOH

Mr William Gregson, operations division, MOE

Mr Bryan Kozman, senior policy adviser, housing development and buildings branch, MOMAH

Mr Jeff Levitt, senior counsel, legal branch, MOMAH

Mr Leo FitzPatrick, counsel, legal services branch, MOE

Dr David Mowat, chief medical officer of health and director, public health branch, MOH

Ms Christine Henderson, counsel, legal services branch, MOH

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Tom Prins

Staff /Personnel

Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

Consideration of Bill 152, An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à améliorer les services, à accroître l'efficience et à procurer des avantages aux contribuables en éliminant le double emploi et en redistribuant les responsabilités entre le gouvernement provincial et les municipalités dans divers secteurs et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme «Qui fait quoi» du gouvernement.

The Chair (Mr David Tilson): Ladies and gentlemen, good morning to you all. This is the standing committee on general government and we're reviewing Bill 152. We have held public hearings and we are now in the process of clause-by-clause and entertaining amendments from various members of the committee.

The first section does not have any amendments. Shall section 1 carry? Section 1 is carried.

The first proposed amendment is section 1.1.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Just to remind you: "Shall section...carry" and people will say "aye" and you just want to see whether --

The Chair: Mr Marchese, I assume that if there are no "nays" we don't require votes.

Mr Marchese: I see.

The Chair: If you have a "nay," then we will vote on it. Do you want to do it again?

Mr Marchese: Well, just to be reminded of --

The Chair: That's the procedure we've followed in the past and as long as we're all clear about that --

Mr Marchese: Yes, okay.

The Chair: Are you content?

Mr Marchese: I will say "nay" as soon as you say that, and so we'll know.

The Chair: All those in favour of section 1? All those opposed? Section 1 carries.

The first amendment is a Liberal proposal.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Municipal reports

"1.1 Despite any section of this act, this act does not come into force until the Ministry of Finance has forwarded a report to each municipality in the province outlining the short-term and long-term financial implications of this act on each municipality, and the council of every municipality has responded with a written declaration acknowledging their new financial responsibilities under the act."

Like most of the other amendments, this is self-explanatory and I will keep my comments at a minimum, especially this one here. I think it's clear what it implies and that is why we have proposed this amendment.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): A quick comment on that, if I may, Chairman. On October 6, municipalities were provided with a package of financial and demographic data which allows them to do some preliminary work on their budgets. Details on the residential tax room and the community reinvestment fund will be provided as soon as possible. In light of what is happening now, we believe that this amendment is not required.

Mr Marchese: We anticipated the government of course would say this, as they did, in fact. But this material that he refers to does not include the elimination of those unconditional grants or the download of provincial roads. So it doesn't include, in our view, an analysis of the long-term cost escalations which they will face. I think the government has an obligation to speak to these kinds of issues: What does it mean for the municipalities in the future when you eliminate the unconditional grants, and have you built in the cost of downloading responsibility for provincial roads? We believe the municipalities are going to face a serious problem and that is why we're supporting this amendment.

Mr Sergio: Although I did say that I would keep my comments very brief, let me say that when we had the public hearing in London a couple of weeks ago a member of the government did suggest: "Don't worry about it. We will have a cheque for you." I'm referring to the $21 million that the city of -- was it London where we were a couple of weeks ago?

The Chair: We were.

Mr Sergio: They foresee $21 million as a shortfall and the quick, snap answer to that was: "Don't worry. We will have a cheque for you." I'm wondering if it is the intent of this government, and perhaps the PA could answer that for us and for the benefit of the audience and the public, if the government is willing to do that on a one-time-only basis or, if a particular municipality happens to fall behind for two, three, four, five years, the government would be prepared to come with a cheque every time a municipality finds itself in difficulties because of the downloading by the provincial government.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I think it's important that we point out that Bill 152 does not deal with the issue of municipal support grants as they have been in the past. I think municipalities have been so informed for some period of time that the government was going to reduce that funding from where it was when we came into government to the extent that it would be eventually completely eliminated. So I think it's inappropriate to deal with the municipal support grant through Bill 152.

Bill 152 deals with the realignment of services between the provincial and municipal governments. Those transfers or those realignments have been explained and I think understood by municipalities and they have now the ability to deal with that in their expenditure budgets. Obviously they have a need to do that prior to looking at the revenue side of the budget. They have to look at the type of services that their electorate wants and needs and their ability to pay for that.

1010

We are quite confident that the issue of the funding through the $500-million community reinvestment fund and the restructuring fund will be allocated in plenty of time for the municipalities to be able to create their revenue budgets, which of course needs to be done prior to their tax bills going out.

I would point out that the community reinvestment fund is an ongoing fund that would be implemented and stay there in a similar nature as the present municipal support grant. I would also point out for the committee's information and for all others that the municipal sector is presently involved with the government through a committee structure to try and put together the framework for the distribution of that fund, and we hope to be able to announce very soon to the municipalities the criteria that will be used to actually allocate the money in the community reinvestment fund.

Again I would point out that the issue in the bill is the transfer and the realignment of services between the two levels of government and I think we should carry on with doing that. On that issue, the municipalities have all the information they need to prepare the budget.

Mr Marchese: Because there are people probably watching us, it's important to comment as the government members speak. It's true that people knew that the municipal support grant was coming off. There's no doubt about that. We know that they've eliminated that program, which is worth $666 million. We don't believe that's being offset. We also believe that this, as a result of that action and many others, including the download of essential soft services, will not cause a revenue-neutral situation for municipalities and will therefore add an incredible load to the municipal taxpayer, the homeowners and tenants, who, as some of you know, pay a great deal of taxes.

He makes it appear as if somehow all of this is rosy; they know this is just a nice realignment. Everybody appears to be happy. The municipalities are not happy about what is referred to in this act as its purpose: to effect a reallocation of responsibilities. This reallocation of responsibilities means municipal homeowners and tenants are going to face an increase in their property taxes, and if not that, will face a decrease of services. We can guarantee you that.

He speaks of the community reinvestment fund. We've heard very little about this fund. No one knows what is going on with this fund, other than the fact that they say it's there forever. We don't know that it's there forever. We don't even know how to access that fund. There's nothing about this fund that anybody knows about because they don't know themselves, other than the wonderful assurance these Tories are giving you, municipalities, and those who are going to bear the cost, that it's there forever to offset anything else in this act.

I've got to tell you, for those who are watching, we are very worried about this download and its implications on everyone concerned.

The Chair: There doesn't appear to be any further requests for debate. I will ask whether section 1.1 carries. All those in favour of section 1.1 carrying?

Mr Marchese: The amendment.

The Chair: The amendment that we're dealing with, Mr Marchese, yes.

Mr Sergio: You're calling the amendment, not the section.

The Chair: I'm calling for the motion that you've made.

Mr Sergio: The amendment.

The Chair: Section 1.1: All those opposed? The amendment, which is section 1.1, fails.

We are now into a proposed amendment with respect to section 2, which is a New Democratic motion.

Mr Marchese: I move that subsection 2(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"The schedules to this act, except for section 18 of schedule D, come into force on January 1, 2000."

The intent of all of this is to give the government more time to get the administrative and service delivery issue settled before they rush ahead, as they seem to be doing, on many aspects of this bill that we believe are going to cause incredible confusion and financial problems to many municipalities.

We are urging this government and these members to support this motion so as to allow them the time they need, that you all need, to make sure that what you want to do is done as efficiently as possible. The pace at which you are proceeding will cause inefficiencies and will cause a great deal of confusion. This is intended to help some of you guys out. Even though we disagree with this bill and the intent of this bill, I believe you need to slow it down. This amendment is an attempt to do that.

Mr Carroll: While we do appreciate Mr Marchese's concern for the wellbeing of our government, we can assure him that we will proceed as efficiently as possible. But in order to ensure that the provision of all services continues beyond December 31, 1997, the act needs to come into force on January 1, 1998. Government funding, as an example, for GO Transit ends December 31, 1997, but the operation of GO Transit continues well beyond 1997. Obviously a financing mechanism has to be in place to finance the operating deficit.

This amendment further would delay implementation of municipal cost-sharing of prescribed child care services and the designation of delivery agents to manage child care. For those reasons, the government cannot support this amendment.

Mr Sergio: Would you let me comment on that, Mr Chair, briefly? One good reason to defer the implementation of this would be due to the many changes that will be occurring after January 1, not only within Metro but in the other regions as well. A lot of those changes will have to take place and be done in conjunction with the changes that are occurring within those municipalities. I think it would be proper to involve those municipalities, especially those that will be affected by those many changes, to do it in consultation with them and have their input as these changes here can be implemented more effectively, instead of imposition, as usual, by the government by this particular date.

I don't see any rush for saying it's got to be done by January 1. I think it would be better to say: "Okay, there are many changes coming up after January 1. Let's do them in cooperation with the involvement of communities, municipalities and new local councils." I think that would be much better.

Mr Hardeman: I just want to reiterate what the PA earlier mentioned, the fact that this part of the bill deals with the ongoing costs beyond January 1. I think it's very important that it stays in the bill to make sure that GO Transit and the other services that are being talked about can be maintained for the public. It's one thing to say we'll take that section out of the bill, but I think it's very important that something and someone is in place to cover the costs of those services as we proceed beyond January 1. I would encourage the committee not to support this amendment.

Mr Marchese: Just for clarification, we didn't say "take out." We just said it should come into force at a certain date, in response to what the member just stated.

The Chair: There appears to be no further debate. I will ask whether Mr Marchese's motion shall carry. All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion fails.

We have another one. Mr Marchese, I'm going to be asking for your assistance and members of the committee's assistance with respect to a point of order that I'd like to question.

Mr Marchese: Can I read it into the record first though, Mr Chair, so that you know --

The Chair: You're quite right. Let's read the motion into the record.

1020

Mr Marchese: I move that subsection 2(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) The schedules to this act come into force on the later of,

"(a) the day provided for in the commencement section at or near the end of each schedule; and

"(b) the day the government of Ontario establishes a community reinvestment fund, the objects of which shall be to ensure that the province of Ontario pay to each municipality an amount equal to the part of any shortfall in the municipality's budget for each year that is attributable to one or more of the following:

"(i) the legislative changes related to the Who Does What initiatives announced on May 1, 1997 and August 6, 1997;

"(ii) the reduction or elimination of grants under the Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act; and

"(iii) the transfer of provincial roads to the city."

Mr Chair, do you want me to make the argument before you rule on this or do you want to rule and then I'll make an argument to this?

The Chair: Please make your positions.

Mr Marchese: The government speaks about having this community reinvestment fund. They say it's there. We are not adding a fund that the government hasn't already spoken about introducing. So it's not as if I am talking about a matter that introduces a new fund or that is related to financial matters for which you would say this is something that should be ruled out therefor. This is a fund that the government says is there.

We're saying, before you forge ahead with anything, this comes into force at such a time only when and if some of these matters are dealt with; that is, that the community reinvestment fund is there, the object of which is to pay for any shortfall related to the download, including the loss of unconditional grants on the download of provincial roads.

We're saying that once you've done this, and we know the purpose to which this community reinvestment fund should be in place, that's when this act should come into effect, and only then. I'm not sure we're talking about introducing a new fund or some other fund that isn't already there.

The Chair: It's on that point that I'm raising the question for members of the committee, as to whether it is in order under standing order 56. I'll read it once, because I'm going to be raising it a number of times for some of the other motions which have to do with a money bill. Standing order 56:

"Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."

In other words, only ministers of the crown can introduce bills or resolutions with respect to this. We're all aware of this. I guess I ask the question, and I'm trying to stay out of the debate with respect to the issue of the community reinvestment fund, but certainly we've already had some debate this morning as to whether or not this fund exists or whether it doesn't exist.

Mr Marchese: They say it's there permanently.

The Chair: And you say it's not there. I'm trying not to get into that. I guess the question I ask in my position as Chair is, I haven't been able to see this in this particular bill. It may be politically suggested as being there, and if it is there, if this fund exists, then your motion is in order. If it doesn't exist, the motion is out of order. I need some clarification from both sides as to where this fund is.

Mr Marchese: Chair, they've got a problem. If what you say is true, they have to either deny this or confirm that the money is there. Mr Hardeman said that it's a permanent fund, so we have to assume that these people are telling the truth, because that's what they said.

The Chair: You won't bait me on that, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: No, no.

The Chair: If I could just finish, what I will say is, if the government says it's intended to be there, it isn't good enough.

Mr Marchese: No, they didn't say it's intended to be there; they said it's there and it's permanent.

The Chair: I'm going to defer debate.

Mr Marchese: I'll wait for that discussion then.

Mr Hardeman: Obviously it is up to the Chair of the committee to make the decision whether the motion is or is not in order and I would sure not want to imply that I was trying to make that decision on your behalf.

Looking at the motion for the amendment, I see it dealing with the timing of enactment of this piece of legislation to the extent that the member opposite uses the comment, "and relating to the community reinvestment fund." I think it is public knowledge that we have announced and we will be providing funding through a community reinvestment fund to help municipalities deal with the impact of the Who Does What process, but I would caution that the rest of that paragraph (b), as it relates to the money that is to be expended, does not necessarily relate to the amount of money available. The motion is trying to spend money that may or may not be in the fund.

I would suggest, with that in mind and the comment that you made, Mr Chair, that this would not be in order, that in fact they are not just relating to the community reinvestment fund and the timing, as it relates in the first paragraph, of the enactment of this piece of legislation. They are talking further of how that money should be spent and, to the extent that it should be spent, not limited to the amount in the fund. I would suggest that they are talking about expending money that has not been approved and not been recommended by a minister of the crown. I would ask that you rule this out of order.

The Chair: Further questions?

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, for a moment I was taken aback by your comments in saying if the fund is there or not there. I think it is quite --

The Chair: Just so I could be clear, Mr Sergio, if the motion is suggesting that a fund be created, if the fund does not exist now and if the mover of the motion, which is Mr Marchese, is suggesting that this fund be created at some appropriate time, I believe that contravenes standing order 56. But if we're convinced it is already there, and I'm entertaining that, then the motion is in order. That's my position.

Mr Sergio: Yes, indeed. I was coming to that. As I was saying, I was taken aback because you weren't sure if this fund or establishment of fund was there or wasn't there, and I think the Premier --

The Chair: I am only trying to act as an independent Chair and listen to both sides.

Mr Sergio: I appreciate that indeed, and I think the Premier and ministers and members of the government have been priding themselves in saying: "Don't worry. We are going to take care of the shortfalls of the various municipalities." In your effort to try and clarify that, I saw perhaps the possibility that, "Hey, we're not sure if the fund is going to be there." I wonder what meeting I was at two weeks ago when Mr Gilchrist said, "We have a cheque for you for $21 million."

I think this calls for clarification of the issue. I think this is the crux of the question, Mr Chair, when everyone, AMO and everybody else, says, "We don't believe this is going to be there next year." The thing is, how much is going to be there? What are the conditions? Questions have been asked by various presenters: How are we going to access that fund if that fund is going to be there? How much? What are the limitations? We don't know. You don't know, Mr Chair. No member of this committee has been provided with that information. Municipalities don't have that information, big or small.

That is the importance of the issue here: How are we going to access these particular funds? What are the requirements? What are the limitations? Is there no end to it? We could be talking a lot more than $21 million in one particular area of shortfall, and they haven't summed up all the losses yet. What about larger municipalities where they may be falling back tens of millions of dollars? Is the government saying the envelope is open instead of being closed, and just make your request and the money will be there? This is what we would like to know. This is what municipalities have been asking.

The Chair: Mr Sergio, that's fair fodder for debate on a motion --

Mr Sergio: And it speaks to the amendment.

The Chair: -- but quite frankly, I'm interested to know whether this fund exists or Mr Marchese is trying to create it. If he's trying to create it, then it's out of order. That's all I'm asking. I don't want to challenge you on your right to debate it, but this is a point of order that I can't --

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, how can this amendment be out of order when it has already been established that indeed the government is willing to come up with that particular amount of money? I believe it's properly in order; (b) is attached to (a), it follows (a), and I think they are both in order. That's my view.

Mr Carroll: If the question we are debating is whether or not the fund is there, the government has made two commitments on funds: One is $800 million of one-time funding to deal with various restructuring issues; another one is a $570-million annual permanent fund to deal with those municipalities that find themselves impacted negatively by the whole exchange of programs. There's no question that the government is committed to the expenditure of this money, and we're not backing away from that. If that is the information you need to allow this motion to be debated, then I would suggest we debate the motion. We're not shrinking from our commitment and our responsibility to deliver on the two funds that we have said from the beginning will be available to assist municipalities.

1030

Mr Marchese: That's the other part of this motion, Mr Chair. I want to help you when you're ruling. That's what you're getting at in terms of the questions you're asking as to whether this is in order with respect to section 56. The point you were making is, does this create a fund? The point is that this fund is already there. It doesn't create a new fund. It is a fund that is already there, and they have admitted to that. Given that they have admitted to that --

The Chair: I agree. I believe the fund is already there and your motion is in order. Thank you.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Chair. The point that we made, just to reiterate briefly, is that our motion would clarify the intent of what the Conservative members often speak about, and that is that it's there to deal with any shortfall that may happen to any municipality as a result of a number of things, restructurings that are going on. So if that's the case, we put it into a motion here.

This community reinvestment fund would deal with any shortfall as it relates to the three areas that we pointed out. That includes the legislative changes related to the Who Does What, which these members often speak to and about, because they made reference in the committee to many of these changes, if not all, as relating to the Who Does What. All right. We put it into a motion. That's one part.

The other part is the reduction or elimination of grants under the Ontario municipal support grant. They shouldn't have any problem with that, because as Mr Hardeman said, we have eliminated that. They know that. It's not a problem. Our community reinvestment act is intended to deal with that problem. If it's not intended to deal with that, you can explain to the public why that isn't so, but one assumes that this investment act is supposed to deal with any shortfall that might arise as a result of the elimination of those grants.

There's the transfer of provincial roads to the city. I'm assuming you feel confident that this revenue-neutral situation that you have created deals with that as well, and because of it, one assumes that the community reinvestment act also should deal with that, and if it doesn't, you should tell us.

It's intended to guide you and to help municipalities as well, because they're worried, and you might want to appease them through supporting such an amendment.

The Chair: Further debate on Mr Marchese's motion? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion fails.

I believe those are the proposed amendments to section 2. All those in favour of section 2? All those opposed? Section 2 carries.

There is a proposed amendment to section 3, page 4.

Mr Marchese: Yes, section 3 of the bill, short title. I move that section 3 be struck out and the following substituted:

"The short title of this act is the Local Services Destruction Act, 1997."

I'd like to speak to that, Mr Chair. We think this title --

The Chair: I'm going to be very generous with you, Mr Marchese, but you're stretching me. Please proceed.

Mr Marchese: We're speaking on topic, because this motion speaks much more clearly and concisely to the bill than does this long name given to this act, which is contrary to its content. It says An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the government's "Who Does What" Agenda.

Interjection:I think it's an excellent title.

Mr Marchese: That's what I wanted to speak to. I agree and I want to speak to it.

The Chair: All right, gentleman. Let's hear Mr Marchese's brief comments that he'll be making to us.

Mr Marchese: Chair, this downloads to municipalities areas of soft services that they should not be getting. This government has argued in the past that they wanted to disentangle. This bill doesn't disentangle anything. It complicates it even more, and in many areas causes a great deal of confusion to municipalities and those who deliver services.

As we go through the bill you'll see the confusion; it's reflected by some of the motions this government has. We'll get to that down the line. They have a number of motions with a number of contingencies to cover a number of things they don't know anything about. That's why some of these motions are in this bill, because they are rushing ahead so quickly and because they don't have a clue how to deal with them. There are some motions that provide for all contingencies because they don't have a clue.

To download a number of services down to municipalities is hostile to the interests of the taxpayer these people pretend to represent. To download housing, something no jurisdiction in the world that I'm aware of -- there might be one, or maybe there isn't; I don't know -- is something that is irresponsible. No provincial government should ever download that kind of responsibility for housing to municipalities. I believe it's fundamentally wrong. So talking about improving services and efficiencies is contrary to the effect of the proposed bill here.

Passing on child care, passing on welfare, ambulance services, aspects of public health is wrong. These are areas that this government should pay out of an income tax system. We believe it's fairer to raise money out of an income tax system and we believe that when the province controls it, you're more likely to have a service that is uniform and, to the extent possible, equal to all than with the kind of patchwork you're likely to create when you download essential services down to the municipality.

This bill is more appropriately covered by my title than it is yours, because indeed it will destroy many of the services that we have come to enjoy. Some of these people feel that this is really good for them; they're finally disentangling. It doesn't disentangle anything. They're finally going to give municipalities power to deal with a lot of things, things many municipalities don't want, things the local taxpayer and the tenants generally do not want. They're going to be faced with two problems: how to maintain services, or an increase in property taxes in order to do so, or both -- increased taxes in order to maintain the present level of services. Because without increasing taxes, we do not believe we can maintain the same level of services, given the money that is being taken out by this government from municipalities in order for them to be able to deliver these programs.

I will have other opportunities to speak to this bill and its destructiveness as it relates to many other areas, but I believe this title is more appropriate than the title that has been constructed by the people these folks pay out of the pocket of the taxpayer of Ontario.

Mr Carroll: In this particular instance, we disagree with Mr Marchese. We find his amendment frivolous and will not be supporting it.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): If the government members find this amendment funny or humorous, I suppose it's no more humorous than the titles that have been given to just about 95% of the bills that have come before this House in the last two years. All you have to look at is the so-called Education Quality Improvement Act. I think a lot of people would say you're not improving the quality of education when the Premier himself acknowledges the fact that he's taking another $700 million out of education.

The Chair: No, Mr Gerretsen, Bill 160 is not --

Mr Gerretsen: All I'm saying is that maybe both the government and the opposition should reach some sort of agreement so as to give bills realistic titles as to what they actually deal with rather than inflammatory titles, which I think has happened to most of the government bills over the last two years.

1040

Mr Marchese: To respond to Mr Carroll, he says it's frivolous. It isn't frivolous. We believe this will cause a great deal of confusion and destruction to local municipalities. Why he would say that our motion is frivolous and their title not makes no sense to me. As you know, I speak often to the titles of every bill they introduce in the House, often as a way of saying it should have some semblance of veracity to its contents, and it usually never does, other than the fact that they create mythological titles to give the impression to anybody who won't read it that they're doing something to improve something. That's why they construct their titles the way they do. Why isn't it frivolous to say what they say, but it's frivolous to say what I say?

Mr Sergio: Let me just make a comment. Other than the title, it doesn't really do anything to improve services in various municipalities all over the place. If there is one particular thing we have heard from representatives from Mississauga, southwestern Ontario, Ottawa, London and up north as well, it is, "We just can't maintain the existing services unless we raise taxes." They just can't, and the members of the government know that very well. With the downloading and the cuts the government has been making, it is just impossible to maintain the existing service that people are used to receiving from the various municipalities without either cutting somewhere else or increasing taxes. That is the simple mathematics. I really wonder why the government has failed to convince the people of Ontario, AMO, the various other municipalities in saying: "We will maintain services. We're going to put it in writing and guarantee that the present services will be maintained, plus we're going to cover your shortfall." It is just impossible.

If we want to make light of the amendment, that's fine, but I think the intent is to extract the real essence of the entire Bill 152, because municipalities today have not been told how they're going to manage to maintain the various roads, services, social services, housing. It's all part of the same thing; it's all part of the downloading.

So while we may be making light of the amendment, I think it addresses the essence of the bill, which does not address the concerns of the various municipalities and does not alleviate the fear the municipalities have been telling this committee and the government about all along, that it cannot be done. Unless the government comes clean and says, "This is how we're going to maintain the various services," I think there is reasonable doubt that the government will come clean when it says this is going to be a wash.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would like to respond to a number of points that have been raised by the members opposite. First off, Mr Marchese's name suggests the socialist party shows hardly any faith that local government has the capacity to be innovative and flexible if it gets the methodology, the tools and some financing to do these jobs.

I find it rather reminiscent of what the Liberals did when Mr Nixon was the Treasurer. They talk about downloading and hardly any consultation. One of the biggest aspects of downloading that was difficult to manage, but we did manage it back in 1989-90, was in the budget of 1989 with the imposition of the commercial concentration tax. There wasn't a lot of consultation about that that I can recall. There were certainly fewer hours spent on that item than any of the items that are in the local Services Improvement Act; quite the contrary. It needs to be put on the record that that particular abrasive interference, if you will, created a lot of problems for budgets, but local governments managed.

It seems to me that in the whole thrust of the arguments made by the members opposite, they failed to note the need to innovate, the need to be flexible, the need to look at different ways of carrying out these responsibilities. By their record, then, we would continue to just have all these services provided at the provincial level with what's called -- I think Mr Marchese used the term "uniformity." But uniformity requires a thorough, rigid, bureaucratic application of that uniformity; there's no deviation. This particular act will provide for some flexibility to deal with local matters as the municipalities see fit.

In terms of the financing, I think the two investment funds will provide significant backup where those municipalities that are having difficulties with these particular realignment responsibilities will deal with them on a realistic basis. They'll come to us when they have made their best efforts. But I think the whole response from both opposition parties is disappointing in the sense that they really can't seem to stretch their thinking beyond conventional thinking, that the way a service is delivered now, it ought to be delivered that way forever; there's no other way of handling the issue.

It's interesting to note that the NDP did undertake some sort of disentanglement exercise, but when it got to the actual implementation of the disentangling, where some municipalities were very interested in taking on some new responsibilities, the thing fell apart. They blanched. They got fearful at the edge of the disentanglement cliff, if you want to use that analogy. They backed away. So why did they undertake the exercise at all during 1991 through 1995 on a number of these items?

It's interesting too that the previous government didn't hold any consultation that I recall. I certainly wasn't invited. I don't think Mr Hardeman, when he was the mayor of his municipality, was invited to hearings on the Social Contract Act, not one hour; but "Here's the bill." What do you call that? Downloading, I guess, to use their phrase.

Those are some classic examples of, beware where you walk. We've had that situation and the municipalities responded. They worked hard to come up with the moneys under the social con act -- and that's what it was, a social con. We're hearing the consequences as a result of that bill, which there was hardly any consultation on.

When it comes to this particular act, there is some good material in here that the municipalities will handle effectively, some better than others. Some will obviously respond in the classic way in which they've always responded; that is: "Oh, we've got a problem? We've got a tax increase coming, folks." They announce tax increases before they even get to how they budgeted for the item, because some of them are tax addicts. They share the philosophy, unfortunately, of Mr Marchese that there's no other option which we've heard throughout the debate on this bill: You either cut the service or you increase taxes or you do both; there's no other way of handling the whole issue. It's almost like maybe Mr Marchese should introduce an act entitled the Local Non-Imaginative Distribution Services Act or the Continuing Tax Addiction Increase Act, which would be just as effective as this particular title. To say that the titles of our bills do not deal with the actual content is exceedingly mischievous, because they do, if you look at them.

I just conclude by saying that the whole proposition that he would present such a title shows where their thinking lies: conventional, inside-the-envelope, never, ever go outside it because it might be too dangerous.

The Chair: Okay, here we go. Mr Marchese.

1050

Mr Marchese: First of all, it wasn't my intention to speak at length. I was really trying to limit my comments as best I could. And it wasn't my intention to hold these civil servants who are here in the room for too long, but when you are provoked -- there are a few areas of interest to me that I want to respond to.

First of all on the social contract, I remember Mike Harris saying, "Way to go, NDP," because he loved the fact that the unions were whacking us at the time. Mike Harris was saying, "You guys are doing the right thing." I don't remember Mike Harris saying, "You guys are not consulting enough on it." Just as a point. I'll be brief.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, I'll allow you to go on but I want to remind all members that we're dealing with Bill 152. I know we're starting to provoke each other --

Mr Marchese: True, it's just when the imagination stretches, this is what happens.

The Chair: Okay. Please continue.

Mr Marchese: On the commercial concentration tax, I tell you, if we were in power again --

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: We eliminated the commercial concentration tax, I would have you know. Very few business people know that, including Tories I suspect, which is sad.

Mr Hastings: Why was it introduced?

Mr Marchese: Why was it introduced in the first place? That's another matter. That's for the Liberals to speak to.

In terms of faith in local government, this is what I want to speak to, Chair, because this is where we often meet with contradiction on what these members do. You recall the Development Charges Act. You might recall the debates in the House because these folks on the other side -- you recall, Mr Carroll -- railed against municipalities because they would collect these development charges and they would spend to build God knows what. So the government, through these Tories, had to bring them in because these municipal politicians were just spending like drunken sailors. The idea was to introduce the Development Charges Act as a way of controlling municipal politicians. Mr Hastings, am I right in this? Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to belabour the point, but that's what you guys said. You didn't trust municipal politicians -- isn't that true?

Mr Hastings: No.

Mr Marchese: It's on the record. I was there. I debated you guys over and over again on this. Just to point out the contradiction, Chair, that's why I do this.

On education finance, this government is centralizing. Mr Hastings says that we don't trust municipalities. Why are you, in this particular issue as it relates to education, centralizing it into your own hands, into the minister's hands, where Mike Harris wields all the power? In some cases you, Hastings, say, "We don't trust municipalities" -- I wrote it down, that "We have no faith in local government."

Mr Hastings: I didn't say that. You said that.

Mr Marchese: But you didn't have any faith with respect to development charges. You said that municipalities were wasting a whole lot of money on a whole lot of things. Didn't you say that? It's on the record.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, and I'm directing these comments to all members, please remember that we're talking about Bill 152.

Mr Marchese: You're quite right, Chair. I wanted to respond briefly to what the member said. I have nothing more to add.

Mr Gerretsen: I find this debate very interesting. I always find it interesting when the neo-conservatives in our society feel that the best way to defend their position is to attack what may have happened five or 10 years ago. Quite frankly, I don't think that the general public out there gives a hoot as to what happened five years ago, 10 years ago or 15 years ago. I think what they're more concerned about is how the effects of this particular bill are going to affect their property taxes and their services in their municipalities. That's all they really care about.

I totally agree with Mr Hastings on one point. Yes, municipalities will be innovative, they will be inventive, they will have to manage this situation. There's no question about it. But the bottom line, sir, still is this: From all the figures that have come out from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs so far, all the municipal leaders that I've spoken to over the last three weeks in my part of eastern Ontario, many of whom are nominal Conservatives, I might add, agree on one thing, that nobody knows exactly what the financial fallout of this download is going to be and nobody has been satisfied with the figures that were presented on October 6 or thereafter. Their gut feeling, and I'm talking about municipal politicians who have been around for many, many years, is that this is going to cost their municipalities more money. They have to raise more money or they have to raise money in another way, by fees of some nature or other, or they may have to cut services. That isn't just a political statement that they're making, because I'm sure they will be saying so after next Monday as well.

Yes, they'll be able to manage, but why have you not been able to convince them, with all of the power of the ministry, with all of the tremendously hard-working people that you've got there, that this download is in fact revenue neutral? None of your figures have been able to do that on an ongoing basis, in municipality after municipality. That's one thing.

The other thing is this $1.5-billion fund. I find it very interesting that -- and I'm going to go back in history, but not with the notion of blaming governments. But I can remember what it was like 20 to 25 years ago when you wanted something from Queen's Park and there wasn't a program to cover it. You sent delegations down here and it all depended on whether or not the particular minister felt that it was good politically to do so or not, to give you a grant in one particular area. They were sort of known as the government slush funds that could be used at the appropriate time to bolster certain situations in certain parts of the province and probably to bolster certain candidates at given times.

We went away from that. We went to a system where the guidelines for particular grants and particular programs were sent out more precisely so that people knew that you didn't have to suck up to the right person in the right sort of way in order to get those grants, but there were actual definite guidelines prepared over a number of years by a number of different governments. I'll give the Davis government full credit for that and I'll give the Peterson government full credit for that, and Bob Rae too, if he wants it. There was a definite set of guidelines adopted so that municipalities knew that they were eligible for a certain kind of funding if they followed the procedures that were necessary in order to apply for them.

Unfortunately, what we are going back to with this slush fund of $1.5 billion is the politics of the 1950s and 1960s, which was heavily patronage-oriented and the funding was heavily oriented that way. You can shake your head that it isn't so, but all I would say is that for a government that got elected on the premise that you wanted more decisions made at the local level, you've gone completely the other way. You're doing so in education, where there can be no doubt about it that Bill 160 is about a power grab by the central ministry, and you're doing it in this particular area too, where all of a sudden in order for people to get the necessary funding to adequately look after their municipalities, they may have to come to whichever minister is involved and basically go through the old routine that we used to many, many years ago.

The whole notion of government ought to be that the people that come to it know what the rules are and they know what rules to follow in order to apply for certain situations --

Mr Hardeman: That will never be clear.

Mr Gerretsen: Yes, yes. I hear what you're saying. But Ernie, you and I know that's different. That's going to be totally different. For a government that believes in local decision-making power to actually go back to a situation where a large part of the discretionary funding will be dealt with by a centralized power is completely the wrong way.

Mr Marchese: Just very briefly, and I want to be sure that Mr Hastings is not inhibited or prohibited from speaking, because we enjoy his comments -- I hope that we are not discouraging him -- on the matter of this forcing municipalities to be creative, he's right, because municipalities are going to have to become creative to make cuts. That's all they're inheriting. They are inheriting a problem and they are indeed going to have to be creative on ways to cut services that will not have the negative impact that this bill will indeed have on them. They will have to be creative; he's right on that.

The Chair: Okay. Are we finished?

Mr Marchese: And my amendment?

1100

The Chair: We are voting on your amendment, Mr Marchese. All those in favour of Mr Marchese's motion? All those opposed?

Mr Gerretsen: I think Mr Carroll voted in favour, didn't he? Oh, it was a premature vote.

The Chair: The motion fails. All those in favour of section 3? Opposed? Section 3 carries.

Mr Carroll: Mr Chairperson, before we go to schedule A, I'd like to tell you that the parliamentary assistant for health will occupy a seat at the end of the table with the staff from the Ministry of Health. While I will read any amendments in this section, he will be the one to deal with any questions and any explanations.

The Chair: We are on schedule A. All those in favour of section 1? All those opposed? Section 1 carries.

We are now on to the government motion on page 5.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 2(2) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) The definition of 'ambulance service' in section 1 of the act, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1996, chapter 32, section 59, is amended by striking out 'means a service, including the service of dispatching ambulances,' in the first and second lines and substituting 'means, subject to subsection (2), a service.'

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): The purpose of this amendment is to clarify for the purposes of the act that an ambulance service does not include a communications service. The rest of Bill 152 makes clear that there is a difference between ambulance service and a communication service.

Mr Marchese: Is this one of those motions which can be labelled a drafting error?

Mr Gerretsen: I think so.

Mr Marchese: Is it a drafting error?

Mr Hudak: This clarifies the difference between an ambulance service and what a communication service is for the purposes of the act. I recommend supporting the amendment.

The Chair: I am just the Chairman, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Of course. This, Mr Chair, is an example for me of the kind of haste this government has been involved in. That haste produces errors in many, many areas. This is one of them and they're correcting that problem. But I argue it's due to the incredible haste with which they have been proceeding with each and every one of the bills they have presented.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

We are on to page 6, which is a further government proposal.

Mr Carroll: I move that the definition of "upper-tier municipality" in section 1 of the Ambulance Act, as set out in subsection 2(7) of schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding at the end "the county of Prince Edward and the municipality of Chatham-Kent."

Mr Hudak: This motion comes as a result of some recent municipal amalgamations to make sure that taxpayers receive better value for their dollar in Chatham-Kent and in Prince Edward, so they will be treated for the purposes of the act in the same way as upper-tier municipalities. That's why this motion is important. Again, I recommend supporting this motion.

Mr Gerretsen: I have a question. "The county of Prince Edward" is still there. The word "county" is mentioned in the section itself. It says "'upper-tier municipality' means a county...." "The county of Prince Edward" is still there. Why do you have to specifically define it as well?

Mr Hudak: Because of the amalgamations in those two particular areas of Ontario, we need to ensure that for the purposes of this act they will be treated in the same way as upper-tier municipalities.

Mr Gerretsen: They are upper-tier municipalities already, the county of Prince Edward.

Mr Hudak: Because of the amalgamations recently in those areas, they are a municipality that needs to be identified for the purposes of this act as an upper-tier municipality.

Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, just for clarification, I believe in the new structure in the county of Prince Edward, the word "county" is part of their name and not the definition of an upper-tier municipality. I think that's the reason it requires the reference to it. It's not the upper-tier; it is a single-tier municipality called a county, as opposed to being an upper-tier county.

Mr Gerretsen: I'll accept that. That sounds reasonable.

Mr Marchese: I don't challenge the amendment. I challenge the statement by the member that says it's better value for the dollar. There's just no evidence for that. I state that for purposes of clarification for people watching, because it makes it appear that it's an affirmative action confirmed by some evidence. There's no evidence for it at all.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

All those in favour of section 2, as amended? All those opposed? Section 2, as amended, carries.

All those in favour of section 3? All those opposed? Section 3 carries.

All those in favour of section 4? All those opposed? Section 4 carries.

Mr Marchese, we're on page 7 of the package.

Mr Marchese: I move that subsection 5(5) of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 4 of the Ambulance Act:

"Training of personnel

"(4) The province of Ontario shall ensure the provision of adequate training for emergency medical attendants, paramedics and communication services personnel and shall be responsible for the costs of such training.

"Same

"(5) The ministry shall develop standards for the training of emergency medical attendants and paramedics."

Chair, this adds to the list of provincial responsibilities the legislative requirement to provide training and develop standards. I know Mr Carroll is about to say they're doing this. We don't believe that's entirely clear, because there is no legislated requirement for this to happen. Our motion is intended to do that, and if the government is going to argue that they are doing that or will do that, they'll have no problem supporting the amendment.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, I have read standing order 56, and I'm going to ask for your assistance on this one as well, about whether this is a money proposal as set forth in the standing orders. I raise the question particularly about subsection (4) under "Training of personnel," whether that is a requirement for the spending of funds.

Mr Marchese: We haven't heard from Mr Carroll. I'm certain he's going to say that they are providing this, that the money is there for that. Once we hear from him, we'll have the same argument as we did for the previous section, so perhaps we should listen to Mr Carroll first and then see whether we have a different argument to make -- or Mr Hudak.

Mr Hudak: The bill as it stands, with our amendments today, adequately addresses these concerns. It gives the minister the power to --

The Chair: Before we get into debate, I'm trying to determine whether this amendment is even in order. I haven't made a ruling; I'm simply asking whether this amendment is suggesting the payment of moneys, in contravention of standing order 56.

Mr Hudak: The other committee members may want to address it, but it seems to me that it does so, and my feeling is that it's out of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Please, Mr Hudak, who'd you get the nod from? You didn't address the issue. The fact is that subsection (4) of section 5 already inherently deals with expenditures of money. It speaks of the licensing of persons. That involves an expenditure of money. It speaks of establishment of standards. That inherently involves an expenditure of money, because establishing standards means going through the exercise of establishing them, monitoring them, assessing them. This already inherently involves an expenditure of money. The magnitude of that expenditure is irrelevant, but the fact is that it's inherent in the legislation. This amendment is complementary to the thrust of that subsection 5(4).

The Chair: Could I just ask for the committee's indulgence for a moment?

Mr Kormos and Mr Marchese, I agree that the motion is in order. Please proceed with your debate.

1110

Mr Marchese: You're quite right. I was about to argue, will these members, Mr Hudak or Mr Carroll, deny that they're going to be providing any training for emergency medical standards? That's the question I was about to ask them.

The Chair: Please proceed with the debate.

Mr Marchese: I've heard they are providing training, but there is no legislative requirement to do so, and our motion makes it so. If they are denying they're providing some of these things, I'd like to hear it. If they are providing them, let's support the amendment.

Mr Gerretsen: I concur with what Mr Marchese has said. This matter is already indirectly covered in clause 4(2)(a) where it talks about the training of personnel for ambulance services etc. I think this section clearly sets out where that responsibility lies.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): He already said it was in order, so what are you debating it for?

Mr Gerretsen: I'm debating the merits of the particular motion rather than whether it's in order or not. I had assumed all along that it was in order. I think you ought to be complimented on the excellent ruling you just made on that, Mr Chair, because it is in order.

The point is that this amendment clearly sets forth the responsibilities of the provincial government and it also gives the general public out there, when different municipalities, different organizations are going to be running the ambulance services, some feeling of comfort that the standards and the training that people have had throughout the province will be uniform. It's not as good as having a province-wide system operate, or having them attached to the hospitals the way it currently is, but at least it gives some comfort that the people who will be looking after the ambulances will not be subject to all sorts of different standards depending upon the municipality's ability to pay and to financially look after these services. I completely concur with the amendment.

Mr Hudak: I believe this bill provides the minister with the ability to address the concerns expressed by the members. The Who Does What exchange of services, the funding for training, is part of that allotment for municipalities. The minister, through some clauses in the bill and regulatory power, has the ability to address the concerns expressed before the committee today. I recommend rejecting the amendment, the motion.

Mr Sergio: Just a question, Mr Chairman. We have seen privatization already in some sectors, including ambulance service in some municipalities. I wonder if the province will continue to train people, pay for their training, and then will just transfer them to private enterprise. Also, I would like to know if there is any legislation implied or proposed that would see that these private companies will be engaging, hiring and have training for their own people or will be self-regulatory bodies. What is the responsibility of the province here? Or are we going to see the takeover of the ambulance service by private enterprise without any further provincial responsibilities in the matter? Perhaps Mr Hudak would like to respond to that.

Mr Hudak: This bill allows the minister to address those concerns on the privatization issue. Clearly the goal should be to provide the best ambulance service at the best price to the taxpayer. Come the year 2000, municipalities will be able to make that judgement and make judgements as well in terms of training. The minister will have, through clauses in the bill and regulatory power, the ability to address the concerns before the committee today.

Mr Gerretsen: But that is precisely the problem. You have said on three or four occasions now that the bill will allow the minister to do certain things. This amendment speaks to the fact that the minister must do that to give some assurances to people in Ontario that these services are adequately looked after in our various municipalities. Quite frankly, most people don't believe in the regulatory power or what a minister "may" do. They would much rather have it in the act itself that the minister must do that. That's the only thing that will give people any assurances at all. That's what this is all about.

Mr Marchese: The parliamentary assistant appears to be speaking for the minister. He appears to be agreeing with me but then says, "Reject the amendment." He says the minister is concerned about this and will deal with it through regulatory powers. Are you agreeing with me that these things are either useful or essential, Mr Hudak?

Mr Hudak: I emphasize once more that in the envelope of funding from Who Does What, ongoing training is part of that. The municipalities can continue that, and I expect will address the concern you brought forward today, Mr Marchese.

Finally, this bill does provide adequate ability for the minister to respond to that concern if that existed. But my feeling on this bill is that the concern of the committee is adequately addressed through Bill 152.

Mr Marchese: Chair, I have a problem. I recall very clearly in the committee hearings that the province was going to fund training -- and perhaps "adequate," I'm not sure -- for emergency medical attendants, paramedics and the like. Was I mistaken during the hearings? I'd like clarification. During the hearings that's what I heard, that the ministry was doing this. He's saying the municipalities are now empowered to do this. I'm not quite clear whether Mr Hudak knows what the hell is going on.

Mr Carroll: I just wonder if I might suggest that possibly one of the staff people could help in this discussion, that they could maybe clarify the issue a little more. Is that a possibility?

The Chair: Could you identify yourself, please?

Mr Mel Springman: Mel Springman from legal services. The existing act -- not Bill 152, but the existing Ambulance Act -- provides for regulation-making power concerning the qualifications of ambulance attendants, their testing and their examinations. There are long-standing regulations in place, detailed regulations, dealing with the qualifications for ambulance attendants, paramedics. The intention is to expand on those and to have different classes of paramedics and EMAs listed in the regulations.

The regulations would also deal with the quality of patient care that ought to be provided by each class of paramedic. In addition, in clause 4(2)(a) of the bill, the minister would have the power to provide for pre-employment training in, for example, institutes. Much of the pre-employment training is carried out by community colleges, and for a long time has been in community colleges and not by the ministry.

Mr Marchese: Are there things mentioned in this amendment that are covered by the province at the moment and in the future?

Mr Dennis Brown: Dennis Brown, emergency health services branch. The pre-employment training for basic paramedics is conducted at the community colleges. They come prepared to be paramedics when they are employed. The government is committed to continuing the funding for the OPALS project, the Ontario pre-hospital advanced life support project, through the basic completion of that program.

Further introduction of advanced paramedics into the province will be a decision made by municipalities as they determine what level of service they wish to provide to their communities. Should they wish to provide a higher level of care than the paramedics they have today, then they would choose to do that and fund that training as necessary.

1120

Mr Sergio: This is a point I have a problem with. Again we are saying the minister has the power, we are giving the flexibility to the local municipalities, we are doing the training, we are paying to train those people there, and then we allow the local municipality to decide. Because of the downloading -- it comes down to that -- the local municipality might now say, "We can't afford to have this ambulance service in this particular fashion, so let's give it to A, B, and C ambulance service. We don't really care because we've got to cut all over the place, as long as we have some service there."

We have used taxpayers' dollars to train these people. As we have heard from staff, there will be different classes. The various classes are not specified in Bill 152. It's not in the regulation. My problem is that now we are going to have taxpayers' dollars provided to train these particular people and then the local municipality says, "We can't afford it, so let them go to the private sector." It's something I just can't understand and cannot accept.

Mr Marchese: That's the concern that is driving much of what we are presenting today as well. We fear there will be a patchwork of service across Ontario. There's no doubt in our mind about this. The less involvement the province has, the more we're likely to see the municipalities, for a variety of different reasons, providing different kind of services depending on their interest and depending on the kind of dollars they have or do not have.

The fact that they're going to get less money from the provincial government means that many municipalities, not because they want to but because the money isn't there, will be forced to deliver a service that may not be up to the standards we would like. These motions are intended to keep the province in this sector, involved in the establishment of standards and involved in the establishment of adequate provision of training for emergency medical attendants and paramedics and the like. We hope the government members are interested in maintaining these services. If they are, they will support it; if not, we'll understand where they're moving to.

Mr Kormos: This is so consistent with so many other things this government has done from Bill 26 onward. It's clear, just as when we examined Bill 84 with the firefighters, just as in Bill 142, that this is, among other things, facilitating legislation to accommodate private providers, the Rural/Metros of America or any other number of private service providers. This government talks a big game about self-regulation. By not accepting this particular amendment, it's confirming that that's exactly where it stands, that it doesn't want to impede the ability of private operators, corporate, for-profit, almost inevitably American-based, to maximize their profits by ensuring a uniform level of training and the assumption of the costs of that training.

This is so transparent, Mr Hudak. It's sad that you're endorsing a provision that is opening the doors even further to make sure that your Premier's corporate buddies can make profits on the backs of sick people, those suffering traumatic accidents, traumatic injuries in communities. Your rejection of this amendment is just so transparent an endorsement and a clear indication of your goal, which is privatization, facilitating and permitting communities to utilize private ambulance services. The people of Ontario didn't ever indicate a desire for that; in fact, they've rejected it consistently -- the prospect of privatization of ambulance services, health care, firefighting services, yes, police services -- over the course of the last two years and months.

Mr Hudak: To sum up on this particular issue, the municipalities -- the level of government closest to the taxpayer -- will be deciding who best to provide ambulance services for the people in their communities at the best price to the taxpayer. The minister's role through this bill and throughout the legislation will be to ensure that minimal acceptable standards are there. As well, as I mentioned earlier, the funding for municipalities, the cost in Who Does What for ambulance services, does include ongoing training expenses.

I believe the bill as it stands adequately addresses this issue, and I do not support this motion as it stands.

Mr Gerretsen: Have you changed your position from what you said a few minutes ago? A few minutes ago you were saying that the government is already doing this. Now you're saying that the municipalities will decide what kind of training the ambulance attendants will have.

Is that your position, that the municipalities will decide the kind of training, the kind of expertise and level of service that ambulance services will be providing in those municipalities? If that is so, it's totally different from what you said earlier. Earlier you said that the act already provides the minister with these powers to have these kinds of training courses. If that's so, now I can at least see why you're reluctant to have this enshrined in legislation.

Speak clearly for the people of Ontario. Tell them clearly that municipalities are going to determine the standards of care as far as ambulance service is concerned and the kind of municipal ambulance services that will be available in the different municipalities, because that's not the message that has been given so far by the government.

Mr Froese: This act and the existing acts already provide for those qualifications and those standards of training. The only thing municipalities are going to be responsible for is the cost associated with that. The standards are already in this act and the existing act. Community colleges provide for the training of paramedics. Those qualifications are already there. That's not even up for debate, and this amendment doesn't debate that. The debate is that the costs associated with land ambulance services are going to be in the jurisdiction of the municipality.

Mr Marchese: On page 5 of the bill, part II, "Powers of the minister," it says under "Provincial responsibilities":

"(2) The minister has, in addition to the powers under subsection (1), the power,

"(a) to establish and operate, alone or in cooperation with one or more organizations, institutes and centres for the training of personnel for ambulance services and communication services."

It says the minister has the power to do this. We don't know whether he will. Our motion says if you have the power to do this, then do it. All our motion says is "shall ensure the provision" of what they already say the minister has the power to do.

Presumably, the minister has this power, and it's stated there in "Powers of the minister," (2)(a). So why not guarantee it, as we have in our motion? If they mean the minister to have this power, and it presumably means they will do what we are suggesting in our amendment, why not just include it and therefore assure us that this will indeed take place?

Mr Froese: The requested amendment is redundant because it's already in the existing act and in Bill 152. What you're saying is already there. It's a matter of mixing words, that's all, because it's already in place; it's already there.

Mr Marchese: You're saying the power is already there. What I think you're saying is that what we are proposing in our amendments is already in there.

Mr Froese: It's already addressed.

Mr Marchese: But it isn't. Maybe the Ministry of Health and other civil servants want to speak to that. The power is there for the minister to establish and operate, alone or in cooperation with one or more organizations, institutions and centres, for the training of personnel. It doesn't say the minister "shall" do this. He or she has the power to do so. It's not the same. Our amendment makes certain that it will happen. You've got the power to do it. We're saying, let's ensure it in legislation. It's quite a different thing.

Mr Kormos: Mr Hudak, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, these clause-by-clause considerations sometimes move along at a rapid-fire pace. There is amendment after amendment to deal with. I've been watching your career over the course of the last two years. Trust me, Mrs Witmer is going to be proud of you for having made a decision that will have indicated your ability to think on your feet, to respond quickly to situations. This clearly, according to Mr Froese, is what she wanted to happen. Earn yourself some points with the ministry. Protect the stature you've acquired. Open the doors for your own future to the prospect of sitting at that cabinet table. Show that you've got the integrity and gumption and the understanding of this legislation to say, "Yes, that's exactly what Mrs Witmer would have wanted." She'll be proud of you.

Mr Hudak: Thanks to Mr Kormos for his advice. I would indicate to him that, as Mr Froese said, the provisions exist in the legislation to set those standards, those qualifications, and as I have said, the funding for training is included in the cost of the Who Does What services at that level. To reiterate my position, that's where I stand.

The Chair: I think we're finished. All those in favour of the motion?

Mr Carroll: Mr Chair, could I have a five-minute recess, please?

The Chair: Okay, a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1133 to 1138.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the process of having a vote on Mr Marchese's motion.

Mr Marchese: Could we have a recorded vote on this one, Mr Chairman? This is an important one.

Ayes

Gerretsen, Marchese.

Nays

Carroll, Froese, Hardeman, Hudak.

The Chair: The motion fails.

All those in favour of section 5? All those opposed? Section 5 carries.

It appears that the pages are out of order. Instead of page 8 in your package, we will proceed with pages 19 and 20, and then page 8. There is a New Democratic motion on page 19 which should be dealt with at this time, followed by page 20, and then we'll return to page 8.

Mr Marchese: I move that section 6 of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of Schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Limitation on amount of costs

"(1.1) Despite clause (1)(a), the maximum amount that an upper-tier municipality shall be responsible for paying in any calendar year under that clause shall be the amount of the costs associated with the provision of land ambulance services in that municipality during the 1997 calendar year, as adjusted in accordance with the annual rate of inflation.

"Same, Province to pay excess

"(1.2) If in any calendar year, the amount of the costs associated with the provision of land ambulance services in an upper-tier municipality exceeds the maximum amount referred to in subsection (1.1), the municipality shall send the ministry notice of the excess amount and the ministry shall pay the municipality the amount within the time period specified in the notice."

We believe that costs of ambulance services will increase. This motion I've just read allows everybody to understand that there will be an inconsistency of the download with respect to the provision of the hospital restructuring. We know there will be fewer and more specialized hospitals around the province, especially, we argue, in rural Ontario. Because of this, there's going to be much more reliance on ambulance services. We heard that in a number of deputations we had from various people across Ontario last week.

Therefore, we believe these amendments will protect those municipalities that will not have the money when those costs of ambulances increase, thereby putting them in a position of not being able to deal with that problem. This protects them. Where the costs are above a certain amount, it says the province will be there to help them out. That's the intent of this motion.

The Chair: Before we get into debate -- I appreciate the committee members helping me -- I'm going to ask the same question again about whether this motion contravenes standing order 56. For example, the very last sentence says, "the ministry shall pay to the municipality the amount within the time period specified in the notice." My question is the same as it was in the previous two questions: Is this a money bill? If it is, it's out of order.

Mr Gerretsen: It can't possibly be a money bill if what the government has been saying all along holds true. They've been saying that these are revenue-neutral downloads. If they are, the proof is in the pudding. If not, I suppose the government members will be voting against this amendment. If they really mean what they've said all along, that the amount of money being transferred is as per the statements that have been made by the Minister of Finance and other people, how could they possibly vote against this? It doesn't include any money, according to what the government has been saying, and if it doesn't include any money, it doesn't contravene standing order 56.

The Chair: I'm asking for assistance, not a debate.

Mr Marchese: We're trying. A similar argument: You'll recall that Mr Gilchrist, in a number of the hearings across Ontario, was adamant and vociferous about this point. He said, "If there is a shortfall, the government of Ontario is there to pay for it." He seemed to give us his personal assurance that that would happen. This amendment speaks to that. If there is a shortfall, the province will pick it up. This does exactly what Mr Gilchrist is saying. In the event that it isn't as they say it is, the government is there to pick up the shortfall. That's what this amendment does. Mr Gilchrist said, "We are going to pay for any shortfall, should there be any."

Mr Hardeman: On whether the amendment is in order, Mr Chair, contrary to the previous two rulings of the Chair that money could be expended and the motion still be in order, I suggest that this one goes slightly beyond the other two. Not only are we talking about what may transpire in this calendar year or the next calendar year; the motion speaks to any calendar year beyond 1997. In my opinion it would be expending provincial moneys down the line. I suggest it is out of order because it expends money beyond what has been allocated or discussed in any debate so far.

Mr Carroll: Similarly, this amendment does obligate the government to an expenditure of money some time in the future, 1998, 1999, 2000, ad infinitum, and as a result is a money bill because it does obligate the government to pay funds. I agree that the motion is definitely out of order.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, you need the context, and that's the context that we've been providing as a way for you to rule on these motions. Both the members who just spoke said that this forces the provincial government to spend money down the line. We're not saying that. The subtlety of the point is that they argue that it will be revenue-neutral. They argue there will not be any more expenses than at the current time, or that whatever is being provided through the community reinvestment dollars will be there to provide for shortfalls.

We're saying that if that is the case and there is an increase beyond the current limit of what is expended at the moment, the province should be there to help them out. Isn't that the argument they make with respect to the community reinvestment fund to help out with any shortfall? That is what I believe that fund is there for.

They're arguing that this commits the provincial government to spend money down the line. Yes, it does. In the event that costs exceed a certain level, then yes, it commits the government to spend that money. But presumably your community reinvestment fund is there to provide for that.

Mr Carroll: It has nothing to do with that.

Mr Marchese: That's the same ruling that the Chair has made in previous cases. The same application of the judgement or the ruling should be made in this case.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, you have done it again; you've convinced me. It appears that the ambulance financing exists now, and because it exists now, you're not asking for the expenditure of new moneys.

Mr Marchese: There you go. Chair, you are eminently reasonable -- with the advice of the people beside you, of course. But that's the point we're making.

The Chair: Please proceed with the debate before I change my mind.

Mr Marchese: We want your colleagues who are Conservative members to be as reasonable as you. If these amounts exceed the current levels of funding, are they going to be there to help the municipalities out? That's the question I put to Mr Hudak or whoever else wants to answer. Speak against the amendment or speak in favour of it. That's what I want you to do.

Mr Hudak: Under the Who Does What exchange of services, the municipalities will be responsible for the funding of ambulances in order to deliver the best quality of service at the best price. To ask the province to come back into the funding goes counter to the principle of this bill. I recommend not voting for this motion, to reject this motion.

Mr Marchese: That wasn't an answer, Chair. Does somebody else want to take a crack at that?

Mr Gerretsen: Can Mr Hudak confirm that the downloading of this service is in accordance with the figures that were released by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance, that we're talking about $120 million, or is there a possibility that it could be more than that? We're trying to protect municipalities, that the download won't be more than your own figures have stated it will be. Are you not prepared to commit to the proposition that if it is actually more, the province will come up with the money? That's what this amendment is talking about.

Mr Carroll: Maybe I can shed a little light on this. Bill 152 calls for municipal governments to fund the cost of ambulance services. This amendment would call for those costs to be shared. It is therefore contrary to the spirit of the bill and the intent of the bill, and therefore we cannot support it.

Mr Marchese: How could it be contrary?

Mr Carroll: This amendment calls for the costs of the ambulance services to be shared in certain circumstances. The intent of the bill is the municipalities will pay the cost of ambulance services. Therefore, this amendment is contrary to the intent of the bill.

1150

Mr Sergio: Let me take the Chair and the members back to page 5, subsection 5(3). It says:

"Grants by minister

"The minister may" -- it doesn't say "shall" -- "make grants to upper-tier municipalities, local municipalities, delivery agents and operators for the purpose of ensuring the provision of services under this act."

If we are shifting the responsibility to the local municipality -- it's an imposition by the upper-tier government, which is the provincial government. We are telling the local municipality, "You have to pay to provide that service." The government is imposing upon them and saying, "You have to provide the service, but you have to pay." The government is washing its hands, saying to the local municipality, "We are going to train within reasonable limits." Either you transfer that responsibility or you don't. This is the problem associated with the entire clause here.

I would be much more convinced of the seriousness if the were government willing to ensure that the continuity of service indeed will be provided within the municipalities. If the government is so intent, why don't we change this clause from "may" to "shall"? It is totally unacceptable. This is how the government has been clever in coming back to us and saying, "But we have something in there that says the minister may offer some assistance."

If this is the intent of the government, let's change that. Let's say "shall," not "may." I think it would be clarified for us, the members, and for the public as well, especially the municipalities. Now we are telling them, "Pay with no say." That's where we and the municipalities differ with the government, the total unloading facets of the downloading bill and stuff like that.

Mr Marchese: We believe that hospital restructuring, particularly in rural areas in the north, will cause a greater reliance on ambulance services, and therefore costs will increase. Part (a) says upper-tier municipalities will pay a certain amount as it relates to 1997, but if in future years this is exceeded because of a number of things happening as a result of government restructuring, the provincial government should take some responsibility for amounts in excess of what we are currently paying.

That, to me, is a reasonable thing. This says, "In the event that this should happen, you, province, take some responsibility for it." If it's in your budget -- the community reinvestment money -- to help them out with any undue amounts of money that were unexpected or to offset some costs, presumably that money's there. I'm assuming you're going to pay for any unexpected dollars or services assumed by the province. If that is so, this should not offend you. This says, "Yes, it might happen, if it does, we'll pay for it," and the money is there to do so. I don't see how it's contrary to anything you're doing.

Mr Kormos: Let's refer back to the section the committee just passed, section 5 of part II, schedule A, wherein the minister clearly has the power to establish standards for the management, operation and use of the services. So the government retains the power to legislate what's required but then absolves itself of fiscal responsibility for ensuring that a municipality can meet that standard. You can't have it both ways.

Mr Marchese: They can.

Mr Kormos: You can try that tactic in terms of your rhetoric, in terms of your polemics, but you can't have it both ways. Either this is going to cost municipalities more money, which means increased property taxes at the end of the day, regressive property taxes which are going to whack seniors and fixed-income and low-income people, or you're going to reduce ambulance standards. Otherwise, you'd be encouraging the adoption of this amendment. This amendment says that the province having foisted financial responsibility on to municipalities but having assured them at the same time that this isn't going to result in -- because that's the line out there, that property taxes aren't going to go up.

Mel Lastman buys into that line, but then again, he's in Mike Harris's back pocket. We understand that. If the people of megacity Toronto want to vote for a Harris clone, they can vote for Mel Lastman.

But it remains that you can't have it both ways. You can't say we're going to maintain standards, but then that we're going to foist costs on to the municipality, with its only revenue source being property taxes, and not expect those costs to increase. You're guaranteeing municipalities that those costs won't increase. The only way you can do that is by adopting the amendment of Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: There you go.

The Chair: It's now 12 o'clock.

Mr Marchese: Let's vote on this.

The Chair: If the committee wishes to continue, I don't mind. I have Mr Gerretsen next on the list.

Mr Gerretsen: Just a very short comment in support of this motion. If you look at subsection 6(3), right on page 6, it clearly states that until January 1, 2000, the minister shall ensure the proper provision of land ambulance services throughout the province. If he is saying that the standards out there right now are going to be adhered to until the year 2000, why are they not willing to commit themselves to the fact that if it turns out that the amount of money that they have guesstimated it will cost to run the ambulance services being downloaded to municipalities, $120 million, is not the right amount, that they will ante up the difference? They're already saying that in legislation. Why aren't they committing themselves to that in actual dollars and cents by agreeing to this particular amendment?

The Chair: I have no further speakers. All those in favour of this motion?

Mr Marchese: On a recorded vote.

Ayes

Gerretsen, Marchese, Sergio.

Nays

Carroll, Froese, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

The Chair: The motion fails.

It's a little after 12 o'clock. We will recess until 1:30, at which time we will continue with page 20 of the package, which is a government motion.

The committee recessed from 1158 to 1333.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene. I believe we have completed page 19 of the package and we will now proceed with page 20, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 6 of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Same, agreements as between municipalities

"(2.1) If an ambulance is dispatched from an ambulance service situated in an upper-tier municipality or in a local municipality to an area situated in another upper-tier municipality or local municipality, the affected upper-tier and local municipalities may enter into an agreement with respect to the costs associated with the provision of land ambulance services in both municipalities.

"Agreements, application

"(2.2) subsection (2.1) only applies with respect to a local municipality that does not form part of an upper-tier municipality for municipal purposes.

"Conflict

"(2.3) If there is a conflict between a provision in this act or a regulation and a provision in an agreement made under subsection (2.1), the provision in the act or regulation prevails."

Mr Hudak: Just as an explanatory note, the new provisions through this motion allow upper-tier and local municipalities, including separated cities, to enter into agreements respecting the apportionment of costs; for example, land ambulance costs if a land ambulance is delivering service between two different municipalities dispatched to the other municipality. It further goes on to say that the act or any regulation respecting the apportionment of such costs would prevail over an agreement if the two were in conflict. That's the basis of this motion and I support the motion.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm curious on the wording that is used. It states, "If an ambulance is dispatched." It's got to read, "If an ambulance is intended to be dispatched to an area in another municipality," does it not? I mean, you don't enter into these agreements once an ambulance has actually been dispatched. Once an ambulance has been dispatched, you want it to get on with its work and to pick up the patient as quickly as possible and transfer the individual to a hospital etc. The wording is very strange here. I'm sure agreements are to be made well in advance and they are to be agreements that are made for a long period of time, but not on a case-by-case or individual basis. The wording in this particular section, the way you start that off, it sounds very much as if it's only to be done once the ambulance has actually in fact been dispatched. I'm just wondering whether you have any comments on that. Who drafted this, in other words?

Mr Springman: The intention by the words, "If an ambulance is dispatched," is that it is to read, "In the case where an ambulance is dispatched." "If" is "where" and it contemplates agreements that arise "in the case where." So it wasn't intended to be temporal, chronological. It was just sort of a way of introducing the amendment, as "in a case where."

Mr Gerretsen: That makes eminent good sense.

Mr Marchese: We can vote on this?

The Chair: Yes, we can. All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed?

Mr Marchese: I'm opposed to it.

The Chair: The motion carries.

Mr Marchese: I'm opposed to the whole bill. There might be a few things --

The Chair: We are now going to revert back to page 8, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6(4) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out "other than a county" in the fourth line.

Mr Hudak: As an explanatory note, this will mean that any upper-tier municipality will have the qualified right, as of January 1, 1998, to assume early responsibility for the provision of land ambulance services -- region, county, what have you; it's more clear now.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion carries.

We're now on to page 9, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6.3(1) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Two-year protection period for certain operators

"6.3(1) Subject to section 6.5, the following operators shall be entitled to continue to be licensed to operate an ambulance service until the end of the protection period:

"1. A person who was licensed to operate an ambulance service immediately before the beginning of the protection period.

"2. A person who is issued a licence to operate an ambulance service during the protection period if the ambulance service that the person is licensed to operate was, immediately before the licence is issued, operated by the ministry."

Mr Hudak: The new paragraph 2 of the subsection deals expressly with the status of new operators of ministry-run services. In other words, the provision ensures that these new operators be treated in precisely the same fashion as other operators under Bill 152.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

On to page 10.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6.3(2) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by inserting "referred to in paragraph 1 of subsection (1)" after "person" in the first line.

Mr Hudak: This is complementary to the previous amendment and I think the next two that follow. The subsection refers solely to existing licensed operators and the next amendment is going to deal with the latter operators from part II.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

Page 11.

1340

Mr Carroll: I move that section 6.3 of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2.1) A person referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection (1) shall, during the protection period,

"(a) provide the same type of land ambulance services as was provided by the ministry before the day the person was licensed to provide those services;

"(b) provide those services in the same manner as they were provided by the minister before that day; and

"(c) be compensated for those services on a similar basis as the basis on which the ministry paid for the provision of the services before that day."

Mr Hudak: This is the third of four related housekeeping motions. It ensures that the new operators will be treated in the same way as all other operators and municipalities under Bill 152.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

Page 12.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6.3(3) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out "who holds a licence to operate an ambulance service on January 1, 1998" in the first and second lines and substituting "referred to in subsection (1)."

Mr Hudak: Fourth of four complementary housekeeping amendments on the same topic.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

Page 13.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 6.4(9) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(9) The municipality shall pay to any person required to cease operating an ambulance service as a result of the selection such sum of money by way of compensation for the value of the ambulance service to the operator as is consistent with the principles of law and equity."

I think the amendment is quite explicit. It deals with compensating any individual or operator with respect to benefits, as any other employee would be compensated under the existing laws. We have moved this amendment so that provision is provided and assistance given in the same way.

Mr Marchese: We support this particular motion. There were a number of operators, as you know, that came in front of the committee very concerned about the fact that this provision would simply expropriate people without any regard to compensation for the value of the licence and capital investment to the current operator. We feel that's a problem, particularly to you Tories, who normally would speak in favour of these kinds of things. It surprises me that you would have very little regard for these small businessmen and women.

We felt that somehow, because of the hearings and because of the number of deputants who spoke against it, that some of you might have had some clause that would attempt to resolve it. Clearly it's difficult to perhaps come to a figure on how they might be compensated, but some effort to talk about that, given the level of investment that many of these people put in the field. I am surprised by the lack of Tory due regard to an issue that they're normally sensitive to. I'm not sure. They've alienated half of the population if not three-quarters already. I don't know who else they are making enemies of on a regular basis. I suspect that has become a consistent trait of the government, to alienate the whole world, and this appears to be yet another group that you're alienating.

I am in support of this, given that a number of people have invested a lot of money into it. This doesn't speak to their concerns at all. The fact that there is no government amendment doesn't speak to anything other than this amendment that attempts to get to the problem.

Mr Gerretsen: Just to follow up on that, I think people should clearly understand that what we're talking about here is the same fair compensation rules that apply in law and equity now. You may be interested in knowing, particularly the government members, that this was an amendment that was supported completely by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I know how the government members like to listen to that organization. I hope they would see it in their wisdom to actually support this amendment which is supported by one of the main groups supporting you.

Mr Hudak: During the protection period, the existing operators will have a two-year guarantee for running that service that of course meets regulations and high standards. That having been said, it also provides them with an opportunity to work closely with their municipal partners and develop a strong relationship to develop an even better service potentially in the future. That's why I recommend not passing this motion.

Mr Marchese: It ticks me off a little bit, Mr Chair, every time Mr Hudak does this. I know the word is a tiny little word, "ticked" off, but it does.

The Chair: You're annoyed, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: He continues to talk about improving the service, "We're going to make it better." That's the only regard he seems to have, to some vague idea that things are going to be better. There are no assurances of that whatsoever. In fact, the ambulance people who came in front of committee, many of them said: "Keep the current system in place. It's working just fine." All we have is a Tory promise, by M. Harris and all of the other mercenaries that belong to his party who continue to say, "We're committed to making it better and we're going to do things so that municipalities are going to be able to deliver better service," all with this promise, and hope that the rest of you listening out here are going to believe these guys. It's just based on a belief that they're trying to communicate, not based on any fact, that things are going to be better.

When Mr Hudak says, "We're against this because we think what we're doing is going to create an even better service," there's no basis for that whatsoever. Who believes them? I'm sure, Mr Tilson, that you as a fair Chair are having a hell of a time with these things because you've become fair-minded, you're objective, and objective people are having a difficult time dealing with this issue. I know that the public is grappling with this problem these Tories are causing.

Mr Sergio: It is a very commonsense amendment and I fail to understand why the government members would not support something like this. The bill as it is does not leave any room for any particular individual operator that, for whatever reason, may not continue to be engaged in providing that particular service. The legislation clearly penalizes such individual operators, does not give them the right to any appeal whatsoever, justly or unfairly. There is no right for any such person. Bill 152 denies this legal right.

How can we say we are being fair to someone who has been providing a service, creating employment, providing employment, and now, after two years, rightly or unjustly, may be thrown away, may be put out of business because of the content of this bill? We are refusing to recognize the rights of those individuals who have been providing a service to a local community, and now the local municipality may be forced, against their own will, to discontinue that good service and go perhaps with a lower service and still put somebody else out of business. How can we not support something like this?

Mr Gerretsen: I would like a recorded vote so I can send the results of this vote on to the organization of Canadian independent business.

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen wants a recorded vote. All in favour of this motion?

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: If I may, this is supported by the very omnipotent Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

1350

The Chair: You're not going to be long, because we're in the middle of a vote here.

Mr Sergio: No. As well, this was supported by the Ontario Ambulance Operators' Association, all people who have been highly associated with your party.

The Chair: A recorded vote.

Ayes

Gerretsen, Marchese, Sergio.

Opposed

Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

The Chair: The motion fails.

We are now on page 14, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6.5(7) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out "under this section" in the second line and substituting "by the minister under clause (2)(a)".

Mr Hudak: This amendment would make it clear that the licence issued to the new operator would expire at the end of the protection period, thereby allowing municipalities to exercise the rights of selection under Bill 152, but only where the minister had selected the operator under section 6.5 during the protection period. If a municipality made that selection under section 6.5, it can exercise its right of selection clearly now.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

We're on page 15.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6.7(1) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out "a person or organization" in the second line and substituting "an organization."

Mr Hudak: Since no natural person could be designated as a delivery agent and municipalities are mentioned specifically in subsection 6.7(2), the term "person" is superfluous and that's why we're taking it out.

Mr Marchese: What does a "natural" person mean?

Mr Springman: It's an individual.

Mr Marchese: "Natural" means an individual?

Mr Springman: As opposed to a corporate person.

The Chair: Further questions? Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

We're on page 16.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6.7(2) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out "persons or" in the first line.

Mr Hudak: This is complementary to the previous motion we just passed. Again, no natural person could be designated as a delivery agent.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

We're on page 17.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 6.9(8) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out "section 22.1" in the fifth line and substituting "section 22.0.1."

Mr Hudak: This is a housekeeping motion as well. It corrects an incorrect cross-reference in subsection 6.9(8) that came about from Bill 67, the red tape bill. It made the change necessary.

The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? This motion carries.

Page 18.

Mr Carroll: I move that clause 6.10(2)(a) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out "section 22.1" in the fifth line and substituting "section 22.0.1."

Mr Hudak: This amendment accomplishes the exact same task as the previous amendment we just passed.

The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? This motion carries.

We have concluded section 6. All those in favour of section 6, as amended? Opposed? Section 6, as amended, carries.

Unless anyone objects, all those in favour of sections 7 through to and including section 16? Opposed? All those sections are carried.

We are now on proposed amendments to section 17, which is page 21. It's a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 17 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"17. Section 21 of the act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1997, chapter 15, section 1, is repealed and the following substituted:

"Payment of copayment by municipality or delivery agent

"21. If a person who is transported in an ambulance is receiving general assistance from the municipality under the General Welfare Assistance Act or assistance under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 or is the dependant of a person receiving such assistance, the municipality or the delivery agent designated under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 is also liable for and shall pay that person's share of the ambulance service operator's fee as established under subsection 22.1(2)."

Mr Hudak: This means that if an individual who was on general welfare or Ontario Works, or a dependant, uses an ambulance, then the municipality will be responsible for the copayment.

Mr Gerretsen: Just a question: I'm not sure where we are. What page of the bill are you on?

The Chair: We're on page 21 of the package, page 17 of the bill.

Mr Gerretsen: So the section you're dealing with then is the last three lines of page 17 and the first line on page 18. That's all you're dealing with. I'm talking about the bill itself now.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Sergio: Just briefly to note that this will open up the doors, really, for user fees between individuals, regardless if they can or they cannot pay, and the various municipalities and the provider of the service. This opens the door for more user fees.

Mr Marchese: At the moment the province is paying for that. Is that not the case? Under these circumstances the province is paying for this, correct?

Mr Brown: Currently recipients of general welfare assistance or family benefits are not required to pay the cost of land ambulance service copayment charges. This extends it also to the dependants of those recipients.

Mr Marchese: Currently not required to pay.

Mr Brown: Today it's only the recipient who receives no charge. Dependants are not covered by the current legislation. This will extend the free coverage to the dependants of the recipients as well.

Mr Marchese: But the municipality picks up the tab.

Mr Brown: That's correct.

Mr Marchese: At the moment they don't have to pay. Who picks up the tab at the moment?

Mr Springman: Right now, under section 21, if you're receiving general welfare assistance or your dependant is receiving general welfare assistance, the municipality picks up the tab.

1400

Mr Marchese: At the moment.

Mr Springman: Yes.

Mr Marchese: It continues.

Mr Springman: That's right. All this does is expand the class of persons who will not in fact have to pay any copayment, the copayment being under the Health Insurance Act.

Mr Marchese: Yes, except the municipality, of course.

Mr Springman: That's right, or a delivery agent under the Ontario Works Act. But the patient won't.

Mr Marchese: Right. We appreciate that, but municipalities, or whoever is responsible to make the payment, are burdened yet again with additional costs, I'm assuming, and that's part of the download, where the province is downloading problems to the municipality under the guise that these are the jurisdictions better able to manage the problems. They are picking up additional costs as the province frees itself of these problems.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Mr Gerretsen?

Mr Gerretsen: The same point has been made, thank you.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

All those in favour of section 17, as amended? All those opposed? Section 17, as amended, is carried.

We are on to page 22 of the package. It's a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 18 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"(1.1) Subsection 22(1) of the act is amended by adding the following clause:

"'(a.1) prescribing standards for the equipment used in communication services and for their maintenance and repair.'

"(1.2) Clause 22(1)(b) of the act is amended by inserting 'and communication services' after 'ambulance services' in the second line.

"(1.3) Clause 22(1)(c) of the act is amended by inserting 'and by communication services' after 'operators' in the third line.

"(1.4) Clause 22(1)(d) of the act is amended by inserting 'and communication services' after 'ambulance services' in the second line."

Mr Hudak: This amendment would add regulation-making power with respect to communication services. The bill distinguishes between ambulance services and communication services and essentially it makes explicit that there will be regulatory-making powers for things like equipment standards, operation of communication services, etc. Essentially it mirrors the same kind of regulation-making powers in the context of ambulance services.

Mr Marchese: Just a question: Is the prescription of standards for equipment used in communication services and for the maintenance and repair likely to bring about greater costs to the municipalities when we do that?

Mr Brown: It is unlikely that any cost increases will be incurred by the municipalities. This is intended to ensure that all municipalities and all ambulance service operators maintain their ambulance communications equipment on the same frequencies and use equipment that's compatible so that there can be communications between all ambulance services to ensure compatibility.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

Page 23.

Mr Carroll: I move that clauses 22(1)(e.2) and (e.3) of the Ambulance Act as set out in subsection 18(3) of schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(e.2) governing the costs associated with the provision of land ambulance services in an upper-tier municipality or designated area, including the method of determining such costs and the payment of the costs;

"(e.3) governing the compensation to be paid by an upper-tier municipality or delivery agent to another upper-tier municipality or delivery agent in the event an ambulance is dispatched from an ambulance service situated in an upper-tier municipality or designated area to an area outside the municipality or designated area to which ambulances from the ambulance service are not regularly dispatched;

"(e.0.4) governing agreements made under subsection 6(2.1)."

Mr Hudak: This enables the minister to make regulations respecting costs of the land ambulance services if it's unclear for some reason or other, and they have to be separate regulations, which Mr Carroll had mentioned could arise when an ambulance from one of the municipalities is dispatched to another. Other clauses deal with essentially the same thing, when essential service is not regularly provided. Basically, it adds flexibility to the regulation-making powers to address these issues.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

We're on to page 24 of the package.

Mr Carroll: I move that clause 22(1)(e.4) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in subsection 18(3) of schedule A to the bill, be amended by inserting "the apportionment and" after "governing" in the first line.

Mr Hudak: This amendment deals with apportionment of the costs associated with the provision of ambulance services in a designated area. Currently, the act talks about payment of such costs. It is silent on apportionment. This adds the apportionment piece.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

We are on to page 25.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 22(2) of the Ambulance Act, as set out in subsection 18(4) of Schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) A regulation under clause (1)(e.2) or (e.3) may provide that it applies despite any provision in an agreement or class of agreements referred to in subsection 6(2.1).

"Apportionment in upper-tier municipalities

"(2.1) A regulation under clause (1)(e.2) may do one or more of the following:

"1. Authorize local municipalities situated in an upper-tier municipality to determine by agreement how the costs associated with the provision of land ambulance services in the upper-tier municipality are to be apportioned among them.

"2. Provide for an arbitration process to determine how the costs associated with the provision of land ambulance services in an upper-tier municipality are to be apportioned among the local municipalities situated in the upper-tier municipality.

"3. Set out the manner in which the costs associated with the provision of land ambulance services in an upper-tier municipality are to be apportioned among the local municipalities situated in the upper-tier municipality.

"Agreements

"(2.2) A regulation made under clause (1)(e.0.4) may be limited in application to specified municipalities or delivery agents.

"Apportionment in designated areas

"(2.3) A regulation under clause (1)(e.4) may do one or more of the following:

"1. Authorize local municipalities in a designated area to determine by agreement how the costs, or a part of the costs, of their delivery agent are to be apportioned among them.

"2. Provide for an arbitration process to determine how the costs of a delivery agent are to be apportioned among the local municipalities and territory without municipal organization included in the designated area for which the delivery agent is responsible.

"3. Set out the manner in which the costs of a delivery agent are to be apportioned among the local municipalities and territory without municipal organization included in a designated area and classify local municipalities for such purposes.

"4. If a designated area includes territory without municipal organization, provide for the amount, or the method of determining the amount, of the costs of the delivery agent that is to be paid by the residents of the territory, set out the manner in which those costs are to be apportioned among the residents (and for that purpose classify the residents or areas of the territory) and provide for the collection of the amount by the province, including collection under the Provincial Land Tax Act, and the payment of the amount collected to the delivery agent.

"5. Exempt a delivery agent or class of delivery agent or a person or class of person from section 6.9 or from a regulation made under clause (1)(e.4).

"Same

"(2.4) A regulation under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (2.1) or (2.3) may,

"(a) provide for the manner in which costs are to be apportioned and for the time and manner in which they are to be paid, on an interim basis, until such time as an agreement is reached or as a determination is made by arbitration;

"(b) permit an agreement or the arbitration decision to apply to costs incurred and paid before the agreement or the arbitration decision is reached; and

"(c) provide for the reconciliation of amounts paid on an interim basis.

"Same

"(2.5) A regulation under paragraph 3 of subsection (2.1) or (2.3) may provide that it applies despite any agreement or arbitration decision or class of agreement or arbitration decision, or any provision thereof, referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (2.1) or (2.3).

"Same

"(2.6) A regulation under subsection (2.1) or (2.3) may,

"(a) prescribe the time and manner in which apportioned amounts must be paid to an upper-tier municipality or a delivery agent, as the case may be;

"(b) require the payment of any penalty by any person or local municipality if payment is late;

"(c) require the payment of interest if payment is late and prescribe the interest or the method of determining the interest."

1410

Mr Gerretsen: I didn't quite get that section. Could you repeat that again, please?

Mr Hudak: I guess to summarize -- it was a long motion -- this outlines regulatory choices as to how both upper-tier municipalities and designated areas can apportion costs of land ambulance services, and the other highlight deals with conflict resolution mechanisms in case there is a conflict on that apportionment.

Mr Marchese: I have a couple, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I'm sure.

Mr Marchese: After listening to all of this, don't you think that what we have in place at the moment seems a lot simpler, and doesn't it appear to you, as a fairminded individual who has to be objective as the Chair in listening to all this, that this doesn't disentangle it very nicely, that this adds a whole lot of confusion to the whole thing? Listen to all this stuff. The poor listeners having to listen to this, "Authorize local municipalities in a designated area to determine by agreement how.... Provide for an arbitration process," and it goes on and on. Doesn't that tangle you up at the end of it? At the end of it, the poor people watching are saying, "My God, what are they doing?" I don't want to frustrate you.

The Chair: Oh no, you'd never do that.

Mr Marchese: No, and I'm glad. But it doesn't disentangle. I think it confuses. The provisions set out to deal with all these problems only complicate it even more. Those poor municipalities have now got to deal with little things like this in order to apportion costs of ambulance service from one area to the other. I tell you, I don't know what you guys are doing, and I think a large number of people out there probably agree with me that you guys don't know what you're doing.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, the motion is in order, although there may be a comment from someone.

Mr Marchese: Yes, tell me how they disentangle this whole process through this stuff, please.

Mr Hudak: Basically municipalities have the ability to negotiate among themselves how to apportion the costs within the municipality and to make agreements if ambulances go across municipalities. That's there and that's the first step.

What this allows is, if there is a dispute, in the interest of the taxpayers the minister can assist them in resolving that dispute.

Mr Marchese: Oh, that's so good. It clarifies it.

Mr Gerretsen: I think the interesting part is, first of all, how this can possibly be an amendment, an amendment that goes on for two entire pages. The other thing that I think the people ought to clearly understand is that each one of these subamendments talks how about a regulation may be put into place. In other words, this is once again an example of powers being given to the minister to set out rules and methods by which these matters are going to be resolved, into which the general public and the Legislature of Ontario won't have any input whatsoever, because everything that's done by way of regulation is done by just cabinet or ministerial fiat. I think the people understand that.

Mr Hastings is saying that's a good idea. I beg to differ. An awful lot of people in the province do not think that's a good idea. Maybe that's another reason this kind of bill should have been given much closer attention and should have been studied to a much greater extent than it has been to bring these kinds of amendments forward that give unilateral power to the minister to, as Mr Hudak says, help the municipalities. I can tell you that municipalities know how to negotiate with one another and how to set out the sharing arrangements as well. What they resent is the fact that the government quite often comes in and unilaterally changes the rules and regulations that municipalities have been operating under and have been playing by, and that's exactly what this kind of section will allow it to do. This is just another example of total incompetence and haste in a matter that didn't have to be dealt with this quickly at all.

Mr Sergio: Just a comment that the entire bill is an exercise in downloading or transferring the responsibilities on to the local municipalities without transferring the accorded powers as well. We have seen that not only in this lengthy amendment, which I think completely changes the entire clause; what we have seen all along as we went through the various amendments here today is, "We want the municipalities to pay but not have a say."

For heaven's sake, the downloading has been clearly transferring to the local municipality the responsibility to provide those local services, and if that is the case, as it is, then why don't we let them conduct their business with their own upper-tier regional municipalities, regional councils, counties, local municipalities and stuff like that? Why go through all this exercise here? I have to agree with my colleague here that we are not disentangling; we are making it much messier. What is the message we are trying to send to the local municipalities?

It would have been better, as we said before, if you wanted to transfer the responsibility for the cost, how they are going to apportion that among themselves, I would say that we should give them credit that they are able to manage that among themselves.

One particular area that I want to bring to your attention, and that is not in here, is that when one operator, one provider is no longer being given the responsibility in the local municipality but is being retained to provide that service in another upper-tier municipality, the act does not address that, so it means that we are going to leave it up to the various municipalities how someone no longer is providing a service in one municipality but is providing one in another. In situations like that, I would say local municipalities will have to deal, and I'm quite assured in a way that local municipalities will be able to deal when they face situations like that without making the situation even more complicated.

I don't know who gave directions to provide all these amendments to the existing legislation, but I have to agree this is not the way to disentangle.

Interjection.

Mr Sergio: Yes. I wonder where the red tape commission --

Mr Gerretsen: They should take a look at this regulation.

Mr Sergio: Yes.

Mr Hastings: I just want to point out that our friend Mr Gerretsen can't read lips very well, because I never said that it was a good idea -- no such thing. I said, if you were watching closely, that this is the conventional way --

Mr Gerretsen: I always watch your lips very closely.

Mr Hastings: You should, because then you'd give the right reading of what I was mentioning. It's the conventional way we're doing business in terms of how you set out the process in arbitration if a problem arises in the apportionment of the costs of land ambulances. There's nothing mysterious about it at all. In fact, when the red tape commission has undertaken to get rid of some red tape from previous regimes, you guys simply guffawed and held it up in the Legislature.

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Chair, on a point of order --

Mr Hastings: So let the record stand that you can't --

The Chair: Mr Hastings --

Mr Hastings: -- anything with the red tape commission.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order: The opposition has repeatedly said, "Bring the red tape bills back to the Legislature and we will debate them piece by piece," and you can pass them whenever you want.

The Chair: That's not a point of order.

Mr Hastings: That's not a point of order.

Mr Gerretsen: He misstated it. You have given a complete misstatement.

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, you'll have to wait your turn. Mr Hastings? Seems like that's it. Any further debate?

1420

Mr Hastings: Don't hold the red tape commission in such contempt, that's all.

Mr Hardeman: We've had considerable debate on this amendment, and it is a rather lengthy amendment, but I would point out in reference to the comments from across the room that the amendment does totally deal with how municipalities can jointly come to an agreement on how they're going to fund the ambulance service. There's nothing in this amendment, as I read it, that deals with the delivery of the service; only with the ability of them to get together and come to an agreement on how cross-boundary services should or could be paid for. I think it goes on to define how we can deal with the issues when two municipalities, or two or three municipalities, could not come to a mutual agreement. I don't see this as an entangling process; it is an amendment to deal with the ability of municipalities to agree to how the ambulance service would be paid for in an area.

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Hardeman always puts his point so gracefully and graciously to the members of the opposition. I wish I could believe him; I can't on this particular point, but at least he stated it clearly.

Mr Hastings made a comment about the fact that I held the red tape commission in contempt, and he's saying it again. I want it to be clearly on the record that we don't hold the red tape commission in contempt at all. We are all in favour of cutting out needless red tape. It is your government House leaders who have held up the red tape bills them from being discussed in the Legislature so that they could be passed. Repeatedly the opposition has said, "Bring them forward and we'll debate them and we'll deal with them at the appropriate time." It's your government House leader who has been holding up those bills, and I think the record should clearly indicate that.

Mr Hastings: It may indicate that, but that's not the reality.

Mr Gerretsen: Oh, it may indicate it, but it's not the reality?

The Chair: Gentlemen, Mr Marchese has the floor.

Mr Marchese: To bring it back to the amendment --

The Chair: Indeed.

Mr Marchese: -- I just wanted to repeat that this is cumbersome, it's complicated. I understand that it clarifies what you would do if there's a disagreement. All I would point out is that it's very cumbersome for all those people; that their present system is a whole lot simpler, in the opinion of those who came in front of our committee. This is yet another problem they've got to deal with now, and it doesn't disentangle; it just makes it a little more cumbersome, that's all.

Mr Carroll: But it was well read, wasn't it?

Mr Marchese: Oh, you read it well.

The Chair: Have we finished? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 18, as amended? All those opposed? Carried.

We have a government motion on page 28 of the package.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 22.1 of the Ambulance Act, as set out in section 19 of schedule A to the bill, be amended by striking out the section number "22.1" and renumbering it as "22.0.1."

Mr Gerretsen: I'll go along with that. That sounds reasonable. We're not against everything.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 19, as amended? All those opposed? Section 19, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of sections 20 and 21? All those opposed? Sections 20 and 21 are carried.

Mr Marchese, I believe page 29 is your motion. I will tell you it is out of order, but you are quite free to debate section 22. If you have some comments, we'd be pleased to hear them.

Mr Marchese: I don't have it in front of me, sorry.

The Chair: It's a motion of the New Democratic Party.

Mr Marchese: I do have the amendment, but it's not in front of me.

Mr Gerretsen: It's, "I move that section 22...to the bill be struck out." That sounds reasonable to me.

The Chair: We're open for debate on section 22.

Mr Marchese: Okay, I move that, Mr Chair.

The Chair: You move what? It's out of order.

Mr Marchese: I'm moving it out of order. Okay, then there's nothing to read.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mr Marchese: You've done a good job.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Gerretsen: What section 22 is really all about -- and let's just read it into the record: "This schedule comes into force on January 1, 1998." The real question is whether or not the municipalities on which you're downloading all of these responsibilities are ready to deal with these services as of January 1, 1998. That's when the schedule comes into existence; that's when the new rules and regulations come into existence as to how ambulance services are to be delivered in municipalities.

I think what has clearly been shown in the conduct of the government over the last number of months in dealing with downloading issues is that municipalities are not ready because you haven't told them what the impact is going to be for these kinds of services or what the financial impact is going to be. So I would urge everyone on the committee -- even the fairminded people we have sitting on the government side, some fairminded -- to vote against this and say to the government, "You may have your ideas as to how ambulance services ought to be delivered in this province, but we simply cannot go into a new system as of January 1, 1998."

Municipalities already have too many other things to think about, too many other downloading efforts and decisions to make. There's an awful lot of restructuring going on around the province. How can they, as of that day, take on this kind of responsibility as well when you in effect have been totally delinquent in not providing them with the right kind of information as to what the costs are going to be at the local level?

Do the right thing. Postpone it for a year so that the ambulance operators, the local municipalities, particularly those municipalities that are being restructured, can get their act together next year and go into this new system in a fair and open manner, especially in light of the fact that we are talking here about a crucial personal service that people require on the spur of the moment. We want to make darned sure that the ambulance service that's available throughout this province will be available as of January 1 under these new schemes so that we aren't going to have any tragedies as a result of municipalities not being ready for the restructuring process.

So do the right thing. Hold this up for a year. You're not talking about a service here where maybe it doesn't matter if it's ready on January 1 or January 2; we're talking here about a personal emergency service that people rely on and have come to rely on. There cannot be any glitches in that, because glitches may be dangerous to individuals and as a matter of fact may cost lives. So do the right thing and postpone it for at least a year.

Mr Carroll: I feel obliged to make some comment because Mr Gerretsen has created an impression that is totally without any basis in fact and must be corrected. As he and everybody else knows, on January 1, 1998, the funding for land ambulance services is being transferred to municipalities as part of an exchange of services and funding. He also knows that the transfer of control of ambulance services and the requirement to provide them to the municipalities does not happen until the year 2000. So all of the fearmongering he has done about, "The system might fall apart, municipalities have too much to do and they can't handle it," municipalities do not have to handle it in January 1998; they have two years to prepare to handle it. I just needed to set the record straight on that.

Mr Sergio: That may be the case. However, I would have to agree with Mr Hastings, because I think he comes from a local council where, as he knows, it has been very prudent to do budgeting not in March for the current year but perhaps starting in October of the previous year to start budgeting for the following year. I think this is the important aspect when we deal with drafting a budget and where they're going to be saving the dollars so they don't have to come up with the tax increase and stuff like that.

1430

I think it was our own Mayor Mel Lastman who some six years ago initiated -- perhaps the first mayor in Metro -- preparing a budget a year before and not in May or March of the following year. The point is, how can you talk tax increase before a budget is even being prepared? I think this deals with that particular point. Sure, we may be looking at a municipality a couple of years down the road to assume full responsibility of providing the land services. But those municipalities have to do their planning. They have to do their budget on a yearly basis. Come January 1998, even in Metro here, sure we're going to have the usual bureaucrats that will be working on the various budgets and stuff like that, but what real input have the elected people had to provide, come up with an acceptable budget, looking at various services and a possible tax freeze or tax increases depending on the case in each municipality?

My colleague here makes sense, that we should give the local municipalities time to disentangle themselves, if you will, a bit more, to understand exactly the full impact of the downloading and then let them come up with their own budget, their own service accordingly. I think this has a real impact on what we are saying here and what we are doing here. Even as the parliamentary assistant says, wait until the year 2000 when the local municipality will be fully in control and deliver the services. What's the rush. Why don't we give the new councils throughout Ontario, larger and smaller municipalities, upper and lower tiers, an opportunity to see the effect they will have with one year under their belt and assess the impact of the downloading and see how best they can handle it?

In a way we are saying let's eliminate some of the duplications, and here we are amassing on top of the local municipalities all kinds of new responsibilities, duties. They don't have the proper staff, as we will see in some of the following amendments here, to cope. This would give them not only a say, which is important, but an opportunity to start to reorganize themselves and provide those services in a fashion that would be acceptable without increasing their budgets too much.

Mr Marchese: Just some general remarks on that issue, and on the whole matter, because we have a lot of concerns. A lot of people do too, and they should. Mr Carroll talks about this as an exchange of services. Well, this is an exchange of services that very few people wanted. The government decided to centralize education for one reason alone: to be able to control the public dollars as a way of reducing the amount of money that goes to our educational system. So they took control of education and they were originally to eliminate the entire portion of education out of property taxes. They probably realized it was a big task so they now are only taking out half of that, so it's $2.5 billion.

So these poor Tories now, instead of raising that $2.5 billion out of income tax, they've decided, "We can't do that. We've got to download," they argue, "an equal amount of services down to the municipalities." This download is not only going to be not neutral but it's going to cause, in my view, irreparable harm. What are they downloading? They're downloading housing, child care, welfare, public health, libraries completely, ambulance services -- the whole thing. It isn't a responsible act by this government. They make it appear like they're transferring soft services to the municipalities as a way of saying it's just an equal exchange it's not a big deal. But it is a big deal. You folks are disrupting an entire system in order to gain control of the education dollars, in order to reduce the amount of dollars that go to education under the guise that there's so much waste in the system. I know, Mr Chair, you've heard this before. I'm not speaking to you, but rather to the public that may be watching this program. Some of them have not heard the entire picture of this entire issue.

This is not a nice exchange of services, first of all, and secondly, what you folks are doing is obligating municipalities to raise the money to pay for these services under a deadline, and a couple of years later take control of its administration down the line -- being obligated to pay now however, to raise it out of property taxes and out of what tenants have to pay to pay for these services. We think the whole thing is wrong. That's why on different occasions we'll make these points, because whoever is listening needs to understand this is not an easy exchange of services and it's causing a whole lot of headaches to people who will have to raise the money and administer this enormous problem you have shifted down on to their shoulders.

You will know the anger during election time. You're probably feeling it now around many issues. I know many of you are feeling it now because many of you are not having meetings with teachers. I was in Kitchener yesterday and I understand a number of teachers have tried to get appointments with various MPPs in the area and their offices are locked up. The assistants to these people don't let them in. Now it may seem out of the way a little bit, yes, I understand.

The Chair: I'm letting you go on a little bit, but don't get into Bill 160 in this place.

Mr Marchese: Sure, but Bill 160, the education bill, is very much related to the centralization of tax dollars, forcing you guys to shift a whole lot of soft services down to the municipality. Now Jack is shaking his head, but I tell you a whole lot of people are shaking their heads about what the hell this government is doing, because not only have you folks gone too far too fast, but you're going in the wrong direction.

Mr Carroll: We're fixing your mess.

Mr Marchese: No, you are causing the most egregious of messes we have ever seen in this province. But that's okay. You can smile all you want. For me the smile is acceptable. Your smiles will have to be dealt with when you face the public, when you folks acquire the guts and the courage to defend what you're doing and not hide, as so many of you are, from public meetings where you should be going and being held accountable for your policies. If you're brave enough to defend them here, brave the crowds out there. Defend them with courage. Tell them, "Yes, we like what we're doing." But go out and defend them. Don't cower in fear in your offices or at Queen's Park as people try to meet with you in your constituencies.

Mr Gerretsen: A comment was made a bit earlier that I somehow was trying to inflame the situation. I would like Mr Carroll, as the parliamentary assistant, to explain to me how with the regulation that is to be passed, or the new authorization or regulation, which went on for two pages -- basically it talks about how cost is shared between municipalities when a person is picked up in one municipality and delivered to another municipality. Nobody knows if it is going to be according to where the person resides or where the hospital is located as to how these costs are to be shared. I would like him to explain to me, or Mr Hudak to explain to me, how as of January 1, 1998, which is less than two months away, if you have a person who crosses a boundary line, how the ambulance is going to get paid and who's going to be paid for what, because presumably by January --

The Chair: I want to remind you, Mr Gerretsen, we're now on section 22. We voted on that section. If you can relate your remarks to section 22, that would be acceptable.

Mr Gerretsen: It does relate to section 22. It relates specifically to section 22. Section 22 states that this schedule comes into place on January 1, 1998. What I'm talking about is that by January 1, 1998, there will not be the financial arrangements negotiated between municipalities. Having had municipal elections on November 10, those councils don't officially take over until December 1. Nobody's going to tell me that in those cases where you're likely to have crossboundary services by ambulance services agreements are going to be in place on January 1, 1998. Where this is relevant, Mr Chair, is that if I were an ambulance worker, or an owner-operator, I'm not sure who is going to pay me for what service if I take a person from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction, maybe. I know and I hope that most ambulances don't think about that, particularly in the initial instant, but maybe I would be a little bit more reluctant to pick up a particular patient in a case where I don't know which municipality is going to pay me than if it's a situation where a person is simply picked up in one municipality and delivered to a hospital in the same municipality, when there can be no doubt as to who is going to compensate me for it.

1440

It doesn't matter who ultimately pays, whether it's the local municipality or the province, as far as the ambulance operator is concerned, but it's sure going to make a difference to him when he doesn't know who's going to pay him as between two competing municipalities.

I would like somebody to explain to me how that is all going to be resolved by January 1, 1998. Are these cost arrangements between municipalities going to be in place by that time? You're the people who have made provision for that by just voting for that particular amendment that went on for two pages.

Mr Marchese: Subsection 18 should take care of it.

Mr Carroll: Just a quick comment on that, Mr Chairman. As you stated, we have dealt with that section and debated that section. We are now dealing with the commencement date on the bill and we've explained our position on the commencement date of January 1, 1998.

Mr Gerretsen: That is ridiculous. In other words, Mr Chair, just so I understand, nobody's here has an answer as to who exactly is going to pay as of January 1, 1998. For Mr Carroll to say that we've dealt with that section and somehow it's no longer a concern as to what arrangements there exist between municipalities is absolute nonsense. If I were an ambulance operator, I would want to know who pays me when I take somebody across a boundary line.

The Chair: All those in favour of section 22? All those opposed? Section 22 is carried.

That appears to conclude schedule A. All those in favour of schedule A, as amended?

Mr Gerretsen: I would like it to be a recorded vote.

Ayes

Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

Nays

Gerretsen, Marchese, Sergio.

The Chair: Schedule A, as amended, is now carried. We are on to schedule B.

Mr Carroll: Mr Hardeman will be available with his staff to answer any questions.

Mr Gerretsen: I'd think about that twice, Ernie. Don't take that chair.

The Chair: All right. If we're all settled, I will ask, unless there is objection, all those in favour of sections through to and including section 16 of schedule B?

Mr Gerretsen: I don't have an objection to that. I do have some comments with respect to section 3, so if you want to deal with the others all together, I'd like to make some comments on section 3.

The Chair: All those in favour of sections 1 and 2 of schedule B? All those opposed? Sections 1 and 2 are carried.

We are now on to section 3, Mr Gerretsen, and the floor is yours.

Mr Gerretsen: In just reading section 3.1 and dealing with the responsibilities of the boards of health and sewage system inspectors and things like that, I would just like to know from the parliamentary assistant, or from anyone else here who has that information, what cost implications there are as a result of this section being passed to the boards of health. Has there been any communication at all with the different boards of health as to whether or not they've got the human resources to in effect carry out the additional responsibilities that are called for in 3.1? What does it mean? Do we have any idea as to what it means to the average board of health from a financial viewpoint?

The Chair: Mr Hardeman and/or his assistants? I trust when eventually someone other than yourself speaks, Mr Hardeman, you will introduce that person to us.

Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure there is a number on the financial impact on all boards of health. I would point out that the section mainly relates to the areas where the boards of health are presently doing it on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The responsibility will be referred or turned over to the boards of health in those cases and funded through the board of health budget, as opposed to the provincial, and it is anticipated that the cost of doing that can be recovered from the fee for doing it. They do not look at this as a major financial impact. The cost of the sewage facility inspection could be recovered through a licence or permit fee, similar to the building inspection function.

The Chair: That's it? All those in favour of section 3? All those opposed? Section 3 is carried.

All those in favour of sections 4 through to and including section 16? All those opposed? Sections 4 through to and including section 16 are now carried.

We are on to page 30 of the package of amendments, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 17(3) of schedule B to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(3) Paragraph 19 of subsection 34(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"'19. exempting any building or person or class thereof from compliance with all or any part of this act and the regulations and prescribing conditions for the exemption.'"

Mr Hardeman: This is an amendment to provide for the phasing-in of the training, and the committee will be aware that there were a number of deputants who came forward who said that all the people may not be able to be trained by the proposed time. This would exempt that and allow the phasing-in of the training program for those inspectors.

Mr Sergio: I am pleased that the parliamentary assistant has addressed that because this was one of the major concerns which was expressed to us by ASPHIO in London, that not only will they find it impossible to provide well-trained, qualified inspectors and assessors in those municipalities where they don't have any now and the inspections are done by the provincial inspectors -- and I think it's paramount that those municipalities are indeed given the time to provide themselves with the employees and the expertise and training to assure their own local populace that indeed water treatments and whatever are done in such a way that is not only efficient but acceptable for the health of their constituents. This was expressed at quite some length in their presentation here.

With respect to the cost, there is no provision at all to recoup the cost from the local municipality. This is another part where the municipality has to absorb the cost for hiring and retraining. Here again, we have to go to a user fee or a copayment of some sort. Failing that, either you provide that essential service, especially when it comes to inspection of septic tanks and stuff like that -- and I don't have to tell you how important that is in small municipalities where they lack sewer services. They will have to resort to either providing those services, providing the high quality that is expected from a trained individual, or raise taxes, or cut somewhere else. It boils down to that and unfortunately this is another bad side of the effects of the downloading.

Mr Marchese: I was trying to find the appropriate place to deal with the comments I'm about to quote from one of the deputants, the Association of Supervisors of Public Health Inspectors of Ontario. I just wanted to put that on the record. It relates to the whole thing, really, but I might as well just do this at the outset. I agree wholeheartedly with this presentation. I don't believe that the government, in the hearings, has listened to anybody really. Many of these amendments are minor or technical, but in terms of substantive stuff that we heard from the deputants, you really didn't listen. I wanted to read one of the parts of the submission made by this group.

1450

"The one-window approach for building and private sewage disposal approvals may be more convenient for consumers, but it will result in environmental degradation. In previous submissions to the government, we have outlined many reasons for this conclusion, perhaps the most important of which is the need to have environmental and public health programs provided by an autonomous agency which is somewhat more insulated from local development and political pressure.

"There are countless examples throughout the province where local influence has resulted in building approvals being issued without due regard for adequate sewage servicing and public health and environmental protection.

"Furthermore, the current number of 40 or so delivery agencies allows for more consistent and uniform application of province-wide standards compared to downloading the program to several hundred municipal building departments with little or no experience."

I'm not convinced that whatever training might be going on, the shift of public health and the shift away from worrying about the environment can easily be dealt with or solved by transferring those responsibilities on to the building code. The shift of the building code versus the protections that were given to these areas under the Minister of the Environment is completely different and I, along with this organization and countless others that deputed, worry about the effects of what you folks are doing with this.

You seem to be making it simpler and you may make it more convenient for some people, but you have shifted due regard for environmental concerns and health concerns by downloading and transferring this responsibility to the building code. I may from time to time raise this again, but I thought I would raise it at the outset because it applies to many of the amendments we're about to deal with.

Mr Hardeman: I just want to clarify the point that was brought up earlier on user fees and the issue of the cost to the boards of health. I would just point out that a great number, if not all, of the boards of health which are presently providing the services do presently have a permit fee to charge for that service and recover a lot of their cost through that system. It's not an add-on; it's just a user fee that would go to a different level of government.

Mr Sergio: Just for clarification, I believe that all the inspections at the moment are done by provincial inspectors, not by municipal inspectors.

Mr Hardeman: In most cases I think, referring to the boards of health, those inspectors presently work for the boards of health, and then on the sewage inspections they work under contract with the Ministry of the Environment. They set their permit fees to recoup some of the cost, and then the difference between the permit fees and the actual expenditure of that division of the board of health is paid for through the Ministry of the Environment. But they do work on somewhat of a cost recovery system on the inspections.

Mr Sergio: I note staff wants to comment. Mr Gregson was shaking his head.

The Chair: Mr Sergio, perhaps you could speak up, and also through the Chair, please.

Mr Sergio: I'm sorry.

Mr Marchese: If there is a staff comment by way of clarification, we'd appreciate it.

Mr Sergio: Yes, if we can have a comment from staff.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr Sergio: I believe he's shaking his head a little bit over there.

Mr William Gregson: My name is William Gregson. I'm with the approvals branch at the Ministry of the Environment and we oversee the current program. Indeed, as it was described is how the current program operates, that health units do charge a fee for approvals. There may be some adjustment of fees necessary, but there is a fee already.

Mr Sergio: What about for inspections?

Mr Gregson: Inspections, as a part of the approvals process, that is what the fee is for.

Mr Sergio: What about the training for inspectors in the new municipality?

Mr Gregson: Under the new procedure?

Mr Sergio: Yes.

Mr Gregson: I defer that to my other colleague.

Mr Brian Kozman: My name is Brian Kozman. I'm with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As is currently the case under the Environmental Protection Act, there is no certification program, if you will, formally.

Mr Sergio: Indeed.

Mr Kozman: This certification requirement and the qualifications that we're setting up are going to be new and are going to be under the Building Code Act. That's not to say, though, that individuals who are currently doing inspections and approvals for health units don't go through training through, for example, Ryerson college or the University of Guelph or through some of their professional associations, ASPHIO and CIPHI being two of those bodies.

Mr Marchese: Just briefly, Mr Chair --

Mr Sergio: I wasn't finished. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Sure, please.

Mr Sergio: I can appreciate that explanation, because this was one of the concerns expressed by ASPHIO, that now local municipalities not only don't have the direction, they don't have the money to provide the training and there's no organization that provides certification of those assessors and inspectors. Their concern was, where are those municipalities going to end up? From the time the service is being severed by the province, they will have to assume their own responsibility. Who is going to do what and when? The local municipalities are going to be left to fend for themselves without certified inspectors, and the concern that ASPHIO was telling us at the committee level is that the level of service is going to be less than what they are getting now.

Mr Hastings: My recall is quite the reverse from the Ontario Building Officials Association that was in here about two and a half weeks ago. There were about four of them who sat in front of us. On the whole issue of training there were a lot of questions raised as to how far along they were to be able to accept this responsibility; what were some of the issues of timing; would they be able to get the program up and going; and how would they cover the province?

I distinctly remember talking to the executive director of that organization outside this committee room, and we went into some detail. One of the ways they would be doing it is through videotaping for northern Ontario. They could use distance learning through the new organization in northern Ontario that was spun off from the Ministry of Education and Training. I don't know where members are when they say there is no way in which the issue can be handled. It's going to be difficult, granted, and they may not, as Mr Hardeman pointed out, have everybody trained by March 1998, but the whole issue of training was brought up and thoroughly thrashed out in front of this committee by that particular association.

As far as ASPHIO is concerned, they're good at making remarks about the degradation of the environment and that there won't be suitably trained people for sewage inspection and that the boards of health will be incapable of carrying it out etc. I think a large number of those boards of health already are carrying out the responsibility. Where those municipalities do not have boards of health or adequately trained people for that specific function, I think that neighbouring boards of health and the organizations that are involved in the training issues can come through.

I think we're raising some rather questionable issues here to say there's no way in which training can be issued, that there aren't organizations available to carry it out up to the level of training that existing people have in this field. In my estimation, it can be done. Maybe the timing will take a little longer than what is required by the act, but there are ways in which it can be carried out, and there were organizations in here that dealt with the issue. To say there can't be adequate training carried out, that there aren't any moneys available, is completely uncalled for.

Mr Gerretsen: It's true, isn't it?

The Chair: Mr Marchese is first.

Mr Marchese: I have just a few quick points. I'm not speaking to the members here. I always try to speak to the public because they're the ones who have to make up their minds about these things.

First, I'm not sure what the fees are at the moment, but the fees are likely to go up once they're in the control of the municipalities, for a variety of reasons. They won't have the money, so they'll have to jack up the prices. It's inevitable.

1500

Second, at the present moment I believe that inspections done by provincial folks are more removed from influence than they will be in the future, meaning they will be subject to being influenced by developers and other types in communities who want to get things done. I worry and the public should worry about that. That's my second point.

The third point is that the shift away from having a focus that is inherently connected to the environment means that their concern is attached to how to protect the environment. You shift that to the building code, and the building code stuff is completely different. Their focus, their attention is completely different from those that are connected to the Ministry of the Environment. It doesn't matter to me that you think differently, because we obviously disagree. You folks want to facilitate building for your buddies. That's okay; I understand that. I worry about the general public. I worry about the public interest.

I believe you're shifting the focus away from the public interest on the environment into a building code situation where, yes, it might make it easier and faster and convenient for some people, but I worry about what is going to happen as a result of that. I leave that to the public to decide. We make our arguments, you make yours. In the end, they'll have to judge us and you.

Mr Sergio: It's worth quoting from the ASPHIO, which is the Association of Supervisors of Public Health Inspectors of Ontario. This was incorporated in 1982. These are some of things that they told us at the committee level. It's on page 2 of their own presentation. I think it's worth quoting because they are addressing the heart of the matter here:

"Many health departments utilize highly skilled management staff to supervise the inspectors. These skills, accumulated through education and experience, will be replaced by inspectors with significantly lesser qualifications and limited or no experience. As of March 1, 1998, this accountability will be lacking or non-existent as the accumulated experience of over 23 years will be lost while local building officials, who are not in a position to acquire the expertise, will be held liable for program delivery.

"ASPHIO maintains that effective supervision of the design and installation of sewage disposal systems is fundamental for the protection of public health and the environment. At present, most municipal officials responsible to perform activities under the authority of the building code do not have training in hydrogeology, soils, public health, chemistry or biology and how these disciplines relate to sewage composition and sewage treatment."

This is the fact of the matter; it is not who, what and when. Building inspectors do not provide that service whatsoever. As more municipalities are left alone, charged now with the responsibility of providing this most important and vital service to the community, how are they going to provide that? They don't know. This is the concern that ASPHIO is telling us.

Mr Hastings: Can I ask a couple of questions here?

The Chair: Sure, as long as it's on point.

Mr Hastings: What is the existing fee, the average cost, for septic tank inspection at the moment by a board of health?

Mr Gregson: I don't have the figure with me here in terms of the average cost. I'd be reluctant to guess.

Mr Hastings: Have you got a range, a ballpark?

Mr Gregson: It widely varies across the province.

Mr Hastings: Is it $75 or $100 and up?

Mr Gregson: Average fee would be approximately $150, I would think.

Mr Hastings: What kind of experience and what kind of training do these people have who carry out that particular function?

Mr Gregson: Primarily, it's agreements through health units that we've entered into. It would be health unit inspectors with the background that they have as health unit inspectors.

Mr Hastings: What would be their specific training that they would have had over the years to become public health inspectors dealing with this function -- a certificate in public health administration?

Mr Gregson: There is no formal credential requirement now, as I understand it, in the context of delivering our program. I can't speak to other programs that the health unit administers.

Mr Hastings: When the Ontario Building Officials Association was here -- they're going to become responsible for this specific function, are they not?

Mr Gregson: Yes.

Mr Hastings: In their presentation, they laid out their concerns about training, the timing and some of the implementation issues of how they will get their folks up to speed on that specific function. I don't know whether you have seen the presentation, but they raised those issues and some minor related concerns. They delivered the message to this committee that in time, certainly by the middle of next year at the latest, most of their people will have some minimal, and probably a lot more than minimal, levels of education and training in this particular function, which is not certified or organized along a more coherent education line than you have alluded to. Your comment, sir.

Mr Gregson: The proposed new bill will provide a formal certification process for inspectors. That has not been in existence up until the effective date of the bill.

Mr Hastings: What is their background in terms of training in the building code orientation? What kind of courses do they have to take to become building code examiners or -- yes, "examiners" is the appropriate term.

Mr Gregson: I'd have to defer that again, sir.

Mr Jeff Levitt: My name is Jeff Levitt; I'm a lawyer with the legal branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As far as the building officials are concerned, currently there is no requirement under the Building Code Act or Ontario building code that there be formal qualifications that have to be met. The Ontario Building Officials Association, which was incorporated by statute several years ago, has developed its own course for its members and very many members have passed through that. They have a designation called "certified building code official" that their organization administers. That is something related to their organization, but not currently under the Building Code Act. What is new in this bill will be the requirement to have qualifications under the Building Code Act for inspectors.

Mr Hastings: That organization will become the delivery agent for this particular certified program?

Mr Kozman: I'll try to take a crack at that. We're in the process right now of determining who, if anyone, will be our partners on the delivery of the training. We're in the process of developing the curriculum right now, the examination questions that will be associated with the certification program. OBOA has reached out to us and said, "We want to be part of that." We're very much looking forward to talking with them and others about getting that certification and training program up and running.

Mr Hastings: My final question would be: Are there similar or related courses that the Ontario Building Officials Association have in that particular self-managed program that are related to courses that public health inspectors take on the septic tank inspection function?

Mr Kozman: Not under the courses that they offer as part of their association certification program, but that doesn't mean that building officials may, in the course of their professional career development, not have gone and taken courses at an institution like Guelph or Ryerson, which do offer courses on environmental sciences and that sort of thing. Some of them may have that background, but certainly not all of them will.

Mr Hastings: And one of the specific references would be a course in soils and the composition of those soils, which would show a linkage of the two.

Mr Kozman: Those courses are offered. I can't tell you right here and now that 75% of building officials have gone to take those courses, but some of them may have in the course of their own professional career development.

Mr Hastings: I just ask those questions to lay out that there is a foundation or common thread, I think, between the two that is not dissimilar.

The Chair: Are there further questions or comments?

Mr Sergio: Yes, just one more, the question of how much came out. I'm just quoting from AMO. We're all familiar with AMO and its work, and this is what they have to say just with respect to one municipality:

"The costs of the records transfer will be significant and were not accounted for as part of the Who Does What transfers. Therefore, these costs should not be passed on to property taxpayers. As an example, the district of Muskoka estimates that 20,000 files will need to be indexed" -- just indexing those files -- "at a cost of approximately $75,000," let alone the inspections and training of those officials afterwards. The concern is well expressed by everyone who has made a presentation. Unfortunately, the government is not taking that into consideration with the bill.

Mr Marchese: I just want to repeat the point again, because it's useful. Training is a good thing. I think everybody will be happy that training is going to happen. We are worried about the shift of focus. No one speaks to that. The civil servants really can't speak to this, it's not their job, and the politicians of course avoid this particular question that I'm raising. The autonomous inspection done by the province leaves them to be less corruptible by those who otherwise might be corruptible at the public level.

There is going to be much more political interference and involvement and influence at the local level, Mr Carroll. You probably agree with that. You're not speaking to it, Mr Hardeman isn't speaking to it, no one is speaking to it. That's why I'm raising it over and over again. Yes, building inspectors might get training that will permit them to have a better understanding to deal with these issues that they have no clue about at the moment. That's a good thing. But I worry about the issue I've raised. None of you guys are talking about it, but it will be a problem.

The Chair: We'll call the vote on the government motion. All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Mr Carroll: Mr Chairman, it is quarter after three and some of us, being a little older than others --

The Chair: Speak for yourself.

Mr Carroll: -- have different requirements. Is there any possibility that we could have a 10-minute recess, since we're not in a position for any of us to leave?

Mr Gerretsen: Do you guys need to caucus again? Is that it?

The Chair: Mr Carroll is requesting a 10-minute recess. We will grant that recess for 10 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1514 to 1528.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we have finished page 30 of the package and we are now on to page 31.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 34(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, as amended by subsection 17(4) of schedule B to the bill, be further amended by adding the following paragraph:

"35.1 designating persons and specifying powers of a chief building official or inspector that those designated persons may exercise to enforce this act and the building code in relation to the qualifications of inspectors and of persons described in section 18.1 and establishing conditions for the exercise of those powers."

Mr Hardeman: This amendment is required in order to be able, through the ministry or a designated person, to enforce the regulations and the training programs that are being proposed in the legislation. This will provide the minister with the ability to appoint someone to enforce those regulations. That's the intent of the motion.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

On to page 32, a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 34(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, as amended by subsection 17(4) of schedule B to the bill, be further amended by adding the following paragraphs:

"36.1 permitting the Building Code Commission to sit in one or more divisions simultaneously upon such conditions as may be prescribed in the regulation;

"36.2 authorizing one member of the Building Code Commission, with the approval of the chair or vice-chair, to hear and determine any matter and deeming the member to constitute the commission for that purpose, under such conditions as may be prescribed in the regulation."

Mr Hardeman: The intent of the amendment is to allow the commission to appoint an individual to hear an appeal. As is presently allowed under the Environmental Protection Act for the septic inspection appeals, one person can hear it. We propose that this should be continued to be allowed as it moves over to the Building Code Act.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Marchese: To communicate to Mr Carroll my ongoing concerns around this, this is intended to save money, obviously. Instead of three people, you have one doing that job. As you shift those concerns that I spoke about earlier about the focus being different, that when you have these inspectors in the environment, it gives it a totally different concern and focus versus now the building code. When you shift all of this down here at this level and you now only require one of these people to do the job, I worry as much, if not more, about that. I know you're trying to save money and this will do it, but I wanted to put that on the record.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 17, as amended? Those opposed? Section 17, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of sections 18, 19 and 20? Opposed? Sections 18, 19 and 20 are carried.

We're on page 33 of the package.

Mr Carroll: Before I begin this, there is some French in this and I apologize in advance for what will not be very good pronunciation.

I move that subsection 28(5) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 21 of schedule B to the bill, be amended by,

(a) striking out "or deliver them to the director; and" at the end of clause (a) and substituting "or as otherwise prescribed under subsection (7)";

(b) striking out "ou une copie certifiée conforme de ce dossier selon ce que précise le directeur" at the end of the French version of clause (b) and substituting "qui est précisé dans la demande ou une copie certifiée conforme de ce dossier"; and

(c) by adding the following clauses:

"(c) on the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate as to the service of any document relating to part VIII as specified in the request;

"(d) on the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate as to the custody of any document relating to part VIII as specified in the request; and

"(e) on the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate as to whether or not any document relating to part VIII as specified in the request was received or issued."

Mr Hardeman: This is to deal with the movement of records from the Ministry of the Environment and the authority for the Building Code Act. This will facilitate the moving of those records from one to the other as the function is being moved.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion?

Mr Marchese: No. You didn't ask for any debate on this.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, if you wish debate, please put up your hand or indicate so to me, and I will welcome you.

Mr Marchese: I'll be faster next time.

The Chair: Indeed.

Mr Marchese: I'm not sure it's as simple as he says. He seems to make it appear like this is just facilitating some transfer of records from one to the other.

It says, "Striking out 'or deliver them to the director; and'...'or as otherwise prescribed....'" My sense of what I read here is that the director will have less supervision than before, that fewer records will go into his hands directly, not just in terms of control but in terms of directly supervising and looking at what's before him. This seems to me to be a problem. Maybe it's minor, I'm not sure, but it can't easily be dismissed. I see it as the director having less of an overview over the problems. That's what it seems to facilitate more than anything else. Do I have it wrong?

Mr Gerretsen: I doubt it.

Mr Marchese: Ask him.

The Chair: No, you ask him.

Mr Marchese: Through you, Chair, because we always speak to you, right?

Mr Hardeman: To clarify it, obviously we all recognize that the part of the act that's being referred to the Building Code Act will be generating certain records that relate to the environmental part of the building code. This will allow the director to request and receive all that information to be able to transfer records from one function to another at the request of the director; to deal with Mr Marchese's concern, to make sure that the director is made aware or could be made aware of any discrepancies that may or may not be there. This also allows the copying of records in that when the records are moved from one function to another, or from one level of government to another, we would be able to create two records. A true copy would be sufficient; it would be the same as the original document. So they could be utilized in two places.

Mr Marchese: Maybe I read it wrong, but it says, "On the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate...." So when he wants something, he's going to get it. That's what it says. "On the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate as to the custody of any document...." So whatever he has requested, he gets it, as opposed to automatically passing this documentation, whatever that is, to the director, and then presumably that person decides what he or she might need. As I see it, somebody holds on to those records and the director will only get it when he or she asks for it. That's the way I read it. Is that the way you understand it too? I'm saying this appears to me to have, therefore, less supervision involved by the director of that documentation, whatever it is, less oversight, except and unless there is a problem and the director requests such a document. You don't see that as a problem?

Mr Hardeman: In fairness, and we'll ask staff to comment, as the function of inspection of weeping and sewage systems is turned over to the municipalities under the Building Code Act, the record of doing that will become a municipal record, and that part which still would be done under the director, they would have those records. This provides the opportunity for the director to request copies of all the inspections and the functions that are being carried on under the Building Code Act to make sure that they've all met the requirements under the act. With that, I would ask the ministry. Maybe they have further comments to enlighten you, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: That would be good.

Mr Leo FitzPatrick: My name is Leo FitzPatrick. I'm with the legal services branch, Ministry of the Environment. The motion will indeed allow the director to pick and choose which records he wants to request. As written, the provision about "deliver to the director" was an option that was under the control of the board of health that had the records in their hands, not something that was available to the director. This will take away the option from the board of health. They will simply have to maintain the records until either the director asks for a specific one or asks for all of them, or regulations could be made in accordance with a later subsection to prescribe exactly what is to be done with the records.

1540

Mr Marchese: I understood that.

The Chair: Okay. Further questions or debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion is carried.

We are now on to page 34, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 28 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 21 of schedule B to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Deemed official document

"(5.1) A record, certified copy of a record or a certificate delivered under clause (5)(b) or (c) that is or relates to an approval, certificate, consent, licence, notice, permit, order or return under part VIII shall be deemed to be an official document signed by an employee in the ministry for the purpose of section 175.

"Same

"(5.2) A certificate delivered under clause (5)(d) or (e) shall be deemed to be an official document signed by an employee in the ministry for the purpose of section 175."

Mr Hardeman: I think I was slightly ahead of my description on the last motion. This actually deals with the certification of a true copy or a document other than the original, to deal with the issues of the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr Sergio: Just for clarification, Mr Carroll, in the last line of (5.1) where it says, "an official document signed by an employee in the ministry," would that be an authorized employee or any ministry employees?

Mr Hardeman: I'll turn that over to the ministry.

Mr FitzPatrick: The wording is put in here so that it matches exactly what is at present in section 175 of the Environmental Protection Act. The status of an official document is a normal business function for records in the hands of the ministry. We're giving that same status to part VIII records in the hands of a board of health or someone else who has administered this program for us.

Mr Sergio: Okay, so it is no one specifically. It can be any employee of the ministry, and not any particular authorized person?

Mr FitzPatrick: That's correct. The certification would be done by the board of health or whoever has the records under their control. This gives them special legal status under the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr Sergio: So, if that is the case, then would you say it clarifies it or makes it the way it should be to insert in there "by an authorized employee," instead of leaving it as any employee?

Mr FitzPatrick: It's not necessary to do that. It would in fact be the board of health that certifies the document because it's in their control. This section gives it the same status as if it were a ministry document, and the words here have to match exactly the words that are in section 175 of the EPA at the moment.

Mr Sergio: Even though 175 may be wrong? In order to maintain the uniformity, you might as well leave it as is?

Mr FitzPatrick: Exactly correct.

Mr Sergio: Thank you.

Mr Carroll: Two wrongs make a right.

Mr Sergio: Two wrongs make a right. So 175 is wrong, so let's keep on going.

The Chair: Are we going to have any further debate?

Mr Sergio: No, by all means.

The Chair: You are finished, Mr Sergio?

Mr Sergio: Absolutely.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 21, as amended? All those opposed? Section 21, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of section 22 and 23? All those opposed? Sections 22 and 23 are now carried.

We are on to page 35, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that clause 53(6.1)(b) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 24(2) of schedule B to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) more than one sewage works is located on a lot or parcel of land and they have , in total, a design capacity in excess of 10,000 litres per day."

Mr Hardeman: The intent of course is the bill changes everything that is less than 10,000 litres to day over to the Building Code Act. When a sewage system is over 10,000 litres a day it stays with the Environmental Protection Act. It was considered appropriate that if there were a number of sewage facilities on a single lot or a single parcel of land that collectively went over the 10,000, it should stay with the larger approvals approach as opposed to the single units, so we're recommending that's what would happen. So if the cumulative effect of a number of sewage systems on one lot would deem it to be a larger unit then it would have to stay with the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr Gerretsen: Could somebody from the ministry indicate to me what the average capacity on a daily basis is for a private residence? I've got a comment after that.

Mr Gregson: Approximately 2,000 litres per day, roughly.

Mr Gerretsen: The way it's currently written, as proposed, if the excess was over 10,000 litres per day, you would still be limited to the one residence. But what's being suggested here is that it could in effect apply to five residences on a development, this new section that you want us to pass.

Mr Hardeman: I think prior to the amendment, the way the bill would be written is that any single family resident, a single unit owned by a property owner, provided that it had capacity of less than 10,000 litres, would revert to the Building Code Act. The suggestion here is if you had a parcel of land where you were going to put a number of different units on that piece of property without having it severed -- this would not apply to a plan of subdivision because you have a number of separate laws, but if you had a single parcel of land where you were going to build a number of units then you would have the accumulative effect of a larger communal system, which of course stays with the Environmental Protection Act under the bill. This is to make sure that where you have the accumulated effect of a number of units, if the capacity jointly of all the units on that piece of property is over 10,000 litres a day, they would have to have the approval through the Ministry of Environment, through the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr Gerretsen: But before the amendment, as you're proposing it now, if there were, let's say, two private residences on that particular piece of property that had a 10,000-litre capacity, you in effect had to go under the Environmental Protection Act. Now with the amendment, as long as the total capacity is not more than 10,000 litres per day, you in effect could have up to let's say five residences without having to go through environmental protection.

Mr Hardeman: No, I think the way the act prior to the amendment would be written, each individual system on that piece of property, provided each one was under 10,000 litres a day, would go under the Building Code Act, even if there were five, six, eight or 10 all on this one parcel of land. What this amendment is doing is saying if you have an accumulated disposal system of over 10,000 litres a day on the total parcel of land, regardless of how many units there are, it stays with the Environmental Protection Act and under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

Mr Gerretsen: So the amendment is a weakening of the current conditions.

Mr Hardeman: No, the amendment is a strengthening. Well, I guess I'd want to correct that. It's a question of whether turning over or reverting some of the inspection to the municipal government is a weakening of the system, which I don't believe, but this here will leave more systems with the Ministry of the Environment as opposed to local approval.

Mr Sergio: Just one question. Does the act force the owners or the developer or builder to have one communal system if the system were to be over 10,000 litres per day? Does the act force them to have one communal service, or can they go individually?

1550

Mr Hardeman: I don't know. I don't think this part of the act at least deals with which alternative they use. I would point out that if it was the one communal system, that stays with the Ministry of the Environment under the Environmental Protection Act. This amendment is saying that if you are going to have five or six separate units and produce the capacity of a communal system, it also will stay with the Ministry of the Environment and will be monitored under the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr Sergio: I understand that. A further question: Regardless of where it stays, Ministry of the Environment or whatever, I'm trying to get to the point that if there is a problem -- and in small municipalities it's very difficult to get inspections on a regular basis or on a timely basis -- if you have a communal system and that system fails, everyone is affected in that particular system. I'm saying that regardless of where it sits, under what ministry, if you will, does the act force those people to belong to that particular communal portion, or can they have their own individual system, even though altogether they would be over the 10,000 litres per day?

Mr FitzPatrick: The difference in approach is simply that with the number of different sewage systems on the one lot, we would presume that there's common ownership of all of the systems. We would not force them to design what they want to do in any particular way. But each application that comes in to us for the approval of a sewage works under the Ontario Water Resources Act would be dealt with in context. We would look at the affect that the other systems already on the lot have on the new proposal or the affect that the new proposal will have on the other systems that are on the lot now.

The building code provisions are not varied enough that they can take into consideration those different impacts from one system to another. The ministry can evaluate that as if it were a communal sewage works and give or refuse or put conditions on the approval that are appropriate to the circumstances.

Mr Sergio: The act leaves enough flexibility to assess each individual application.

Mr FitzPatrick: In context.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 24, as amended? All those opposed? Section 24, as amended, is carried.

We're on to page 36.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 53.1(7) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 25 of schedule B to the bill, be amended by,

(a) striking out "or deliver them to the Director; and". at the end of clause (a) and substituting "or as otherwise prescribed under subsection (9),"

(b) striking out "ou une copie certifiée conforme de ce dossier selon ce que précise le directeur" at the end of the French version of clause (b) and substituting "qui est précisé dans la demande ou une copie certifiée conforme de ce dossier," and

(c) adding the following clauses:

"(c) on the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate as to the service of any document relating to part VIII as specified in the request,

"(d) on the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate as to the custody of any document relating to part VIII as specified in the request; and

"(e) on the written request of the director, deliver to the director a certificate as to whether or not any document relating to part VIII as specified in the request was received or issued."

Mr Hardeman: This is the same issue as the previous amendment about two amendments ago where it dealt with the transfer of records under the Environmental Protection Act. This is under the Ontario Water Resources Act, which deals with same issue.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm just curious as to why in these last two particular cases we deal with the French version. Do I take it that the current French versions already have the amendments in them and we're not really dealing with the same bill at all? Is that why we're only concerned in the last two sections about amendments to the French version of this bill?

Mr Hardeman: We'll have the ministry answer that.

Mr FitzPatrick: I'm advised that when French legislative counsel was preparing the motions, it made them realize that there was a flaw in a similar phrase in what was already in the bill in the French version. They're correcting it.

Mr Gerretsen: I see. All the amendments that we're dealing with today and that the government's passing over the opposition's objections have not as yet been translated into French but will be translated once the entire bill has been dealt with, including amendments?

Mr FitzPatrick: I don't know that.

Mr Gerretsen: Supposedly? We just want to make sure that we do what's right.

The Chair: I'll have the legislative counsel make some comments.

Ms Sibylle Filion: The translation of the motions is actually -- most of them have all been done except for some of the motions on schedule F, if that's the question.

Mr Gerretsen: I see. But maybe the legislative counsel can answer my initial question then. Why are we only dealing with some of the French amendments and why aren't we doing that for every section that's being amended?

Ms Filion: As counsel pointed out, at the time this particular motion was translated, it followed the wording that is currently in the provision that we are dealing with; that is, clause 7(b) of section 53.1. The words "a record or certified copy of a record relating to part VIII as specified in the request" was translated in one way which, in doing the motions, we realized wasn't the correct way to translate it. We are correcting that.

Mr Marchese: My worry about the French, with all due respect to Mr Carroll, is that the French is at the mercy of Mr Carroll.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Page 37.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 53.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 25 of schedule B to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Deemed official document

"(7.1) A record, certified copy of a record or a certificate delivered under clause (7)(b) or (c) that is or relates to an approval, certificate, consent, licence, notice, permit, order or return under part VIII of the Environmental Protection Act shall be deemed to be an official document signed by an employee in the ministry for the purpose of section 115.

"Same

"(7.2) A certificate delivered under clause (7)(d) or (e) shall be deemed to be an official document signed by an employee in the ministry for the purpose of section 115."

Mr Hardeman: Again, this is a similar amendment to the previous amendment to deal with the authenticity of a copy of a document.

Mr Gerretsen: The question I have is that this kind of an amendment has nothing to do with the kind of presentations that were made to this committee. Why would this amendment not have been thought about at the time when the bill was originally drafted? Will the parliamentary assistant agree with me that certainly the bill was drafted in haste and therefore not adequate attention was paid to a lot of these sections that should have been drafted correctly in the first place? I wonder if Mr Hardeman, for whom I have a lot of respect, could answer that question because I'm sure that he would never do anything in haste in Oxford county. To be involved with a government that seems to be doing most of its activities in haste -- we need an awful lot of amendments and an awful lot of public outcry about most of what this government is doing. How could we possibly be involved with this kind of activity?

1600

Mr Hardeman: I would not suggest that this document was prepared in haste. I believe it was prepared with all due diligence by the staff and the legislative counsel and everyone else who was involved in preparing it. I would apologize and suggest that not everyone is perfect. From time to time, as you go through a lengthy review of a document, you will find the need for further refining or additions to that document to make sure it accomplishes all the things that need to be accomplished.

Mr Gerretsen: Just so that you understand where I'm coming from, I fully accept the fact that the staff in his ministry and all the other ministries are very competent individuals and that they are suffering under the tremendous load that the political masters have given them in these cases. Maybe they simply haven't had adequate time to draft this legislation carefully enough. None of my comments were intended to put any blame on staff, for whom I have the highest of regard. Maybe the political masters gave them these kinds of directions in haste and without much forethought in a lot of different areas. All we have to do is look at Bill 126, Bill 136, Bill 160 -- as a matter of fact, probably just about every bill this government has come up with over the last two and a half years.

Mr Marchese: I would make a suggestion to the government. Given that they have ruled by fiat, by and large, and by omnipotence as well, with that omnipotent power they should just rule that staff be semi-divine --

Mr Gerretsen: The political masters certainly aren't.

Mr Marchese: -- in which case we could probably avoid a lot of the errors that we see. Could they do that?

The Chair: Further debate?

All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

We're on page 38.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 53.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 25 of schedule B to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Sewage works

"(9.1) A regulation under subsection (9) may specify any works as sewage works for the purpose of any section of this act or regulations made under this act."

Mr Hardeman: The reason we're moving this amendment is to provide a means for regulating sewage systems which may be developed or identified during the transition and which do not fall clearly under the standards set in the existing provincial legislation, for example, the Building Code Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 25, as amended? All those opposed? Section 25, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of sections 26 and 27? All those opposed? Sections 26 and 27 are carried.

Mr Sergio, we are on to you.

Mr Marchese: Finally, we change the pace a little bit.

Mr Sergio: This is schedule B to the bill, section 28, amendments to the Building Code Act, 1992, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

I move that section 28 of schedule B to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Commencement

"28. This schedule or any part, portion or section of the schedule comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor after the later of:

"(a) January 1, 1999, or

"(b) The day after the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Health have tabled a report with the assembly setting out the actions the government has taken to ensure that public health standards in septic systems are being monitored."

The intent of the amendment is very clear. I made my pitch in debating former amendments on the same issues. That goes for this one as well. It deals with the transition of the powers and responsibility to local municipalities to hire their own people, train their own people and conduct their own inspections, and recovery of cost as well. The municipalities have no recourse to the upper tier, which is the provincial government, and they are left on their own.

I think the concern which we are expressing here, and which has been expressed by ASPHIO as well, is that the time between the moment of, "Yes, now it's yours," the province saying to the local municipality, "It's your baby; from here on in, it's your own responsibility" -- we want to be assured that the continuity of service, inspections, especially with respect to health and stuff like that, are done in a fashion that is acceptable and does not affect the health of those residents. This is the reason we have introduced the amendment, to give enough time for the municipalities to conduct their affairs and get organized in the meantime.

Mr Gerretsen: To add to that, I think many of the same arguments that were made with respect to schedule A when we dealt with ambulance services can be repeated again, but I won't do that because I know you wouldn't allow me to do that. I think that in this particular case, there has to be an adequate time in order for the integration of the new system to take place.

Let me just quote to you some statistics from the submission that was made by the Association of Supervisors of Public Health Inspectors of Ontario. According to them, and I've got no reason to disbelieve them, there are approximately one million private sewage systems currently in operation in Ontario, and close to 22,000 certificates of approval for new systems are issued annually. Some 22,000 new sewage systems are put into the ground annually in the province of Ontario.

Surely this is not just a question of dollars and cents. This is a question of public health and the protection of the public to make sure that everything is done in a safe, environmental way. Surely in an integration where you're now going to integrate the building inspection function with the sewage function, you want to make sure that no errors are made at all when you realize that 22,000 new sewage systems are being approved in this province on an annual basis. I would think that we want to make sure that it's done correctly, not only in order to save a few dollars here or there by either this government or by local governments. It's the future health and safety and environmental safety of our communities that are at risk and are at stake.

We've only got six weeks until this new system comes into operation. Why don't we just hold off, make sure that all the restructuring, all the downloading that's been talked about in this bill and in other bills has taken place at the local levels and then, maybe next year, for January 1, 1999, we can be ready for the new system to take place. I think the environmental health and safety of the people of Ontario is at risk and at stake. With the numbers that we're talking about, that in the year 1998 some 22,000 new systems can be put into the ground, we want to make sure that they are done in a safe and environmentally sound way. Delay it until January 1, 1999, and allow the system to adequately respond to the concerns as set out in this bill.

Mr Marchese: I support the motion and reiterate my support for the presentation made by the Association of Supervisors of Public Health Inspectors of Ontario. I thought their submission was well documented. I thought their presentation was useful for us all, but quite clearly the government members have not listened to any of the suggestions they've made. Clearly they have an agenda and they don't want to be diverted from it by any intelligent observations or points of views made by people who are experts in their field.

I know you all have faith in all of this. You seem to, from the way you have dismissed many of their recommendations. I don't have the same faith. I truly believe that this transferring of responsibilities downward to the local municipality will not have the objectivity that it should have, will be more likely to be influenced than the provincial bodies. I think that will have repercussions to the general health of the population and to our environment which directly impinge on our health as people who live in those environments. So I believe that you are moving in the wrong direction, that you will facilitate this for some individuals and some developers. This might be nice for them, but overall it has implications. This motion is an attempt to get to that particular problem and I support it.

1610

Mr Hardeman: I will not be supporting the amendment. I think it's important to recognize that as part of the realignment of services from the municipal and the provincial sectors, the septic system inspection is one of those items that's being changed from a provincial to municipal function. I would point out that at present the province does not provide the inspections that we're referring to. They are all done under contract with the ministry, the majority of which are being provided by local government bodies now through the conservation authorities or boards of health.

There is no reason why the municipalities, if they so desire, could not continue the practice that at present exists to administer that function until such time, as the suggestions were, that they can actually totally integrate it with their building function. At this point in time, this provides the opportunity to move that function to the municipal sector. Also, in a lot of cases, where it is at present being provided through the boards of health in other areas of the Who Does What transfers, we will all recognize that the proposal is to transfer the total function of the board of health or the cost of the board of health to the municipalities, and again, that could incorporate the inspections where they are at present. They would then become a municipal function and they could carry on as long as the local government decided that was the appropriate way of delivering this service.

I see no need for the delaying date. I would point out that if one follows the process that we have been through all day today, every section, we would seem to suggest that we should delay implementation because there are too many others that are being implemented at the same time. I would point out to the committee that the purpose is to make sure that we have a balance of transfers in the municipal-provincial transfers, so I would encourage the members of this committee not to support this motion.

The Chair: We are going to call a vote on Mr Sergio's motion. Shall the motion carry?

Mr Gerretsen: I'd like a recorded vote.

Ayes

Gerretsen, Marchese, Sergio.

Nays

Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

The Chair: The motion fails.

Mr Marchese: I withdraw the next motion, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Very good. All those in favour of section 28? All those opposed? Section 28 is now carried. That appears to conclude schedule B, so I will ask, shall schedule B, as amended, carry?

Mr Gerretsen: I'd like a recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

Nays

Gerretsen, Marchese, Sergio.

The Chair: Schedule B, as amended, is carried.

Mr Marchese: Chair, are they leaving us? Thank you very much.

The Chair: Indeed. You are absolutely right, Mr Marchese, for assisting. I wish to thank all of Mr Hardeman's assistants for helping the committee this afternoon. Thank you very much.

We're now on schedule C. I understand that's Mr Carroll's role as the parliamentary assistant. We are now on page 41.

Mr Carroll: Subsection 1(1) of schedule C, definition of "district social services administration board" in section 1 of the Day Nurseries Act: I move that the definition of "district social services administration board" in section 1 of the Day Nurseries Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of schedule C to the bill, be struck out.

The reason for this is that the district social services administration boards are in Bill 142 and will not come into existence until that act is proclaimed in January 1998. Therefore, reference to them in this act is not appropriate. The other references to district social services administration boards are being replaced with the terminology "prescribed boards." That provides the flexibility to use district welfare administration boards, which we currently have, until district social services administration boards or area service boards are created.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm wondering if this speaks to the arrogance of this government, because I guess what Mr Carroll is acknowledging here is that there was an assumption that Bill 142, which obviously was introduced in the House before Bill 152, was already proclaimed. Is the government proceeding on the basis that every bill that's before it will automatically be rubber-stamped by this Legislature? Is that why hindsight and some of the other events that have taken place over the last six months have made you withdraw this particular definition, because you realize that maybe the Legislature will wake up one of these days and there will be sufficient numbers of government backbenchers who will actually vote against a bill like Bill 142, that it may not pass and that you cannot be so presumptuous as to assume that it has been passed? Is that the real reason for doing this, Mr Carroll?

Mr Carroll: The short answer is no.

The Chair: Further questions or debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 1, as amended? All those opposed? Section 1, as amended, is carried.

We're on section 2, page 42 of the package.

Mr Carroll: Section 2 of schedule C, subsection 2.2(1) of the Day Nurseries Act: I move that subsection 2.2(1) of the Day Nurseries Act, as set out in section 2 of schedule C to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Delivery agents designated

"(1) The minister may by regulation designate a municipality, band or prescribed board as a delivery agent for each geographic area."

The reason for moving this amendment is to permit a band to be designated as a delivery agent to deliver child care within a designated geographic area and, again, to eliminate the reference to district social services administration boards, for the reason given with the previous amendment, and to replace it with the terminology "prescribed board."

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 2, as amended? All those opposed? Section 2, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of sections 3, 4 and 5? Opposed? Sections 3, 4 and 5 are carried.

We are on page 43 of the package. Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Section 6 of schedule C, section 7.3 of the Day Nurseries Act: I move that section 7.3 of the Day Nurseries Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule C to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Municipal costs

"(2) A municipality shall pay its share of the prescribed costs incurred under this act, despite section 111 of the Municipal Act."

An explanation for that is that we want to clarify that municipalities cannot use section 111 of the Municipal Act to refuse to enter into agreements with private sector operators to pay for wage subsidies. Wage subsidies, of course, will be one of the prescribed services that must be cost-shared by municipalities under subsection 7.3(1).

The Chair: Debate?

1620

Mr Sergio: This is the hammer that the provincial government is using again on the municipalities. It was said best here in AMO's presentation. We have to respect AMO, as others here, because they went to the trouble to put a presentation together and to come and make a presentation to us. They have made good points. It is most unfortunate that the government seems to be listening to but not acting on those recommendations.

Mr Gerretsen: Aren't they listening?

Mr Sergio: They may be listening, but taking action is another matter. With respect to Bill 152 and the amendment to the Health Protection and Promotion Act and dealing with the Day Nurseries Act, they say that the government has not indicated a willingness to ensure municipal input on these mandatory programs, which is a major disappointment to the municipal sector and a clear violation of the principle of pay for say. This is an imposition of the provincial government on the local municipalities, where they are saying what they have to do without giving them a say, and on top of that, they are required to pay.

I find it astonishing that the government continues to conduct business in a charade, in a sense, because we go through the public hearings, we get good submissions by agencies that are extremely well recognized and they provide an excellent service to the people of Ontario, but the government is not willing to make any effort to change it and make it better.

Mr Marchese: I have just a quick point to preface my remarks here. As you've noticed, I've been against the download bill because it has profound effects on municipalities, people, property taxpayers and tenants. In this particular instance, if the government doesn't do this, some municipalities could end up cutting their day care spaces. That's my understanding of this particular amendment here. In this regard I am tempted to be supportive of it, because otherwise municipalities could indeed cut spaces if this were not there. Is that true or not?

Mr Carroll: This section has nothing to do with cutting spaces. This section has to do with making sure the playing field is level so that both private day care operators and not-for-profit day care operators are treated the same way.

Mr Marchese: This is page 43 we're at.

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mr Marchese: Okay. Good, fine.

Mr Carroll: It will level the playing field so that all day care operators are treated the same way and a municipality is obligated to pay a wage subsidy to all day care providers who qualify for one. It's just a matter of levelling the playing field. It has nothing to do with the elimination or adding of day care spaces.

Mr Marchese: Thank you for the clarification.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 6, as amended? All those opposed? Section 6, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of section 7? All those opposed? Section 7 is carried.

Mr Carroll, page 44.

Mr Carroll: Subsection 8(7) of schedule C, subsection 18(1) of the Day Nurseries Act: I move that subsection 18(1) of the Day Nurseries Act, as set out in subsection 8(7) of schedule C to the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(1.5) providing that, until a delivery agent is designated for a geographic area, the costs incurred under this act be apportioned by a prescribed municipality or a prescribed board in accordance with a regulation under subsection (3) among the municipalities in the area, requiring the municipalities to pay their share of the costs to the prescribed municipality or board, and prescribing the municipality or board for such purposes."

The reason for moving this amendment is to clarify that prescribed municipalities and boards are able to apportion costs in a geographic area before a delivery agent is designated. This provision covers the transition period from January 1, 1998, until the establishment of the delivery agents.

Mr Marchese: I have just a quick point. This is another case of the government not knowing what it's going to do. We've seen that in so many other areas. It has provided a transitional mechanism here through this particular amendment till it figures things out. Basically that's what it's about. It speaks to the haste with which this government is moving. Because they don't know how to manage the whole problem, they have to come up with these mechanisms to deal with it. It's sad, I think.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

We're on to page 45.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 18(3) of the Day Nurseries Act, as set out in subsection 8(11) of schedule C of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Apportionment, payment by municipalities

"(3) A regulation under clause (1), (1.3) or (1.5) may do one or more of the following:

"1. Authorize municipalities in a geographic area to determine by agreement how their costs are to be apportioned, subject to the prescribed conditions.

"2. Provide for an arbitration process for determining how the costs of those municipalities are to be apportioned.

"3. Set out the manner in which costs of those municipalities are to be apportioned.

"Same

"(4) A regulation under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (3) may,

"(a) provide for the manner in which costs are to be apportioned and for the time and manner in which they are to be paid, on an interim basis, until such time as an agreement is reached or as a determination is made by arbitration;

"(b) permit an agreement or the arbitration decision to apply to costs incurred and paid before the agreement or the arbitration decision is reached; and

"(c) provide for the reconciliation of amounts paid on an interim basis.

"Retroactive regulation

"(5) A regulation under clause (1), (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), (1.4), (1.5) or (m) may, if it so provides, be effective with respect to a period before it is filed that commences on January 1, 1998.

"Same

"(6) If a regulation under paragraph 3 of subsection (3) is retroactive, it may provide for the reconciliation of amounts paid."

I'll just explain this one quickly. It's not unlike the amendment we passed regarding ambulance services. The current belief among municipalities is that left to their own devices, we as a government will make a decision to force them to share costs based on equalized assessment. We wanted to introduce the fact that there are other ways to divide costs up because equalized assessment favours separated cities.

We want local municipalities to come to their own decisions as to how they will share costs rather than have the minister or the ministry be forced to do that. We've therefore opened up the possibility that there is more than one way to make the decision, in an effort to encourage municipalities to come up with their own solutions. We believe in local solutions. We think this change to the act will promote local solutions.

Mr Marchese: For the record, Mr Chair: This is yet another case of the government trying to provide for all contingencies because it doesn't know what it's going to do, by and large, so you're stuck with this. We saw this with the ambulance services as well.

What does this do, all this stuff? It will entail a greater complication and confusion of municipal and provincial responsibilities, further entangling the mess rather than disentangling. Municipalities will fund most of it. The province will control some of it. Municipalities will have to work out a morass of cross-boundary payments and chargebacks and in the end the public will not know who's responsible for what. All the while you guy are saying, "We're disentangling, making it easier for people to understand, giving to municipalities because they have the scale" and so on. You entangle the morass, people will be more confused than ever and costs will go up and services will go down.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 8, as amended? All those opposed? Section 8 is amended as carried.

All those in favour of section 9? All those opposed? Section 9 is carried.

Mr Marchese, page 47 is out of order, but I will allow you to debate further on section 10.

Mr Marchese: That's all right, Mr Chair. I'll withdraw it. I'm making my points as I go along.

The Chair: You're doing a great job. Further debate on section 10?

Mr Gerretsen: I'd like a recorded vote on this, please.

The Chair: All right.

1630

Ayes

Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

Nays

Gerretsen, Marchese, Sergio.

Mr Sergio: Is it out of order, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Sorry, Mr Sergio. Mr Marchese's motion was out of order. That's what I was declaring.

That appears to conclude schedule C. All those in favour of schedule C, as amended? All those opposed? Schedule C, as amended, is carried.

We are now on to schedule D.

Mr Carroll: I would like to take the opportunity to thank the staff for their services.

Mr Gerretsen: They work extremely hard.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carroll, for that.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, what page of the bill are we on now? Page 44?

The Chair: We're now on schedule D, which is page 44, and we are on page 48 of the package of amendments. Mr Hudak has returned.

Mr Hudak: It's good to be back, Chair.

Mr Marchese: We're happy to see you, Mr Hudak.

Mr Gerretsen: He's a man of many talents, but bringing in good legislation isn't one of them.

The Chair: I'm going to let Mr Carroll introduce the first amendment.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 1 of schedule D to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection immediately before subsection (1):

"(0.1) The definition of 'board of health' in subsection 1(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act is amended by striking out 'and' at the end of clause (b), by adding 'and' at the end of clause (c) and by adding the following clause:

"(d) an agency, board or organization prescribed by regulation."

Mr Hudak: Municipalities, through AMO, have expressed that county councils or committees of councils should be able to govern public health, stating that they need the flexibility in governance to obtain administrative savings. Currently the bill does not amend the definition of the board of health, that council or a committee of council could not govern the public board of health. The same would apply for consolidated municipal service management and other delivery boards. So this amendment in a nutshell allows an entity, as prescribed through regulation, to be a board of health, which could include a county council, for example.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Gerretsen: Just so that I understand Mr Hudak correctly, will the current boards of health that in many cases are constituted of a number of municipalities or counties etc continue to exist or will there be a choice of whether each municipality is going to independently set up a board of health or a committee dealing with public health issues?

Mr Hudak: Yes. The amendment would mean that those counties to which you refer would maintain their public health unit. If for some reason they had a case for why they would want to change the governance structure, they would have to come to the minister, who would evaluate it on a case-by-case basis to make sure that all the functions performed by the board of health could be performed in some new structure.

Mr Gerretsen: Just so that I'm clear -- January 1 is less than six weeks away, and that's when these changes will take place -- initially, will the current boards of health continue or will they become strictly municipal functions at that point in time and it will be up to each municipality or county as to whether they will continue?

Mr Hudak: Yes, they do continue.

Mr Gerretsen: When does the situation that you describe take place?

Mr Hudak: They would need to come to the minister on a case-by-case basis --

Mr Gerretsen: To change the current structure.

Mr Hudak: -- if they want to change the governance structure.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

Mr Carroll, on to page 49.

Mr Carroll: I move that the definition of "obligated municipality," as set out in subsection 1(2) of schedule D to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"'obligated municipality,' in relation to a health unit, means any county, district or regional municipality or the county of Oxford, or any local municipality that does not form part of a county, district or regional municipality or the county of Oxford for municipal purposes, that is situated, in whole or in part, in the area that comprises the health unit; ("municipalité assujettie")

Mr Hudak: This motion is in response to ALPHA and some other groups who were concerned about the definition of "obligated municipality" in the bill as it stands, so this motion will make it much more clear that it is upper-tier or single-tier municipalities that are the obligated municipalities for the purposes of the act and are therefore responsible for making payments to the boards of health for public health.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Marchese: I have a question to make sure we have dealt with all the concerns raised by various people. George Pasut, who is an MD, FRCPC -- he has various titles -- was concerned about the definition of "obligated municipality" and said, "On the surface this appears to be straightforward and not subject to any misinterpretation. The reality for health units with multiple municipalities may be quite different.

"For example, the Simcoe County District Health Unit comprises the geographic area of Simcoe county. This area includes 18 municipalities in total. For purposes of current cost sharing arrangements, 16 of these municipalities are represented by the county of Simcoe, an upper-tier level of government. The remaining municipalities are the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia."

He speaks of that as a complication. Have you addressed his concern to this?

Mr Hudak: Yes. The concern of that gentleman and other representatives of boards of health and from ALPHA will be addressed through this motion. That's why we support this motion.

Mr Marchese: Okay.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

All those in favour of section 1, as amended? Opposed? Section 1, as amended, is carried.

We are on to page 50, which is a Liberal application.

Mr Sergio: I move that paragraph 3 of section 5 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, as set out in subsection 2(2) of schedule D to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"3. Health promotion, health protection and disease and injury prevention, including the prevention and control of cardiovascular disease, cancer, AIDS and other diseases."

For us, this is an important amendment. As you can see, it addresses a number of --

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr Sergio: Do we have any problem with the amendment?

The Chair: Everything is absolutely under control.

Mr Sergio: Great, so I assume that you're going to support it, Mr Chair. If you'll do that, I'll stop right now.

The Chair: Just waiting for you to finish your rationale, Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: I think the amendment speaks for itself, as it addresses a number of concerns with health-related issues. I hope it serves to clarify the clause and I hope the government will see fit to support the amendment.

Mr Marchese: This definition was put forward by the Association of Local Public Health Agencies. You will notice the next motion we have is similar. This has the addition of AIDS to it. We support this amendment because this association obviously puts a great deal of emphasis on the promotion of health and it implies, in their view and mine, a more activist role for such a unit, which the other does not. I don't think we see this in contradiction to what you folks want to do, but it is much more focused in terms of giving responsibility for health promotion, and I don't see why you wouldn't want to support it.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm sure you're right.

Mr Hudak: I believe that Mr Sergio has brought forth a very sensible amendment. I think it accurately reflects modern public health practices and I therefore recommend that the government support his amendment.

Mr Gerretsen: Congratulations, Mario. This is an historic day for this government and this committee.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Marchese: I really feel good today, Mr Chair.

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Hudak just made my day.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? It appears to be unanimous. Good work.

Page 51.

1640

Mr Marchese: My motion becomes very redundant given that your good Conservative colleagues have, on this sole instance, decided that this is a good thing to do. We congratulate them. God bless them.

Mr Carroll: We thank you.

The Chair: Are you withdrawing your amendment, Mr Marchese?

Mr Marchese: Withdrawn.

The Chair: All those in favour of section 2, as amended? All those opposed? Section 2, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of sections 3, 4, 5 and 6? All those opposed? Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 are carried.

We're into section 7, a government proposal on page 52.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 7(1) of schedule D to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) Subsection 67(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"Medical officer of health

"(1) The medical officer of health of a board of health reports directly to the board of health on issues relating to public health concerns and to public health programs and services under this or any other act."

Mr Hudak: This is the first of three government motions describing the strengthened role of the medical officer of health in public health units. This motion in particular responds to the concerns we heard from municipalities, through AMO and others, who suggested the medical officer of health concentrate on medical health programs and allow some flexibility in terms of delivering the administrative functions of the board.

This allows more flexibility at the municipal level, but it maintains, or actually strengthens, the ability of the medical officer of health to report directly to the board on health programs.

Mr Gerretsen: Let's be a little bit more direct. I think what this is really talking about is that the medical officer of health doesn't report to the CAO of the municipality but rather to the board of health. This deals with an age-old problem in a lot of boards of health as to who is really in charge, the medical officer of health or the financial officer or the chief executive officer or whatever he or she is called. I think it was settled a number of years ago that the medical officer of health is actually the person in charge. This just carries it through to the municipal setting. That is what it's really all about, not what you're saying at all, in my humble opinion. That's a good idea. They should be in charge.

Mr Hardeman: In clarification of what the parliamentary assistant said, I think it's very important to recognize that this does provide the opportunity for the county or the municipal government structure to actually perform and to provide the administrative functions of a board of health, as opposed to having to have the medical officer of health in charge of those administrative functions. I think, as the PA mentioned, it is an opportunity to streamline and to deliver the services more effectively to the local residents.

Mr Marchese: I like the spin that Mr Hudak and Mr Hardeman are putting on this. It makes them feel like they're doing something without explaining that the original intent of the bill is to gut the power of the medical officer of health. That's really what they did, what they're doing. This is an attempt to restore some connection to accountability and power. But it doesn't solve the problem that at the moment the medical officer of health has executive powers. He's the executive officer of the local health unit at the moment. It's an autonomous position. It's got a great deal of power, which it should, because it means that individual is not to be influenced by anybody, or whose power should be diminished. He should have that power and autonomy to be able to determine issues of public health.

This bill has the effect of limiting the autonomy of the medical officer of health. Currently the medical officer of health is the executive officer of the board of health, as I said. The medical officer of health is free to determine health risks and hazards as well as develop health promotion and protection programs based on the ministry guideline. The medical officer of health is linked with the chief medical officer of health for the purposes of information, collection and analysis. That power was critical. You guys have taken that power away from him. Why would you do that?

What you've done is, you probably went out and negotiated something, which is good, with the OMA -- not another municipal body, but the OMA. I'm assuming that's what you've done. I could be wrong.

It's not bad in terms of allowing -- "the medical officer of health of a board of health reports directly to the board of health on issues relating to public health...." It seems awkward, but it's a good thing to do. You've got to admit you've taken that power he used to have -- Mr Hardeman, you're squinting, which leads me to believe that you are either not following it or you think I'm somehow going in the wrong direction.

Mr Hardeman: I'm following you 100%.

Mr Marchese: You will recall, Mr Hardeman, I'm not the only one saying this. We had a lot of doctors who came in front of a committee very concerned with what you've done, so please don't squint as if you somehow don't understand what I'm getting at.

The Chair: He may have something in his eye, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: He's restored the problem rather quickly.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, please proceed.

Mr Marchese: We had a lot of doctors who spoke to this issue. You would admit that. They said you guys are going in the wrong direction. You will hopefully admit that too. But you haven't listened to the doctors who came to speak and said, "This is a serious problem." Your limiting of their powers is a serious problem in terms of the work they should be doing. Their power should not be taken away, as what you have done.

I don't know the rationale for that. I just don't understand. Listening to you guys, I don't know what you're saying that improves the previous situation we had other than saying, "Municipalities wanted this," or "Now we've got another motion to make it easier or better for reporting." Give me an explanation that will make me feel better and that will make the public feel a little bit better, that by emasculating the powers of these medical officers you've done a good thing. Explain it to them so that they know.

Mr Hudak: I believe this amendment responds very clearly to the concerns of our municipalities as well as of public health stakeholders. I'll ask Dr Mowat to introduce himself and to respond to Mr Marchese's question.

1650

Dr David Mowat: Dr David Mowat, chief medical officer of health and director of the public health branch. Although it is true that the HPPA said that the medical officer of health was the executive officer of the board, in the regions the acts establishing those regions took precedence in establishing a somewhat different relationship. It wasn't the case that the medical officer of health currently is always clearly the executive of the board and in charge of not only the health programs but the administrative functions.

The representation that was made to the committee requested that there be a clear voice, that somebody be able to determine what health hazards might exist in a community and report them to the responsible board or council, and thus to the public.

This new section which is inserted here, which wasn't in the last act, specifically provides that this will be done, so that the public has a right to hear whatever the specialist physician has determined might be a health hazard, and furthermore that they will hear what he has to say about the extent to which the public health programs and services ought to be changed or the extent to which they're meeting needs. This, together with the motion on page 54, which for the first time specifically provides that the medical officer of health is in charge of the management of public health programs and services and that the professional staff report to him, preserves all of the professional functions while simultaneously allowing for a board or equivalent to have choice regarding administrative arrangements, including the choice, of course, to continue to have the medical officer of health as the executive officer of the board.

Mr Marchese: I'm not sure that the section this doctor refers to on page 54, where it speaks of the management of public health, gives that person power over budget, which the chief medical officer had in the past. I don't think management means that they will have control over budgets, for example, first of all.

Secondly, I'd like this doctor to respond to what this other person said who made this deputation, George Pasut, medical officer of health from Simcoe county. He said the following:

"At a local level, accountability for health issues is also vital. As the medical officer of health, I have a duty and a responsibility to protect public health -- a role which is in part advocate, and in part guardian of public health. The proposed amendments to the functions of the medical officer of health compromise this ability."

Is it your view, Doctor, that with this amendment we correct the problem that this doctor has?

Dr Mowat: Indeed I believe that to be the case. When Dr Pasut was making that presentation, he was working from the original Bill 152. I believe these motions do address the concern that he and others expressed, that there should be that guardian-advocate role. These motions are intended to address that issue.

Mr Marchese: I quoted this doctor saying that it's part advocate, part guardian. You see that reflected in this motion, where now the medical officer reports to the board of health. You see his concerns being addressed by this motion or another motion that talks about the medical officer of health or the board of health being responsible to the board for the management of public health. So with these two motions, we've addressed this man's concerns; is that what you're saying to me? I'm going to make it my responsibility to call this doctor and ask him, because I'm not sure it does, but you seem to think it does.

Dr Mowat: I do, and Christine Henderson will amplify that.

Ms Christine Henderson: I'm legal counsel for the Ministry of Health.

In the bill currently, you note that the bill provided that there could be an exemption of the executive officer role for the medical officer of health by regulation. That regulation, if approved, would then have left the medical officer of health with no reporting ability to the board of health. What this amendment does is clarify the reporting relationship of the medical officer of health and the board of health. This is a new provision that will clarify the role vis-à-vis the MOH and the board in regions in all other autonomous boards in the province. As Dr Mowat has said, it's something new that preserves the professional role and the public health role of the medical officer of health.

Mr Marchese: I'm not convinced, but they seem to be. Let's hope it is as they say.

Mr Gerretsen: First of all, I should say that Dr Mowat is a highly regarded former medical officer of health for the Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington health unit. I'm certainly glad he has joined the government to try to deal with this particular issue.

If I can just put a different light on it, it may very well be that the amendment strengthens the position of the medical officer of health. I don't expect the two staff people here to answer, because I think it would be totally unfair for them. But it certainly doesn't deal with the overall concern that's out there, number one as to whether or not these health services should be funded out of the property tax base, which is a whole different kind of argument, and number two, what was happening there before as far as budget is concern.

The way budgets are handled right now by the different health units is that the health unit, the board, sets its budget and it gets approved by the ministry, the way I understand it. The ministry then antes up its 80% and the other 20% is allocated to the affected municipalities. So in effect it operates as almost an autonomous board, and the municipalities quite frankly don't have too much to say as to whether or not the budget is too rich or not rich enough or what have you. They can appeal to the province and adjudication measures can be taken up, but the municipalities don't really have any say as to how much they themselves are going to put into the local health units, the way they currently exist.

Under this new proposal, where local municipalities are going to fund health units, they will have much greater direct financial control. I argue and many people have argued that local tax dollars shouldn't be used for health services. That's just the wrong way to go. Crombie said that in the Who Does What panel, that health and social services should not come out of the local property tax dollars. There's no question that municipal councils will have much greater control over the public health dollars that are going to be expended than they did in the past, because in the past, quite frankly, they had no control at all.

But that's a slightly different issue, Mr Marchese, as to whether or not with these amendments the medical officer of health is going to have a greater say than he or she would have had before these amendments were introduced. I'm sure if you talk to most of the medical officers of health or if you talk to most health units on a one-to-one basis, they would still rather be funded under the old mechanism, where it was primarily a provincially funded operation, to 80%, rather than the current system, where they're going to have to rely on local dollars. Certainly, that's the word I'm getting from municipality after municipality, as well as various health units.

I don't think we should mix up the two issues, from the point of view that with this amendment everybody in the board of health organization or structure within the province of Ontario is happy. They are certainly happier with the idea that the medical officer of health reports directly to the board of health on all health-related matters, but it doesn't deal with the funding issue at all, which is of utmost importance, particularly since municipalities basically are going to influence the budgets a lot more than they ever did before.

The Chair: Further debate?

All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 7(2) of schedule D of the bill be amended by inserting, "under this or any other act" after "services" in the third line.

Mr Hudak: Bill 152 currently does not explicitly state that public health staff must report to the medical officer of health for programs and services besides the HPPA, so this means that on other acts that apply, they'll report to the medical officer of health, to make that a clear reporting mechanism. Examples of other acts are the Immunization of School Pupils Act, the Day Nurseries Act etc.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Marchese: Does the bill limit the medical officer of health's direction over employees of the board of health to only matters of the delivery of public health programs or services?

1700

Ms Henderson: If I may answer that, Mr Chair, currently the bill provides that the employees engaged by the board are subject to the direction of and are responsible to the medical officer of health if their duties relate to the delivery of public health programs and services. The proposed motion would clarify that the public health programs and services referred to are under the Public Health Act or any other act. That strengthens the motion and clarifies it.

The Chair: Okay. We'll try again. All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion is carried.

We are on to page 54, which is a government motion. Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Subsection 7(3) of schedule D, subsection 67(3) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act: I move that subsection 7(3) of schedule D to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(3) Subsection 67(3) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"'Management

"'(3) The medical officer of health of a board of health is responsible to the board for the management of the public health programs and services under this or any other act.'"

Mr Hudak: This is consistent with the two previous motions that we have already had some discussion and debate on. It ensures the medical officer of health continues to be responsible to the board for the management of public health programs and services.

Mr Marchese: Could I just ask the lawyer and the doctor again what that word "management" implies, what it means?

Dr Mowat: "Management of public health programs and services," would imply the determination of the health needs to be met, the methods by which those needs would be met, the allocation and direction of staff and evaluation of the results.

Mr Marchese: So allocation of staff and --

Dr Mowat: The evaluation of the outcomes of such intervention.

Mr Marchese: In terms of budget, allocation refers to having access to money, obviously. Does it have control over budgets?

Dr Mowat: The medical officer of health currently doesn't control budgets. The budgets are set by the board of health or regional council.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

We are on page 55. Mr Gerretsen.

Mr Gerretsen: I move that section 7 of schedule D to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"7. Subsections 67(1), (2) and (3) of the act are repealed and the following substituted:

"'Executive Officer

"'67(1) The medical officer of health of a board of health is the executive officer of the board.

"'Direction of staff

"'(2) The employees of and the persons whose services are engaged by a board of health are subject to the direction of and are responsible to the medical officer of health of the board.

"'Management and administration

"'(3) The medical officer of health of a board of health is responsible to the board of health for the management and administration of the health programs and services and business affairs of the board.'"

It basically deals with many of the points that have already been made earlier. I understand a number of presenters, including the OMA, requested the local medical officers of health retain administrative control over their staff as well. This amendment replaces the changes in Bill 152 with the current provisions of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. That's really all I want to say at this point in time. It clearly states who is in charge in a board of health.

Mr Marchese: We support this motion, obviously. This is the concern that we have, the concern that we've been hearing and listening to. This would clearly put the medical officer of health in a position to have the autonomy that he or she needs to determine health risks and hazards, as well as to develop health promotion and protection programs in a way that is not to be influenced by municipal politicians one way or the other. It gives him that role that we think he or she should have. I'd like to hear from Mr Hudak or the lawyer or the doctor with respect to this motion, if they have an opinion.

Mr Hudak: On this particular motion, the previous three motions dealt with the same issues and responded to the same concerns that Mr Marchese and Mr Gerretsen have identified. I believe that the motions that we have already passed from the government achieved those goals in terms of clearly defining the role of the medical officer of health and striking that role, following from the debate we've already had on these issues.

Mr Marchese: So this is redundant, in your view, because your motions in fact say what these motions say.

Mr Hudak: I believe our motions are superior.

Mr Marchese: Superior even. Doctor, do you have an opinion on this?

Dr Mowat: I can only reiterate what I've already said.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, excuse me. I haven't interjected at this stage. Mr Hudak has probably clarified what I've been thinking. If you look at what has gone on in the previous amendments, if this carries, it would nullify the previous amendments, and therefore it may be out of order. Now, I'll allow you to go on, but I'm just raising that as an issue. No one has raised that, but --

Mr Marchese: I don't find the amendments to be superior to this one.

The Chair: I don't think it was meant like that, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: They're very different, in my view -- my limited view, because I'm not in this field. But I wanted to ask the doctor for his opinion, given that he has a good deal of expertise in these matters.

Dr Mowat: Mr Chairman, I believe my previous remarks addressed these issues.

Mr Gerretsen: The reason for bringing this up is I think that all of the other previous motions just deal with the position of the medical officer of health and what his powers are. This amendment, I believe, is much more specific. It deals with his directions to staff, the fact that he is the executive officer and the fact that he is responsible for the management and total administration.

I know that traditionally there has always been an argument within the boards of health as to who is really in charge. Is it the chief administrative officer or is the medical officer of health? What we are trying to do with this amendment is to set out once and for all that the medical officer of health is not only in charge in reporting to the board on health issues but also is responsible ultimately for the good management of the employees who work at the board of health. It just clarifies the situation so that there can be much less argument about it in the future. That's the purpose.

I'd like a recorded vote.

Ayes

Gerretsen, Marchese.

Nays

Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. Mr Marchese, I trust you are withdrawing the motion on page 56?

Mr Marchese: Correct.

The Chair: All those in favour of section 7, as amended? All those opposed? Section 7, as amended, is carried.

We are on to page 57. Mr Marchese, this is another one of those standing order 56 concerns that I have, but I'll let you introduce the motion and put you on notice that I am concerned.

Mr Marchese: Of course. I move that section 8 of schedule D to the bill be amended by added the following subsection:

"Transitional

"(2) Upon the day subsection (1) comes into force, the ministry shall, despite section 72 of the act, continue to pay, for a period of one year, the same share of the expenses referred to in subsection 72(1) of the act as it was paying immediately before that day.

"Same

"(3) At the end of the one-year period, the ministry shall send each obligated municipality notice of the amount paid by the ministry under subsection (2) on the municipality's behalf.

"Same

"(4) Each obligated municipality shall pay the ministry the amount specified in the notice referred to in subsection (3) within the time period specified in the notice."

This motion is somewhat similar to what we presented earlier. The boards of health across the province expect that there will be a shortfall or, if not a shortfall, a cash flow problem as of January 1. This motion is intended to help them deal with that eventuality or that problem that they foresee happening.

1710

The Chair: To be consistent with my previous rulings, it is in order, Mr Marchese, and you may proceed.

Mr Marchese: Done that.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Gerretsen: I would like to hear from Mr Hudak on this. I know we've gone through this a number of times this afternoon, but the government has been saying in its propaganda for the last six months or so that all of these downloading exercises are revenue-neutral. Why doesn't the government put its money where its mouth is and basically say, "Yes, we believe in what we've been telling the municipalities, we believe in what we've been telling boards of health, we believe in what we've been telling all of these people, that it is revenue-neutral"? All this is saying is that if it's not revenue-neutral, you're going to pay the difference.

Mr Hudak, you being the reasonable individual and parliamentary assistant that you are, and believing your own propaganda that you've been spouting for the last six months, surely you will agree with this, that if there's a deficiency, the government will pay the difference. I assume that he'll be voting in favour of this, since I believe it's the first time this parliamentary assistant has actually had to deal with this particular issue. I believe the other two gentlemen did before.

The Chair: Well, let's see.

Mr Hudak: Chair, it's consistent with my arguments I'd used before in schedule A that this would be inconsistent with the principle of the bill on differentiating funding responsibilities instead of getting them mixed up again. I would argue as well, and the stronger argument here, that because public health already has a funding relationship with municipalities, therefore there is no need for this additional transitional period as the motion asks us to do.

Mr Marchese: So there's no need because if there's a shortfall, if they find themselves paying more all of a sudden, you're saying that either it won't happen or that somehow that will be solved?

Mr Hudak: The same arguments, Chair.

Mr Marchese: What argument? I'm not understanding it.

Mr Hudak: To be consistent with the principles of the bill on funding relationships that municipalities would take in full funding of public health January 1, 1998, we already have -- I don't see the need for an additional transition period as this motion asks us to do, especially given that we already have a strong relationship with public health units across the province.

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Chair, we are only talking about an additional transition period as it relates to the finances, that if the finances turn out to be not what you have stated they will be to municipalities, they in effect will be in a revenue-neutral exercise.

I might just add that, yes, municipalities have been involved in the funding of this, but it's basically been in a forced situation. They did not on a one-to-one basis decide how much money to give to each board of health. Basically the board of health itself, which is made up of representatives from many different municipalities, has always decided as to what the budget would be, and then municipalities had to pay it whether they liked it or not. Remember, they were only paying 20%. You're now asking them to pay 100%, so the situation is totally different, Mr Hudak.

Mr Carroll: Just a point of clarification, Mr Chair. Nobody ever made any kind of commitment that public health was revenue-neutral. What could it be revenue-neutral with? There was a package of services being exchanged, the package of which is to be revenue-neutral. To say that public health is to be revenue-neutral is a very moot point, because what can it be revenue-neutral with? We believe that most municipalities will have some opportunities in the delivery of these additional services to find some efficiencies and actually save some money so they can reduce taxes to the property taxpayer.

Mr Marchese: So they won't even have to worry because presumably they will find efficiencies yet, there won't even be shortfalls. There will be efficiencies to even reduce their bill. Is that more or less correct, Mr Carroll?

Mr Carroll: I didn't quite understand the comment.

Mr Marchese: We are worried because the health bill is going to be higher --

Mr Carroll: I told you you worry too much.

Mr Marchese: You're saying I worry too much; don't worry. There are several things that will happen. First of all, the municipalities will deal with it one way or the other, right? The money will be there, and if it isn't there, they'll find efficiencies.

What that word means to me is that they're going to have to cut somewhere. That's really what we're faced with, and part of this motion is to deal with that eventuality, that if the bills are higher than we expected or higher than they were, you guys are going to be there to help them out.

You're saying: "We didn't say we were going to be revenue-neutral in this. We didn't say we would pay them more if they were going to have a higher bill." You're saying, "This is their problem now. That's why we're downloading it, and if they've got a problem, they'll have to find efficiencies," meaning they've got to cut services.

Have I more or less interpreted your comments correctly?

Mr Carroll: Not at all.

Mr Marchese: So maybe you could reinterpret them for me.

Mr Carroll: All I said was, public health is part of a package. We never made any kind of commitment that public health would be revenue-neutral. Revenue-neutral with what?

Mr Marchese: No commitment. So if they have higher costs --

Mr Carroll: You equate efficiencies with cuts.

Mr Marchese: I don't equate anything.

Mr Carroll: We have a basic, fundamental difference of opinion on that particular thing, Mr Marchese, because I don't believe that cuts and efficiencies are necessarily the only options available. You say that to find efficiencies, the municipalities have to cut. I believe they can find efficiencies and actually deliver better services, so we have a fundamental disagreement.

You worry a lot about the bill. I say, don't worry so much. With this particular case, public health will, as with all the other programs, be transferred as of January 1, 1998. We have a package of services that, taken together, we've made a commitment about.

Mr Marchese: Mr Carroll, I'm happy that the general public which is listening to you will feel relieved that you said that --

Mr Carroll: I'm sure they will.

Mr Marchese: -- because now they won't worry. That's good.

Mr Carroll: Good.

Mr Gerretsen: I wasn't going to get into this argument or debate about who should be paying for it, but since the parliamentary assistant has raised it and now Mr Carroll has raised it -- there must be an association of parliamentary assistants; they seem to be singing from the same hymnal.

Interjection: There is not.

Mr Gerretsen: There is not an association. Maybe we should form an association of parliamentary assistants. But the point is, municipal council --

Mr Hardeman: You'd be banned.

Mr Marchese: Me too.

Mr Gerretsen: I'd be banned, he says. Well, yes, I'm not a parliamentary assistant, so I guess they wouldn't allow me to come to their meetings. Maybe if they did sometimes, you know, bring some other people into that association --

Mr Marchese: Fresh blood.

Mr Gerretsen: -- we could collectively put some pressure on --

The Chair: I know were getting towards the end of the day, but perhaps we could stay with Bill 152.

Mr Gerretsen: The point is this: All health services in this province are funded by the province, with the exception now of public health. Public health is going to be funded at the local level. It will be the only health service that will be funded at the local level. We all know -- and we have Mr Hastings here, who is a former councillor in Etobicoke; Mr Hardeman, who was a reeve of Oxford township or --

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: He was the warden of the county, a very important man. They know that municipalities have many things to think about. They have to think, for example, about all the roads that have been downloaded on to them. They have to look after all the usual public services in each municipality. Now they're also going to have to fund 100% of the health services, which everybody has said is the wrong thing to do.

Your own Mr Crombie, who was hired by the Premier because he was such an esteemed expert in municipal matters, has said: "You're doing the wrong thing. Do not download health services on the local municipality." It's been done.

1720

Mr Carroll basically says, "We never said it would be revenue-neutral." You gave a figure to all the municipalities as to what the health services that were being downloaded were going to cost. I've forgotten the exact number. I'm not sure; I believe it was $225 million.

What I'm asking from you, Mr Carroll, because municipalities will be involved in these greater efficiencies that you're talking about: Will you give a commitment right here and now that if the total bill for all of the health units clear-cut across this province exceeds $225 million, you in effect will have the government of Ontario ante up the difference? That's what we're talking about here. We want to make sure that public health will continue to be a main focus in the province of Ontario, which it has always been. Public health is not sort of an add-on, that when you've dealt with all of the other hard-core services, now you can deal with the public health matters as well. It seems that the province of Ontario is basically saying it's not as important a service as many of the other services that you're funding to 100% of the cost.

Public health is an extremely important educational tool and it's an extremely important preventive tool in each one of our local municipalities, so why are you downloading it? Secondly, since you are downloading it, why aren't you committing to the fact that if the actual bill ends up to be more than $225 million for the entire province, you will ante up the difference to make sure the people of Ontario will have the best possible public health available to them in this province? Why aren't you doing that? Would you answer that, Mr Carroll?

The Chair: Questions? Comments? Debate?

Mr Carroll: One quick comment to finish this discussion, because we've gotten well off what we came here to discuss.

Mr Gerretsen: We're discussing the public health of the people of Ontario.

Mr Carroll: I have all the confidence in the world that the municipalities of our province, working within provincially mandated guidelines, will be able to deliver public health to the people of Ontario just exactly as well as or even better than is currently being done. I have all that confidence and I have no doubts that will happen beginning next year.

Mr Marchese: That will be done in a similar fashion as Mr Mel Lastman: no tax increases, because he can do it and he never lies; secondly, he can do it without it cutting services because people will be more efficient. Is that more or less correct, Mr Carroll? Am I interpreting it correctly, more or less?

Mr Carroll: I think the comments that I've made outline my position.

Mr Marchese: Okay. All in favour of my amendment? Recorded vote.

The Chair: I think I'll have to do that. I'll first find out if there is any further debate.

Mr Hardeman: I think it bears repeating that the functions of the boards of health in the province of Ontario are not presently performed by the province; they are local boards of health. At least in my community, the majority of the members of the board of health are locally elected officials who are making those decisions. I would point out that presently the budgets are funded a percentage by the province and a percentage by the municipality.

Mr Marchese: So 75% province --

Mr Hardeman: Yes, 75-25 presently. I would suggest, as Mr Gerretsen mentioned earlier, the approval of the budget is done that way, having been on the board of health for a number of years. In fact, the board of health sets the budget and sends that part that is provincially funded to the province for their approval. If at the end of the year they do not stay within that budget, they will have to come up with some more money. There is not necessarily a guarantee that the province makes up the difference if there is a need for more money for the programs than they budgeted.

As we look at the transfer and the realignment of services between the province and municipalities, I believe that service that municipalities have been providing through their boards of health for quite a number of years is an appropriate one to carry on. In the delivery of that service, I do not see a major change in the function. I believe they will carry on providing adequate public health services, so I support the bill.

Mr Marchese: Let's get on with the vote.

The Chair: Be patient, Mr Marchese. We have some more debate.

Mr Gerretsen: I would like Mr Hardeman to tell me, first of all, how he's going to force municipalities in effect to pay up their ante and, number two, how the percentage is going to be decided upon as of January 1 in a situation where you've got a multi-township or municipal board of health. You think this will all happen by January 1.

Mr Hardeman: The reason for the bill is to provide the opportunity for municipalities to find joint funding. I would point out that in all cases where presently we have joint boards of health, they presently have a mechanism to share their part of that service now, so it is just an extension of that cost to the municipality, and we'll wait and see.

Mr Marchese: All in favour of my amendment on a recorded vote?

The Chair: You'll have to be patient, Mr Marchese. I'm going to ask if there's any further debate. There being none, all in favour of Mr Marchese's motion?

Mr Marchese: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Gerretsen, Marchese.

Nays

Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

The Chair: The motion fails.

All those in favour of section 8? All those opposed? Section 8 carries.

All those in favour of sections 9 and 10? All those opposed? Sections 9 and 10 carry.

Mr Marchese, I trust you are withdrawing --

Mr Marchese: I'm a bit tired, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I'm sorry about that.

Mr Marchese: I'm going to withdraw that.

The Chair: With that, all those in favour -- Mr Hudak, debate on section 11?

Mr Hudak: I would suggest that Mr Marchese, despite the fact that it may be ruled out of order, has a good suggestion here. I'll give him the benefit of his superior suggestion. I would recommend that the government vote against section 11.

The Chair: Section which?

Mr Hudak: Section 11 of schedule D.

Mr Marchese: Could you bring us to that page, Mr Chair? What page are we on of the act?

The Chair: We are voting on section 11, Mr Marchese, which is page 58 of the package, which I've already deemed out of order. We're debating section 11.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, we have unanimous consent here, it appears. These members here want to bring this section back. Let's do that.

The Chair: No, Mr Marchese. We're voting on section 11, yay or nay. Is there debate on section 11?

All those in favour of --

Mr Gerretsen: I just want to make sure that what I'm understanding here is correct. Section 11 says that subsection 81(3) of the act is repealed. The amendment states that the New Democratic Party recommends voting against section 11 of schedule D. Now Mr Hudak is saying that he wants his own caucus to vote against that.

The Chair: Mr Marchese has withdrawn that proposal.

Mr Gerretsen: Okay. So we're then left with Mr Hudak recommending to his other caucus members -- and obviously they're going to listen to him because he's the parliamentary assistant -- that they vote against repealing subsection 81(3).

The Chair: I'm not too sure what Mr Hudak has said.

Mr Marchese: Did you move that, Mr Hudak?

The Chair: All I'm saying is, we're debating section 11 and we're going to have a vote soon.

Mr Gerretsen: All right. I would, through you, like to ask him a question. What does subsection 81(3) of the act currently say, Mr Hudak, since you're against repealing it?

Mr Hudak: Just to clarify for people watching us, I think Mr Marchese of the NDP had a good idea when he brought forward this amendment, and we recognize that, being very fair and open and reasonable. I know the amendment was out of order. All the same, I'd recommend to members of the committee to vote against section 11 of schedule D. I'll ask Ms Henderson to explain what that would mean.

Mr Gerretsen: I'd prefer to hear from you what 81(3) says.

Ms Henderson: Subsection 81(3) of the act provides that the chief medical officer of health shall keep himself or herself informed in respect of matters related to occupational and environmental health.

Mr Gerretsen: I think he should.

Interjection: We all agree.

The Chair: We seem to be all in agreement on this. Perhaps we should have a vote.

Mr Gerretsen: So why did you recommend, over the objection of Mr Hudak, that your own caucus vote against this reasonable suggestion to leave it in the act?

The Chair: Is the committee ready to vote on section 11?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mr Hastings: Recorded vote.

The Chair: You're asking for a recorded vote? All those in favour of section 11? There being none, all those opposed?

Nays

Carroll, Gerretsen, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak, Marchese.

The Chair: Section 11 has carried.

We are now on to page 59.

I'm sorry. The clerk has corrected me. Section 11 has been defeated. I said it was carried and I apologize for that. Section 11 is defeated. So we're now on to page 59.

Mr Marchese: Section 12 of schedule D, sections 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act:

I move that sections 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule D to the bill, be amended by striking out "minister" wherever it occurs and substituting "chief medical officer of health."

This motion reasserts the role for purposes of public accountability of the chief medical officer of health. It has the effect of establishing a medical officer in charge of public health in the province. This bill changes the role of government as one of diplomacy between the two levels of government and the minister and may be inhibited by the act to protect health because of political interference. This requires the minister to act on the advice of the chief medical officer of health.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Hudak: Subsection 86(3) of the act gives the minister complete authority to give the chief medical officer of health the authority to exercise any power vested in the minister under the sections listed in Mr Marchese's motion. That already exists, and I would argue that the accountability should rest then with the duly elected Minister of Health as opposed to automatically putting it at the CMOH level.

1730

Mr Marchese: Chair, do I understand him to say that what I am proposing is already there in legislation or through the powers of the minister? Is that what I understand you are saying?

Mr Hudak: Section 86.3 allows the minister to designate the chief medical officer of health to carry out those functions listed in your motion.

Mr Marchese: Do you have any problem with the amendment that I'm proposing? If it's already there or has that power to do so, do you find this objectionable or unreasonable?

Mr Hudak: I do not recommend supporting the motion because I think the accountability should rest with the minister, and the minister, if she chooses, can designate the CMOH to carry out those functions.

Mr Marchese: But you don't want that chief medical officer of health to have that power.

Mr Hudak: As I've said, I think the responsibility and accountability should lie with the elected official, and she could authorize it to the CMOH if she chose.

Mr Gerretsen: The question that I have then is whether Mr Hudak believes the same principle should apply to the health restructuring commission and that maybe the minister should take the responsibility rather than setting up a commission to do his dirty work. Does he feel exactly the same way about it in that case? I would like him to state so, that he believes that the responsibility should rest with the minister and not with the health restructuring commission.

The Chair: I don't know whether we're on topic or not. We're a little off, I think.

Mr Hudak: Chair, I've made my points on Mr Marchese's motion as it stands.

Mr Marchese: I truly believe that the chief medical officer of health should have this kind of responsibility, as opposed to leaving this matter to the minister. Public accountability through the chief medical officer is something that I find important. I would trust the chief medical officer of health to be able to do the right thing in any matter that connects to public health. I place my trust in that individual. I shouldn't have to worry about having the minister act or not act depending on whatever political influence there might be or political interference, one way or the other. The chief medical officer would have that power and would be accountable in his or her own way to the general public, in ways that I don't believe we often get out of ministers or governments. That is my view. It's quite different from Mr Hudak's, quite clearly, but they are two different philosophical approaches to this issue. There's no doubt about that.

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Marchese: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.

Ayes

Gerretsen, Marchese.

Nays

Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

The Chair: That motion fails.

We are on page 60, which is a government motion.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 82(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule D to the bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."

Mr Hudak: This motion is in response to what we heard on the committee from ALPHA, the Association of Local Public Health Agencies, that represents boards of health across the province. They feel that the "may" should be turned into "shall," which we agree with. Assessors, as we'll get to later, are appointed to ascertain that the board is complying in all respects in public health programs that are mandatory. This responds to ALPHA's concerns.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm glad that the government's taking that position, because we had an amendment to a similar effect. I would like to think that you read our amendment first and then decided that it was such a good idea, in addition to the representations that were made to you, and as a result of that you've taken some good ideas from the opposition and actually implemented them in your own piece of legislation.

Mr Hudak: I think Mr Gerretsen has a good point, and as we've passed an amendment Mr Sergio has brought forward and one that Mr Marchese has brought forward, so too Mr Gerretsen's advice has been helpful in bringing this motion forward and I hope he'll support the government's motion.

Mr Gerretsen: I will.

Mr Marchese: We find the language better, clearly. It still doesn't deal with my problems of stating that if the power resided in the chief medical officer, I would feel a lot better in terms of that individual responding quickly to a public health problem. If there is a public health problem, the chief medical officer would act immediately. It would not require the approval, necessarily, of anybody. It would be that person's responsibility to act and to act quickly. This changing of language "may" to "shall" is useful, but it's still not quite clear who's going to let the minister know that there's a problem. I presume that if ever there is an emergency and/or a serious problem, somehow it will come out, but how will that information flow to the minister?

Mr Hudak: I made my points on this particular motion. I think we'll get to the role of the assessors --

Mr Marchese: I'm raising a different point, though.

Mr Hudak: We'll get to the role of the assessors in some subsequent motions. Do you want to deal with it then or would you like Dr Mowat to answer now?

Mr Marchese: Raise it now and then you can raise it later.

Dr Mowat: Perhaps I could ask whether your question is about assessors or you are also talking about public health hazards.

The Chair: I'd like someone to tell me, I'm not too sure, whether we're exactly on topic with respect to this motion.

Mr Hudak: That was the point I was just trying to make, Chair.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, I wonder if you're premature in your questions. We're dealing with the government motion on page 60 and I don't understand what your question is.

Mr Marchese: I'm there. I thought my question was clear in terms of --

The Chair: It was clear but it may be irrelevant as far as this motion is concerned.

Mr Marchese: This requires the minister to act when there's a perceived danger to public health, from "may" to "shall."

Dr Mowat: This section concerns the appointment of assessors and the appointment of assessors concerns whether or not a board of health is providing the health programs and services laid out in the regulations. The issue of whether there's a hazard at any time to the health of the public is another issue. This merely says that the minister shall appoint assessors --

Mr Marchese: As opposed to "may" appoint assessors.

Dr Mowat: Yes.

The Chair: Further debate? Further questions? All in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

Mr Gerretsen, I trust you're withdrawing page 61; it's out of order. It's the same motion.

Mr Gerretsen: Yes, that's correct.

The Chair: We're on to page 62, which is a New Democratic motion.

Mr Marchese: I move that subsection 82(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule D to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Assessors

"82(1) The minister shall, on the recommendation of the chief medical officer of health, appoint assessors for the purposes of this act."

It is our view that this is a better approach or a better way to go. You would have the chief medical officer be empowered in a way that he or she determines the appointment of an assessor when there is a problem to be reviewed. We see that as a better way to go than what this government's proposing.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Hardeman: I maybe have lost it too, but I'm wondering if this is out of order. I wonder how the minister could follow what was in the previous amendment, where the minister shall appoint assessors, how would he deal with that if no medical officer of health recommended it? Then he could not comply with the law. I would think that this is out of order.

Mr Marchese: Let me just try to be clear here. What the amendments do is to have the minister appoint an assessor. We are proposing through this motion that the chief medical officer appoint assessors, and that's the way the minister gets the information, through that process.

Mr Hudak: I think the motion, as Mr Hardeman said, is a little confusing. We've already passed motions to say that assessors shall be appointed, which deals with the concerns of ALPHA and Mr Gerretsen's motion as well. I think Mr Hardeman has some good points and I do not support this motion.

Mr Marchese: I don't understand Mr Hudak's logic. Mr Chair, hold on, please.

The Chair: If we're talking about whether it's in order, I believe it is in order, but we're going to continue the debate.

Mr Carroll: I think I can clarify. What this would do, Mr Marchese, would be to restrict the minister to only be able to act if it was recommended by a chief medical officer of health. We think that's too restrictive.

1740

Mr Marchese: That's interesting. I don't think it is. Mr Hudak argues that Mr Hardeman's arguments were quite clear by saying that this is out of order. I'm glad the Chair moved that it's not. It's a different point. It's a different line of reporting. You're arguing that the minister should have the power to appoint an assessor based on a perceived problem somewhere and they will pick up that problem. The minister will pick up a problem somewhere, then appoint an assessor. We're saying the chief medical officer is likely to have a better handle on a health problem, in which case he or she would appoint an assessor. Based on that, the minister would then be forced to act one way or the other. They're two different approaches in terms of how information is gotten and how it gets to the minister.

Mr Carroll: If I could maybe shed some light on it, the situation was that the requirement to have an assessor was because the chief medical officer of health was not performing his duties properly. How would the minister have the power to appoint an assessor if it had to be on the recommendation of a chief medical officer of health?

Mr Marchese: I've never heard of that. Is that the case?

Mr Carroll: If the reason for an assessor -- the minister can only act on the recommendation of a chief medical officer of health. If the chief medical officer of health had died or was sick or was the problem, the minister's hands are tied because he has to have a recommendation from the chief medical officer of health. It's very restrictive.

Mr Marchese: The way you have it at the moment, I'm not clear how the minister gets information about a public health problem. That's the problem I've got.

Mr Carroll: Lots of ways.

Mr Marchese: Lots of ways you're saying; that's what I was asking. How do you get it?

Mr Hudak: I think Dr Mowat earlier had said that he would respond to Mr Marchese's question about how the Minister of Health receives information. I think that's what he's getting at. Perhaps to settle this issue, Dr Mowat could address it.

Mr Marchese: That was the previous question, not the present amendment that I've got.

Dr Mowat: The act will allow for the minister to require that boards of health provide information on request. It's envisioned that this will consist of a regular reporting system. This will be developed so that each board of health will, on an annual basis, provide statistical information concerning its health programs and services to the ministry. On the basis of this, there will be a monitoring system so that if a possible non-compliance with the health programs and services guidelines is suspected, this would be the information that the minister would require to cause him to appoint assessors.

Mr Marchese: I understand that.

Mr Gerretsen: Do I understand it -- I do have a point -- that the minister will appoint an assessor at all times?

Ms Henderson: The amendment provides currently -- after this vote -- that the minister shall appoint assessors for the purposes of this act. As has been pointed out, this is a mandatory provision. It speaks for itself.

Mr Gerretsen: The question is: Under what circumstances would it become mandatory? That's really the issue here.

Ms Henderson: The interpretation I have on a mandatory requirement on a minister or some other official, whatever person is named in the provision, is that it requires the duty to be fulfilled.

Mr Gerretsen: There will always be assessors appointed by the minister.

Ms Henderson: That's the way this provision reads to me.

Mr Marchese: I still have the same view of things as I have been trying to present here. All of you seem to have another, quite clearly. My view is that the chief medical officer is closer to public health issues than the minister ever will be. The doctor says the board of health will provide information on request. I understand that; "on request" meaning that the minister from time to time may discover there's a problem and the minister will request information, and they will provide it. He also says there will be a regular reporting system. So if there's a problem, they might detect it, and then the minister will act.

The point of my amendment is that my view is that the chief medical officer of health will always be on top of the issues and aware of the issues much more quickly than the minister is ever likely to be. Because of that, he or she should have that power to be able to appoint an assessor, who would then presumably, through that connection, report to the minister based on that. I see that as giving the chief medical officer a place, more autonomy and more power to be able to deal with public health issues in a much more expeditious and timely manner. Clearly, that's not the view of these members, so we should move on to a vote, a recorded vote.

The Chair: A recorded vote.

Ayes

Marchese.

Nays

Carroll, Gerretsen, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak.

The Chair: This motion is defeated.

We are proceeding to page 63, which is a Liberal proposal.

Mr Gerretsen: I move that subsection 82(3) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule D to the bill, be amended by striking out "may carry out an assessment of a board of health" and substituting "shall carry out assessments of local boards of health."

It's my understanding that many presenters raised this issue during the public presentations and that Bill 152 doesn't really contain a strong enough regulatory framework to ensure that municipalities were monitored under their new public health responsibilities.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

We're moving on to page 64, which is another Liberal proposal.

Mr Gerretsen: Since the last one didn't work, maybe this one will. There's always hope, although sometimes it's very fleeting.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr Gerretsen: Schedule D to the bill to be amended as follows: I move that subsection 86.2(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule D to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Request to board of health for information

"86.2(1) The minister shall request each board of health and medical officer of health to provide regular reports on the health of the population within the jurisdiction of the board of health and on the board's compliance with public health program and service standards."

Again, many presenters voiced this. There is a concern out there that if it's going to be completely under local control -- although I'm a great believer in local government, as I know some of the government members are and indeed perhaps Mr Marchese as well; I'm sure he believes in local government as well -- although they will try to do a good job, the best job possible, there are many conflicting responsibilities that local councils will have, especially with the downloading that has been happening and with the tremendous pressure there will be to provide the best kind of services with the limited tax dollars local municipalities will have. This ensures that there is some overseeing body and organization to make sure that in effect the public health of the people of Ontario is properly looked after by the local boards of health.

Mr Hudak: I do not support the motion. The motion requires separate reports from both the board and the medical officer of health. It seems like duplication. If Mr Gerretsen's concern is about the independence of the medical officer of health, he would know too from the act that the medical officer's position is protected because any change, firing or hiring a new medical officer of health, requires the Minister of Health's approval.

Mr Gerretsen: But with all due respect, there are many other issues that take place within a local health board that have nothing to do directly with whether a medical officer of health should or should not be fired. If that's the only place where the minister's going to get involved, then we can look forward to a pretty sad state of affairs as far as public health is concerned.

1750

The total concern here, and you're going to get this whenever you're going through drastic change, is that there's a sufficient number of people out there -- people in general, special-interest groups and what have you -- that public health will simply no longer play as prominent a role within the Ontario community as it currently has when you change the funding to 100% local funding. That's what we're addressing. All we're asking the government to do is give the people of Ontario some further assurances that the public health of this province, as delivered by the different health units, will not be affected in a negative way as a result of these changes. That's what the people are asking for.

Is it too much to ask that the government can even address that one issue: "Yes, we will make sure the public health of the people of Ontario will be protected by having an overseeing role by the province for a certain period of time"? If you can't deal with that, I'm afraid the kinds of changes that are going to take place not only in public health but in ambulance care and many of the other issues that we've talked about -- people are truly concerned about that. They would feel a lot better if there was some sort of overseeing role, perhaps for a very limited period of time, by the province. Why don't you address that?

Mr Hudak: To respond to Mr Gerretsen's question, as you know from reading through the act and from the motion we passed today, a great number of mechanisms are available to the Minister of Health and the assessors to ensure that the high standard of public health programs that we have in the province will continue to be delivered in the future and enhanced. Maybe for some edification I'll ask Dr Mowat to talk about some particular aspects of the bill that enable us to do that.

Dr Mowat: I'll refresh your memory about the provisions that the government is committed to putting in place to monitor compliance with the standards for the delivery of public health services and programs, which will be set out in the revised guidelines. There will be a standard set out in detail giving the types and levels of service for public health which must be delivered.

There will be a system put in place to obtain information from health units on a regular basis pertaining to their compliance with the standards.

There will be a provision for the minister to appoint assessors and for those assessors to further investigate compliance with the standards when it is thought there will be a problem.

Lastly, there's a whole section of the act which will deal with enforcement. There are a number of ways of doing that. In particular there will be powers given to the minister, where there is perceived to be an immediate threat to the health of the public because of failure to deliver services, for the minister to step in and ensure that those services are delivered and the threat to public health dealt with.

Mr Gerretsen: For the sake of the people of Ontario, Doctor, I hope you're right.

Mr Hastings: I think the proposal here by Mr Gerretsen is a prime illustration of duplication, because even if you passed it and you required MOHs and the chief MOH to supply a report on the overall state of public health, I don't think that would guarantee in any way, shape or form independence of the office, or furthermore that the public is going to be any more informed or clued in than it would be under specific indicators in other ways.

For example, it seems to me that under the communicable diseases act of the province, if there is an outbreak of TB or something like that, then that MOH or the CMOH is going to do what is required by that legislation to ensure that standards are adhered to and actions are taken to prevent or contain or seize upon or reduce the outbreak of TB, or whatever the communicable disease is. There are other such respective statutes that the CMOH is responsible for and reports to.

It seems to me it's just another example of doing something to give the appearance that somehow or other it's increasing information to the people who are interested in public health in Ontario. I can't see in any way, shape or form how it does enhance the independence of the MOH, the CMOH or for that matter makes people more informed than the conventional ways do.

Mr Carroll: Mr Chairman, I'd like to make note of the fact that it's past 6 o'clock.

The Chair: It is indeed.

Mr Gerretsen: I think that clock's fast.

Mr Marchese: I've got five to 6.

The Chair: The Chair has the same time as that clock, Mr Marchese. It has been drawn to my attention that we have passed 6 of the clock. Unless members wish to vote on this -- if there is to be further debate, I will be adjourning the proceedings. If you wish to vote --

Mr Hudak: Mr Chair, could I make a request of the committee -- I'm not sure if it's in order or not -- for Ms Henderson and Dr Mowat, who have dedicated a lot of their time to the hearings today and have a lot of other duties they need to perform -- may I suggest that we finish the public health amendments, if we have the time to do so, so they can go about their other duties instead of having to report back to finish --

The Chair: If everyone agrees --

Mr Marchese: No, Mr Chair, actually I need to leave, and I wanted to make some points on this.

The Chair: So you wish to delay the debate on this for another time, Mr Marchese?

Mr Marchese: Yes. Tomorrow morning at 9?

The Chair: I don't think so. I'm going to adjourn these proceedings. We will have to again continue debate on Mr Gerretsen's resolution on page 64.

Mr Gerretsen: I move the question on that. I don't think there is any further debate on that.

Mr Marchese: I was on the list to ask a few questions. Is this the last matter for them? No, there are other matters for these people.

The Chair: Mr Marchese has indicated he wishes further debate. I will adjourn the debate on this topic until the next session, which will be at the first regularly scheduled meeting following the recess at 10 am. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1758.