Direct Democracy
Through Municipal Referendums Act, 2000, Bill 62, Mr
Clement / Loi de 2000 sur la démocratie directe
par voie de référendum municipal, projet de
loi 62, M. Clement
Mr Michael
Walker
Mr Adam
Chamberlain
City of
Toronto
Ms Pam McConnell
Mr John
Sewell
Township of
Ramara
Dr Tom Garry
Police Association of
Ontario
Mr Ted Thornley
Municipality of
Clarington
Mr Troy Young
Ms Jessica
Brennan
Moosonee Development
Area Board
Mr Victor Mitchell
Wahnapitae First
Nation
Chief Ted Roque
Mr Peter Recollet
Mrs Frances
Gilbert
Miss Audrey
Fernie
Moosonee Cree
Alliance
Chief Irene Linklater
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / -Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Lucinda Mifsud, legislative counsel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at
1004 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): I think we'll call the meeting to order.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a standing committee
on justice and social policy meeting to consider Bill 62, An Act
to enact, amend and repeal various Acts in order to encourage
direct democracy through municipal referendums, to provide
additional tools to assist restructuring municipalities and to
deal with other municipal matters.
The first thing we need to do
is consider the subcommittee report on committee business. Mr
Bisson, I believe you would-
Mr Gilles Bisson
(Timmins-James Bay): Just for those on the subcommittee,
you would know that we were trying to get some presenters in from
Moosonee to present on the section of the act that creates the
municipality of Moosonee. I'm not going to go through the
details, but it's very difficult to fly people out of Moosonee.
It turned out that there was only one seat available next Tuesday
to get somebody out of Moosonee. I think we managed to get one
person out, who is from the Moosonee Development Area Board. The
Moosonee Cree Alliance, which is the second part of that
presenting group, would like to get hooked by telephone, if
possible, later on this afternoon. So I'd like to make an
addition to the subcommittee report, that we try to work that out
this afternoon after question period. Once we're finished with
routine proceedings, we can do a 10-minute hookup by telephone so
that the Moosonee Cree Alliance from Moosonee is able to patch
in.
The Chair:
Does that meet with the committee's approval? We'll try to set
something up between-
Mr Bisson:
We'll work it out with the clerk then.
The Chair:
As close to 3:30 as possible.
Mr Bisson:
OK.
Mr Carl DeFaria
(Mississauga East): Madam Chair, I was approached by a
couple of people who indicated they would like to make
presentations. They are not on the list, but they are here. They
were trying last week to get on the list to make representations.
I would ask the Chair to consider that and maybe allow the two
people who are here to make their presentations at the end of the
list.
The Chair:
Has the committee read the recommendations of the subcommittee?
It should be read into the record.
Mr Brian Coburn
(Carleton-Gloucester): I'd like to move the
recommendations of the subcommittee, Madam Chair.
Mr Bisson:
If you're suggesting that with the addition of the other two
presenters, it's OK by us.
The Chair:
All right, and with the addition of the conference call this
morning.
Mr Bisson:
Were there other presenters? It was just the two?
Mr DeFaria:
Yes.
Mr Bisson:
There are a number of people who want to present. I wonder if
maybe they can make themselves known to the clerk and we try to
accommodate as best we can.
The Chair:
We do have a fairly full schedule this morning. I think what we
will do is try to accommodate everyone who's already listed, and
then we'll see if we have the time to accommodate other speakers
after that.
Mr Bisson:
If we have to go through lunch a little bit in order to
accommodate, I'd be prepared. That would be good.
The Chair:
What is the wish of the committee? Do you want to go a little
beyond the time if there are some other presenters?
Mr Bisson:
We can have some sandwiches sent up for the presenters, because
they'll need energy.
Mr Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Madam Chair, during the
discussion between the members of the subcommittee, did you set
some clear guidelines as to when they could present? Usually
that's the criterion you set. I'm willing to live by whatever the
subcommittee has set, but if we're going to change the rules, I
think it's going to make it somewhat unwieldy.
The Chair:
If you look at the subcommittee recommendations that have been
read into the record, they clearly stipulate that amendments be
tabled with the clerk by 12 noon today; that the clerk be
authorized, in consultation with the Chair and subcommittee, to
schedule witnesses and that the time for public hearings be
divided equally among all witnesses; and that each party submit a
list of witnesses to the committee clerk by 1 pm on Friday, May
12.
I would hope that anyone
present this morning will be guided by that. If witnesses do not
wish to take the full 10
minutes, we may be able to accommodate more witnesses. But as of
now, we're already at 10 past 10, and our first witness is
Michael Walker, with the city of Toronto. We'll see how things
go.
Mr Mike Colle
(Eglinton-Lawrence): Madame Chair, if I could interrupt:
We do have that hour from 3:30 to 4:30. I think we agreed that in
case we couldn't get everybody in this morning, we'd have the
possibility of maybe adding a couple of witnesses there. I think
that was the agreement of the committee.
1010
Mr Bisson:
Yes, it was discussed at the subcommittee.
Mr Colle: We
might not have to go into the lunch, which some people are eager
to do.
The Chair:
Except, as you're aware, Mr Colle, we do have to proceed with
clause-by-clause by 4:30, and we're already attempting to
schedule the Moosonee conference call, and a five-minute
presentation by each party has been scheduled between that hour,
so we are getting down to the fine wire. Rather than delay any
further with discussions around this, let's see how it goes this
morning and the committee can decide when we get close to 12
o'clock how we should proceed.
So we'll hear from the first
witness-
Interjection.
The Chair:
Oh, I thought that had been moved, sorry.
Mr Coburn:
Shall I read these into the record?
The Chair:
OK.
Mr Coburn:
The subcommittee on committee business recommends the following
with respect to Bill 62:
1. That the committee meet
for the purpose of public hearings in Toronto on Monday, May 15,
2000, from 10:00 am to 12 noon.
2. That each party submit a
list of witnesses to the committee clerk by 1:00 pm on Friday,
May 12, 2000.
3. That the time for public
hearings be divided equally among all the witnesses.
4. That each caucus be
allotted five minutes for opening remarks before the beginning of
clause-by-clause study.
5. That the legislative
research officer prepare information on the criteria for
citizen-based referendums and on voter turnout at municipal
elections in Ontario for the last two elections.
6. That the clerk be
authorized, in consultation with the Chair and the subcommittee
as necessary, to schedule witnesses from the lists of names
submitted by the three parties.
7. That, if possible,
amendments be tabled with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon,
Monday, May 15, 2000.
8. That the committee
continue meeting on Monday May 15, 2000, starting at 3:30 pm.
And the recent one, if we've
all agreed to the amendment presented by Mr Bisson: The Moosonee
Cree Alliance be allowed to input by telephone.
The Chair:
All in favour?
Mr Garry J. Guzzo
(Ottawa West-Nepean): One question on number 5: Has that
been complied with? Do we have that?
The Chair:
Yes, it has. It should be in each of your-there.
Mr Guzzo:
Very well.
Mr Bisson:
As long as we don't preclude ourselves from trying to accommodate
the extra presenters, I'm in favour of the subcommittee
report.
The Chair: I
think that's understood, Mr Bisson.
All in favour? Carried.
We'll move into hearing from
witnesses.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY THROUGH MUNICIPAL REFERENDUMS ACT,
2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE DIRECTE PAR VOIE DE
RÉFÉRENDUM MUNICIPAL
Consideration of Bill 62, An
Act to enact, amend and repeal various Acts in order to encourage
direct democracy through municipal referendums, to provide
additional tools to assist restructuring municipalities and to
deal with other municipal matters / Projet de loi 62, Loi
édictant, modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois en vue
d'encourager la démocratie directe au moyen de
référendums municipaux, de fournir des outils
supplémentaires pour aider les municipalités
restructurées et de traiter d'autres questions
municipales.
MICHAEL WALKER
The Chair:
Mr Walker, city of Toronto, councillor, ward 22, welcome. You
have heard that each witness has a maximum of 10 minutes.
Mr Michael
Walker: Thank you very much. This is short notice.
I'm here to speak against
this piece of legislation because I think it's the contrary to
democratic; I think it's as anti-democratic as heck. I think it's
really dictatorial, and I think it has intentionally established
impossible to meet thresholds so that there won't be any ability
to have questions placed on municipal ballots here in the city of
Toronto or in any other municipality that wishes to place a
ballot question at municipal election time or in time in
between.
The example in the city of
Toronto is the nuclear-free zone one from 1982, which I think is
when that was put on, but we've had many ballot questions since
then. I would question, is the minister going to deem a question
on casinos or video lottery terminals or charity gaming casinos
as not a municipal question? We had a referendum on that in the
last municipal election and there were certainly noises coming
from here that we were exceeding our jurisdiction. In my opinion,
we were not exceeding it in any way, shape or form but my concern
is the arbitrariness of the minister pronouncing, granting a
dispensation, using the royal "we": "We have decided that is democratic and you're
allowed to have it." What are you afraid of in letting a
municipality make the decision on what belongs before it or what
doesn't; whether you, the politicians of the day here at Queen's
Park, deem it is reasonable or within municipal jurisdiction?
An awful lot of issues impact
the lives of citizens in cities. Cities, in legislation, have no
rights. They have absolutely no rights. The real economic power
is in cities, and it's quite clear that we haven't been listened
to in the past by other levels of government. Why can't we hear
from the people on issues that we raise before them? We either
have status as a council and elected officials and are
accountable for our actions before the electorate or we're
not.
My other concern, going on
from that, is that the 50% turnout will be very likely
impossible. Fifty percent voting in favour of that is definitely
reasonable. If there is any referendum question, it's usually 50%
or even 60%. We have local referenda on traffic controls, called
speed humps, and we've set a threshold of 60% to ensure that
there is not just 50% support but there is clear-cut majority
support for that. I don't have a problem with that, but I sure as
heck do with the 50% turnout. Most provincial governments today,
including yours, do not get 50% of the vote, and the voter
turnout in a lot of elections doesn't get to the 50% range. The
last presidential election was less than 50% voter turnout in the
United States, and that's for a presidential election. I just
again say that it's an impossible threshold. It precludes us
asking reasonable questions.
They've never been binding,
but council takes them as direction. We have in the past and
we've endorsed them, most particularly the one on casinos and
video lottery terminals and charity gaming casinos.
If we're proceeding down this
avenue, why are you not addressing the issue of the voters' list?
The voters' list is a piece of garbage in terms of its accuracy,
its currency. It disenfranchises huge numbers of citizens. This
is an opportunity, when we have ridings that replicate federal
and provincial ridings, to demand that each of the levels of
government commit financially, as well as from a staff point of
view, to produce a voters' list and that it is one of the things
you check off when you move from one location to another. Or when
you move from another province to this province, you fill out a
voters' list to ensure that people are enfranchised right up
front.
In the city of Toronto in the
last two municipal elections, we sent tens of thousands of people
we re-registered up here to Queen's Park and they disappeared.
They disappeared into a black hole and never showed up on any
other voters' list. Mouthing these platitudes and not carrying
through with real action has just got to stop.
Lastly, I think the concern
is this is paving the way here to try and bind municipal
governments to not go back to their constituents if there's a
need for an increase in taxes, whether it's a dedicated tax
increase to buy more police officers, to buy more fire officers
or to eliminate user fees from old people and poor people, and
you can be assured there are plenty of those in the city of
Toronto. The report that was produced in the Star last month
shows that the poverty rate here is twice what it is in the 905
area. It costs money, and if isn't going to be provincial money,
it's going to have to be municipal money to ensure that those
people are adequately housed, get adequate education and are
brought into the mainstream so they can be fully productive in
the first generation and start contributing taxes to the system.
That requires us to have the flexibility to decide when we have
to levy a tax or not.
Lastly, the actions of this
government in reducing the representation locally has been
totally skewered here in the city of Toronto. Under your present
legislation, which, if it were applied province-wide, there is
one representative for about every 52,000 electors out
there-citizens, excuse me. You've just done your
Waterloo-Kitchener two-tiered government, which you've
formalized, and you have one representative for every 8,500. It
really makes a mockery of the process of true democracy. In my
opinion, this piece of legislation is really a mockery of true
democracy and it's going to finally catch you. In a democratic
system you can try to legislate away democratic rights, but it's
going to come back and get you. Your majority rests right here in
the city of Toronto. The eight representatives that you presently
have here in the city of Toronto are the difference between a
majority government and a minority government and you can't
govern in a minority situation.
On behalf of tenants you've
been hostile to in the last three years-52% of those voters have
never focused on an issue, and this issue is housing. It's their
homes that you've put at risk and you haven't listened to them.
Most particularly, the Chair hasn't listened to them. You'd
better start listening to those people out there and be
accountable. If there's a reason for local government, we're
accountable. We have to answer every three years, not at the
pleasure of up to five years. Every three years we have to go
back and explain ourselves. If that's the case and there's a
reason for local government, you should leave it alone.
1020
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Walker. We have about two minutes for
questions.
Mr Colle:
Thank you for coming, Councillor Walker.
I guess the question I have
for you is the reference you made to the provincial government
trying to basically dictate municipal policy. Are you aware of
the fact that under this act there's only one person who shall
decide whether a question is of provincial interest? It says here
in part III, section 8.1, "Despite rule 1, it shall not concern a
matter which has been prescribed by the minister as a matter of
provincial interest." In other words, the minister is the only
one who can decide whether the vote on video lottery terminals or
casinos or whatever issue is of provincial interest. Obviously
you disagree with that. What would be a way of maybe clarifying
that or at least getting the municipality to come forward with some questions where
they could decide whether it's a municipal interest?
Mr Walker:
With respect, Mr Colle, I think we should decide, period. I think
the provision is anti-democratic just by its very nature. Soon
I'm going to start saluting by saying, "Sieg heil." Where do we
get off in a democratic system where, as I said, we start having
politicians second-guessing municipalities in this whole province
of nearly 11 million people, maybe more, deciding, "We shall
bless you and give you a dispensation that says feed him or that
proposal to the lions"? I say it makes a mockery of this piece of
legislation. You and I know it's exactly the opposite. It's
anti-democratic. It's intended to micromanage and control.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Walker. That's 10 minutes.
ADAM CHAMBERLAIN
The Chair:
We'll go to the next witness, Power Budd: Adam Chamberlain and
Rob Power.
Mr Adam
Chamberlain: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of
the committee. My name is Adam Chamberlain. I am a lawyer with
the Toronto law firm of Power Budd.
The Chair:
OK, I wasn't sure if that was your name. I'm sorry about
that.
Mr
Chamberlain: There is some confusion sometimes.
Thank you for the opportunity
to provide submissions to the standing committee today as it's
considering Bill 62. I've provided a handout which is about four
pages long. I just realized it doesn't have my name on it, but in
any event you can follow along if you have it.
Today I wish to discuss
issues related to the referendum provisions contained in part III
of the bill.
This bill has the potential
to have far-reaching effects on major, large infrastructure
projects such as large landfills, large transportation systems,
electrical generation, distribution systems and related
high-profile infrastructure in Ontario. Investments in such
projects may all become subject to a political process under this
bill.
The introduction of binding
referenda in Ontario through Bill 62 is laudable. It is possible,
however, that in preparing the bill, inadvertent negative effects
on the development of large infrastructure initiatives in Ontario
may have been overlooked.
It is not unlikely that
electors in many communities could have concerns with
undertakings such as highway projects, the creation or alteration
of correctional facilities, the location of large electrical
generation, transmission or distribution facilities or the
construction or expansion of waste management facilities. That
might result in local opposition to such development.
However, most large
infrastructure projects are governed by legislation such as the
Environmental Assessment Act or the Environmental Protection Act,
which require a proponent to seek significant public input. Such
legislation also imposes significant procedural requirements with
which any proponent, either public or private, must comply. For
this reason, undertakings such as those subject either to
approvals under the Environmental Protection Act or to the
application of the Environmental Assessment Act should not be the
subject matter of binding referenda put to the electors in a
municipality.
The risk is that proponents
of large private infrastructure undertakings may respond to this
uncertainty by reconsidering the investment required for these
projects. If that is the case, not only will the undertakings be
threatened themselves, but so will benefits that are related to
them such as jobs, services and tax revenue.
Bill 62 provides the public
with influence on whether or not a particular position should be
taken by a municipality. Where undertakings or classes of
undertakings are subject to environmental assessment or other
provincial approvals require public input, a referendum would
only serve to duplicate that public input outside a controlled,
highly technical and regulated process.
On the issues of
environmental protection in particular, it's conceivable that
results of a binding referendum could be contrary to the
interests of the environment. If this were the case, the
municipality would have no alternative but to take action to
implement the results of the referendum despite potential harm to
the environment. This would fetter the discretion of bodies with
special technical expertise, such as the Environmental Assessment
Board.
There are some checks and
balances provided in Bill 62. As it's currently drafted, the bill
allows the minister to exempt matters of provincial concern from
the referendum process. However, this could be awkward for a
minister and does not, we suggest, provide an alternative that
avoids the pitfalls of significant political pressures,
especially in a time leading up to an election, in the way that
exempting certain infrastructure projects through legislation
does.
There's been some
discussion of the appeal process contained in the bill, and Bill
62 provides the minister with the ability to appeal to the chief
election officer of the province of Ontario any referendum
question that is not appropriate, on the grounds that the
question is not clear, concise and neutral or that it cannot be
answered either yes or no. These are very narrow grounds, which
do not replace the need to exempt these environmental projects
from the legislative scheme.
I note as an aside that
there is no recourse by way of appeal to the other rules that are
subject to the questions. Rules 3 and 4 are the rules that I've
discussed above-that is, clear, concise and neutral and they have
to be yes or no. But the other two rules that govern these
questions-the first is that they shall concern a matter within
the jurisdiction of the municipality; and the second one, which
has been brought up by the previous speaker and been subject of a
question, is the one that says the question shall not concern a
matter that has been prescribed by the minister to be a matter of
provincial interest-those two grounds are not subject to any
appeal procedure.
In conclusion, although Bill 62 provides a welcome
binding referendum process for the province of Ontario, it is
important that certain issues, such as environmental matters and
large infrastructure projects, be exempted as they are governed
by existing legislation and regulations which already protect the
public interest.
I suggest that the
following possible amendment to Bill 62 would address these
concerns. I've already read from the four rules that govern these
questions and I would suggest that an additional rule be inserted
between rules 2 and 3, which would result in 3 and 4 being
renumbered. I suggest that the following would be an appropriate
amendment and it would read as such:
"It"-that is, the
question-"shall not concern matters related to undertakings to
which the Environmental Assessment Act applies or for which
approvals under the Environmental Protection Act are
required."
Should the committee,
however, not support the proposition of an amendment for Bill 62
as I've discussed, it should strongly encourage the government to
act quickly to create regulations that will protect matters such
as those related to private undertakings that are subject to the
Environmental Assessment Act or require approvals under the
Environmental Protection Act.
Regulations similar to the
proposed amendment to Bill 62 that I've just listed would
ensure that large infrastructure projects such as large
landfills, large transportation systems, and electrical
generation and distribution systems are not exposed to undue
uncertainty. While such regulations would not provide as much
certainty as legislative amendments, they could, if carefully
worded and promptly passed, minimize the risk to development of
important infrastructure in Ontario.
Madam Chair, those are my
comments. If you have any questions, I'm happy to field them.
1030
The Chair:
We have about two minutes for questions.
Mr Bisson:
I hear the argument you're making, and I have a fair amount of
sympathy for what you're saying. I guess my simple question is:
If, for whatever reason, the government decides not to accept the
amendments-as you know, this bill is time allocated, and it's
going to be out of committee this afternoon-
Mr
Chamberlain: I know.
Mr Bisson:
-should the bill go along, flawed as it is?
Mr
Chamberlain: I don't agree with the previous speaker
with respect to the general flaw. I support the general
proposition of the introduction of binding referenda.
Simply put, I think the
bill should proceed as it is, if there's not going to be an
amendment, but I think it would be extremely important that the
minister, and the committee as well, consider what areas ought to
be deemed matters of provincial interest. I think that is the
essential question. It would be unfortunate, for the various
reasons I've listed, if some areas were subject to question-
Mr Bisson:
If you're going to have referendum legislation, wouldn't you want
to make sure that at least the referendum legislation works and,
if it is flawed, to try and fix it?
My problem with this
process is that I think all of us can get into a general debate
around referendum legislation about where it is appropriate. But
as you point out, if you have referendum legislation that's
flawed, there's a real danger that you can end up doing more harm
to the outcome than not having any at all.
Mr
Chamberlain: I don't think the legislation is
fundamentally flawed. I think it needs to be fine-tuned, I think
the fine-tuning I have listed would be appropriate. Without that,
I think the next step, perhaps not as favourable and not as
desirable, is to ensure that the minister provides designations,
subject to rule 2 that I've listed, where appropriate.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Chamberlain. That's about the 10 minutes. We'll go
to Pam McConnell, the next witness.
CITY OF TORONTO
Ms Pam
McConnell: Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Councillor Pam
McConnell. I'm here on behalf of my council, the city of Toronto
and also to speak on behalf of Mayor Lastman. I'm the chair of
the Toronto community council.
I'm here to speak to you
about Bill 62, the act to amend various acts relating to the
reconstructed municipalities and to municipalities generally, and
to enact the Town of Moosonee Act, 2000. Even the name of this
bill seems exceedingly scattered. There is little coherence to
the hodgepodge of regulations you have thrown together here. The
clauses govern roads, liquor, mental illness, police, zoos, the
OMB and taxes, all tossed into the first few paragraphs of your
bill. Almost 30 pieces of legislation are amended, without any
one coherent objective identified.
But closer reading, to me,
shows some clear messages. The overwhelming message in Bill 62 is
an abiding distrust of your municipalities and their
councils.
I imagine that the people
of Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and the Sudbury region
will let you know how they feel about your decisions to
reorganize local councils against their local wishes. Toronto has
already been through that amalgamation. We know about the
horrific costs involved in those reorganizations, the millions of
dollars of downloading hidden in the process and the stark loss
of service inherent in coping with that imposition. But I'm not
here to cover that ground again. You know it well.
I came today to talk to you
about one aspect of the bill: part III. The new policy on
referenda is like the rest of the bill, clearly a hybrid. Half of
the bill reads like a doctrine, and the other half seems like
hastily added second thoughts. I'll just give a couple of
examples of that.
The bill says a referendum
is binding. Its command must be followed within six months, and
no change is permissible for three years-no ifs, ands or
buts-unless you look
down the page to the clauses that let the city overturn a Yes
vote if they don't like the zoning or if there's a public meeting
and the opinions shift.
The bill says the public
deserves notice. The question must be in its final form six
months before the election. That means that in the city of
Toronto we cannot put a question on at this time. But if you read
further, you discover that in fact the minister can actually
change the question or any other rule or whatever he wants, and
doesn't seem to be bound by any part of the act.
The bill is hasty. It is
inconsistent, it is abrupt and it is self-contradictory, and
that's very easy to see when you read the bill. What is less
obvious about the bill is that it does have one consistent
message: The bill is written to say no to municipalities. It says
no in some pretty simple ways. It says, no, municipalities can't
hold referenda that the minister doesn't want held, no matter how
much the public wants to be heard on that particular topic. It
says, no, municipalities can't hold referenda asking the
questions they want to ask if the minister doesn't want it, and
he has the last say.
The bill also says no in
some more complicated ways. The way the rules are written, a No
vote is in fact more binding than a Yes vote. A council that is
told to take action can in fact back out, citing zoning issues or
outcomes of public meetings. But a council that is told to take
no action has no options. They are bound to take no action for
three years.
It's always easier to get
people to say no than it is to get them to say yes. Bill 62 takes
that tilted playing field and jacks it up another 45 degrees.
However, the most important way the bill says no is in subsection
8.2(1). That clause says, in essence, that if you don't have a
50% turnout, there's no binding referendum. In municipal
elections, a 50% turnout simply never happens. Most municipal
elections draw a 30% turnout. Asking for a 50% turnout is like
asking every ballplayer to bat 500. If you want to set a tough
standard, fine, but don't set a standard that has never been met
and then call it realistic.
What's the point? If the
minister wants to ban binding referenda, which he essentially has
done, why pass a bill purporting to create them? It's hard not to
see a reason looming on the horizon. Bill 62 makes it impossible
to have a binding referendum. There has already been talk of
requiring a binding referendum to raise taxes or to run a debt.
Bill 62 rules make it impossible to meet that requirement, if it
should come to pass. That would permanently prevent cities from
raising taxes or running debts.
If there is any doubt that
these issues are lurking in the background, just take another
look at the bill. There is a specifically stated obligation to
inform the public of the tax impact of a decision on a question.
There is no such requirement regarding social, environmental or
any other impacts.
Part III of this bill isn't
about direct democracy, and it isn't about fairness. It is about
stopping municipal councils from raising the taxes required to
meet the needs of their cities.
The city of Toronto doesn't
like higher taxes. In fact, we've frozen taxes for the last three
years on our own. But we do expect to be treated like a
responsible, democratically elected government that can handle
its own purse strings and make its own choices. This bill could
make it impossible for Toronto to borrow money for the Olympics,
for a stadium or for a better housing policy. Cities could be
prevented from raising taxes to improve our parks or to expand
our daycare. If cities want to do anything they aren't doing
today, or to invest more in anything they are already doing, they
will have to go, hat in hand, to the province for a grant. That's
the one consistent theme in Bill 62. Mike Harris is the boss.
1040
"You want to hold a
referendum? Too bad. We've got rule after rule that says you
can't, you won't and, if you do, it simply won't count."
"You've got a local
government that isn't working? Too bad. We've got rules that say
your council's dead and you're merging with the guy next
door."
"Your citizens elected you
to fix their streets and care for their kids? Too bad. We have
rules that say you can't levy taxes or run a debt."
The bottom line is this:
Just because municipal councils are democratically elected
doesn't mean they should get to make important decisions. I think
that's a shame.
Local governments deal with
people's everyday problems. We pick up the garbage, we care for
the parks, we run the libraries, we manage the roads, we house
the homeless and we keep your cities liveable, neighbourhood by
neighbourhood. It's time that Queen's Park showed some respect
for that work. Stop trying to micromanage municipalities and let
us do our job.
Municipalities have invited
reform. We have encouraged changes to the Municipal Act. But we
have told the province time and time again, let's do it right.
Let's sit down and work out a coherent strategy for reform.
Bill 62 is more ad hoc
change without a coherent plan and without the respect
democratically elected municipal governments deserve.
I implore the committee not
to add injury to insult. Please do not report this bill to the
House. Reject part III outright. Listen to the other deputants
who have come here today-with not much time, I must say, and not
much notice-and show them and their concerns the respect that
municipal issues so badly need from your government today.
Mr Coburn:
Councillor McConnell, you made reference that you wouldn't be
able to put a question on the ballot this fall. There is
provision in this legislation where the minister would entertain
questions on the ballot this fall and vary the time requirements.
Were you not aware of that?
Ms
McConnell: Yes, I am aware of this particular one.
However, before we'd even phrased the question, we've been told
by the minister, through the media, that the question we were
debating putting on is not an acceptable question and not in the
province's interest. So even before we got to debate it, discuss it or
word it, we were rejected.
Mr Coburn:
A supplementary to that. I don't know if the question was
submitted to the minister, or if you're just taking his comments
and interpreting them.
Ms
McConnell: The minister very clearly said, before the
discussion went to council, that this was not a matter he would
allow as a referendum item.
Mr Bisson:
Which part of no don't you understand?
The Chair:
OK, that's enough.
Mr Guzzo:
He's been known to change his mind.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms McConnell.
Ms
McConnell: Thank you very much. It's nice to see you
again.
JOHN SEWELL
The Chair:
Mr Sewell.
Mr John
Sewell: I have a copy of my brief here.
The Chair:
Thank you.
Mr Sewell:
I want to begin with a few words about the democratic tradition
in Canada.
Since the establishment of
responsible democratic government in Upper Canada in the late
1840s, it has consisted of the following steps:
First, the public is
informed of government proposals in a full and forthright manner
by the government and its institutions;
Secondly, public debate on
these proposals is encouraged by all elected members and by the
government, adequate time is permitted between the proposals
being made public and their consideration by elected members, and
elected members engage in this public debate;
Thirdly, the public is
encouraged to present their opinions on these matters to elected
members through the appropriate committees, and elected members
listen closely to the presentations made; and
Fourthly, elected members
then engage in their own debate, taking care to respond to public
concerns and, at the conclusion of that debate, consider
alternatives and amendments and make a final decision on these
issues.
I might point out that this
is the way democracy has been practised in Canada for most of the
last 150 years. It has been successful because it has been shown
to be the best way to find the best ideas to help society
function better. It rejects the notion that those elected, that
is, the government, know best or that they have any special magic
about solutions to complex problems, or that they should be left
on their own to do what they want between elections.
These processes also ensure
that there is, between elections, some control over those elected
by the device best called "embarrassment." Those elected to
public office do not wish to look foolish in the face of
reasonable arguments. The process of public information, public
debate, public presentations, and response to that debate and
those presentations enables all reasonable ideas to emerge. In
that process, elected members are dissuaded from supporting
something that is foolish and instead act reasonably.
This government has been
breaching those fundamental rules of democracy in Canada for the
last four years. This government makes it very difficult for the
public to learn of proposed legislation, even pushing through
laws which give ministers the power to make laws on their own in
private. Some sections of Bill 62, which I urge you to read, try
to amend those provisions which allow the minister to make his
own laws in private without any notice at all.
This government also rushes
legislation through so quickly the public has no time to debate
it. Bill 62 is a perfect example of this problem. The government
has lumped together so many unrelated matters that none can be
fairly debated on their own, and there's no time for public
debate in any case. Then this government prevents members of the
public from making their views known by time allocation motions,
which prevent public hearings. The hearing on this bill is
unusual in that it has been called. I might say that on the 11
bills you passed in the last term, a hearing was held on only
one, and that was for two hours. In fact, the normal process is
you don't have public hearings; you prevent them by time
allocation. But in this case we've got a two-hour span and I
think you'll realize that's ridiculously brief. Notification to
speakers for the hearing this morning was given in the last
business hour of Friday. I think that's so late as to show
contempt for the public hearing process. That's shocking.
Public hearings in Ontario
have always consisted of ads being put in papers and committees
travelling around to listen to people. What you do is phone
people up at 10 to 4 on Friday, saying, "Be here if you want to
be heard on Monday morning." That's shocking.
Then, providing individuals
a mere 10 minutes to discuss a 63-page bill which amends 28
different statutes is very demeaning. It's also extremely
demeaning to find that the only person who's been involved in the
cabinet discussion of this matter related to this bill isn't
here-the minister. He won't even listen to what people have to
say about his legislation. That's a bit demeaning, isn't it? He
doesn't like the public hearing process. He's assigned you folks
to hear on his behalf and not given any time for you to get back
to him.
I believe this provincial
government has lost the right to call itself democratic. It has
done everything in its power to sweep away the democratic process
practised in Ontario since the 1840s. I urge you to look at those
four points. That's the way democracy has worked, except for the
last four years, when you've cut out notice to the public, you've
cut out public hearings.
Only the municipal level of
government continues our democratic traditions in this province.
Municipal governments proudly distribute staff reports and
proposed recommendations to the public. Councils encourage public
participation and schedule meetings both at city hall and in
local neighbourhoods to encourage people to consider issues, form
their own opinions, and then voice those opinions. Municipalities allow adequate time for
public debate before decisions are made. Councillors attend
community meetings and engage in debate, learning first-hand how
people feel about things. Council meetings, unlike cabinet
meetings, are held in public; in fact, they are usually televised
and the public can watch as the debate progresses.
This model of democracy is
to be admired, yet this government wants to destroy local
government and the latest attack is Bill 62. This government
wants to take important decisions out of the framework of public
information, public debate, public presentations, and
decision-making by informed elected officials. This is wrong.
Leave local government alone.
1050
The provisions of Bill 62
reek of manipulation. Voters' lists, a provincial responsibility
as you've already heard, are notoriously inaccurate. When I ran
in the last provincial election, I might say 40% of the people
who lived in the riding and were voters were not on the voters'
list; 40% of the names on the voters' list had moved or died.
They're the kinds of voters' lists that you're responsible for
and that in fact would be working under these regulations.
As you've already heard,
it's virtually impossible for 50% of the names on the voters'
list to get out to vote. There are few instances where 50% of the
names on the voters' list have ever voted. I believe that 50%
requirement will be used by the minister to shackle local
government. Bill 62 will not be used to enhance the democratic
tradition in Ontario but to bring municipalities to their
financial knees, to wreck them, to ensure they are no longer able
to function in an open, democratic fashion.
If you take the amendment
that's suggested by Mr Chamberlain, your friend, there is a whole
bunch of other issues that you'd also get out in the way of local
councils that they could never express their opinion on: anything
related to environmental issues or roads or infrastructure. Bad;
that's all bad.
Part III of this bill is
repressive legislation that is meant to be repressive and
harmful. Don't pass it.
In closing, I'd like to
bring to your attention the legal context in which binding
referendums, as proposed in Bill 62, should be discussed. In 1916
the Manitoba Legislature attempted to pass a bill authorizing
binding referendums, taking the power out of the hands of the
Legislative Assembly, as you've tried to do with the Taxpayer
Protection Act, and replacing it with your notion of direct
democracy which is in Bill 62. This was ruled by the Privy
Council as beyond the power of the Legislative Assembly. In that
case, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled that the problem with
the law was that it attempted to vest powers belonging to the
Legislature in a different body and the court decided, to use the
words of Peter Hogg in his book Constitutional Law of Canada,
that "primary law-making authority be exercised only by the
organs that [the Constitution] establishes and recognizes."
In local government, the
law states that the municipal council, after full, fair and open
debate, makes the decision. Bill 62 tries to fetter that
decision-making ability of council and lodge it somewhere else. I
believe such an assignment of powers is unconstitutional, as it
is indeed for the Taxpayer Protection Act. It would be
interesting to see your legal advice to the contrary.
Stop this damaging attack
on local government. Start following the precepts of the
democratic process that we know in Ontario.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Sewell. There's about one minute left for
questions.
Mr Colle:
Thank you, Mr Sewell. There are so many things that you brought
up, but my question is, do you realize that only about 5% of the
municipal elections held in the province last year reached the
50% threshold? In other words, 95% of the municipal elections
held did not reach the 50% threshold.
Mr Sewell:
I believe this is deliberate on the part of the minister, that
he's going to bring in a new law that will say certain things
have to have the approval of a referendum, such as a tax
increase, so he's deliberately set it at 50%. This is designed to
make sure nothing happens, to take the power out of local
councils, to trash local councils as best that they could. If
that wasn't the case, I think we could have a good, long public
discussion on this legislation. There's no hurry about it, we've
got lots of time, but it's being rushed through in the usual
fashion the government's gotten used to.
I believe that the 50% is
set deliberately to make sure that municipal councils are going
to be prevented from doing certain things. It's a deliberate
figure. You can tinker with it all you want. The minister is
trying to hurt municipalities.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Sewell.
Mr Sewell:
Madam Chair, you should know that. You used to be on local
council. What happened to your respect for it?
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Sewell.
Mr Sewell:
Something happened in the head. Is that what happens when you get
up here?
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Sewell. We've heard from you.
Mr Sewell:
It's an interesting one. One should reply to things like
that.
TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
The Chair:
Can I hear from Dr Garry, please?
Dr Tom
Garry: Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure for me to
be here this morning. I'm Dr Tom Garry. I'm the mayor of the
municipality of Ramara in the county of Simcoe.
Listening to earlier
discussions, I was actually smiling to myself and saying, "You
know, people are concerned with casinos and rasinos and video
lottery terminals, etc." My municipality surrounds the Casinorama
and I want to compliment the government for having the foresight
and fortitude to give the First Nations a license. We don't
allow VLTs in our
township. We were petitioned by our area taxpayers and local
groups not to allow VLTs and we agreed with that. I think that is
democracy in our township, so it's very fair.
I've been in the local
political scene since 1976. It's a long, long time. I've gone
from councillor in two years to become a reeve of a municipality,
went through an amalgamation of the county of Simcoe, and I'm now
mayor of the municipality of Ramara. We have a voter turnout in
our township of 52%. There is a reason for that, and I will come
to that question in a moment.
I'm very pleased to be able
to appear before the standing committee on justice and social
policy today to discuss Bill 62, Direct Democracy through
Municipal Referendums Act. The bill gives voters a greater say in
local issues. For the results to be binding, as I've heard many
people saying here, there must be a majority of voter turnout of
50% plus one.
Traditionally, as you know,
in municipal elections, the voter turnout is 22% to 28%, but we
had a choice in the last few elections, and especially the last
one. We spearheaded a movement, through candidates as well, to
hold elections by mail-in. That moved us away from the
traditional ballot box and voting by mail-in produced for us,
instead of the traditional 22% to 28%, a 52% turnout at the
ballot box, or those who mailed in their votes. That's a
tremendous improvement and I feel that in my municipality, where
more than 50% of the residential taxpayers are away from those
cottages, because they're on Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching and
the great rivers in the area, that gave them their democratic
right to cast a ballot and produce a turnout like that.
The legislation provides a
framework for municipal questions and improves direct democracy.
It gives them that right. They come back in the summer and they
say, "Dr Garry, you didn't do this and you have VLTs." No, I
don't, because there is a casino there.
It empowers the local
citizens with the opportunity to participate in the local
decision-making process on issues that are so important that
council feels it necessary to have their direct input. Again,
issues that are very important to people, as I indicated, are
casinos and rasinos, environmentally-related issues-and we
certainly have had our share in the township-ecology. All our
lakes and rivers, very important.
In addition, if more people
were casting ballots on issues that concerned their community and
neighbourhood, voter turnout would increase for municipal
elections. Now, not necessarily by just stating that. I think
that municipal governments must be committed to greater voter
turnout versus the traditional polling at a ballot box. A mail-in
vote or the telephone way of voting will certainly improve your
turnout at the polls. This strengthens local democracy.
1100
While there are many rules
surrounding a binding referendum, they ensure that the referendum
process is credible. Under the proposed legislation, questions
must deal with matters within the jurisdiction of the
municipality. The questions must be phrased to result in a yes or
no answer, and the question must be clear and concise. The
language must be unbiased and the requirements will eliminate
voter confusion. Voters know that when they mark their ballot,
they are voting on an issue that will be accepted or rejected.
Council will then be able to immediately implement the results
instead of debating what they actually meant.
On that issue, I feel that
the 180 days is too long and the definition of "binding" should
be within 120 days. On the registration, the campaign period, I'm
recommending to you that that minimum be 42 days and not 60
days.
The bill also states that
there is a requirement for full and accurate disclosure to
electors of the impacts of implementing and not approving
proposals, including financial impacts. This allows everyone, the
voters and council, to have a clear understanding of what they
are voting on. It is important for voters to be able to make an
informed decision based on all facts.
I am aware that the bill
also proposes to have campaign funding rules in place for the
referendum process, such as maximum campaign contributions,
registration and campaigns and financial disclosure.
Another recommendation I
have is that campaign contributions under the Municipal Elections
Act should have the same deductible requirements as for
provincial and federal elections and would be an incentive for
real campaigns. I mean the real thing out there-you know, get out
there and get up on the box.
I support all of these
proposals. As a candidate, I must follow campaign funding rules
and, for the referendum process to be fair, it should do the
same. There are binding rules that should be the same as for the
provincial and federal politicians.
As I mentioned before, a
campaign period should be a minimum of 42 days. Sixty days is too
long. They lose track of the issues.
I appreciate being able to
speak to the committee today on the importance of direct
democracy through municipal referenda and I would be happy to
answer any questions from the committee.
The Chair:
Thank you, Dr Garry. We have about two minutes for questions. The
government side, any questions?
Mr Coburn:
I do have one. In terms of voter turnout, you mentioned 52%, Dr
Garry. Has that been consistent over the last three or four
elections?
Dr Garry:
That's only in the last municipal election, where we elected to
have a mail-in vote in our municipality. It's one of the few
municipalities in Ontario that has held a mail-in vote. We felt
that it would increase the voter turnout. It did. It produced the
results desired. I feel that local politicians-because we set the
rules for how an election will be cast, whether it's by
traditional ballot, by mail in, or by phone-have options.
We have opted to go with
mail-in voting. There was an awful lot of controversy about that,
of which you no doubt are aware, of which the government is
aware, but it has proven to be successful. We've gone back to it
this year. We have
indicated to our returning officer, who is our clerk, to go ahead
with the bylaw to produce the mail-in vote this fall.
Mr Colle:
Could you clarify for us what your turnout was before you had
this mail-in system?
Dr Garry:
Between 22% and 28%.
Mr Colle:
How do you verify that the person who mailed the ballot is that
person?
Dr Garry:
The person is mailed a ballot. Every elector is mailed a ballot,
regardless of who they are and where they live in Ontario.
Mr Colle:
How do you know it's that person who voted?
Dr Garry:
I hope it is, and we hope they do.
Mr Colle:
I can see if Toronto tried that what would happen.
Mr Guzzo:
Mel can solve the problem, don't worry.
Mr Colle:
Ottawa should mail their ballots in too. It would be interesting
too to see that.
Dr Garry:
It certainly eases the facility for the taxpayer, the residential
taxpayer. You don't have to go to a box that day; you can mail
your ballot in, and you have a lot of time to do it.
Mr Colle:
But how do you verify it? That's what I would like to know.
The Chair:
I think Dr Garry's 10 minutes are up, so we'll go to the next
witness.
POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
We have two representatives for the Police Association of Ontario
this morning: Mr Thornley and Mr Bailey. I understand you are
speaking as one this morning. You have 10 minutes.
Mr Ted
Thornley: There will be one speaker, Madam Chair, and I
may rely on some of my colleagues to assist if there are
technical questions that need to be answered.
Good morning, Madam Chair
and members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
committee today.
My name is Ted Thornley and
I am the president of the Police Association of Ontario. I am
also the president of the Waterloo Regional Police Association.
The Police Association of Ontario represents approximately 13,000
municipal police personnel across this province.
With me today, seated to my
immediate left, is the administrator of the Police Association of
Ontario, Mr Paul Bailey. Also in attendance with me today is the
chairman of the Police Association of Ontario, Mr Bruce Miller,
who is a 22-year veteran front-line police officer with the
London Police Service and an Ontario medal of bravery recipient.
Additionally, we have in attendance with us our legal counsel, Mr
Ian Roland with the firm of Gowling, Strathy, who may be able to
assist us should there be any technical questions that answers
are sought for. Finally, there are representatives from other
police associations across Ontario in the room, including two of
the three affected associations. The three affected associations
are the Sudbury Regional Police Association; the Ottawa-Carleton
Regional Police Association, and representing that organization
here is the president, Geoff Broadfoot; and the
Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Association, and representing
that organization is the administrator, Doug Allan.
I realize my time is
limited and I will try and leave time for questions. I will
endeavour only to cover off the main points, as you all have
copies of our brief.
Bill 25 made no sense to
both the policing community and the citizens that it serves. It
impacts on public and police officer safety and demoralizes the
brave men and women who police our communities. We had hoped that
the introduction of Bill 62 would have addressed our concerns,
but that was not the case. The policing sector should not have
been included in the bill. The three police services had already
undergone regionalization. Ottawa-Carleton, by way of example,
regionalized in 1995 through another legislative process in the
form of Bill 144. All three services will continue to police the
same area that they policed prior to December 24, 1999. Their
responsibilities are unchanged, unlike other labour sectors which
did not service the entire former municipality. There will be no
transition of policing in these three municipalities.
1110
Bill 25 impacts on both
public and police officer safety at a time when the citizens of
Ontario are demanding safer communities. Bill 25 created a whole
new level of bureaucratic review and red tape. Section 4(1)(d) of
the bill requires the police services board to obtain transition
board approval, for example, to hire a new employee, promote or
change the job classification of an existing employee or appoint
a person to a position.
The bill has affected the
efficiencies of the police services to respond to operational
needs. Approval must be gained for transfers to address
operational matters. Hamilton-Wentworth is an excellent case in
point. The hiring of five new front-line officers was cancelled,
as the transition board could not approve their hiring in time
for them to meet the deadline to go to the Ontario Police
College. This was in spite of the fact that these positions had
been previously budgeted for and approved by the police services
board. Day-to-day operation was also affected, and the creation
of a specialized squad to fight property crime had to be delayed
pending approval by the transition board. In Ottawa-Carleton, the
head of the human resources section resigned last week and the
transition board will not allow the service to fill the position
on a permanent basis. Policing has to be able to react
immediately to preserve community safety and the transition
boards have created a barrier of red tape.
Support for community
safety must also involve support for the men and women tasked
with ensuring it. Collective bargaining has been frozen for the
current year. Our members expect to be treated fairly, and that
includes fair and comparable wage and benefits. They cannot
understand why these are frozen when their services have long
since been regionalized and while their policing duties remain
unchanged. "Why," they ask, "are we being lumped in with other groups when we
have already been through the process?"
In conclusion, I would ask
the committee members to remove the policing sector in its
entirety from the effects of Bill 25 for the following
reasons.
First, the three services,
unlike other sectors, have already gone through the process of
regionalization and are taking on no new responsibilities.
Second, community safety is
being adversely affected with the addition of yet another
bureaucratic level in the form of the transition boards. Police
services must be able to react instantly in community safety
issues.
Third, police personnel
face an increasingly dangerous and difficult environment and need
the support of the government to ensure safe communities.
Fourth, and finally, Bill
25 makes no sense for policing and community safety.
Thank you, Madam Chair and
members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak with you.
We would be pleased now to entertain any questions you might
have.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Thornley. That's the briefest submission we've had
this morning, so there are about five minutes left for
questions.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you for your presentation. I guess I can give you the
experience from someone who's undergone police restructuring, not
as a result so much of amalgamation but as a result of trying to
make a bigger police force cover more communities. In the end,
your assumptions are right. What we found in the case of the
Ontario Provincial Police, when they moved from the structure
they had to a different structure where they're in clusters, was
that we ended up in smaller communities across northern Ontario
with fewer people in detachments to cover fairly large patrol
areas. The result has been far less in the way of community
policing than what existed before this whole structure started.
So I have some sympathy for what you're talking about.
I'm wondering if you can be
a little bit more specific when you talk about the worry that you
have as police officers in regard to this bill as a result of the
restructuring. Is it because you're worried it's going to become
a larger organization that somehow it's going to become less
responsive?
Mr
Thornley: No, not so much, sir. It's for the police
service involved in the community that is restructuring to
continue to conduct business in the fashion that it has conducted
business all along. A police service is the sort of organization
that needs to respond quickly to operational efficiencies and
needs. Frankly, what that has done is create a further level of
bureaucracy in addressing those sorts of areas, whether it's the
formation of specialized squads or groups or the hiring. Everyone
is aware of the CPP initiative that was announced by our
government, wherein $30 million a year would be plugged into the
new hiring initiatives. All those initiatives were intended to
put more officers on the street. Frankly, during transition those
officers cannot be hired without another level of approval within
the organization. An example in point is the Hamilton situation
where officers were released because of the inability to get the
approval at the Ontario-
Mr Bisson:
Could you give a little bit more detail on that?
Mr
Thornley: I would like to do that, if I could call upon
Doug Allan, who is the administrator of that organization, just
to give some details.
Mr Bisson:
Could you please, just a bit of information and say who you are
as you come up for the committee.
Mr Doug
Allan: My name is Doug Allan. I'm the administrator of
the Hamilton-Wentworth Police Service. That's a very good
question. What had happened was, due to retirements etc, we
started hiring and part of the hiring was five officers. When
those five officers were hired, they were all signed up ready to
go and then it was stopped because of the transitional board. In
the process of hiring, the chief approves the hirings, brings it
to the police service board, gets approval and then at the police
service board it was stopped because it had to go to the
transition. A simple day-to-day operation to put police officers
on the street is going through another layer of red tape. In the
meantime, these were highly qualified officers-many police forces
across the province are presently hiring because of the number of
retirements and the incentive to put officers on the street-and
they went to other forces because they weren't prepared to wait
for the transition board. So the hiring process had to start over
again.
Mr Bisson:
Is that the same case in Norfolk, Sudbury and Ottawa? Are they
running into the same kind of barriers?
Mr Allan:
We're running across it in the day-to-day operations. The chief
operational changes like our BEAR squad, which is an acronym for
break and enter-
Mr Bisson:
You can't hunt bears in northern Ontario any more.
Mr Allan:
No, no, it's a different bear. Because the break and enters were
so high in our region, we wanted to get the squad out on the
street. It took officers being put up into a higher
responsibility area, which is a detective. A detective is paid a
little bit extra for the extra responsibility. However, it was
stopped because of the transition board. So we ran into another
layer of red tape. The group finally went out on the street, but
there was a two- to three-week delay before we could get it out
there when we found that we needed to react right away because of
the high number of break and enters in the Hamilton-Wentworth
area.
The Chair:
One final question, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson:
How many police forces are going to be amalgamated within the
areas that are being affected by this legislation in the end? I
guess the next part of the question is, is a larger police force
necessarily better in the sense of administration?
Mr
Thornley: There will be no police forces affected by the
amalgamation, to the best of my knowledge. They've already been
amalgamated through regionalization.
Mr Bisson: In Norfolk as well?
Interjection: Norfolk's OPP.
Mr Bisson:
OK. That's why.
The Chair:
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming this morning.
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
The Chair:
The next speaker will be Mr Troy Young, representing the
Newcastle Ratepayers Association.
Mr Troy
Young: No, I'm not representing the Newcastle Ratepayers
Association.
The Chair:
Sorry.
Mr Young:
I'm here on behalf of the municipality of Clarington.
The Chair:
And are you a councillor?
Mr Young:
Yes, I am.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr Young:
Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee today
with regard to this very important and controversial piece of
legislation. Before I go too far, I must inform you that I am
presently a councillor in the municipality of Clarington and a
candidate for mayor in this November's municipal election. I
state this as I obviously have some bias towards Bill 62.
I will focus the majority
of my remarks to part III of the bill, that portion that refers
to amendments to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Specifically.
I will be concentrating on the part of the legislation dealing
with the question of referenda.
1120
Do we need binding
legislation on the forming of questions to be included in a
referendum? Yes, we do. Too many times in the past,
governments-federal, provincial and municipal-due to vague and
unclear questions, have misused this important tool. The vote on
the Charlottetown accord or the most recent referendum vote in
the province of Quebec regarding sovereignty stand as examples.
Providing a means to strengthen these questions is important to
prevent the misuse of this valuable tool. Otherwise, a referendum
question can often be a waste of time and money.
This proposed legislation
would give the minister the ability to decide the appropriateness
of the question. The proposed legislation will restrict said
questions to matters within the jurisdiction of the municipality
and shall not concern a matter which has been prescribed as a
matter of provincial interest. Should not municipalities,
however, have the right to propose questions of local relevance,
if not necessarily within their jurisdiction? As it stands,
amalgamation is not within the jurisdiction of the municipal
level of government, but it is most definitely within the realm
of relevance. If two or more municipalities wanted to willingly
amalgamate and pose this question to their residents, would they
be allowed? Under this proposed legislation they would not.
Will this proposed
legislation be restricted to a willing municipality bringing
forth a bylaw to pose a question or will the provincial
government be able to enforce the question against a
municipality's will? Will every potential change in the revenue
stream of the municipality be subject to referenda? I say revenue
stream, and not taxes because some would argue that user fees and
other charges are merely taxes by another name. If in the normal
course of managing the day-to-day affairs of our municipalities
we need to increase our revenues, we will find ourselves mired in
a bureaucratic nightmare, requiring costly referenda just to make
ends meet. The cost of the referendum would have to be included
in the budget before the increase could take effect; if voted
against, the referendum cost would have to be borne by the
municipality at the expense of a service provided by the
municipality.
What seems to be forgotten
is that municipal councils are democratically elected, as are the
members of the provincial Legislature. We are held accountable to
the people we serve. Every three years, on the second Monday in
November, we have to face the people of our community and ask for
their continued support of us, their municipally elected
officials. If in fact they feel we have not been performing in
accordance with their wishes, every opportunity is given to those
electors to replace us with people who will. That is democracy;
tying the hands of democratically elected people is not.
It is admirable that you
want to increase the electors' participation in the government
process. If the province is truly interested in doing so, they
should introduce legislation that holds their government to the
same binding referenda that they are proposing for
municipalities. What is good for the goose is good for the
gander. If elector participation is the intent behind this, the
province should also be willing for this proposed legislation to
apply to them as well.
I do not share the concern
of many for the required voter turnout. In Clarington, we are
going with a vote-by-mail process in this upcoming election, much
like Ramara has. The earlier speaker said their turnout was 52%.
Actually, four municipalities in Durham are going this route. Not
only is it saving our taxpayers over $25,000, but it should
increase the number of people who take part. I am confident that
we will have over 50% turnout for this election. Regardless, even
if the 50% turnout was not reached, while not binding, a
referendum question could still be used to help steer the
ship.
Prior to wrapping up my
comments on referenda, I would like to express my concerns about
the time allocation. I understand that the desire for the time
allocation motion was to hurry this bill along so that
municipalities could prepare questions for this upcoming
municipal election. However, the bill states that a bylaw to
submit a referendum question must be passed at least 180 days
before voting day. There is also a requirement for a minimum
10-day notification period prior to the passing of said bylaw.
That's 190 days in total. Today we are 182 days away from the
next municipal election. There is no reason then that this very
important piece of legislation needs to be rushed through with
limited debate. Allow
this bill its due course and provide the necessary debate.
In summary, I think the
clarification on referenda, both on the questions themselves and
in the ability to make said questions binding, are steps in the
right direction. My concern is that referenda will remain as
tools to be used by municipalities, not against them. Referenda
must only be introduced by willing municipalities, not used to
limit their day-to-day functions by the province. Allow us to
pose questions of local relevance to our residents, ie,
amalgamations. Give municipalities the peace of mind they seek;
include in Bill 62 the assurances that such referenda will be at
the discretion of the municipalities to invoke.
I thank you for the
opportunity to speak my thoughts on this matter today.
Just before I wrap up,
there were a number of questions here directed to the mayor of
Ramara with regard to the vote-by-mail and how it works with
regard to voter fraud. We have already addressed this in our
municipality because that was a concern we had too. What happens,
if I may-
Mr Guzzo:
Mr Colle isn't here and he's the only one that you can help.
Mr Bisson:
Actually, I wanted to hear it.
Mr Young:
OK, if I may have some leeway, I will go off topic a little. The
ballots are sent out to all members of the municipality and
included in every list is a voter declaration form. The ballot
comes back to us in a sealed envelope, and separate but attached
in another envelope is this voter declaration form. When they
come in, the sealed ballot goes one way and does not get opened
until November 13. The voter declaration form is taken to the
voters' list and crossed off. So once you've voted and signed
your piece of paper, you are crossed off the list. There is
nothing saying that, yes, I can put someone else's name and be
voting on their behalf, but we will be able to catch two votes
under the same name, so there should be a certain amount of
protection from voter fraud there.
If there are any questions
for me, I would be happy to answer them.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Young. We have about two minutes for questions.
Mr Guzzo:
Thank you very much, first of all, for coming and for your
comments. In your research, what is the oldest use of referenda
that you have been able to find?
Mr Young:
The oldest use of a referendum?
Mr Guzzo:
Yes. When was it first used?
Mr Young:
The actual very first use of a referendum question? I don't have
the exact date of when one was used. One of the earlier speakers
today mentioned trying to get binding referendum legislation in
1916 in Manitoba. A referendum is not something that is new. It's
not a new process that we've just determined.
Mr Guzzo:
Well, it isn't. I read in a book one time about a guy by the name
of Pontius Pilate. He used referenda. He had 82% of his citizens
in front of him and they voted 97% or 98% to crucify this guy. He
knew it was wrong. He didn't like it, as I read between the
lines, but he went ahead with it because he had taken a
referendum.
I would suspect that if
you're a true democrat-when I was in a municipal seat, I wouldn't
want to see a referendum for anything. That's what you're elected
for, to exercise your judgment. What types of questions are you
afraid to pass comment on?
Mr Young:
I'm not afraid to bring forth any question.
Mr Guzzo:
Then why would you not be here today telling us you don't want to
see any form of referendum legislation?
Mr Young:
First off, the idea that we need to have it absolutely binding-if
we do have a 50% voter turnout and 50% plus one voted anyway, I
believe you wouldn't find a municipal council that would go
against the wishes of their citizens who had come forward in such
numbers to express their interest in a matter, regardless. I do
believe that said legislation is and will be a very useful tool,
as long as it's up to the municipalities to use and as long as
the municipalities are given as much leeway as possible to form
the questions that they can.
However, there have been
many misleading questions used in the past, vague questions. It
would help to have someone-maybe it shouldn't be left up to the
minister. Maybe it should be a tri-party committee that would
decide, to allow as little bias as possible. But I do believe
there needs to be somebody other than the local municipalities
forming the entire question themselves. It's very easy to skew
any question to the point that you'll never get a clear answer
out of it. That's my concern. I think a referendum can be used as
a valuable tool, but in its present form there need to be some
sort of direction and guidelines. I think this is a step in the
right direction.
I would like some more
assurance, though-and I would like to see it in writing and not
just heard from members of this committee or the members of this
government-that referenda will not be used against
municipalities. As long as it's totally up to us to come forward
and say, "Yes, we're going to use this; yes, we are bringing this
forward"-give us that right, don't force us to use it-then I see
no problem with it.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Young, for coming in this morning. That's it for
the questions.
1130
JESSICA BRENNAN
The Chair:
The next witness is Jessica Brennan.
Mr Bisson:
Chair, I take it the previous presenter is not here.
The Chair:
The previous presenter has withdrawn, which gives us a little
more leeway.
Good morning, Ms
Brennan.
Ms Jessica
Brennan: Good morning. I hope everyone had a nice
weekend and had an opportunity to celebrate Mother's Day.
The Chair:
I know I certainly did.
Ms
Brennan: Good. Well done.
My name is Jessica Brennan. I am the New Democratic
Party candidate in the riding of Wentworth-Burlington for the
upcoming provincial by-election. In my presentation today I will
be speaking about this bill and pointing out what the bill fails
to do, several areas where I actually offer my support, and some
issues that I think arise from the bill that actually have to do
with democracy in general and with referenda specifically.
First, let me address the
failure of this bill to deal with the issue of Flamborough.
Fundamentally, the government has ordered amalgamation in
Hamilton-Wentworth, but it can't be completed because the
minister has been paralyzed by the promise he has made to the
people of Flamborough but seems unwilling to keep. As you may
know, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing made a
promise to the people of Flamborough that he would allow them to
leave Hamilton-Wentworth if they went through some very specific
steps. They have gone through those steps. They have met their
obligations and deadlines but the minister has not met his. First
he complained that he couldn't rely on the financial numbers
provided by his own transition board and now, after further
delay, he's appointed a committee to study the issue, with no
deadline for them in sight.
It doesn't escape my
attention or those of the citizens of Wentworth-Burlington that
these curious goings-on are made curiouser at a time when there
is a by-election in Wentworth-Burlington waiting to be called
that has in fact been necessitated by the amalgamation issue in
the first place. Not only has this delay thrown the community of
Flamborough into turmoil, it has affected the regions of Waterloo
and Halton as well as Brant county and the new city of Hamilton.
They need to plan their municipal elections but now, because of
these delays, they cannot. These communities also need to take
care of the myriad issues around municipal restructuring but
again, because of these delays, they cannot.
Still, this bill and the
government's problem with the Flamborough issue demonstrate the
very real weakness in the government's approach to municipal
restructuring. With the exception of Haldimand-Norfolk, this
government seems to feel that amalgamation is a one-size-fits-all
panacea. This has ignored local communities and their history and
ignores the desire that people have to determine their own
future.
So let's take a look at two
parts that I actually support. I support the government's removal
of what some have called the Henry VIII clause. This incredible
clause, quietly placed into Bill 25 last fall, allowed the
government to amend legislation behind closed doors by regulation
if the regulation would help implement the act. But curiously
and, I would argue, dangerously, it was to be the cabinet that
would act as the sole judge of whether that regulation helped
implement the act. This was quietly placed into the bills
amalgamating Hamilton-Wentworth, Greater Sudbury,
Ottawa-Carleton, and creating the towns of Haldimand and Norfolk.
Quite an amazing attack on democracy, frankly, not only for those
communities but for the province as a whole. So I'm glad they've
been taken out, and I am grateful to those opposition members and
the media who have drawn attention to this issue and unearthed
and identified its dangerous impact.
I also support the removal
of the provision allowing a mere 75 voters to override the wishes
of the rest of their community and their democratically elected
council and petition the minister for a restructuring commission.
I'm glad that the government has seen this for the
anti-democratic move that it is and, again, I am grateful to
those who have pointed this out to the government and have
persuaded them to remove it.
But removal of these two
clauses in no way changes my assertion and assessment that this
government's approach to municipal restructuring has been
high-handed and has absolutely nothing to do with democracy,
direct or otherwise. Need I remind you that we had referenda in
Flamborough, in Dundas, in Ancaster and in Stoney Creek, and the
answer to amalgamation in all cases was a resounding no. Yet the
Harris government totally ignored these expressions of local
democracy and went ahead anyway, just like they did in the more
highly publicized case of the Toronto megacity.
So with this evidence
before us, I am seriously challenged by the Tory government's
claim that they are for direct democracy at the local level when
they have repudiated the local democracy generated from that
local level. In the case of Flamborough, they ignored a local
referendum, then they made a promise to allow Flamborough to go
its own way while amalgamating the rest of Hamilton-Wentworth,
and now appear to be on the verge of perhaps breaking that
promise.
When I look at the bill,
what it appears to be really talking about is provincial control
over local referenda. Two points convince me: (1) There is a 50%
turnout that will be required, a turnout the minister knows is
rare in municipal elections, so that will make binding referenda
rare. (2) Perhaps more difficult is that the bill takes away the
power municipalities now have to hold referenda on matters of
community interest that might not be, strictly speaking, under
municipal jurisdiction. For instance, I understand the minister
has talked about referenda that were held about nuclear arms,
which he may have considered inappropriate and frivolous.
Personally, I think if a municipal council wants to hold a
referendum on nuclear arms, they should be able to. It seems to
me perfectly legitimate to give the people of a community an
outlet for their views. If taxpayers think that's a waste of
money, they can turf out the councillors responsible. After all,
the election is at the same time and, frankly, that's
democracy.
But what this bill is
really about is preventing municipal councils from holding votes
on issues that are closer to home, not necessarily issues about
nuclear arms, but perhaps municipal restructuring itself. You
know and I know that, strictly speaking, it can be argued and
it's been demonstrated that restructuring of municipalities is a
matter of provincial jurisdiction. That would mean that
municipalities like Flamborough, Dundas and Ancaster would not be able to hold the
votes that they've already held, that the minister apparently
finds so embarrassing.
Yet to add insult to
injury, I'm told that the minister told reporters that the issue
of whether these kinds of votes will be allowed or not allowed is
a hypothetical one. It seems it doesn't matter that this is the
very issue, municipal amalgamation, that has been the one that
has been prominently on municipal ballots in recent
years-prominent alongside downsizing from the province. So this
new bill won't allow a vote on that either. This bill lets the
province decide on a case-by-case basis what is provincial
jurisdiction and what is not. The minister can prohibit the
municipality from putting any issue on the ballot, even if it is
clear to everyone else that it is in municipal jurisdiction.
Let there be no mistake,
this bill will mean less direct democracy at the local level, not
more.
Let me close with a few
words to the minister about Flamborough. Frankly, the first word
and the last word is, get on with it. You made a promise to the
people of Flamborough to let them restructure themselves in way
that didn't involve being part of Hamilton-Wentworth if they met
certain conditions. They have willing hosts, they have dealt with
the financial issue and they did it all in a very short time. The
fact that this issue opens up problems of municipal restructuring
for the minister is actually the minister's problem, not the
problem of the people of Flamborough.
I felt an obligation to
come here today to speak for the people I want to represent
because they have been dealt with unfairly and undemocratically.
Yes, I am the NDP candidate for the upcoming by-election in
Wentworth-Burlington. But this is the third time I have come
forward for my riding, the second time provincially. I have been
involved with a small group of people monitoring the mandate,
activities, decisions and impact of the transition board. I
submitted a letter to the restructuring commissioner last year
outlining ideas very consistent with that I have presented
today.
But I'm still disappointed
today. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here but my
gratitude is for those who have been able to alert me to this
hearing and who have been able to allow me to rearrange my
schedule to be here. If this was a proper and reasonable
process-a democratic one-we would have had more than just two
hours of public hearings on very short notice. We would have had
public hearings across the province, particularly in the areas
affected by restructuring: Hamilton, Sudbury, Ottawa and
Haldimand-Norfolk. If we had had that kind of process, the people
of Flamborough, Dundas and Ancaster could have been heard, and
perhaps the people in the communities who want to welcome the
pieces of Flamborough into their municipal structure would have
also come out.
In closing, let Flamborough
leave Hamilton-Wentworth, engage in a real consultation about how
future secession requests will be dealt with and allow the city
of Hamilton that you have created to also get on with its
business.
Thank you very much for
your time and attention today.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Brennan. Because of the time, I think we should go
straight to the next witness. They have come all the way from
Moosonee, so I think we'll hear from them next.
1140
MOOSONEE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOARD
The Chair:
We have Mr Victor Mitchell and Mr Linklater-sorry, just
Councillor Mitchell from Moosonee. Thank you for coming this
morning. I know you've come a long way to address the committee,
so please proceed.
Mr Victor
Mitchell: Thank you, Madam Chair and ladies and
gentlemen of the committee. Actually, it was last-minute notice
to come out here on Friday, so I left home Saturday morning and
went through a lot of trouble just to get here.
Bill 62, regarding changing
the Moosonee Development Area Board into a municipality, has now
gone to first reading and will probably go to second reading some
time soon. The main concern of our community is that we support
the idea of the municipality, but with caution. Other things in
point are tax rates, the current funding that we get annually
from the various governments-$1.1 million is approximately
the amount-as well as the downloading. You hear of downloading of
services throughout Ontario regarding social housing, welfare,
policing, ambulance, which we do not cover in our community due
to the fact that we won't be able to afford it.
The only thing I would like
to say to this committee recommendation-wise is that we would
like to see our community maintain the funding that we presently
have. As in the letter that's been passed around, taxes have gone
up and people, especially the business community, do not want to
start any businesses in our community due to the fact that the
rates are too high. A couple of them are now at a point of
selling their businesses and moving south, which is not the way
to make a community grow.
There's been talk of
downloading time and time again for the last couple of years and
I understand, from figures that I've heard in the past, $2.5
million would be our share if we were to take over the services
that the province presently provides. If we were to do that, we
would not be able to afford any of it. We would be back to a
Moosonee Development Area Board so fast and we wouldn't survive
as a municipality.
We don't have highway
access to our community; it's only accessible by rail and by air.
The costs up there are high-food, transportation, freight-so
everything is quite enormous in terms of costs. We would just
like to see the committee recommend that we leave everything the
way it is except for the name change in terms of a municipality
and be able to govern our community at our own level rather than
Municipal Affairs supervising us, like at the present time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr
Mitchell. Mr Bisson, do you have some questions?
Mr Bisson:
First of all, Gary, thanks a lot for deciding to come down at the
last minute the way you did. Just for committee members to know,
for Gary to get here for this morning, the only connecting way to
get him out was on Saturday. That gives you an idea of the kind
of difficulties individuals and business people in the community
have to contend with when trying to do business in or out of
Moosonee. So first of all, thank you for coming.
I guess I would want to
give to the government the following couple of things that are of
concern in the town of Moosonee, and Gary spoke to that. That is,
there's going to be a fairly significant transitional cost when
the municipality is created. The board, the chamber of commerce,
the Moosonee Cree Alliance and local taxpayers have raised that
they're not opposing the idea of creating a new municipal
structure called the town of Moosonee, but there's a lot of
concern in regard to what's going to happen with those
transitional costs. In the letter that you received that's
addressed to me dated May 10, there's a whole bunch of
infrastructure that has to be brought up to standard. Under the
current structure the province is responsible for that. Under the
new standard of a municipality, the municipality will have to
pick up a larger share of that cost of being able to build up the
infrastructure. I guess one of the messages we want to bring to
the government is that there needs to be some accommodation given
to Moosonee, considering the situation it finds itself in. It has
a very low assessment base. I think those of you who have been
there understand there's a very high level of unemployment, so
there's not the ability to get money that you would have in a
community like Timmins, Sudbury or Toronto. I think what we're
hearing from Gary this morning is the issue of trying to find
some accommodation when moving towards the municipality.
I guess one of the
questions I have, Gary, is that in the discussions I've had with
people in the community over the last week or two, there doesn't
seem to be a lot known about this move. The minister told us in
the House that people in the community had been consulted, that
everybody was aware of it and was on side. But it became fairly
apparent last week, as we were calling people to let them know
these committee hearings were coming, that not as much
consultation had taken place as we were led to believe.
Is it your assertion that
there should have been more time, in order to get citizens to
understand what's going on here?
Mr
Mitchell: You're right on that. In my term we've only
had one consultation, and it happened in March this year. The
first time we met with the Minister of Municipal Affairs was back
in February. We wanted to assure municipal affairs that we would
like a thorough consultation with the community and, as well,
that it be our decision if we chose to go as a municipality or
not.
Mr Bisson:
Do you feel as if you're getting that choice?
Mr
Mitchell: We decided on a choice, as board members of
our community, but we also wanted to make that choice in a
thorough and timely manner without having to-the next thing you
know, we woke up one Thursday morning sometime in April and
bang.
Mr Bisson:
It'll all be done by next Thursday.
You were also a member of
the Moosonee Cree Alliance, prior to your time on the Moosonee
Development Area Board. Moosonee has about 95% First Nations
people living there, and there is a move within the First Nations
people to form their own band council and their own reserve. I'm
wondering, Gary, once you lock yourself into a municipal
structure, does that, in your view, take away your ability as
First Nations people to organize your own reserve in
Moosonee?
Mr
Mitchell: We were assured at a consultation meeting we
had with one of the municipal affairs personnel that it would not
affect the aspiration of becoming a recognized First Nation,
because it is another level of government, the federal
government. So we hope that-
Mr Bisson:
Have you been given anything in writing?
Mr
Mitchell: No.
The Chair:
There's one more question. I'm just concerned about the time, so
if you could wrap up very quickly.
Mr Bisson:
The second part of the question-the concern I'm hearing from
people from the Moosonee Cree Alliance and others is that they
really worry what this means, and I'm not quite sure myself. I
think we need a little work from research, if possible, to let us
know, before we get into clause-by-clause this afternoon, that if
we create a municipality of Moosonee, does that in any way take
away the ability to revert municipality to its own band office
structure, including a reserve, if they decide to do that by
referendum or whatever?
The Chair:
Mr Coburn, just one question.
Mr Coburn:
Just as a statement more than anything else. The Minister has
committed, and committed in the House as well, that we are
picking up 100% of the LSR costs. As far as some of the
consultation, and you've had ongoing discussions with-
Mr Bisson:
Does that include transitional costs?
The Chair:
Excuse me. One question at a time. Mr Coburn.
Mr Coburn:
I'm going to address that. There has been ongoing consultation
with staff out of the Sudbury office as well, and that will
certainly continue as we address some of the capital costs you've
identified.
Mr Bisson:
You didn't answer my question. Does that include-
Mr Coburn:
Yes, I addressed it in the last part. You have to pay
attention.
Mr Bisson:
I am paying attention, but I want to hear your words: Yes, the
province will pick up-
Mr Coburn:
The LSR costs are picked up. The Minister made a commitment to
pick up 100%, so nothing changes there-
Mr Bisson:
And transitional costs?
Mr Coburn: Part of the
transitional costs and some of the capital costs that have been
identified are ongoing discussions with the ministry staff out of
Sudbury. They haven't been resolved at this-
Mr Bisson:
Haven't been resolved. The answer is no
The Chair:
We'll move to the next speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Mitchell,
for taking the time to come and address us this morning.
1150
WAHNAPITAE FIRST NATION
The Chair:
We have Mr Recollet and Chief Ted Roque from Wahnapitae First
Nation. To both of you, thank you for taking the time to be here
this morning. I realize that you've travelled a long way, so
we'll try to accommodate you as much as possible.
Chief Ted
Roque: First of all, I'd like to say thanks for giving
us an opportunity to speak here today. I'd just like to mention
that I sent a letter to the minister, the Honourable Tony
Clement, on May 12. I believe you have copies in front of you, so
I won't read that, but what I will read is a band council
resolution by Wahnapitae First Nation towards Bill 62. I'll read
that and then I'll have Peter Recollet, a member of Wahnapitae
First Nation, speak on some of the issues. So I'll start. The
band council resolution:
"Whereas, Wahnapitae First
Nation submitted a specific boundary claim in June 1996 to Canada
and Ontario claiming that the reservation as surveyed in 1885 is
considerably smaller than was intended by the parties to the
Robinson-Huron Treaty in 1850;
"Whereas, Wahnapitae First
Nation, in recognition by the parties that the Wahnapitae First
Nation have filed a legal claim with Canada and Ontario relating
to lands and water within the bounds of the Wahnapitae watershed
(upper and lower) has entered into agreements with the following
provincial government departments: the Ministry of the
Environment; the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and
the Ministry of Natural Resources, for the purpose of ensuring
that there is fair and reasonable
notification/consultation/discussion with the Wahnapitae First
Nation with respect to any activities which may require an
approval/permit from the province on any lands or waters in the
following townships: Norman, Aylmer, Mackelcan, Telfer, Rathbun,
Parkin, McConnell, Scadding, Street, and Lake Wanapitei and with
the purpose to ensure that all parties shall use their best
efforts to resolve, as reasonably as possible, any issue that
might arise through the notification/consultation/discussion
process; and
"Whereas, Bill 25, received
royal assent on December 22, 1999, and although the City of
Greater Sudbury Act, 1999 (which was schedule `A' to Bill 25) has
been enacted, not all of its parts are in force. Those parts of
the legislation concerning the establishment of the city do not
come into force until January 1, 2001 which involves the
inclusion of the unincorporated townships of Fraleck, Parkin,
Aylmer, Mackelcan, Rathhun, and Scadding in the north within the
boundaries of Greater Sudbury; and,
"Whereas, the Wahnapitae
First Nation has major significant concerns over the inclusion of
the six townships within the new `City of Greater Sudbury.' At
the most, the availability of a number of settlement options
would be eliminated, and that Ontario having recently released
their `Land Claim Fact Sheets,' have made it clear that it would
be even more sensitive to the new city's concerns and,
accordingly, the number of options available to the parties
(including `public involvement') would be further reduced;
and
"Whereas, no party yet
knows with any certainty what the new city may have in store for
the six townships by way of planning, land use development,
services etc nor how these plans may affect the First Nations
aboriginal or treaty rights,
"Now therefore be it
resolved:
"That, the province of
Ontario is hereby petitioned to amend Bill 62 currently before
the Legislature to reinstate the current regional boundary as the
northern and eastern boundary of the new `City of Greater
Sudbury.'"
That is our resolution, but
more to some of the points, I'll have Peter speak on those.
Mr Peter
Recollet: Thank you, Chief.
Thank you for giving us an
opportunity to speak with regard to some amendments around this
bill. The chief spoke about the impacts that are happening to us
with our land claim, which is a legal claim in front of the
Department of Justice. Unfortunately that legal validation will
not happen until January 2001, thus the new Greater Sudbury has
been formed and will be in place.
We want to tell you about
the impact that restructuring potentially could have on our First
Nation, on our land claims. We don't know what the legal
implications of those are on our aboriginal and treaty rights in
light of a claim being submitted to the government of Ontario and
the federal government.
The regional municipality
of Sudbury has stated on numerous occasions that they need to
protect the quality of water in Lake Wanapitei, but where were
they when Inco Ltd had a major acidic spill that went directly
through our community and right into Lake Wanapitei? There was no
comment from the regional municipality of Sudbury, thus their
issue of protecting the quality of that water.
The regional municipality
of Sudbury, in the last week of public consultations on Bill 25,
threw in the inclusion of these six townships surrounding Lake
Wanapitei for the purposes of protecting Lake Wanapitei as the
source for potable water-no consultation with the Wahnapitae
First Nation.
In 1997, Ontario
deregulated the Wanapitei provincial park adjacent to the
Wahnapitae First Nation community for the purposes of resource
extraction. Once again, Ontario cannot allow for more resource
extraction from this area until the First Nation claims and
rights are rectified.
Wahnapitae First Nation is pro-development in
resource extraction. We have developed a resource development
policy which encompasses all the Environmental Protection
Act.
Wahnapitae First Nation and
the regional municipality of Sudbury are neighbours. The Ontario
government is pitting us against them. We do not want to involve
ourselves in their affairs.
Wahnapitae First Nation has
opposed the inclusion of these townships from the moment they
were made aware of it, four days prior to first reading of Bill
25. This is not meaningful consultation.
The transition board in
Sudbury is recommending that these townships be removed for the
purposes of financing policing and telecommunications in that
area. Wahnapitae First Nation supports that recommendation from
that transition board.
The Wahnapitae First Nation
band council resolution dated May 12, which the chief just read,
petitions Ontario to amend Bill 62, currently before the
Legislature, and reinstate the current boundaries of the regional
municipality of Sudbury. If these townships are included in
Greater Sudbury, the Wahnapitae First Nation will be classified
as an urban reserve and funding from the Department of Indian
Affairs will dwindle quite dramatically. You cannot say that we
are an urban reserve when we have no telecommunications, water or
sewers, even though we are right adjacent to the regional
municipality of Sudbury.
The Chair:
We have about two minutes for questions.
Mr Colle:
You noted that the transition board recommended you not be part
of the megacity of Sudbury?
Mr
Recollet: That they remove those northeast boundaries. I
have a copy of the resolution.
Mr Colle:
Therefore, with those transition board recommendations, you would
not be part of it and you wouldn't have the problem?
Mr
Recollet: Exactly.
Mr Colle:
Have you asked this government for a legal opinion about the
impact of this inclusion on your land claim concerns?
Mr
Recollet: Yes. As the previous speaker had said also,
they have put nothing in writing in terms of that it will not
impact. We've been requesting from the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, with the Sudbury district manager there, in
terms of an ongoing process-we know how that goes in Ontario-a
legal review of those impacts. In light of our legal validation
by the Department of Justice, the Ontario Native Affairs
Secretariat is also involved in that legal review. But time is of
the essence. The boundaries will be included as of January 2001.
Our legal review by the Department of Justice won't be done until
that time.
Mr Bisson:
I just want to make sure that I'm clear. I've read, within the
package you gave us, the proposal by the transition board. You're
in support of that proposal? It pretty well mirrors what you
have, right?
Mr
Recollet: Correct.
Mr Bisson:
So if this committee were to amend the legislation in order to
accept what you recommend and what the transition board
recommends, that fixes your problem.
Mr
Recollet: Correct.
1200
Mr Coburn:
I have a question and then just a comment. You made reference
that if you were part of an urban setting, that would affect
funding from the Department of Indian Affairs. To what
extent?
Mr
Recollet: We haven't done that number crunching. A lot
of Department of Indian Affairs funding is based on your
classification as a reserve-if you're urban, semi-remote or
remote. The previous speaker would understand that. We haven't
done the number crunching in terms of the impact on the amount of
money that would be taken off our yearly funding from there, but
it would dwindle quite dramatically, because we are still
considered semi-remote because of no infrastructure-phones,
water, sewer.
Mr Coburn:
Madam Chair, with respect to Bill 62, this bill does not address
any aspect of the issue of boundaries. Therefore, that, under
this bill, is not on the table in terms of the amendments.
Mr
Recollet: We're requesting to amend Bill 62 to include
the removal of those boundaries.
Mr Bisson:
Clearly, what happened here is that this bill is to fix the
problems you created when you created these municipalities under
the previous bill. Certainly if we as a committee decide to
introduce amendments in order to do exactly what the transition
board wants and what the Wahnapitae First Nation people want,
there's no reason why we can't. It would be bizarre, because
you're fixing the problems you created in the first place. That's
why you bring this legislation here. So don't tell me we can't,
because we can if we decide.
The Chair:
Members of committee, rather than moving into debate on that
issue right now, you will all have an opportunity to address that
in your submissions this afternoon.
Mr Bisson:
We only amend when we feel like it? Come on.
The Chair:
Chief Roque and Mr Recollet, I appreciate your coming in this
morning.
Members of committee, we
have two more speakers. What is the wish of committee? To hear
from them briefly this morning?
Mr Colle:
Yes, if they're here. Then we won't have any at 3:30.
Mr Bisson:
We have one at 3:30.
The Chair:
We have one conference call at 3:30, and we'll be hearing each
party's submissions after that.
Mr Colle:
I'm certainly disposed to hearing the two more, if they're
here.
FRANCES GILBERT
The Chair:
Frances Gilbert? Good afternoon, Mrs Gilbert. Thank you for your
patience this morning.
Mrs Frances Gilbert: Thank you
so much for allowing me to speak.
My objection to the bill is
the lack of publicity in advance to the public, no discussion
among the people about how best to manage. Most of my concerns
have been addressed by previous speakers, who covered them far
more eloquently than I could hope to do. The bill for democracy
through municipal referenda really means the opposite of what it
says, from what I can understand. I see this not as
enfranchisement but strangulation. It follows a pattern of naming
a bill with a benign and generous title and proceeding to ensure
the opposite, which is a travesty of democracy. There's a tide of
cynicism, resentment and disillusion against this erosion of our
democracy. I'm grateful to Councillor McConnell and John Sewell
and various others, whose names I couldn't get down quickly
enough, for their careful analysis of a bill to which I had no
access, like a large part of the general public, who remain
almost totally unaware of what is going on. If we allow this
drift away from democratic principles and practice to continue,
there will be social unrest.
My concern is for myself,
selfishly, and for my children and my grandchildren. People in
that generation very often are so pressed with the demands of
putting food on the table and clothing the children and so
on-there are two parents working in the average family-I don't
know how much news they ever get a chance to hear or read and
what is their interpretation thereof. They only hear constantly
that we live in the best country in the world, because we hear
this from reliable sources many times a day. It may be so. I do
think Canada is the best place in the world. But it isn't going
to stay that way if we don't guard our democratic rights, which
seem to me are being eroded. I thank you. I won't take any more
of your time.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mrs Gilbert. Are there any questions?
Mr Bisson:
I have a very simple one. I think you touched what a lot of
people are feeling in regard to the democratic part of the bill;
that is, how do you feel about a government that supposedly wants
to increase democracy but time-allocates a bill and allows the
public two hours and 15 minutes to have its say on a bill that
supposedly expands democratic rights?
Mrs
Gilbert: There were certain people who came many miles
and had very short notice to make such travel arrangements. I
didn't see this in the press; maybe I didn't read the paper that
day. But certainly it hadn't been advertised on the radio or in
the press. If not for attending a lecture at a community centre,
and because I'm on the mailing list of someone who has had this
information-and I look at my e-mail-I wouldn't have known. I
think that's awful.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mrs Gilbert.
AUDREY FERNIE
The Chair:
Audrey Fernie.
Miss Audrey
Fernie: My name is Audrey Fernie. I speak as an
individual concerned citizen. I made the mistake of being out on
Friday afternoon, so I missed the 10-minute opening to get on the
official list.
There must be some
Conservatives who realize that hate is a debilitating emotion.
You underestimate the intelligence of voters. Do you really
believe we think this is an extension of democracy? It's the
exact opposite.
Why do you hate Toronto,
the engine of your economy? If increasing property or business
taxes were the referendum and we didn't achieve 50% voter turnout
or 50%-plus-one acceptance, we could not have a necessary tax
increase, so we would have to further cut services. Is this what
you want, a debilitated city?
Also, you promised smaller
government. You're interfering needlessly in a well-run
municipality. This is bigger government.
I know the opposition can't
outvote the Conservatives, so I'm appealing to your sense of
honour.
The Chair:
Thank you. Any questions?
Mr Colle:
Thanks for coming. So you had intended to speak to this bill but
you weren't at home to get the call, I guess?
Miss
Fernie: That's right. So I was here at 9 o'clock. Thank
you for extending, but I felt I wasn't going to get a chance at
all.
Mr Colle:
Do you have any indication of why there is this mad rush to pass
this bill, with closure motions and everything? Do you have any
indication of what the urgency of this bill is?
Miss
Fernie: It's very hard to keep active and think there's
some hope of stopping a government from taking control of
everything when we're doing very well, thank you.
Mr Colle:
You certainly are right. This government is certainly in love
with big things. They've made Hamilton into a megacity, Sudbury,
Toronto. You're so right. This was supposed to be a government
that intended to be about smaller government, and yet they're
creating the biggest governments. In fact, the city of Toronto is
almost the same size as British Columbia and Alberta now. There's
more bureaucracy. As you heard, even the police are complaining
about the bureaucracy with these transition teams. Anyway, thanks
for coming and for your desire to participate. Don't give up.
Miss
Fernie: I won't give up, because that's the only hope
with active people who are trying to change things and get back
to the democracy we used to have. Any questions from the
Conservatives?
The Chair:
Thank you, Miss Fernie.
Mr Colle:
They're afraid of you.
Mr
Beaubien: I'm not afraid of asking a question. I
certainly appreciate your being here.
The Chair:
This committee will reconvene at 3:30.
Mr Bisson:
Before we adjourn, I want to clarify something. I take it that
all the amendments have been submitted. Could we get a copy of the
amendments from the Tories and the Liberals as well?
The Chair:
That's a valid question.
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Susan Sourial): We're still waiting for
some Liberal amendments.
Mr Colle:
I have just two amendments, based on one of the presentations,
that I'm bringing forward. I'm having them typed right now.
Mr Bisson:
Can we arrange, then, that you can get them to our research
people?
Mr Colle:
They're going to be ready momentarily.
Mr Bisson:
I take it you have made the arrangements for the Moosonee Cree
Alliance presentation this afternoon?
Clerk of the
Committee: We're working on it.
Mr Bisson:
OK. Excellent.
The Chair:
We're working on that. We'll hopefully have that by 3:30 this
afternoon.
Mr Bisson:
I also have a motion I'd like to have the committee entertain;
that is, that the committee cover the expenses of those people
who had to travel from far away-Wahnapitae and Moosonee-to get
here; that we cover their travel and expenses-airline tickets,
meals, hotels, that stuff.
Mr Colle:
How about Flamborough?
The Chair:
We'll deal with that motion right now, members of committee.
Could you read it again, please, Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson:
I move that the committee cover the expenses of those people who
had to travel from Moosonee and Wahnapitae-I'm not aware if
there's anybody else who had to travel a fairly long distance,
but at least those two-and that we cover transportation, both air
and ground, along with their hotel and meals.
Mr Colle:
How about Newcastle and Flamborough? Somebody came from
Newcastle, I think.
Mr Young:
It's an hour away. Don't worry about it.
The Chair:
Let's not get carried away.
Mr Bisson:
I just want to make sure we get it covered, because as you
expect, travelling from Moosonee is quite expensive, and so is
Wahnapitae.
The Chair:
Yes, that was discussed. Is the committee in agreement with that?
All in favour? Opposed, if any? That carries.
We will be reconvening at
3:30 this afternoon. Thank you for taking the time to come out
this morning.
The committee recessed
from 1211 to 1539.
MOOSONEE CREE ALLIANCE
The Chair:
We will call the meeting to order. Ms Linklater, you have 10
minutes in which to make your presentation, and depending on the
time, we'll allow for a couple of questions. If I may ask: If you
could speak up really loudly so that all members of the committee
can hear, that would be very helpful.
Chief Irene
Linklater: OK. First of all, I would like to thank the
committee for the opportunity to do a presentation on behalf of
the Moosonee Cree Alliance First Nation. I was elected chief in
September. The political birth of the Moosonee Cree Alliance
began in October 1997, when a group of First Nation people from
Moosonee met to discuss the establishment of, and need for, a
First Nation band and reserve in Moosonee.
The population of native
people in Moosonee is approximately 85%. The native people living
in Moosonee come from various different First Nation reserves
along the James Bay area. The reason we have such an increase in
the number of First Nation people living in Moosonee is due to
health reasons, medical reasons or even unemployment, education
and housing.
We are in the process of
working with Minister Nault on our application, that we had
already sent in, for recognition of band status. Presently, we
are awaiting a response from Minister Nault.
At this time, with regard
to Moosonee becoming a municipality, the Moosonee Cree Alliance
First Nation feels there has not been sufficient consultation or
information with the Moosonee Development Area Board. It has
become quite apparent during meetings at the board office and
also at the general public meeting that there hasn't been
sufficient information regarding this issue.
I would like to make the
recommendation on behalf of the Moosonee Cree Alliance First
Nation that there be sufficient consultation with the members or
residents, as you may call them, of Moosonee, because any
implementation or work towards a municipality affects my members
of the Moosonee Cree Alliance. We would also like Moosonee to
remain at the status quo until Bill 62 and what effects this bill
will have on Moosonee as a community are studied.
One of the recommendations
we made previously with the Moosonee Development Area Board is
that they canvass and go door to door to explain exactly what is
happening with the implementation of this municipality. I believe
this hasn't been sufficiently addressed at the community level,
and at this point in time, with the Moosonee Cree Alliance First
Nation working towards having the recognition of band status and
a reserve in Moosonee, I believe there is no communication
between the board and our organization.
In this decision the board
has made, they haven't consulted with their neighbours. When I
refer to neighbours, I'm referring to the Moose Factory First
Nation, with whom we had a meeting with the Moosonee Development
Area Board-the first meeting we had together with the development
board. At that time the chairperson of the board indicated he
would like to have a working relationship with both
organizations. Because we are in Moose Factory's traditional
territory, I believe they also need to have input.
Up to this time we have
never had any input to Bill 62. I believe, as members of
Moosonee, the Moosonee Development Area Board needs to address
these issues before passage of this bill. Am I heard loud and
clear?
The Chair:
Yes, you most certainly are. Is that your submission, Ms
Linklater?
Chief
Linklater: Yes, that is my submission.
The Chair: We've got a few
minutes for questions, and we'll start with Mr Colle.
Mr Colle:
It's MPP Michael Colle from the Liberal Party. Thanks for taking
time out.
Your last comment: Have you
had any discussions about this bill with any members of the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs or any other government
department?
Chief
Linklater: No, I haven't.
Mr Colle:
Not one person from the ministry by phone or in person?
Chief
Linklater: No. I actually left a message with Minister
Clement to call me regarding this bill, but I haven't received a
call from him. I believe Bill 62 is very important. How it will
affect the members of Moosonee needs to be studied and examined.
I am a member of Moosonee, and I was raised in Moosonee. I want
to know exactly what the pros and cons are to the implementation
of this bill.
Mr Colle:
The other question I have is, what is your biggest fear in terms
of what this bill might do? Have you got a copy of the bill, by
the way?
Chief
Linklater: No, I don't.
Mr Colle:
This is unbelievable.
Chief
Linklater: Nobody has had a copy. I talked to Chief Toby
Beck from Moose Factory First Nation this morning, and he has
never seen a copy of Bill 62. Nobody has.
Mr Colle:
I don't know what we can do, because closure has been invoked on
this bill, and it has to basically get out of committee today by
midnight. So I don't know how you are even going to get a copy
before the bill is passed committee and third reading. I will
pass over to Gilles Bisson. Thank you.
Mr Bisson:
Irene, it's Gilles Bisson here, local member of Parliament for
Timmins-James Bay.
I have two questions. I
already know the answer to one, but I think the committee needs
to hear it from you and not necessarily from me. If you had to
assess the degree of understanding in the community by local
citizens as to what's going on here, of the people living in
Moose Factory, how many of them do you think really know that,
come the end of the week, legislation is going to be passed that
forms the municipality of Moosonee?
Chief
Linklater: No one knows at this point in time-maybe a
handful. To my knowledge, the members of Moosonee don't
understand what's going on, because it's 85% First Nation people
who live in Moosonee and a majority of them speak their First
Nation language, which is Cree, and there has been no
interpretation into Cree in regard to the explanation of the
municipality issue in Moosonee. Also, Bill 62 hasn't been
introduced. I requested at the public meeting that this also be
done at that meeting. There was an interpreter at the public
meeting. However, there was only one meeting where there was an
interpreter, and Moosonee has not been totally informed as to
what effects this municipality issue will have on Moosonee
members.
Mr Bisson:
Irene, Victor Mitchell from the board was here earlier
presenting, and one of his comments-I'm not sure if he told the
committee or mentioned it to me afterwards-was that there was
only one occasion where the ministry had actually gone up to
speak to the public, which was at the public meeting that was
requested by the community about a month and a half ago. Are you
aware of any other consultations that have taken place other than
the public meeting you were at on this issue?
Chief
Linklater: No, there was no other consultation.
Mr Bisson:
The last question I have is, if they are going to change Moosonee
into a municipality, is it your belief that that should be the
decision of the provincial government or should it be the
decision of the local citizens of Moosonee?
Chief
Linklater: I believe very strongly that it should be the
decision of the members of Moosonee, because we are the people
who have lived in Moosonee all our lives.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you. Maybe the government members have questions.
The Chair:
We have time for about one more question.
1550
Mr Coburn:
Brian Coburn. I'm the PA for municipal affairs for the
government. I just have some comments that may provide some
clarification.
As a result of that meeting
which was held in February, where, as you indicated, there was a
Cree interpreter, there were three issues with respect to the
Moosonee Development Area Board. As to what type of a change this
would be, it was indicated that the Moosonee Development Area
Board is a provincial agency now, and this change would mean that
it would move from a board and Moosonee would then become a town,
a local body rather than a provincial body.
A couple of the other
relevant issues that came up were with respect to fishing and
hunting rights. I believe there was a question asked if this
affected the traditional fishing and hunting rights. The answer
to that is no, it does not affect those rights. The Moosonee
board does not have any legal authority in this area, and if it
is a town, Moosonee still will not have any legal authority over
the fishing and hunting rights.
Another point of concern
was the fact that this change means that the Moosonee board can
affect the Moosonee Cree Alliance. The response to that
particular issue was that the Moosonee Development Area Board
does not have any jurisdiction over the Moosonee Cree Alliance
now and this will not change if and when Moosonee becomes a
town.
With respect to the
boundaries, there will be no boundary change. They will remain
the same.
I don't know if that is of
some help.
The Chair:
Do you have any comments to that, Ms Linklater?
Chief
Linklater: Yes, I do. Our concern is regarding our
lifestyle in Moosonee. As First Nations people, we do live off
the land and we respect the land also. However, when we go
hunting, there are certain criteria that we have to follow. If it
was a First Nation reserve, those criteria would not be there. So
right now, with the municipality stating that once Moosonee becomes a
municipality they have no effect on any of our traditional
lifestyles, I believe there will be some effect with regard to
that, regardless of what has been said. I believe it needs to be
in writing. We need to see exactly what it is, the pros and cons.
I feel at this point in time that there has not been enough
consultation to examine Bill 62 and how it will affect the
members of Moosonee.
Mr Coburn:
The responses that I had just given a moment ago I do have in
writing, and I can submit it to the members for their
information.
I would also note that the
Moosonee Development Area Board does not have jurisdiction
outside of the town limits. This is crown land under Ministry of
Natural Resources jurisdiction. So I don't believe there is
anything that has changed there either.
The Chair:
Just a very quick wrap-up, because we're out of time.
Mr Bisson:
Very quickly, just to wrap up, Irene, first of all, thank you for
your presentation. But to the parliamentary assistant, the issue
for them is that they're looking at eventually moving to band
status and creating their own reserve, which would be within the
confines possibly of where Moosonee is now. There are some
concerns that if you go the way of a municipality, it's going to
hamper their ability to do so. That's part of it.
The other issue is that the
problem up in Moosonee is that not a lot of people have
understood what is coming down the pipe to them when it comes to
the creation of this new municipality, and that's really one of
the big objections here. I think a lot of people are prepared to
go along with it, providing that you take your time and explain
to the community what's going on. It has to be done in Cree,
because a good percentage of people don't speak English or
French, so they have no idea this is coming down the pipe. They
want to know and have questions answered as to whatever concerns
they may have about the creation of the municipality. Will it
hamper their native rights? What does it mean towards the
creation of a new band? Will you pick up the transitional costs
as you move through? There are a number of questions that need to
be answered. I find it a little bit hard to take when the
leadership of that community hasn't even got a copy of the bill
and we're going ahead and passing this legislation by way of
closure. I wish we could separate this part of the bill out of
the closure motion to allow the community to deal with it and go
the regular committee process so that we're able to develop a
bill that works for the community.
The Chair:
That's the time for Ms Linklater. I appreciate your taking the
time out to call us this afternoon. Thank you for speaking so
loudly.
Chief
Linklater: I want to thank you for the opportunity to
express the concerns on behalf of my First Nations
organization.
The Chair:
We will now go to opening statements, starting with Mr Colle.
Mr Colle:
This bill is really an omnibus bill. It's got everything in it,
and it's really typical of the way this government operates. It
tries to jam so many things that are so complex, affecting so
many people's lives, into a bill that covers everything from, as
we just heard, First Nations' issues-they haven't even seen a
copy of the bill. That's disgusting. They weren't even given the
courtesy of getting a copy of the bill. It deals with their
future. They should at least have an opportunity to have input,
in a very systematic way, to the future of their community. Yet
they haven't even had this opportunity. The bill was drafted.
You've got hundreds of people working in the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs, and they wouldn't even get on the phone and
fax them a copy of the bill.
We've heard the same thing
from people from the Sudbury area. They don't want to be part of
this new megacity of Sudbury. It's going to affect their land
claims disputes. There's no legal opinion that you offered them
to try to assuage their concerns. Yet they're going to be shoved
into this bill whether they like it or not.
This bill deals with
so-called referendum legislation. It's actually legislation to
stop municipalities from participating in referenda, the way I
see it. It deals with municipal campaign finance reform, a very
complex issue. Then it tidies up all the sloppy work done in the
Sudbury act, the Haldimand-Norfolk act, the Hamilton act and the
Ottawa act. They're all in here, very complex. They're all thrown
into this bill too. The Town of Moosonee Act, the Municipal Act
is reformed-it's just got everything. There are changes in the
Education Act, the County of Oxford Act, the Conservation
Authorities Act. The Building Code Act is changed. Even the
Greater Toronto Services Board Act is changed.
Then, thrown into all this
is the creation of a new level of government in
Kitchener-Waterloo. They've got a directly elected, second-tier
government in Waterloo in this. This government talks about
having one tier, one tier is the only way to go, in Toronto you
have to have one tier and you've got to have the provincial
boundaries match the local boundaries. In Kitchener-Waterloo
they've now got a permanent second level of government. The
regional government is created permanently with directly elected
councillors in Kitchener-Waterloo. That's thrown into this act
too.
It's an affront to people's
sense of being treated in a reasonable fashion. When the last
minister left, who is now working for Highway 407, I thought that
perhaps this new minister wouldn't be the same arbitrary,
catch-all minister who is throwing everything into bills and
shoving them down people's throats.
We've got closure on this.
This is a bill that talks about democracy being potentially
enhanced. It's got a closure motion. This is it. There's cutting
off debate, because you might hear from people from Moosonee.
The police association was
in here. The police services in Hamilton-Wentworth, Sudbury and
Ottawa are amalgamated, so why are they in this stupid bill? They
shouldn't even be here. You've created more red tape, a
transition board which duplicates their work and then they can't
bargain collectively, because you don't even understand that the regional
police services in those areas are already amalgamated. They're
already there. What are they doing in this bill?
It seems that this is an
attempt by the government to control everything they're paranoid
about. The public, in no way, can find out how this bill is going
to affect them. This bill was introduced on April 13. Here we
are, a month later, expected to absorb all these complexities.
Can you imagine what the regulations are going to look like?
There are going to be piles of regulations the public will never
see, which are all part of this omnibus bill that is
anti-democratic. It's an insult to people, and it takes away
their right to participate and even know what's in the bill and
how their lives are going to be affected. But it's the way this
government feels they have to do business, and typical of
everything they do.
As you know, the referendum
legislation is a mockery. Even if you support referendum
legislation, this is a mockery. There are no citizen-initiated
referenda, for instance, which the minister promised. It's not
there. Then minister decides what the wording is going to be,
whether it's going to be in the provincial interest. He decides
what the provincial interest is going to be. Then the province
can impose a question on municipalities.
1600
On top of that, there's
such a rush here. The question has to be tabled in 180 days. This
is May 15. It's impossible this year, unless the minister has a
special dispensation where he might allow you to put in a
question for this year's ballot. And you know what he said about
the Toronto situation. He and the Premier say, "No, we're not
going to allow that question about Toronto's concerns on the
ballot this year." They've already predetermined the exact
question. Before the bill has passed, they're saying, "No, we're
not going to allow the question," even before they've looked at
it.
Again, this is a bad piece
of legislation, a bad piece of referendum legislation and really
an affront to people's sense of fair play and trying to find out
what the government is doing. Really, this demonstrates the
government just doesn't care what people have to say; they get it
through. There are so many complexities to this, and there's
going to be no opportunity for input. Luckily we've had at least
a couple of hours of deputations, which had to be done despite
that ridiculous closure motion on this bill.
Other than that, it's a
great bill.
Mr Bisson:
I would state, first of all, that the NDP finds itself in a bit
of an odd spot with this bill. There are some things you're
attempting to do in this legislation that, quite frankly, we can
live with-that I can live with as an individual member and that I
think the party could live with as well-namely, what you're
trying to do by way of trying to create some democratic
structures in order to increase democratic participation on the
part of individuals and give them a voice in our parliamentary
system.
How you're going about it
and how hurriedly you're going about it make it really difficult
to support. As we read through the legislation, you're saying, on
one hand, that you're prepared to give people referendum rights,
which is in itself not a bad thing, but the details in the bill
make it that the minister will decide what the question will be
and if the question can be put. The idea of a referendum is to
allow individuals to decide if they want a referendum, yea or
nay, and then let them work out the question. I think voters are
smart enough to figure out what the question is and how to vote
on it. You're saying: "No, the voter isn't bright enough. Let's
put it in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs." I
think that's wrong.
Second, the threshold
you're putting on the bill, where you're saying you have to have
a 50% turnout in a municipal election in order to have a
referendum, makes it little difficult. We're even electing
members of Parliament-some of you-with less than 50% turnouts in
elections. I don't see Conservative members lining up at the
outside door of the Legislature saying: "No, I didn't win my
seat. I'm out of here. I didn't get 50%. Let me leave." You guys
took the job and you said: "You know what? A majority of those
people who voted, voted for me. Therefore I'm coming." Why isn't
it the same when it comes to a referendum? If the democratic
process is-I wish-that 100% of people turn out, let's deal with
trying to find processes that encourage participation in
democracy.
The one thing I would like
to have seen you address in this bill is a bigger debate about
how Parliament works. I think people aren't so much upset
strictly around the issue of referenda; they're upset when they
take a look at how Parliament works or, should I say, doesn't
work, where you have a process in committee such as we have
today, where the government comes forward with a democratic bill,
supposedly to enhance democracy, and they time-allocate it and
give you two hours of public hearings and don't even bother
sending the bill to the people it is going to affect. So you've
got to wonder, where does that leave people?
Those are my first comments
in regard to the referendum issue. Again, I want to say that the
NDP is in favour of trying to find ways to put forward ideas that
increase democratic participation and increase the voice of the
people, but I don't see the bill doing this in the way that
you're doing it.
The second part of the bill
is, I would say, the "oops" part of the legislation. You made
errors when you created Bill 25, creating the cities of Sudbury,
Hamilton, Norfolk and Ottawa. You've got all kinds of errors in
the legislation. Why? Because you hurried the process. You didn't
listen to the opposition members. You didn't listen to the
public. You didn't even listen to your own backbenchers. One
member had to resign from this place because of the position you
took under that bill. As a result, you have problems in Bill 25
that make the legislation unworkable, and you're having to come
back now to try to fix the problems in your new megacities.
My view and that of the
party is very simple: If municipalities want to merge, that's
their decision. It has happened in the past, and it will happen in the
future. I come from a municipality that merged itself some 27
years ago. There were five municipalities. Without the leadership
of the provincial government, on their own, they decided they
wanted to amalgamate. Then the province put enabling legislation
in place in order to make that happen. So the government purports
that it's doing this because municipalities won't do it on their
own. That's false. Municipalities have merged and amalgamated
before, long before Mike Harris came along, and I think to try
and force amalgamation on people is wrong. Amalgamation itself is
not a bad thing provided it's locally driven.
The third part of the
legislation-I just want to end on that-is the creation of
Moosonee. You've heard Victor Mitchell and Irene Linklater from
Moosonee today, who presented on this particular bill. The
troubling part of it is that most people in Moosonee are not
opposed to the issue of creating a municipal structure for
Moosonee. In my discussions with people I've talked to at the
band level in Moose Factory, at the Moosonee Cree Alliance, at
the area development board and with people at the chamber of
commerce, I've found they generally have some support for what
you're trying to do.
I think what is frustrating
people-they're saying, "At least talk to us, consult with us, ask
us what we think and answer some of the questions we're worried
about, and then let's go out and do it right." Again, you're
rushing this legislation through. You're not giving people an
opportunity to get their heads around it and work at it from
within a community so they can take ownership of their new
community and feel proud of it. Instead, it's a top-down decision
where Mike Harris, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the
parliamentary assistant and others say: "We're going to force
this situation on you. You shall become a municipality of
Moosonee and you don't have two says about it."
I think that's wrong. I
think the majority of the people in Moosonee can probably live
with it, but you have to have a process where people buy in at
the local level. It's a very simple thing. If you can bring
people to a position and get them to accept it, they will embrace
it and they will go out gladly and make it work. But how well is
this new municipality going to work if people are walking into
this thing not really knowing what the heck is going on?
The other little note I
just want to make on Moosonee, and Irene touched on this briefly,
is that Moosonee is a community comprising 85% First Nations
people, many of whom don't speak English or French. All of a
sudden the government came in with one consultation on this issue
about a month and a half ago, and then the minister stood up in
the House about a month later and said, "We've consulted."
Listen, when you're trying to do something in the context of a
First Nations community, you have to be sensitive to the cultural
differences and the language barriers that exist between our two
peoples. We have to have respect for our two peoples when it
comes to how we move forward. This, in my view, has been done
wrong. It should have been done on a government-to-government
basis. We should have involved the First Nations bands in and
around the area, the Moosonee Cree Alliance and the people of
Moosonee to talk about this a little bit more before going ahead.
Instead, you've decided to do it on your own, and I think that's
wrong.
Is there general support in
the end? Probably. Would people accept a municipal structure in
the community of Moosonee? More than likely, if they know their
questions have been answered. Is there going to be transitional
funding? I heard the parliamentary assistant talk to that
earlier. He said there's going to be money kept to the same
levels when it comes to operating budgets, but there are no
guarantees around transitional funding. There is not the tax base
in Moosonee that there is in Timmins or Sudbury. Therefore who's
going to pick up the increased capital costs when it comes to
maintaining and increasing the infrastructure within the town of
Moosonee? Those are very serious questions for taxpayers in that
community who are already worried that their taxes are going to
increase as a result of the new responsibilities they'll have to
take on when they come into the municipality.
The last issue-and research
has somewhat addressed my concerns but I think we need to look at
it a bit more-is the issue of what happens if the First Nations
people in Moosonee want to form a band within the area of
Moosonee? Research is telling me, from the document they've given
us, that it would not stop them from creating a municipality, but
it would add another layer of complexity about how to form it.
There are other issues, such as where the federal government is
in all of this. I say again, those kinds of questions should have
been answered at the beginning of this process so that the people
themselves can understand, accept and make a decision
themselves.
I repeat again the NDP's
position: It should be locally driven. If the local people want
to do it, we should be supporting them as a provincial
Legislature. I feel that in this part we're forcing it on them,
and that's unfortunate.
The Chair:
Mr Coburn.
1610
Mr Coburn:
It's a pleasure for me to be here today. This is really the first
one I've handled as PA, so the litmus test will be at the end of
the day, I'm sure.
It's a pleasure for me to
speak to the Direct Democracy Through Municipal Referendums Act.
If this act is passed, this will give Ontario voters certainly
what we believe is a stronger voice in the local democratic
process.
The purpose of this
legislation is to allow municipal councils to ask voters clear
and concise yes and no questions. For those of us who have come
from a municipal background, quite typically one of the
complaints we hear from our public is that things aren't clear
enough. When you get into a referendum situation and ask a
question that can have a variety of interpretations to it, a
clear yes or no sometimes just doesn't do the job. That's the
purpose of this, to have questions in an understandable format should councils
have to use this type of decision-making process.
Of course, in a democratic
process you elect a council, and the public puts their mark on a
ballot at election time and they put their faith in elected
people to provide guidance and make decisions on their behalf.
But we all know that sometimes council members have difficulties
in making hard decisions and they will tend to go to a question
on the ballot to make the decision for them. From my particular
point of view, a referendum is used as a last resort, when a
council can't make a decision and they turn to the public to help
them make that decision. Certainly in a democratic process,
that's what you elect members of council for, to make
decisions.
We believe that the current
system, which allows municipalities to ask any question even if
it's not under their jurisdiction, is a waste of time and money
and creates a lot of anxiety in the community, and at the end of
the day they can't really do anything about it if they get
outside of their jurisdiction. This piece of legislation allows
municipalities to ask referendum questions only on those issues
that they are responsible for and that they have the ability to
act on.
If the answer is yes at the
end of day, and 50% vote for it, that is a binding decision and
they must act within 180 days after the votes are cast with
respect to implementing a bylaw or a resolution if it's required.
If the referendum answer is no, then to prevent an issue from
arising every six months, they abide by that decision for the
following three years unless another vote is held.
As it is now, the province
has the authority to direct municipalities to place a question on
the ballot, and this legislation continues that authority. In
that event, the province would pick up the costs, naturally,
associated with putting a provincial question on the ballot.
Municipalities would not be
bound by the result of any question placed on the ballot by the
provincial government.
This legislation ensures
that the public is involved in the process of placing a question
on the ballot, that it can't be done arbitrarily without an
opportunity for public input, which is a concern to all us.
You've heard that this morning and again this afternoon: to
ensure that the public has an opportunity to comment.
First of all, if a
municipal council wanted to ask a question, it would be required
to begin the process 180 days before voting day by authorizing a
referendum bylaw. The voters would be given at least 10 days'
notice of council's intention to pass this bylaw. Within 15 days
of passing the bylaw, council would have to let voters know the
exact wording of the question and the implications of voting yes
or no and the financial ramifications of it. This is so the
voters have an opportunity to know exactly what is going on, so
they can mull it over in their own minds and ask questions and
get further information and clarification in ample time before
the vote.
If it's felt that the
wording of the question is unclear or in some ways biased, any
elector, or the provincial government, would be able to appeal
that wording of the question to the Chief Electoral Officer of
Ontario. That takes it out of the hands of the minister. It's an
appeal to the Chief Election Officer of Ontario.
These provisions would
allow voters to make an informed choice. In a free-spirited way,
they have ample opportunity to get more information. They would
understand the question they're being asked and know that it is
clear and fair, knowing the full costs and other important
implications of the decision they are being asked to make.
If this bill is passed,
some of the time frames mentioned-for this particular situation,
this year, because of the time factor-will be shortened for this
election year only. This will ensure that councils have an
opportunity, if they wish, to ask referendum questions this
November. If they can't make decisions on their own, they may
wish to go to the public via a referendum.
This legislation also gives
the province the authority to set campaign financing rules, so
there can't be any tinkering with money not being able to be
tracked in this process. The rules would be similar to those that
candidates in municipal elections have to follow. Contributions
from a person, corporation or trade union are limited to $750 for
any one campaign, and the council is not allowed to spend public
money to promote a particular position on the question.
The issue with respect to
the 50% voter turnout, which had significant discussion here
today, is an important facet of this piece of legislation. If the
issue is that important, and I suspect it would be one of the
more important issues if council decides to go to a referendum,
therefore it should be, as we have in the democratic process, 50
plus one; 50% of the electorate would have to vote. If this is an
important issue, if it is of significant importance, it should
galvanize the electors and draw at least half of them to the
polls. If the issue doesn't generate enough interest to bring
more than half of the voters to the poll, then obviously that
would a signal that the local council was remiss in not making a
decision on their own.
Bill 62 has other
provisions in it with respect to Haldimand-Norfolk,
Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Sudbury, dealing with
administrative matters which would bring us closer to municipal
reform in those jurisdictions.
Other provisions respond to
a local request to create a directly elected Waterloo regional
council. This would help improve the accountability to taxpayers
in that particular region. As well, the number of local
politicians in that region is reduced to 49 from 63.
The chair of the regional
municipality of Halton would be given a vote in all matters.
Again, this is in response to a local request.
I just want to touch
briefly on Moosonee. The information that I indicated earlier was
sent out to the Moosonee Cree Alliance in Cree, as I understand
it-not necessarily the bill but the information that I had
provided. The Moosonee district board again copied the attached
plus the Town of Moosonee Act to them last week. They stated that it had been sent
out earlier, so I just confirm that they sent it out again last
week.
The transition team with
respect to the city of Sudbury: The transition special advisers
who were doing the report had sent out the terms of reference and
invitations to the First Nations in the study area. They made
phone calls to the chiefs to make sure they were aware of what
was happening and they have received no requests for a
presentation or briefs.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Coburn. We will now go to-
Mr Bisson:
Chair, could I ask for a five-minute recess before we get
started?
The Chair:
Is it the wish of the committee to have a five-minute recess,
bearing in my mind that we do have-
Mr Bisson:
Time allocation says 4:30.
The Chair:
At 4:30. Does that meet with the wish of the committee? OK, five
minutes.
The committee recessed
from 1619 to 1625.
The Chair:
We'll now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 62,
NDP motion number 1.
Mr Bisson:
We have a motion here-
The Chair:
I'm sorry, you'll have to forgive me. I'm just a little green at
this. Section 1, any amendments?
Mr Bisson:
We have an amendment in the name of the NDP caucus and it's under
section 1 of the bill, the City of Greater Sudbury Act, 1999.
I move that section 1 of
the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(0.1) The definition of
`municipal area' in section 1 of the bill is amended by striking
out `Fraleck, Parkin, Aylmer, Mackelcan, Rathbun, Scadding."
The Chair:
I'm ruling that out of order, as the amendment seeks to amend
definitions which are not open in Bill 62.
Mr Bisson:
Chair, I have extreme difficulty with this, because the bill, as
I understand it and as everybody else understands it, amends
parts of Bill 25, which was the bill that created the new
municipalities of Sudbury, Hamilton, Norfolk and Ottawa. What the
government attempts to do by way of this bill is to come back and
fix some of the problems that existed in the original
legislation. There are a number of places where the original bill
is being amended to fix problems that were created when the
original bill was passed in this Legislature last fall.
What we're trying to do by
way of this amendment is to make a change that is not only
recommended by the Wahnapitae First Nation but is also being
recommended by the Sudbury transitional team. This is not
something out of left field, something out on its own, something
isolated. This is everybody-the member for Sudbury East, Shelley
Martel; the Wahnapitae First Nation people; the transition team
of the new city of Sudbury-all agreeing that this should be done.
I'd like to hear from the parliamentary assistant why, all of a
sudden, they decided they're not going to accept amendments to
fix problems with the bill when they're pointed out by the
opposition, or by the transitional team, for that matter.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, this is my ruling. As I said, I'm ruling it out of
order because it does seek to amend definitions that are not open
in Bill 62.
Mr Bisson:
If the clerk of the committee or the parliamentary assistant, one
or the other, can please assist us. The whole point of
clause-by-clause is to fix problems with the bill. To the clerk
of the committee: If we wanted to amend this legislation
according to what has been requested by the Sudbury transitional
team, where in the bill can we bring the amendment?
The Chair:
Unfortunately, it's now just past 4:30 and I'm required, under
orders of the day, to now move into clause-by-clause.
Mr Bisson:
You're already in clause-by-clause, Chair. We've already started
the clause-by-clause. That's why we're there. Normally
clause-by-clause is to fix bills and make any changes to the
bills that we think need to be fixed. I ask the question of the
clerk-
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, I will refer you to orders of the day-
Mr Bisson:
I understand what you're going to say, that there is a closure
motion that we can't bring any more amendments. But I want to ask
a question of the clerk: Where in the bill could this be
done?
The Chair:
Are you prepared to respond to that?
Clerk of the
Committee: Because that section has not been opened in
the bill, the amendment cannot be moved to that section. It's out
of order. The only way around that would have been to get
unanimous consent from the committee to move such a motion.
Mr Bisson:
It's something we know we can't get, because the minister has
already said he doesn't want to agree.
It puts us in a heck of a
position, where the transition team wants this to happen, the
local member wants it to happen, the Wahnapitae First Nation
wants it to happen, but the because the government says, "No, no
unanimous consent," we're stuck in the situation where we're
again making flawed legislation. I want to know from the
parliamentary assistant, as we're having a general discussion
around section 1, why it is that you would not want to fix
problems that exist within your own bill. Can you please tell
me?
The Chair:
And I'm now ruling, Mr Bisson-
Mr Bisson:
I heard you.
The Chair:
-as it is 4:30, that there will be no further debate.
Mr Bisson:
And we are on general discussion under section 1 of the bill.
The Chair:
I've ruled that your motion is out of order, so we'll go to
government motion number 2.
Mr Bisson:
Chair, please. We are allowed to have a discussion around section
1 of the bill, are we not?
The Chair:
No, not after 4:30.
Mr Bisson:
Well, let me just say to the government side, with all due
respect to the Chair, this is extremely frustrating. You bring
legislation forward. There are problems in your own bill. That's why you
passed this bill, to fix the problems that you had. And then you
time-allocate us to the point that we're not able to bring
forward or deal with the issues as they present themselves. Is
this a good way of running government? If it is, I'll tell you,
we're in for deep trouble in this province.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, for the record, I will read the orders of the day, as
follows.
Mr Bisson:
Please do.
The Chair:
"That, at 4:30 pm on that day, those amendments which have not
been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of
the Committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without
further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to
dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments
thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all
remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with
one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order
127(a)."
Mr Coburn:
Madam Chair, in an attempt to be helpful, we would consent to
having it brought forward to be voted on.
Mr Bisson:
OK. I'm going to ask unanimous consent, because I hear it coming,
to deal with the amendment to that section of the bill as I
read.
The Chair:
Again, I'm subject to-
Mr Bisson:
This committee can do what it wants by unanimous consent.
The Chair:
Well, is there unanimous consent?
Mr Colle:
Yes, sure.
Interjections.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you. So I ask-
The Chair:
So now we'll vote on it.
Mr Bisson:
Yes. We're on our amendment, the original amendment.
To the parliamentary
assistant, thank you for allowing us to bring that amendment
forward. It is appreciated.
The general question I
have-you've heard the presentations this morning-
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, I'm sorry, you may have misunderstood.
Mr Coburn, it was my
understanding that you asked that the vote be taken, that there
be no further debate.
Mr Coburn:
No further debate.
The Chair:
We're just going to-
Mr Bisson:
We're going to allow the amendment in and we're going to have a
vote and we're not going to have a chance to discuss why it
should be included?
The Chair:
I will take a vote as to whether you wish to vote on the
amendment. All in favour of the amendment?
Mr Bisson:
A recorded vote, please.
The Chair:
We'll have to consider that at the end; we'll hold that recorded
vote.
Mr Bisson:
Yes, all votes are stacked.
The Chair:
Government motion number 2: All in favour?
Mr Bisson:
Chair, can I hear the rationale of what the minister-
The Chair:
No debate.
Interruption.
The Chair:
Mr Sewell, if you're going to submit to any more outbursts like
that, I shall ask you to leave.
Interruption.
The Chair:
Mr Sewell, I'm asking you to please leave. You cannot-
Interruption.
The Chair:
We'll take a five-minute recess until Mr Sewell leaves.
The committee recessed
from 1634 to 1640.
The Chair:
Members of the public, for any of you who interrupt the
proceedings, I will have no option but to ask that you be
removed.
Mr
DeFaria: Madam Chair, the opposition members asked if we
could hold off for a couple of minutes. They just stepped
out.
The Chair:
I think we've already had about eight minutes. I'll give one more
minute.
The committee recessed
from 1641 to 1642.
The Chair:
We've had one minute, so we're going to proceed with a government
motion.
Shall section 1 of the bill
carry?
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): That's amendment number 2?
The Chair:
That's amendment number 2 on page 2. Carried? Carried.
Section 1 of the bill, page
3, an NDP motion: All in favour? Opposed? It does not carry.
Government motion number 4,
subsection 1(5) of the bill, section 11.7 of the City of Greater
Sudbury Act: Shall that carry? All in favour? That carries.
Government motion number 5,
section 1 of the bill: I'm ruling that this amendment is out of
order for the same reason as the NDP motion, page 1, which is
that it seeks to amend a section of the act that is not open in
Bill 62.
NDP motion number 6: I'm
ruling that this amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a
section of the act that is not open in Bill 62 and seeks to
allocate funds.
NDP motion number 7: I am
ruling that this amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a
section of the act not open in Bill 62.
We have a Liberal motion
number 7a, subsection 1(7) of the bill, section 32.1 of the City
of Greater Sudbury Act.
Shall the motion carry?
Mr Coburn:
No.
Mrs
Elliott: Madam Chair, which amendment was that again?
I'm sorry.
The Chair:
That was a Liberal motion number 7a, which is subsection 1(7) of
the bill, section 32.1 of the City of Greater Sudbury Act. It
should be marked 7a. It was in a separate package and the colour
of the document is a little darker.
Mrs
Elliott: Oh, yes.
Mr Coburn:
Madam Chair, point of order.
The Chair: No points of order,
sorry.
All in favour of 7a?
Mr Coburn:
Of 7a? No.
The Chair:
That does not carry.
Shall section 1, as
amended, carry?
Mrs
Elliott: Madam Chair, may I ask a question?
The Chair:
There cannot be any debate on a deferment of the motion before
us.
Mrs
Elliott: On a point of process: If a change was
required, is it possible to pass something by way of unanimous
consent?
The Chair:
Well, you heard my ruling.
Mrs
Elliott: I understand.
The Chair:
You did hear my ruling to Mr Bisson, and it has to stand.
We can't vote on the
section, as amended, until the end, because there has been a
request for a recorded vote.
Mrs
Elliott: Oh, I see.
The Chair:
We'll move to section 2, government motion 8, subsection 2(1) of
the bill, section 13.7 of the Town of Haldimand Act.
Shall the motion carry? All
in favour? Opposed? That carries.
NDP motion 9: I'm ruling
this amendment out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act that is not open in Bill 62 and also seeks to allocate public
funds.
NDP motion 10: I'm ruling
this amendment out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act not open in Bill 62.
Government motion 11: This
amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act not open in Bill 62.
Shall section 2, as
amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed, if any? That carries.
Moving to section 3,
government motion 12, subsection 3(4) of the bill, section 11.8
of the City of Hamilton Act, 1999: Shall the motion carry? All in
favour? Opposed? That carries.
NDP motion 13: This
amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act that is not open in Bill 62 and seeks to allocate funds.
NDP motion 14: This
amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act not open in Bill 62.
1650
Government motion number
15: This amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section
of the act not open in Bill 62.
We have Liberal motion
number 15a, which again was added a bit later than the other
motions. For members of committee, it's on a grey page, and it's
subsection 3(6) of the bill, section 32.1 of the City of Hamilton
Act.
Shall the motion carry? All
in favour? Opposed? That does not carry.
All in favour of section 3,
as amended? Opposed? That carries.
We'll move to section 4,
government motion number 16, subsection 4(1) of the bill, section
13.7 of the Town of Norfolk Act, 1999.
Shall the motion carry?
Mr Colle:
Madam Chair, on a point of order: Is that not out of order? It
deals with financing.
The Chair:
There cannot be any points of order after 4:30, and I have not
ruled it out of order.
Mr Bisson:
Which one? Number 16?
Mr Colle:
Yes.
The Chair:
There can be no discussion. Government motion number 16.
Mr Colle:
But it's out of order.
The Chair:
I've just ruled that there can be no debate.
Government motion number
16: Shall the motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? That
carries.
NDP motion number 17: This
amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section that is
not open in Bill 62 and seeks to allocate funds.
NDP motion number 18: This
amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act not open in Bill 62.
Still under section 4,
government motion number 19: This amendment is out of order as it
seeks to amend a section of the act not open in Bill 62.
Shall section 4, as
amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed, if any? That carries.
Moving to section 5, NDP
motion number 20. This amendment is out of order, as it seeks to
amend a section of the act not open in Bill 62.
Government motion number
21, subsection 5(7) of the bill, subsection 12.3(1) of the City
of Ottawa Act, 1999: Shall the motion carry? All in favour?
Opposed, if any? That carries.
Government motion number
22, subsection 5(7) of the bill: Shall the motion carry? All in
favour? Opposed? That carries.
NDP motion number 23: This
amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act not open in Bill 62 and seeks to allocate funds.
NDP motion number 24: This
amendment is out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the
act not open in Bill 62.
Number 25: This amendment
is out of order as it seeks to amend a section of the act that is
not open in Bill 62.
We have one more. This is a
Liberal motion, 25a, subsection 5(9) of the bill, section 33.1 of
the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. Again, it's on the grey papers that
were sent later.
Shall the motion carry? All
in favour? Opposed? It does not carry.
Shall section 5, as
amended, carry?
All in favour? Opposed, if
any? That carries.
Shall sections 6 through 11
carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Moving to section 12, we
have government motion number 26. That's section 12 of the bill,
amending the French Language Services Act.
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Mr Bisson:
Excuse me, Chair. The one that was just voted on previously, what
was the number?
The Chair:
That was government motion number 26.
Mr Bisson:
That's what I thought. Thank you.
The Chair: Shall section 12, as
amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed, if any? That carries.
Shall sections 13 and 14,
as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed, if any? That
carries.
Section 15 of the bill, as
before you, NDP motion 27: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Shall section 15 carry? All
in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Shall sections 16 through
27 carry? All in favour? Opposed? They carry.
1700
Now we're up to Liberal
motion number 28, section 28 of the bill, clause 8.1(1)(a) of the
Municipal Elections Act, 1996.
Shall the motion carry? All
in favour? Opposed? That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 29,
section 28 of the bill, subsection 8.1(1.1) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed, if
any? That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 30,
section 28 of the bill, subsection 8.1(2) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 31,
section 28 of the bill, subsection 8.1(2) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 32,
section 28 of the bill, subsections 8.1(2.1) and (2.2) of the
Municipal Elections Act: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 33,
section 28 of the bill: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 34,
section 28 of the bill, subsection 8.1(6) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 35,
section 28 of the bill, clause 8.2(1)(a) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Liberal motion number 36,
section 28 of the bill, subsection 8.3(5) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That does not carry.
Shall section 28 carry?
All in favour?
Interjections.
The Chair:
Section 28.
Mrs
Elliott: She's doing the whole section.
Interjection: OK. Carried.
The Chair:
All in favour?
Mr Bisson:
They voted against it a minute ago. Chair, they voted against
this section of the bill. It's defeated. End of story.
Mrs
Elliott: No, we voted for the section.
Mr Bisson:
No, you didn't. You voted against. At least if you're going to
have time allocation, have the rules be consistent. If you mess
up, it's your fault.
The Chair:
OK. We'll move to section 29.
Mr Bisson:
Chair, they voted against that section of the bill.
The Chair:
I didn't see them vote against that section.
Mr Bisson:
They voted against that section of the bill, Madam Chair, and if
it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If you're
going to have time allocation motions and you jack around the
rules and all of a sudden you make an error in your voting
procedure-come on.
The Chair:
Shall sections 29 through 31 carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Section 32 of the bill,
Liberal motion 37: Shall the motion carry? All in favour?
Opposed? That does not carry.
Shall section 32 carry? All
in favour? Opposed?
Mr Bisson:
You almost got me on that one. You came that close. You see, I
was paying attention and you weren't.
The Chair:
Shall section 33 carry?
Mr Bisson:
No.
Mrs
Elliott: No.
The Chair:
All in favour?
Mr Bisson:
Chair, you called and they said no. That's the end of it. Nobody
is forced-
The Chair:
I didn't take a vote on it.
Mr Bisson:
No, you've already done it twice. Just because they're not paying
attention over there doesn't mean you give them a second
chance.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, I'm calling the vote.
Mr Bisson:
Chair, the rules are, you ask, "Does the section carry?"-
The Chair:
Shall section 33 carry?
Mr Bisson:
-and they said no and I said no and nobody said anything after
and that's the end of the section.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, I'm calling, all in favour of section 33?
Mr Bisson:
If they fall asleep, it's not my fault.
The Chair:
All in favour of section 33?
Mr Bisson:
Oh, it's a second time on the vote now. Chair, what seems fair?
You can have a time allocation motion, which is bad enough-
The Chair:
We'll move to section 34, government motion 38, subsection 34(1)
of the bill, subsection 68(1) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Shall the motion carry?
Mr Coburn:
Yes.
Mr Bisson:
Oh, you finally woke up over there.
The Chair:
All in favour? Opposed, if any?
Mr Bisson:
Chair, this is really irregular.
The Chair:
NDP motion number 39-
Mr Bisson:
Let me guess what you're going to do now.
The Chair:
-subsection 34(1) of the bill, paragraph 4 of subsection 68(1) of
the Municipal Elections Act, 1996: Shall the motion carry?
Mr Bisson:
Yes.
Mrs
Elliott: No.
The Chair: All in favour?
Opposed? That does not carry.
Mr Bisson:
I'm not falling asleep on my amendments.
Mrs
Elliott: Neither are we.
Mr Bisson:
Just because they fall asleep on theirs, the Chair's got to come
back and fix up their-we have to have an alarm clock over there
to keep them awake, for God's sake.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, please.
Mr Bisson:
If I did that as a Chair, they'd run me off the chair, but
because they're the majority on the other side-
The Chair:
Mr Bisson-
Mr Bisson:
Well, it is tough to-
The Chair:
Mr Bisson-
Mr Bisson:
It's not my fault that they messed up.
Mrs
Elliott: Madam Chair, it's very difficult to hear you
with the interruptions.
Mr Bisson:
Oh, please. It's very difficult to talk over here with time
allocation.
The Chair:
Government motion number 40, subsection 34(2) of the bill: Shall
the motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you.
The Chair:
Shall section 34, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? That
carries.
Section 35, government
motion 41, section 35 of the bill, clause 77(c) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry? All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Mr Bisson:
See, I almost made a mistake but I caught it. You have to be
paying attention, Brenda. That's the issue.
It's partly your fault,
Chair, but I think you're doing a great job, except that you're
going to change the rules-
The Chair:
Shall section 35, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? That
carries.
Mr Bisson:
I think we need an accountability act for government members and
Chairs so that we see all their decisions and we're able to take
them into account.
The Chair:
Section 36, government motion 42, subsection-
Mr Bisson:
What do you think? Do you think it's a good idea? An
accountability of government members act.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, please.
Mr Bisson:
Well, I just think it's a-
The Chair:
Subsection 36(2) of the bill, subsection 78(3) of the Municipal
Elections Act: Shall the motion carry? All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Shall section 36, as
amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Section 37, government
motion 43: Shall the motion carry? All in favour? Opposed, if
any? Carried.
Shall section 37, as
amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
1710
Shall section 38 carry? All
in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 39, government
motion 44: Shall the motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? That
carries.
Shall section 39, as
amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Section 40 of the bill,
Liberal motion 45: Shall the motion carry?
Mr Bisson:
Is that a Liberal amendment, Madam Chair?
The Chair:
Liberal amendment. All in favour? Opposed? That does not
carry.
Shall section 40 carry? All
in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Section 41: Shall section
41 carry? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Section 42: Shall section
42 carry? All in favour? Opposed? That's unanimous.
Section 43: Shall section
43 carry? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Section 44: Liberal motion
46, section 44 of the bill, subsection (7): Shall the motion
carry? All in favour? Opposed? That does not carry.
Shall section 44 carry? All
in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Page 47, NDP motion, which
is section 7 of the Town of Moosonee Act, 2000: Shall the motion
carry?
Mrs
Elliott: No.
Mr Bisson:
I don't believe that's right. The parliamentary assistant said he
supported that.
The Chair:
Ladies and gentlemen, sorry. Members of the committee-
Mr Bisson:
Madam Chair, I want a recorded vote on this one.
The Chair:
You want a recorded vote?
Mr Bisson:
I want a recorded vote because he said he supported it. You said,
parliamentary assistant, that you supported that amendment.
The Chair:
We'll hold that until the end, as a recorded vote.
Section 45, the short
title: Shall the motion carry?
Mr Coburn:
Madam Chair, can I request unanimous consent to reopen sections
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5?
The Chair:
No, I'm sorry, you can't.
Mr Bisson:
You can do anything you want with unanimous consent.
The Chair:
No.
Mr Bisson:
Let him ask. I want the pleasure of telling him no.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson, if the rules apply to you, they also apply to every
member of this committee.
We'll move to section 45,
the short title. Shall the motion carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
We're going back now to
requests for recorded votes.
An NDP motion on section 1
of the bill, City of Greater Sudbury Act, 1999: Shall the motion
carry?
AYES
Bisson.
NAYS
Coburn, DeFaria, Elliott,
Guzzo.
The Chair:
Shall section 1, as amended, carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
The next request for a
recorded vote is on schedule 7, Town of Moosonee Act. Shall the
motion carry?
AYES
Bisson.
NAYS
Coburn, DeFaria, Elliott,
Guzzo.
The Chair:
Shall the schedule carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Shall the long title of the
bill carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Shall Bill 62, as amended,
carry?
All in favour? Opposed?
That carries.
Shall I report the bill, as
amended, to the House?
