SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
THUNDER BAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT 7
THUNDER BAY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION
SOUTH NEEBING COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
CONTENTS
Wednesday 17 January 1996
Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, Bill 26, Mr Eves / Loi de 1995 sur les économies
et la restructuration, projet de loi 26, M. Eves
Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce
Doug Smith, president
Rebecca Johnson, executive director
Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, District 7
Ron Gorrie, vice-president
Joe Adamkowski, financial secretary
Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty
Chris Mather, spokesperson
Lakehead Board of Education
Dr Linda Rydholm, chair
Mark Bentz, chair, budget committee
Jim McCuaig, director of education
Thunder Bay and District Labour Council
Mike Poleck, secretary-treasurer
Judith Mongrain, executive member
Glen Chochla, chair, political action committee
Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association
Michael Power, president
South Neebing Community Organization
Greg Laws, chair
Township of Red Lake
Patrick Sayeau, councillor
Lakehead Region Conservation Authority
Rick Potter, chairman
Northwestern Ontario Steelworkers Area Council
Moses Sheppard, staff representative
EVIDENCE SUBCOMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)
*Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND) for Mr Wood
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L) for Mrs Pupatello
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Grandmaître
Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty
Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC) for Mr Tascona
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mr Hardeman
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
Hampton, Howard (Rainy River ND)
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)
Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The subcommittee met at 0900 in the Airlane Hotel, Thunder Bay.
SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.
The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning and welcome, committee members, to Thunder Bay. We have two motions to deal with this morning. The first one is going to be put from the opposition party.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to make a motion. It's become clear throughout the hearings that there's basically a 3-to-1 ratio in terms of groups that want to make presentations and those that are able to make presentations. In fact, this morning I've already received two written presentations from groups that want to get on: the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Lakehead Women Teachers' Association, who very clearly have some strong points of view to be made. It's clear that the time allotted for the hearings is simply not sufficient.
There is an understanding on our part that the government has strong feelings about various aspects of the bill it feels have to go forward, and our motion reflects that. For such portions of the bill, we're willing to cooperate in terms of those portions which they absolutely feel have to go forward, and that can be discussed among the three government House leaders.
Probably part of the response to this motion to have extended hearings after January 29, going back to general government, will state that hearings were offered during one week in December, and they'll probably mention the number of hours that were offered. It's important to note that at the time that was offered, we were talking about hearings to take place only in Toronto, with very little opportunity for people to have any understanding of what is in the bill.
Last week in Thunder Bay and every day of the hearings, new aspects of the bill unfold. It's become more and more clear that this is an unwieldy bill with so many different elements to it that things are being unearthed literally every day. Our colleagues in the NDP feel very strongly about this as well, and I'm sure they will be supporting our motion for many of the same reasons. It's incumbent on the government to recognize that this is a need that's been expressed all along the road. There is absolutely no reason many elements of this bill cannot be discussed after January 29 when we return for the one day, and we should bring the bill back to the general government committee afterwards for further hearings. I seek the support of all the members in this committee.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Mr Gravelle is absolutely right. We will be supporting the motion. In a broadly summarized form, and with respect, Mr Chair, let's call it what it is. You have four times more groups that wish to voice their concern. They feel their presentation is commonsensical and goes right to the heart of the bill. Simply put, they wish to make things better. It's a rare opportunity to meet a standing committee of the Legislature. Let's call it what it is.
Again with respect, the people opposite were dragged into this kicking and screaming. There were to be no public hearings outside of Metropolitan Toronto. We're a mere 900 road miles from Toronto. It's a rare chance for people to acquiesce the presence of the committee and come forward with their presentations.
By way of conclusion, in the spirit of democracy it is unthinkable that a bigger effort not be made to hear possibly everyone who wishes to be a presenter, Mr Chair. They are paying your wages, they are paying our wages, and more important, they're citizens of the province of Ontario. We will be supporting the motion.
The Chair: Now that we've heard two debates on the motion, we should move the motion.
Mr Gravelle: My excuse will be that I'm a rookie MPP. I will read the motion.
Whereas Bill 26 will have a major impact on every individual in Ontario;
Whereas Bill 26 requires broad public input before being passed into law;
Whereas there are 42 groups in Thunder Bay that want to provide input into the bill but only 10 will be heard;
I move that the committee recommend to the government House leader that when the House returns on January 29, 1996, the order with respect to Bill 26 be amended such that the portions of the bill that do not require urgent passage for fiscal reasons be returned to the standing committee on general government so that further hearings can be arranged across the province, including the community of Thunder Bay.
Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to speak to this motion, but in doing so I want to establish a few facts. It's important for the people of Thunder Bay and the area to understand that the committee time we've allocated to this piece of legislation is more committee time than for any piece of legislation introduced by the previous two governments. That's over the last 10 years. This committee will spend more time considering this piece of legislation than any other piece of legislation over the past 10 years. It certainly reflects the extent of this legislation, but it also reflects our intent to hear as much as possible from the communities across this province about this legislation.
I also want to establish another fact. When legislation is brought before a House and the time allocation for the committee is established, there's to-ing and fro-ing between the government House leaders and the opposition House leaders as to how much time will be spent in committee. It's important for the people of Thunder Bay to know that at one time on the table -- rejected by the opposition, but on the table -- was an offer to spend as much committee time as we currently have now, inclusive of the road trips, as we call it, the visits to the various locations in Ontario, plus an additional week between the end of the road trips and the time in which we would give a review, clause by clause, of this particular legislation.
The purpose of the extra week was to make sure that we all, from both sides of the table, gave serious consideration and had enough time to give serious consideration to proposed amendments being brought forward. That offer was rejected by the opposition, I suspect because it would have had to start January 2 as opposed to the following week, but it was rejected by the opposition. It's important for the people of Thunder Bay to know this.
On the government side, we are prepared to receive --
Interjections.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Stick to the facts instead of writing a novel.
Mr Sampson: Those are the facts.
The Chair: Gentlemen, please. Order.
Mr Sampson: The other thing that is important to note is that this government is not responsible for determining who gets on this list. A procedure was established under agreement by both sides of the table for how the deputants would be selected from the lists. We're following that process. It's not this government's role to determine who gets on or off this list. It's important to establish that fact.
We are prepared to receive the written submissions, as I've said in other locations as we've gone around the road. We now have 10 or so written submissions. I gather there are two more here, so that would make 12. That's scarcely over one written submission for each day of the committee hearings we've done so far. We're looking forward to receiving more written submissions if there are any. They do get read and reviewed, certainly by this side of the committee, and they will be given full consideration, just as we're giving full consideration to the people who sit before us and make verbal presentations.
We are listening and there will be amendments that will come forward reflecting the fact that we intend to use this committee process to help us refine the legislation before us. Mr Chairman, without consuming much more time, I will say that we are not prepared to support this particular motion.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Yesterday we were given two tapes, that were filed with this committee, of 10 to 12 organizations that gave evidence at a parallel hearing that was held the day before in Sudbury.
The Chair: What's your point of order?
Mr Gerretsen: The point of order is that the information's totally incorrect when he says only 12 individuals have filed further briefs. We have a tape with at least 12 presentations in just one city, Sudbury, and it's been going on all over the province of Ontario. And the 360 hours that were offered before were to be all in Toronto, three parallel hearings, from 9 in the morning till 12 midnight --
The Chair: Mr Gerretsen, that's not a point of order, though, that we have a tape filed with presentations on it.
0910
Before I put the motion, I'd like to welcome to the committee Mr Miclash from Kenora; Mr Gravelle from Port Arthur; Mr Pouliot from Lake Nipigon, the largest geographic riding, I believe, in the province. Mr Christopherson, welcome back to the committee. Mr Hampton from Rainy River, Mr Turnbull from York Mills, and Mr Stewart from Peterborough, are all with us this morning. Oh, I believe Mr Martin is also with us again today, from Sault Ste Marie.
For voting purposes this morning, we have Mr Christopherson, Mr Phillips, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Turnbull, Mr Sampson, Mr Stewart and Mr Young.
I'll now put the motion. All those in favour?
Mr Gerretsen: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Christopherson, Gerretsen, Phillips.
Nays
Sampson, Stewart, Turnbull, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
Mr Christopherson has a motion.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Thank you, Chair. My motion reads as follows:
Whereas there are only three days remaining for public scrutiny on Bill 26; and
Whereas public interest in this bill has been overwhelming; and
Whereas the vast majority of presenters to the standing committee on general government have recommended major changes to be made to the bill;
I move that this committee recommend to the government House leader that the 75 individuals and groups that requested to appear before the standing committee on general government in Thunder Bay be given the opportunity today to see the government amendments to Bill 26.
The Chair: Would you like to speak to the motion, Mr Christopherson?
Mr Christopherson: Yes. The reason for this is that we know that, contrary to the government's spin on the historical facts about why we're having hearings and why there was even a little time between the introduction of the bill and the actual hearings so study could be done, we know it wanted to ram this through.
I wouldn't argue about how much time has been spent on legislation; I don't know the details. But I will say there has never been a more far-reaching, power-grabbing piece of legislation in the history of Ontario, and there's absolutely every right in the world for Ontarians to have a say in this and they have a right to have a say on the actual law that's going to be passed.
Mr Sampson has said there will be amendments. We don't know what they're going to be. They can change the entire nature of legislation. People have a right to have hearings not just on the initial draft proposals, but on legislation like this, known for good reason as the bully bill, the citizens of Ontario have a right to know exactly what the legislation is going to be. The current plan of the government is to end this on Thursday or Friday, and that's it, the people will get no further say.
We believe very strongly that the people are entitled to know exactly what the legislation is going to be, and I hope we can count on our Liberal colleagues in opposition to join us in calling on the government to produce the amendments, show the people exactly what you're going to do and stop running from the people, which has been your history not just with this bill but with your anti-worker Bill 7 where you didn't allow any public hearings. You've got a history already in your short time in government of not wanting or allowing people to have a say in what you're doing. We urge you to do the right thing, move towards the democratic tradition of this province and quit acting in such a dictatorial fashion. Allow the people to be heard and allow them to comment on exactly what you're going to do.
Mr Sampson: Since we started seeing this motion a couple of days ago, I'm always slightly amused by the fact that on the one hand, the first motion says, "We need more public hearings; we want the public to have a say before you bring any legislation forward," alleging that we never consulted on any part of this particular legislation. Yet in this particular motion they say: "Don't bother listening to people. We want you to bring the amendments forward now." You can't have it both ways, gentlemen.
The fact is that we always intended to use the committee process as a forum to draw out the issues and concerns of the citizens of Ontario from all across Ontario, not just Toronto, not just southwestern Ontario, but all across Ontario. They're all Ontarians and they are deserving of their time in front of this committee to tell us where suggestions should be made and to raise their concerns. We're prepared to give them that time before we sketch the depth and breadth of amendments to bring forward.
I had hoped the opposition would accept the offer that would have given us that week between clause-by-clause and committee review, but they chose not to do that. That was their particular view of the way the process should go.
We'll bring forward amendments when it's our sense that we've heard the general themes and the consistency of general themes that will help us to establish where the amendments should be, first of all, and how they should be scoped out. At this time, we will not be bringing forward amendments for review by the committee.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Let me begin by saying that we will be supporting this with all our might. People in the delegations here should realize that the government has written amendments already. The truth is that five minutes into the hearings, on December 18 -- we got that far into the hearings -- someone called Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who said he would be bringing forward two amendments. He already said he would be bringing forward two amendments, five minutes into the hearings on December 18.
The government has written dozens of amendments, dozens of them, and this coming Monday morning at 9 o'clock they'll table them. But they don't want to show them to you, because when they do, you will know the true intentions of the government.
So we have today the chamber's brief. I've had a chance to cheat a little bit and read forward. It's a very thorough brief. It comments on seven major acts, and there are 43 major acts in this bill. It barely has any time for debate on the Mining Act, which has enormous implications for you here. There are changes to the Ministry of Natural Resources, enormous changes. Transportation -- enormous changes in the grant structure. You'll see, as you hear the brief from the chamber of commerce, that they comment on major aspects of the bill, but you're given virtually no time for any input or debate.
It's clear the government tried to force this thing through in two weeks. It is absolutely unheard of. The NDP once introduced an omnibus bill, a fairly harmless bill. They introduced it in June, and we said to the NDP, "Listen, the public need more time for this." The NDP immediately said, "All right, we'll delay it till the fall." It was called Bill 175. It was introduced in June but was not passed until November of that year -- six months for consultation on the bill.
The government tried to ram this thing through in two weeks. It was introduced on November 29, when most of us were in what we call a lockup. The government was introducing its major fiscal statement. We were locked up and the government tabled this. The first thing they tried to do is say, "We're going to ram this thing through by December 14." Then they said, after we put a lot of pressure on, "All right, we'll agree to move that back one week to December 21 and we'll have hearings from 9 in the morning till midnight at Queen's Park, in Toronto."
Very few of you in this room would have had any opportunity for any input unless you found out about it, studied the bill and got down. I think even the chamber would acknowledge that this bill requires far more study than they would have had time to do in three weeks.
The next thing they said, after Mr Curling -- supported, I might add, by both opposition parties -- finally, as the last resort, did what he did, was, "All right, we'll have hearings right after New Year's, that first week in January" -- again designed to muzzle any opposition.
The government's written its amendments. The minister said he'd written the amendments on December 18. The reason they aren't tabling them -- if the chamber saw the amendments they're proposing, any chamber support for this bill would evaporate because you'll find your major concerns are not accommodated in their amendments. They're afraid to table them. We are flying blind. People have been kind of, "Oh, don't worry, we're going to amend this bill." They will not amend it the way people want.
We're being forced to be party to a sham. My colleague called it the bully bill, and like every bully, this bill has no friends. Even some people who thought they could be a friend of the bill will find they're no longer a friend of the bill, because you're all being bullied.
We'll clearly be voting for this motion and we'll continue to fight for legitimate debate on the bill.
The Chair: I'd like to put the motion.
Mr Christopherson: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Christopherson, Gerretsen, Phillips.
Nays
Sampson, Stewart, Turnbull, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost.
0920
THUNDER BAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Could representatives from the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce please come forward. Good morning, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. I apologize for the procedural delay. You have half an hour to make a presentation, which time you may use as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end to entertain responses and questions from the three caucuses. Please introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Doug Smith: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Thunder Bay. My name is Doug Smith, president of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce; with me this morning is the chamber's executive director, Rebecca Johnson. We are pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee regarding Bill 26, more commonly known as the omnibus bill, on behalf of the Thunder Bay business community.
Our chamber of commerce, for your information, represents 930 member organizations, 75% of which have 10 or less employees. This group of 930 member organizations has over 1,300 voting representatives.
The general focus of our chamber of commerce during 1996 is on municipal issues. The omnibus bill, although not a direct municipal issue, is still one of great importance to our membership and to business in northwestern Ontario. We realize the impact on all facets of our province through the passage of this bill and the impact on our business community.
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the reductions in government spending at all levels of government and government-funded bodies. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce has consistently monitored local government spending at the municipal and school board levels and has established task forces to work with, critique and make suggestions to city council, the Lakehead Board of Education and the Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board. In principle, the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the purpose of Bill 26, "to achieve fiscal savings and promote economic prosperity through public restructuring, streamlining and efficiency."
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the insertion of criteria in schedule Q to govern arbitrators dealing with increases in salaries to public sector employees. Currently, municipalities and school boards are at the mercy of the arbitrators, who have made awards beyond the ability to pay. In turn, such awards are offset by increases in local taxes. We do not endorse the transfer of taxes down to the municipal level. We support a reduction of the overall tax burden of businesses as well as citizens.
As you've mentioned this morning, mining activities are a major employment sector in northwestern Ontario, and Thunder Bay as a regional staging centre for future new mines, the example being Musselwhite and Placer Dome, the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the government's changes to the Mining Act in schedule O of Bill 26, which have been welcomed by the mining industry and should result in increased economic activity in our area. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce has no detailed expertise concerning the particular changes in this part of Bill 26 and is relying upon general comments of acceptance. It is anticipated that the evident change in attitude and approach of this government in the mining area will promote increased economic activity in our area.
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the position of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that "The role of government in today's economy is to create a climate which will encourage people to go into business, help businesses grown and attract new investments in jobs.... Restructuring government and restoring confidence in the financial strength of the province is essential to the future of Ontario's economy."
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the initiatives of the government in schedule N of Bill 26 to promote government efficiencies by reducing the requirements for permits, estimated at 54,600 permits per year, issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources, to be reduced to the range of 5,000 permits, with potential savings of up to $3 million over the next two years. It is anticipated that the tourism and cottaging industries in northwestern Ontario, major sectors of our economy, will also benefit. Schedule N is also laudable for implementing the government's commitment to dedicate revenue from hunting and fishing licences to resource management. This is the new section 5 of the Game and Fish Act. This, to our knowledge, has been promised by previous government administrations but has never been implemented.
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce would like to see the new section 5.3 amended to require the minister to consult with local interest groups for recommendations on how to use these segregated moneys for the management, perpetuation or rehabilitation of wildlife, fish populations and ecosystems. In Thunder Bay we have some excellent examples of non-profit organizations -- for example, the salmon hatchery -- which could use these monies for improving some wildlife and fish populations, which will in turn promote traditional tourism activities of hunting and fishing as well as new ecotourism economic activities. Please do not leave this in the hands of civil servants alone.
During the last several years, the forest industry, a major employer in northwestern Ontario, has been subject to a bevy of permits, each requiring time to prepare, administer and approve, while creating an unmanageable paper trail. If section 4, amending section 14 of the Public Lands Act, can be interpreted as allowing the Ministry of Natural Resources to streamline its approval process, there will be opportunities to increase efficiency both for government and industry and have a more logical, efficient trail.
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce would be supportive of expanding the rights of the minister to modify existing legislation and regulations to ensure extraneous processes are eliminated while ensuring proper forest management activities are practised and appropriate audit procedures are in place. We recommend that you expand schedule N to provide the minister with the ability to modify existing legislation and regulations to ensure extraneous processes are eliminated while ensuring proper forest management activities are practised and appropriate audit procedures are in place.
On December 18, 1995, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce expressed concern about the broad powers given to municipalities in schedule M of Bill 26, section 10, page 146, to impose fees or charges for any services or activities provided to them. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the Ontario Chamber of Commerce position that the fees or charges to be imposed must correspond to the value of the service being provided and must not be for the sole purpose of raising revenues. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce does not support the legislation in its current form because it is possible to foresee sales taxes, gasoline taxes and even poll taxes being adopted at the local level.
We understand that the ministry is on record as saying this will not occur; however, we would request that the legislation be appropriately amended to reflect this commitment. Business activities and business formations will suffer from more general taxes of that nature. Paying a new fee or charge related to the value of a service provided by local government is the only fair way to proceed, and the revenue generated will tell the local politicians whether or not the private sector values what is being provided. It gives citizens and businesses alike an opportunity to choose to use the service or not based upon its value. This exercise by the marketplace will expose inefficient services of local government and force efficiencies to occur, which we believe to be the goal of the Conservative government. Please ensure that new fees and charges are related to the service or activity offered by the municipality.
0930
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce specifically objects to subsection 220.1(9), which removes the right of any citizen or business to make application to the Ontario Municipal Board on the grounds that the fees or charges are unfair or unjust. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce urges the government to reinstate this right of appeal, allowing appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce has no faith in the minister's power to make regulations under subsection 220.1(10) to control the types of fees or charges. It is acknowledged that the minister is not the person who will deal with the problems that will inevitably surface in the operation and administration of the legislation; it will be the minister's employees, the civil servants. This is a major delegation of power to government and to government bureaucrats, trusting that the civil servants will respond to the injustices of the application of the local bylaws which will impose the new fees and charges. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce does not support giving supervisory powers to civil servants. The Ontario Municipal Board has a proven record of supervision of local municipalities. It is imperative that the power is kept in the hands of an independent tribunal.
In fact, this is an example of what the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce sees as a major weakness and liability of Bill 26. There is too much assumption of power by the ministers and the cabinet, which will result in delegation of power to bureaucrats, who have proven to be slow, unresponsive and unobjective. The government must allow citizens and businesses the right to appeal local government decisions to an independent tribunal such as the Ontario Municipal Board. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce will point out more examples of this further in our presentation.
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has pointed out that the addition of new licensing powers for the municipalities, section 22 of Bill 26, must be defined and clarified to ensure that municipalities do not unfairly restrict business from operating or impose additional regulatory requirements which will threaten the ability of the private sector to create jobs which will strengthen the economy. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the Ontario Chamber of Commerce position and wishes to bring to the hearings' attention the potential for outright discrimination against particular businesses in clause 257.2(2)(g).
Furthermore, it is the position of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce that there is no real protection offered by section 257.5, where the minister can again make regulations to impose conditions and limitations on the powers of a local municipality when exercising the new licensing powers. Bill 26 must be amended to allow appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board against municipal licensing bylaws. This is the only real protection that can be given. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce is very concerned that civil servants do not always respond to citizens' appeals.
Our final comments recognize the government's initiatives to restructure local governments and promote efficiencies as contained in schedule M of Bill 26. However, the proposed legislation is seriously deficient in the area of democratic rights. How can the minister's unknown regulations assure the citizens of northwestern Ontario that they will be able to participate in the restructuring process?
It causes us great concern that there is no right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board from the orders of the minister, being subsection 25.2(4), or of a commission, subsection 25.3(3). It requires considerable faith to conclude that the minister or a commission will never make a mistake. Again, the government, by this section of Bill 26, is making a major power transfer to civil servants and appointed commissions, which are not subject to public scrutiny and accountability.
Inserting a power of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board will allow for the correction of mistakes or injustices which might be made by the civil servants and commissions. If the appeal route is used, surely the Ontario Municipal Board can control its processes and prevent abuses of the right to appeal. It is undemocratic to remove a citizen's access to an independent third-party tribunal or court. It is an appropriate check and balance to give the people a right to appeal either the minister's or commission's decisions on municipal restructuring.
The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce wishes to leave you with the comment that northwestern Ontario is part of Ontario. It is not part of the province of Toronto or the greater Toronto area. Legislation developed at Queen's Park must reflect the diversity we have in this province. We are concerned that should the bureaucracy take on more power, which usually occurs in Toronto, once again the particular interests and needs of Ontario's northwestern region, of which Thunder Bay is its regional centre, will not be considered in decisions made.
In conclusion, the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce supports the government's initiatives in Bill 26 while respectfully requesting amendments to Bill 26 to restore citizens' participation and rights to appeal bureaucratic and undemocratic decisions and bylaws by the Ontario Municipal Board.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns to you, our thoughts and our opinions, as well as to provide some solutions to identify shortcomings in Bill 26.
Mr Phillips: I'll begin, and I might say this is I think the most thorough brief we've had from any chamber and I'm sure reflects an awful lot of hours of work by the chamber members to go through it. I appreciate it very much.
One hardly knows where to begin, because you do touch on some huge issues for yourself. But I'll just start with the major concerns we have around licensing and fees. It is clear that this originated with negotiations between the government and AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, who were told, "You're going to have your grants cuts dramatically." Then they said, "Well, how can we possibly handle those cuts?" And what the government said is, "We'll give you uunlimited flexibility," they call it, "to impose fees." That's what the government calls it: unlimited flexibility.
I'll just stick on two, and then I'd like to get your comments on, if the bill goes ahead as they plan it, what your feelings would be.
On the licensing one, what the government says here is that they will allow the municipalities to "require the payment of licence fees which may be in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred." In other words, they are giving flexibility to municipalities to levy a licensing fee for a business, and it may be in the nature of a tax. So it isn't just a one-shot licence. It could be, "We will have your licence subject to sales, to a different" -- all sorts of forms of tax. And by the way, it also says here that they have access to your premises, your vehicles, your equipment, other personal property used etc.
If that provision stays in the bill -- and by the way, we've heard from mayors who said they will be taking licences up from $20 to $500, is an example they brought to us -- how would the chamber feel about the bill proceeding with that section in it in the nature of a tax?
Mr Smith: I appreciate your comments about the preparation of our brief, because there were a lot of committee hours put into this, and as the president I'm presenting it. I first must say that I'm not as familiar with certain aspects. But just from an overall perspective, we are concerned about the efficiencies of systems and the cost. That obviously is what makes the industry go, so anything that is making it cost-prohibitive, we'll be very concerned about as a chamber of commerce.
Mr Phillips: Yes, because I think your theme is that fees and licences as a way to recover costs for the municipality, in the nature of a tax, has basically nothing to do with the cost recovery; it is a source of revenue for them.
It also is clear on the fees that it does permit poll taxes. We've had at least three mayors say it permits a gas tax, according to their reading of it. We have the government's own legal opinion indicating that it may very well permit a sales tax. And it's clear that many municipalities -- as a matter of fact, the Golden report, which was issued yesterday for the GTA, called for a gas tax, and the minister was briefed about that before this bill was presented, which makes one a little suspicious. But if this bill were to permit unlimited flexibility for fees, and that's what it currently does, that may in fact be in the nature of a direct tax, would the chamber's position be that the bill should not proceed with that provision in it?
0940
Mr Smith: Again, the chamber acknowledges the economic realities that we are dealing with on an overall basis. Obviously the taxation level of businesses is very high and any increased tax to business the chamber is very concerned about. Mind you, on an overall basis, though, we do have to bring the fiscal house in order, so when you're focusing in on one certain section of the bill, obviously we want that industry to be able to flourish as well as it can, and again, in Thunder Bay, to be into that decision-making process so that we can communicate those concerns as we go down the road with you.
The Chair: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Phillips, you've exhausted your time.
Mr Hampton: I hear the main thrust of your brief, and that is that you want to find ways to find greater efficiency and to find ways to better utilize the revenue that comes to government. I don't think it comes as any surprise to you that everyone on this committee supports that. In fact, the last three governments have tried in various ways. The government that Mr Phillips was part of flat-lined grants to municipalities and boards of education, I think, for two years. The government that I was a part of tried, through the social contract, to institute that kind of restructuring and institute a new way of delivering some of those services. So I don't think anyone disagrees with the fundamental premise.
I note in reading your brief, and I just want to go through this with you, that there are eight places where you have problems and want to see amendments. On page 2 you say, "We do not endorse the transfer of taxes down to the municipal level." I take it that overall you see this bill as in fact allowing for the transferring of taxes down from the province to municipalities; is that correct? You say, "We do not endorse the transfer of taxes down to the municipal level." I take it what you see then is this bill allows for that; it allows the province to transfer taxes down from the province to municipalities.
Ms Rebecca Johnson: What we're basically getting at there is that we don't want to see more taxes.
Mr Hampton: Including the transfer of taxes?
Ms Johnson: That's correct. You have to understand that there's a business component of this whole presentation.
Mr Hampton: On page 4 you say, "The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce does not support the legislation in its current form because it is possible to foresee sales taxes, gasoline taxes and even poll taxes...at the local level." There are many other municipalities that agree with you, that they foresee these kinds of taxes, only they want it. They want the right to institute a municipal gasoline tax and so on. But I want to be clear. You're opposed to that? You're opposed to a municipal gas tax or poll tax or sales tax?
Mr Smith: We are concerned about the creation of these taxes and the control of these taxes and where the upper limits are and how they can be controlled.
Mr Hampton: So you'd like to see the legislation amended to prohibit these, or to limit them; which is it?
Mr Smith: Obviously, from a business perspective, we want less tax. But if they do come through, then we want them to be controlled. We want to have control over how they are put into place and what their levels are.
Mr Hampton: The third problem that I see we have is, you say, and this is on page 4, "The...chamber of commerce specifically objects to section 220.1(9) which removes the right of any citizen or business..." to appeal "...on the grounds that the fees or charges are unjust or unfair." So you want to see that right of appeal restored; you don't want to have the government having all that power?
Mr Smith: That is correct, yes.
Mr Hampton: The fourth item that I see is, you point out "There is too much assumption of power by the ministers and the cabinet which will result in delegation of power to bureaucrats who have proven to be slow, unresponsive and unobjective." So you don't want the cabinet and cabinet ministers to have that much power; is that fair to say?
Mr Smith: Yes, I think it is fair to say that less government is what we're asking for.
The Chair: Mr Hampton, I apologize for interrupting, but we've exhausted the time for the third party.
Mr Hampton: There are four others I'd love to go over with you, where you've stated objections, but I don't have time.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): A couple of questions. First of all, do you have confidence, sir, in your local municipal government?
Mr Smith: Do we have confidence in the local municipal government?
Mr Stewart: Yes.
Mr Smith: I think we have a lot of challenging issues ahead of us, as all communities do, and we are working with our local government to meet those issues in a supportive way.
Mr Stewart: I guess that's what I wanted to hear. I think this is one thing that this bill says. Whether it be AMO or most municipal councils, they have wanted to have more autonomy. They've wanted to make the decisions. You have said you want less government. I think there are probably not many, many municipalities in Ontario that want to be told what they have to do, and I think this bill does give them that right.
I guess one of the other concerns you're talking about -- I guess I want to go back to the possible increase in taxes on gasoline. Do you feel that your community, with the elected officials you have, cannot stop them or control them to put in realistic taxes on a local basis? I guess my concern is, what may be good in southern Ontario may not be good up here.
Mr Smith: That's exactly right.
Mr Stewart: So why should Thunder Bay not have the right to solve Thunder Bay's problems? That's where we're coming from in this particular bill.
Mr Smith: We would definitely support that position.
Mr Stewart: The other thing is, have you recently had to appear before the OMB?
Mr Smith: As a chamber?
Mr Stewart: I'm trying to be a little facetious here. I'm sorry I'm not. If you have tried to get before the OMB in the last two or three years, you're probably still waiting. It has curtailed development, expansion etc in this province. I guess when I look at -- you want to have the OMB there, yet it is not part of an elected body, it is more involved as an appointed body. You're counteracting what you're suggesting, to keep all of the decisions out of the hands of the bureaucrats, who tend to slow up the process.
Mr Hampton: On a point of information, Mr Chairman --
The Chair: No. There's no point of information. You had your opportunity to ask questions. It's Mr Stewart's time. It's not a point of information and it's out of order, Mr Hampton.
Mr Hampton: The OMB is not --
The Chair: You are out of order, Mr Hampton.
Mr Stewart: You could have the interpretation whatever you want. What I'm saying is that it's a slow process, it's a red tape process and it does not have the ability to move fast enough to get things done in this province.
Mr Smith: I think the way we respond to that is what we're really asking for, and we understand that efficiencies have to be built in, but what we are asking for is an appeal process so that there is a democratic right if people feel that they are being unjustly treated.
Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order: The minister himself --
The Chair: We're still on government time, Mr Gerretsen. Order, please.
Mr Sampson: We heard from one municipal group saying, "Currently, we are allowed to charge $25 for a restaurant licence," and the comment from them that "it costs us a bit more than $25 to even cover the mailing charges" as they go back and forth on these restaurant licences. Does the chamber have any problem in municipalities being able to recover costs associated with licensing activities?
Mr Smith: Certainly not. Again, the chamber and business obviously state the fact that nothing is free and that costs have to be incurred. I think the concern is that these taxes stay under control.
0950
The Chair: We've come to the end of your half-hour. I'd like to thank you for coming today to appear before the standing committee.
Mr Phillips: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: We debated a motion earlier this morning about the government tabling amendments. We were told by the government no amendments would be tabled until starting of clause-by-clause, and that was in response to a motion by Mr Christopherson. There is a story in one of the Ontario media today indicating that the government intends to introduce amendments to Bill 26 in Kitchener today at the other hearing.
I wonder if the government can either assure us that that is not the case, that what they told us a half-hour ago in this committee is true, and if the government intends to table amendments in Kitchener, then I think we need a fairly significant debate at this committee about why amendments have not been provided to us and when we will be seeing those amendments.
Mr Gerretsen: Are we equal parts of the committee, or are we just a lackey group?
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Sampson: I'm not aware of what the health committee is doing. Our focus here is on the non-health issues. I've not seen that press article. I'll have to look into it, Mr Phillips, to determine what the status of that one is.
Mr Phillips: I am told it includes non-health amendments. And if that's the case, we have a major problem.
ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT 7
The Chair: May I please have a representative from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, District 7, come forward. Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for coming.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. In deference to the deputants today who have spent a lot of time and effort in their presentations, I'd appreciate it if we'd have order. You gentlemen can have your debates in another forum, but we're infringing on the time of deputants. I'd appreciate it if we'd cease and desist from that.
Mr Ron Gorrie: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Ron Gorrie, and with me today is Mr Joe Adamkowski, who is the financial secretary for the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association. I have been employed as a full-time firefighter in the city of Thunder Bay for some 20 years. I'm also the seventh district vice-president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and have also acted as an advocate for firefighter associations at interest boards of arbitration.
The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association is made up of some 53 locals representing approximately 4,000 firefighters in the province of Ontario. The seventh district consists of Kenora, Fort Frances and Thunder Bay.
Generally, Bill 26 has an effect on a great many aspects of government. It is over 200 pages in length and has direct impact on over 40 separate pieces of legislation. This would empower ministers of the crown with the ability to amend, delete and form regulations that would affect the means of delivery of public services. The powers granted under the bill would preclude common rights enjoyed by the citizens of Ontario: the right to have legislation presented to elected representatives in the House, the right to have their elected representatives debate new legislation, and the right to have direct personal input via the course of committee hearings and/or other local lobbying efforts.
This bill would also permit cabinet members to amend or delete entirely collective agreements already existing in the public sector. The provisions of Bill 26 go further in that they preclude appeals to the judicial system. Ministers of the crown will also have the power to make regulations and laws that would prevail over any other already existing legislation. The power to override existing legislation is not limited by Bill 26 and in fact the acts or portions of any acts that ministers will be allowed to override are not specified. The ministers have unlimited authority by the use of the words: "For the purposes of this section the minister may, despite any act, make regulations."
To start back on the road towards a democratic process, Bill 26 should name specific acts and specific sections of those acts.
Bill 26 has an effect on each and every firefighter in the province of Ontario. We will now address those portions of the act.
As full-time professional firefighters employed by municipalities, sections M and Q of Bill 26 are of concern to us. These sections of the act have a direct impact on the delivery of fire protection to the citizens of Ontario and a similarly large impact on the employees delivering this protection.
Schedule Q of the bill would amend section 6 of the Fire Departments Act in that it would impose certain criteria that arbitrators would be compelled to consider when rendering a decision in an interest dispute arbitration. We outline those five criteria below.
Because firefighters do not resort to strike action, their recourse in the event of an inability to reach an agreement is interest arbitration. Since the inception of the Fire Departments Act, no disruption to the delivery of fire protection because of a labour dispute involving full-time firefighters has ever occurred. The citizens of Ontario have been able to have peace of mind knowing that their firefighters are on duty to help them.
The arbitration process and its resulting award, by definition, replicates the course of action that would have occurred if the parties had reached a negotiated settlement.
We in Canada enjoy a judicial process that has been rated as one of the best in the world. This process is based on the equal treatment of individuals under the law by an impartial judiciary. It has been said that in order for the public to have confidence in the judicial process, judges must be impartial, but even more importantly they must also appear to be impartial. We respectfully submit that the arbitration process and arbitrators are no less an important function of the judicial system than judges and as such must be and must appear to be impartial. The imposition of the above five criteria removes the required impartiality arbitrators must have in order to properly perform their function. The compulsion imposed on a board of arbitration should only be that the board of arbitration "may" take into consideration any relevant criteria including the following.
To be strictly limited to the criteria of ability to pay imposes inequities into the system. The ability to pay is easily translated as the willingness to pay. An employer, by limiting the amounts of budget dollars available for employee wages and benefits, will in fact predetermine the outcome of the arbitration process. If arbitrators are compelled to follow the ability-to-pay criteria, we will have public sector employers setting the budget for employee compensation and then arguing before a board of arbitration that due to budget constraints their hands are tied with respect to the level of compensation. This will have the effect of municipal employers refusing to reach agreement at the table and forcing employees to boards of arbitration, so that arbitrators and boards can then rubber-stamp a compensation package predetermined by the employer. In determining the ability to pay to ensure fair treatment, the arbitrator must also be allowed to take into consideration the municipal employer's ability to tax.
AMO has accused firefighters of curtailing negotiations and rushing into the arbitration process because the arbitrators are supposedly biased in favour of the firefighters. This is a very large slur upon the panel of arbitrators. It is interesting to note that the representatives of AMO making these allegations have not proceeded to the proper authorities and caused charges to be laid.
During the life of the Liberal government AMO demanded that the panel of arbitrators for firefighter arbitrations be expanded as the incumbents were biased. The government of the day, in due course, appointed a number of new arbitrators to the panel. Awards made by these new arbitrators have, for the most part, followed those made by the established arbitrators and have subsequently been judged to be biased by the very people who put forth these names.
Research in the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association office indicates that firefighters do not rush and have not rushed to the arbitration process. In the previous 14 years, out of a possible 1,218 boards of arbitration, only 141 awards were made. Once it is realized that it sometimes takes 24 months after the expiration of a collective agreement for an award to be handed down, you can appreciate it's not a great thing to run to arbitration. The costs of proceeding to a board of arbitration can impose a tremendous cost upon the members of associations. Costs of $50,000 and even $100,000 are not unheard of. These act as a very large deterrent.
Representation has also been made before this committee that has advocated that the criteria in schedule Q are not sufficiently restrictive to allow employers to be sure of an outcome. We quote Mr Dunsmore below where he outlines how arbitrators are an entity until themselves. From Mr Dunsmore's remarks, one can conclude that he perceives it to be a fault within our judicial-arbitration system to have the human element involved in imposing justice on our citizens.
1000
Arbitrators will be compelled to become experts in the area of municipal finances. Mr Dunsmore himself recognizes the time delays and the financial cost involved in determining a true financial situation within a municipality and becomes concerned with the wrangling over financial information. He states:
"It is much more appropriate to specify that the arbitrator should be required to make his decisions or her decisions on the same information that the politicians made their decisions on. In other words, whatever decision is relied upon by the municipality should also be sufficiently good for the arbitrator to rely on it."
We simply ask, what if the information is incorrect? During negotiations over the social contract, financial information supplied by municipal governments was found to be erroneous and only through the course of vigorous investigations and discussions was more accurate information arrived at. Not to be able to question evidence presented by an opposing party is not the democratic process. We ask, what would municipal government's reaction be if a similar handicap was imposed upon them?
Boards of arbitration already hear arguments from both of the parties with respect to the economic situation in the municipality, within Ontario and within Canada. Municipalities and firefighters already present arguments containing comparisons to the broader public sector and the private sector.
Generally speaking, these criteria are heard by arbitration boards and are given the weight that they merit. Traditionally, firefighter advocates have used the comparables of firefighters within municipalities of similar size and population, firefighters in municipalities with a common geographic area, firefighters in the province of Ontario as a whole and the comparable of the police constable employed within the same municipality. Utilizing other firefighter groups as comparables indicates to boards of arbitration the results achieved by similar parties negotiating the same work. Police constables and firefighters have been determined by the arbitration process to deliver services of similar value and importance to the taxpayer and, as such, have been determined to be comparable for the purposes of arbitration.
The criteria contained in schedule Q can compel employees to subsidize the maintenance of service levels through substandard wages.
It is our respectful opinion that the advocates used by the municipalities at boards of arbitration have not been prepared, have presented flawed arguments and have dismissed the sincerity of firefighter proposals and presentations. Representatives of AMO now request that the government give them the tools to force arbitrators to depart from the level playing ground that is so obviously mandatory in order to give employers an unfair and inequitable arbitration system.
Schedule M of Bill 26 will have a direct impact on public safety. The schedule will permit amendments to the Municipal Act that would empower the government to restructure municipalities and regions. The powers granted to the minister, to a commission and to regional governments would be essentially unlimited. The principles and basis of restructuring would be determined by regulation established by the minister.
The powers granted to the minister and to municipal governments allow for the alteration or elimination of local boards. The definition of local board would encompass school boards, public utility commissions, transportation commissions, library boards, boards of health, park management, police service boards and other bodies which perform municipal functions.
The cabinet would have the power to deem any other body that performs public functions to be a local board for the purposes of the bill. Not only the ability to alter or amend local boards is granted to the minister and municipal governments but the method is one of simple resolution on the part of the municipal government and by regulation for the minister, with either method not subject to any other act or legislation.
Furthermore, these powers can be exercised outside the framework of the normal democratic process of consultation or referendum. A number of years ago, the city of Thunder Bay restructured the fire department by closing one station and eliminating three pumper trucks from service. At the same time, a second station was slated to be closed. City council was lobbied and was informed at open meetings of the citizens of the community that their fire station should remain open. Under Bill 26, the citizens may not have the opportunity to exercise this right. The bill fails in that it permits the minister to arbitrarily determine the level of local support necessary for restructuring.
The definition of a local board is broad enough to include fire departments and the restructuring aspect of the bill would allow for the privatization of fire departments in municipalities. Again, such restructuring can occur without consultation with the citizenry. If it is not the intent of the government for fire departments to fall under the definition of local boards, then Bill 26 should so state.
The legal counsel for the Solicitor General of the province of Ontario was asked as to the status of firefighters after an amalgamation of fire departments or the restructuring of such under the auspices of Bill 26. His reply was that there would be no protection, no collective agreement, no successor rights and no recourse in any fashion. We respectfully submit that this is not the way to treat employees who have risked their lives to serve and protect the citizens of their community.
The ability to deliver emergency service to a community under restructuring or reorganization will be diminished. Municipal governments have demonstrated their desire to reduce the size and capacity of their fire departments. In the city of North York some 33 firefighter positions have been removed from the department; in Ottawa, 55. Thunder Bay has suffered two separate cutbacks resulting in three pumpers and four positions cut. The list goes on.
In 1994, in the town of Fort Frances there was a resolution made by the town council to eliminate the full-time complement of firefighters from the department. Through the democratic consultative process of open town meetings, the full-time fire department was saved. Citizens of the town were able to state their preferences and in fact the town's largest employer requested that the full-time firefighters remain in the fire department in order to protect the structure of the paper mill plant. Municipal governments will look upon the powers devolving on to them from Bill 26 as their golden opportunity to eliminate or downsize departments without having to deal with the troublesome requirement of listening to their constituents.
Under schedule M, municipal governments will be empowered to impose user fees in order to generate income. To impose user fees on any aspect of fire departments is a course of action fraught with danger. To charge for responding to false alarms will result in individuals not sounding a true alarm for fear of having to pay a user fee penalty. To charge for the attendance of the fire department at the scene of any type of fire, large or small, will result in some members of the public attempting to fight the fire themselves. As a professional firefighter, I have witnessed the results of these actions. Houses were lost because no one sounded the alarm in time. I have personally carried corpses out of homes because fires were fought by the homeowner. There may be a place within the municipal government for the imposition of user fees, but not within any aspect of fire suppression.
Firefighters within the province of Ontario are in the process of reviewing the delivery of fire protection in the province of Ontario. This review is being conducted by the member of cabinet responsible for fire issues, namely, the Solicitor General, the Honourable Robert Runciman. In October 1995 a document entitled the Fire Marshal's Report to the Solicitor General: Public Fire Safety and Legislative Reform in Ontario, was released to the stakeholder groups involved in the delivery of fire protection. This document contains an extensive list of proposed amendments to numerous pieces of legislation that govern fire and protection.
The stakeholders were directed to respond to the document by the end of December 1995, with the intention that discussions and consultation would subsequently occur. The Solicitor General indicated that legislation would be put forth before the House by the fall of 1996. The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association executive board was in the process of drafting a response to the fire marshal's document when Bill 26 was introduced to the House.
During the weeks leading up to the election of the Conservative government in 1995, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association conducted an interview campaign with candidates contesting office. The candidates were asked as to their position with respect to changes to the Fire Departments Act. Replies received from Conservative Party candidates reflected in nearly all cases the words written by candidate Mike Harris, now the Honourable Michael Harris, Premier of the province of Ontario, and I quote:
"No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted. And we will insist that all changes be fully costed -- both from the point of view of workers as well as management." Quite clear.
Letters from Elizabeth Witmer, now the Minister of Labour, and Jim Wilson, now the Minister of Health, are attached, as is the letter received from Premier Harris. Also attached is a reply from Mr Jim Doherty, who was the unsuccessful Conservative candidate in the Port Arthur riding. We include Mr Doherty's reply in order to demonstrate the near unanimous position on amending the Fire Departments Act as put forth by Conservative Party candidates.
Bill 26 will alter the Fire Departments Act in a most dramatic fashion and this alteration will take place with no real consultation or input from firefighters of Ontario.
The Solicitor General, on December 14 in the attached letter, agreed with the Ontario president, Mr Jim Lee, that the consultative process as promised by Premier Michael Harris, by members of cabinet, by government members and by Conservative Party candidates has not occurred.
In the summer of 1994, president Lee of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association called upon the province of Ontario to establish an independent commission of inquiry to examine the delivery of fire protection to the citizens of Ontario. Less than a year later, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs circulated a petition urging a similar inquiry. Neither request has been acted upon. Instead, the government has introduced Bill 26, which would alter the delivery of fire protection, and has done so without prior consultation with either the firefighters or the fire chiefs.
1010
Below we've outlined some excerpts from a letter addressed to all chairs of municipal electric utilities that outline the criteria why certain bodies have been exempted from the process of Bill 26; namely, because they're going through a recently instituted inquiry or examination of their areas of expertise. That letter is attached.
Emergency services, and specifically fire departments, have never had a positive cash flow in the business sense. They are an emergency service. They exist so that in a time of need they are available. People band together and form a community in order to share the burden of the cost of protection for our families. In the event that a watermain breaks, you call public works, but when your child is in danger of drowning, when your mother is trapped in an automobile wreck, when your spouse is inside your burning home, you call for firefighters. We have been there in the past. Bill 26 could alter that; we may no longer be there.
In light of the fact that the restructuring review of the delivery of fire protection in the province of Ontario was ongoing prior to the introduction of Bill 26, and in light of the fact that the government members during the election assured firefighters in the province of Ontario that consultations would occur prior to any changes, and in light of the fact that these consultations have not taken place, we respectfully ask that the government exempt the Fire Departments Act and firefighters from the impact of Bill 26 and allow the democratic consultative process to commence. Thank you on behalf of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and the professional firefighters in northwestern Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. Unfortunately, due to the length of the presentation, we only have a little more than two minutes per caucus for responses. We'll start off with the third party.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much for that excellent presentation. Of course, having been the Solicitor General responsible for fire services, I'm very much aware of the issues that you've raised here. I would want to ask you three quick questions if time would allow.
The first thing is, given the absolutely clear promises that were made to you by the now government, and also linking that with what's happened under the anti-worker Bill 7, where there weren't any public hearings and you lost other rights that you had, my first question is, do you feel betrayed by this current government in terms of the promises it made to you?
Mr Gorrie: Yes.
Mr Christopherson: Good. Thank you. I can share with you that in Hamilton last week we had the Police Association of Ontario come in also, fill the room with police officers, and their opening comments were along the lines of, "We've been betrayed also." I think that's quite telling in that this government for years as the opposition party ran on a platform in the House of public safety being the priority, and the first chance they have to do something about it, they turn their back on you.
The second question would be, do you believe that as a result of this -- because the government suggests that some people are fearmongering -- do you honestly believe that the result of Bill 26 could be that there is less effective fire service in the province of Ontario and that Ontarians may now be vulnerable if actions under Bill 26 are taken?
Mr Gorrie: Yes. The municipal intent is to reduce costs; we understand that. We're an easy target. Fire departments don't generate any revenue. Our costs are high because of our labour-intensive portion of the job. It's ongoing already within the province to downsize fire departments. It won't change under restructuring. It's a tool that will allow for volunteers to come in and take over from full-time firefighters areas of service to be downsized -- fire protection, mechanical apparatus, maintenance, suppression itself.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): You made a couple of statements that really, really concern me. One was, "Bill 26 could alter that, we may no longer be there." Another one was, "Bill 26 will alter the delivery of fire protection." As you may know, the purpose of Bill 26 is to give the municipalities the power to deal with cuts in funding which we've passed down without raising taxes. That's the purpose of the bill. The cuts to Thunder Bay amount to about -- I haven't got it exactly, because I don't know their total spending -- 3% to 4% of the total budget of the city of Thunder Bay. We think they can handle it. We think they can handle it without hurting fire services.
The only comment I've heard from any municipal official about charging for fire services was Mel Lastman speculating he might charge somebody who was from out of North York who came in and had a car fire. Has anybody locally made any comment about charging user fees for emergency fire services?
Mr Joe Adamkowski: Sharon Hachio of the telephone service, the general manager here in Thunder Bay, had made the comment that there's no reason that a user fee should not be charged to those particular individuals who have false alarms.
Mr Young: That's somebody with the telephone company?
Mr Adamkowski: One of the general managers within the corporation.
Mr Gorrie: The telephone company administers the alarm system.
Mr Hampton: It's owned by the city. Learn your geography.
Mr Young: There's no need to get nasty. I'm well aware of that. I walked past Bell Canada for 14 years.
The Chair: Order, gentlemen.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Just a very brief statement first of all. I must say that I'm impressed with the presentation, gentlemen. I was lobbied by the local firefighters of Kenora before coming down here, as you will know. A question that I asked -- and your presentation states this so clearly -- all of last week sitting in the hearings regarding the health care issues, was on consultation to the actual drafting of Bill 26. I asked this question many times and found out that not only was your association not consulted, but many, many groups across this province. I haven't yet found one that was actually consulted on the drafting of Bill 26. So again I congratulate you for making that statement very clearly here in your presentation.
At this point, I would just like to turn the mike over to my friend from Thunder Bay.
Mr Gravelle: I just want to acknowledge that Mr Adamkowski, here with the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association, has presented a brief as well, which we'll be putting before the committee.
I just want to quickly ask you about the whole user fee tax issue. Obviously, the implications in terms of fire alarms are there. I wonder if you can quickly expand, if we go further down the road, in terms of what it can mean. Mr Young mentioned Mr Lastman's thing. You can just mention what that is and explain to us, if we go down the road a little further, how scary this can be in terms of simply public safety.
Mr Gorrie: Public safety. If we just talk about the penalty fee for false alarms, we'll find people not turning in alarms, or in fact what we could have is landlords disconnecting the alarm system. It would prevent citizens from turning in an alarm. Even if the alarms are false and done maliciously, it would prevent that, but it would prevent a legitimate alarm from reaching the fire department. That's our concern about the penalty fee for excessive alarms.
The second aspect: Mel Lastman is talking about a $300 fee for car fires. A car fire is a dangerous situation if it's not attacked quickly and correctly. Especially in light of today's propane-powered vehicles, you approach it the proper way. If members of this committee aren't aware, the hazards involved with just approaching a hatchback car with the pistons in the back, if you're not aware of that situation, you'll wind up with one of them through your forehead -- or perhaps a bumper piston, the same thing. People fighting their own car fires for the sake of $300 -- and it will happen. We have people today who believe that they have to pay a fee when we turn up at a fire scene. There's no such fee administered, but they believe they have to pay. They will be fighting their own car fires. That's Mel Lastman.
We'll put it down to what's happening in Scottsdale, Arizona, where they've privatized the department altogether. What happens there if you don't pay your fee? They'll pull up in front and protect your neighbour's house -- he paid the fee -- but yours goes to the ground.
The Chair: Gentlemen, your half-hour for your presentation has come to an end. I want to thank you for coming forward today to make your presentation.
Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Earlier we discussed the issue of amendments being introduced, and what I heard from the government as a follow-up to Mr Phillips's questions was that they weren't aware that anything different was happening with the other committee. I've now been advised that within the last 15 minutes the other committee, meeting in Kitchener, has indeed been advised of government amendments. What I want to know is, if that's indeed what's happening in Kitchener and it's good enough for those delegations to hear the actual legislation being proposed, why isn't it good enough for the people in Thunder Bay to hear the amendments that are being proposed for the parts of the legislation that we're looking at? Could I have an answer to that from one of the delegates from the government side?
The Chair: It's not a point of order; it's a point of information. Mr Sampson can respond if he so chooses.
Mr Sampson: I am trying to check into this alleged release of amendments. At this point in time, I have no information that amendments have been tabled at all in Kitchener. Whether they relate to what aspect of the bill we're still trying to track down. At this point in time, I have no indication, no confirmation at all that amendments have been tabled at all. As I said, we're prepared to table them when we think that we can respond to the issues and concerns raised by people.
1020
Mr Christopherson: Chair, if I might, please, it's very important to us as the opposition. I would ask that the government -- I'm sure there are staff people here from the government -- get on the phone and talk to people down there. We've been advised very directly, from our staff on the scene to our staff here with us today, that those amendments have been presented.
Mr Phillips: We've got them.
Mr Christopherson: I would ask the government to get on top of this and start telling us the same thing that's happening in Kitchener and quit handing us out more fairy tales.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, I hope the people of Thunder Bay understand the importance of this issue. The people in Thunder Bay were told at 9 o'clock this morning that the government was not going to table amendments until we begin clause-by-clause. The chamber was told that. The firefighters were told that. We were told that the reason they were doing that was so they could hear everyone.
We now have copies of amendments that had been tabled by the government at the other hearing of this same committee -- the committee's split in half -- so we're frankly being misled. We're being told that the government hasn't prepared these amendments, is listening to everybody. At the very moment that the government was telling us that in Thunder Bay, 1,000 kilometres away from here the government was tabling amendments. Frankly, once again we're being misled.
The Chair: Mr Phillips, perhaps you can table those with the committee and we can ask the government members to look for their --
Mr Phillips: We are going to demand that the government table its amendments.
Mr Pouliot: Then we'll get shackled and muzzled.
The Chair: I don't believe that the government members across have copies of those amendments at this point in time.
Mr Sampson: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: I have no amendments in my hand, I have no amendments to table, I have no idea what Mr Phillips is speaking to. I'd be prepared to receive a copy of them and look at them.
Mr Phillips: You are misleading us. You are deliberately misleading us.
Mr Christopherson: Why were you so quick to give assurances an hour and a half ago that there weren't any amendments and now you're saying, "Well, gee, I really don't know"? What's the truth for the people here who are coming forward to talk about this?
The Chair: Mr Phillips, I'd appreciate it if you would table those with the committee. We'll pass them over to the government members and they can check into those. In the meantime, we can continue to hear from deputants who are here waiting to make their presentations. I'd like to continue so that we can hear those presentations.
Mr Christopherson: It's just a sham.
Mr Pouliot: Call the Premier's office.
THUNDER BAY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty come forward. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee on general government. I apologize for the delay.
You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to receive questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you take some time to introduce yourselves for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Pouliot: How can you be a party to this charade? We are being misled.
Ms Chris Mather: Are we free to start, Mr Chairman? You don't wish to respond to Mr Pouliot?
The Chair: We want to hear your deputation, please.
Ms Mather: First of all, I'd like to introduce the other people with me. My name is Chris Mather and I'm the spokesperson for the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty. To my immediate right here is Mr Len Maki, another member of the coalition. On my far left is Miss Audrey Saxberg and next to me is Ms Connie McKnight, also members of our coalition.
The Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty -- we call ourselves T-CAP -- is a grassroots organization of people concerned about the depth and extent of poverty in Thunder Bay. We are a volunteer organization which has no paid staff and which receives no funding other than private donations. We have about 80 members, of whom approximately 75% are themselves low-income people. Our primary purpose is to provide support to and advocacy for low-income people.
At this point, Mr Chair, I would like to draw attention to the fact that one of the Conservative members has left the chamber. Last week, during our presentation on the health schedules of this bill, only one member of the Conservative provincial caucus remained in the chamber while poor people gave their presentation. We truly hope this doesn't indicate a lack of interest in the concerns of northern poor people on the part of the provincial Conservative caucus. Thank you.
Before we begin our examination of some of the specific schedules of this piece of legislation, we would like to provide some general information concerning the composition and living circumstances of poor people in the north. We believe that in this way the government will have a context from which to consider our concerns, a framework in which to judge their validity.
The low-income population is diverse. However, there are identifiable groups within it. These groups include women; single parents; senior citizens; people with physical, psychiatric and/or developmental disabilities; visible minorities, including the members of our first nations, and immigrants. It is the effects of the legislation on these people which we will be addressing today.
So far in this government's term of office, the particular difficulties facing the poor in the north do not appear to be a part of the government's awareness. The cost of food is higher up here. Food in Thunder Bay costs more than food in Toronto. Food in smaller communities such as Beardmore costs more than food in Thunder Bay. Food prices on fly-in reserves are astronomical. We've seen reserves where a head of lettuce is $3.
Housing costs up here are high. Thunder Bay has the third-highest housing costs in Ontario. When our extreme weather is factored in, housing costs rise. Transportation is also an area of difficulty for Thunder Bay's poor people. They do not generally have cars, and our public transit system has been cut back. On some bus routes, the service is only once every 40, minutes, 80 minutes on weekends. Imagine that wait in minus-20 degrees cold.
None of these factors appears to have been taken into account by the government in its cost-cutting measures. We believe this relates to poor people's lack of a political voice. They are generally not consulted turning the legislative and/or policymaking processes. They lack the political or economic clout to be able to lobby governments to protect their interests. T-CAP believes this is particularly true of low-income people in the north.
Having provided a context, we will now address some of the specific schedules of Bill 26.
The first set of new measures or amendments to statutes which we will examine are those under schedule M. These measures will hurt low-income people by stretching their already inadequate budgets to the breaking point. We have four points to make in this regard.
(1) We are opposed to user fees because they affect low-income people to a greater degree than other sections of society. Obviously, $5 means more to a person living on $550 a month than it does to someone who's making $3,000. Currently, municipalities can only levy user fees for services designated in provincial legislation. Under schedule M, the situation will change so that a municipality can impose fees for pretty much anything except the loaning of books through a library. Giving so much autonomy to a municipality could be disastrous for poor people.
Poor people's recreational activities could be curtailed by user fees on public parks, thereby adding to their social isolation. Poor people's children's ability to participate in sports could be hampered by user fees on skating rinks and swimming pools, thereby introducing yet another form of discrimination against poor children.
Poor people's access to transportation could be made more difficult. In this community, public transit is a low-income service. Members of our coalition ride the bus every day, and we know it is a service primarily used by the poor, especially single-parent families, seniors and people with disabilities. We cannot emphasize the point too much that in the north, unless you are poor, you drive a car or a truck.
This is not Toronto with a bus, streetcar or train due every 10 minutes, yet even before Bill 26 is enacted, our council is discussing increasing bus fares to $1.50 per trip, with no discounts for seniors, the disabled and/or children. This means that for a mother and two children to go grocery shopping will cost $9.
1030
To digress from the printed text for a moment, people on low incomes generally don't have freezers, and I know from personal experience of my own time on social assistance that you can't get more than a week's groceries home with two kids on a bus. That means that if it's $9 a week to go for groceries, it's $36 a month. We know low-income families who have to take a kid to the doctor every week for an allergy shot. If one parent and one child goes, that's another $6 a week. We know people with psychiatric disabilities who have been ordered by their psychiatrist not to stay in their house every day, to get out of their home every day and not sit in four walls looking at TV, drinking coffee and smoking. That comes to $21 a week, which comes to $84 a month.
In Thunder Bay, transit is a low-income service.
Poor people's safety could be compromised by user fees on snow removal in front of their homes and by user fees for emergency police and fire responses. Who would like to imagine an Ontario where a senior has to decide if he can afford to call the fire department, or a woman has to decide if she can afford to call the police when in danger of violence?
Lest it be thought that these are alarmist concerns, T-CAP would like to quote a municipal politician who stated his intention to levy user fees "on just about anything that moves." Jim Lee of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association stated in December that the association feels: "User fees in the fire service is a recipe for disaster. We will have individuals...exposing themselves and others to severe injury."
(2) The amendment to subsection 220.1(2) of the Municipal Act has been interpreted to mean that a municipality may enact a bylaw allowing a fee that is "in the nature of a direct tax for the purposes of raising revenue." This seems to us to meet the definition of a head tax, which is a regressive form of taxation and which therefore will affect poor people more than rich people. What is particularly alarming is that subsection (9) ensures that there can be no appeal to the OMB against user fees on the grounds that they are unfair or unjust. What could be more unfair or unjust than a head tax?
(3) Section 33 makes privatization of public utilities, including electricity, water, sewer and/or transit services much easier. The amendments take away the requirement to hold a municipal referendum. In other jurisdictions where privatization has been allowed, the impact on low-income people has been disastrous.
When Margaret Thatcher's right-wing regime privatized the water system in England, the effects were severe enough to catch the attention of the Wall Street Journal. That newspaper noted that six years after privatization, 1,000 people per month were having their water cut off because of their inability to pay. The average cost of water per year rose from $150 to between $250 and $800. The British government generated $8 billion through privatization at the time of sale. This was, however, a one-time benefit to the community, and the new owners have the long-term benefit of the shares now being worth US$20 billion.
Here in Thunder Bay, we have a water treatment system which has had consistently positive quality evaluations and which generates considerable income for the community, as well as providing much-needed jobs. Despite all this, our municipality is already willing to entertain proposals for its privatization.
(4) Conservation authorities have had their budgets slashed by 70%. This schedule limits the amount conservation authorities can charge the municipalities with which they are associated. They will now only be able to charge an amount equal to that provided by the province. Municipalities can decide to contribute more money voluntarily, but in a time of massive overall cuts, this does not seem likely. What does seem likely is that either parks will close or that previously free facilities will have admittance fees.
Within our city limits, we have two wonderful areas maintained by our conservation authority. Cascades Park and the Mission Island Marsh provide low-income people with the chance to be in a wilderness area without having to own a car. It will be a genuine hardship for poor people if they can no longer have access to these areas.
Turning now to schedule J, which amends the Pay Equity Act, we would like to remind the government that most single parents are women and that most single parents live below the poverty line.
Our point concerning this schedule is that it abolishes the proxy method of achieving pay equity. This method was very important to the estimated 100,000 low-paid women working in such areas as day care and nursing homes. The usual way to achieve pay equity is to compare the pay for a job done by a woman to the pay for a similar job done by a man. Of course, this method was not available for women working in the areas we mentioned because they are female-dominated job classes with no comparable class of male-dominated jobs. They're called the "pink collar ghetto."
The proxy method allowed public sector employees in this situation to compare their pay with the situation of another group of public sector employees that had been able to find a male-dominated job class with which to compare themselves. The ending of proxy pay equity leaves many low-paid female workers with no way or hope of getting a decent wage. They will remain a part of the working poor.
Concerning schedule K, which amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we have four points to make:
(1) We echo and endorse the position of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who says that the measures contained in this schedule threaten the "fundamental right" of people to know what the government is doing.
(2) Allowing an institution with which a citizen is in dispute to determine whether to allow that citizen access to information is ludicrous. It's a little like setting a fox to guard the henhouse. Does this government have no understanding of the life-altering power social and health institutions have over poor people?
(3) Charging user fees for information will, as the Information and Privacy Commissioner pointed out, deter some people from seeking information. The people it will deter are poor people.
(4) This schedule increases the disparity between rich and poor concerning their access to information. Rich people already have more information because of their ownership of technology and their membership in business and professional networks. Information is power, and therefore this schedule reduces poor people's power.
Concerning schedule P, we have just one point to make, that low-income people are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, both as offenders and victims. Under this schedule, the quorum for a parole meeting has been reduced from three to two. This in effect means there will be a reduction by one third of the people involved in the parole review process. This is not to the benefit of the community, as it could lead to offenders being released to reoffend. This is not to the benefit of the victim, as their experiences may not be fully considered. This is not to the benefit of the offender, as they need as much thoughtful help as possible to return to the community in a healthy and law-abiding way.
In summation, when an election is upcoming, political parties do all they can to convince people to vote for them. Before an election there is no such thing as a candidate not having enough time to consult with a potential voter. Things change after the election. What seems to get forgotten is that a government is elected to take care of the wellbeing of all citizens, not just the rich, not just the members of powerful groups, and not even just those who voted for it.
T-CAP's analysis is that, when taken as a whole, the schedules of Bill 26 have a tendency to look after the wellbeing of the rich and powerful and either to passively ignore or actively decrease the wellbeing of the poor.
We have discussed in some detail those schedules which hurt the poor. We would like to briefly mention that we believe the exclusion of private sector employers from the provisions of schedule A, the facilitation of the downsizing of the public service through schedule L, and the elimination or reduction of the requirements of mining companies to guarantee their cleanup of mining sites under schedule O, indicate a strong bias on the government's part to favour the rich.
We wish also to say that we find it contradictory of this government to say it wants to get government out of the lives of Ontarians, and at the same time act to give two of its ministers, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, so much new authority and so many new powers.
1040
We have already stated that low-income people do not generally have a loud political voice. The process of bringing this bill into law is just one more proof of that assertion. This government should be ashamed that it is only through the extreme actions of the opposition parties that there have been public hearings at which T-CAP has been able to present. While we are grateful for this opportunity, it must be stated that we are still not satisfied with the level of public input and, because of who we are, the level of low-income people's input into this highly complex bill. We wish to publicly lend our support to the call on January 5, 1996, by the leader of the official opposition for the public hearings into Bill 26 to be extended and for the legislation itself to be broken down into separate sections to be enacted separately.
The Savings and Restructuring Act will in fact restructure the administration of the province in a direction which creates more bureaucracy and less accessibility for low-income people. The savings created by this change in direction will be at the considerable expense of low-income people, those who can actually least afford it.
Thank you for listening to our presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three minutes per caucus for questions. We'll start with the government caucus.
Mr Sampson: Thank you very much. I've had seniors on fixed income come into my office and my constituency and suggest to me that they're paying realty taxes either because they own a piece of property or they're renting, and that is doesn't seem fair to them that they're paying for recreation facilities, skating rinks that they clearly don't have access to and really don't feel they should be paying for with their limited dollars, ever-increasing limited dollars because their rent seems to go up year over year and their cost of living seems to go up year over year. How do we deal with that aspect as it relates to the user fee comment that you had?
Ms Mather: I have never been able to find in my search through any of the major world religions, whether it be Buddhism or Christianity, or through any of the major ethical systems in philosophy, such as Utilitarianism or Kant's moral imperative, or through my own personal searching, any justification for the notion that a society should not be taking care of everybody within that society.
I find it morally, philosophically and ethically indefensible to say that one set of people shouldn't pay for such-and-such a service because it's used by other people. It's the same kind of argument used by people with no kids to say, "Why should we pay for public education?" It's a species survival mechanism. If they can't understand philosophical systems, if they can't understand religious dictates, then take it down to an atavistic level and talk about species survival. I guess that's my answer.
Interjections.
Ms Mather: I guess that was what I was trying to say simply.
Mr Young: Did you know that Bill 26 brings 140,000 new low-income people on to the Ontario drug benefit plan?
Ms Mather: The Ontario drug benefit plan has also been amended in ways that will hurt people who are already on the drug benefit.
Mr Young: So you did know that?
Ms Mather: I did not know that and I didn't think --
Mr Young: You did not know that?
Ms Mather: May I finish my answer to your question?
Mr Young: I'm just trying to get clear if you knew it or you didn't. We hear all the negative stuff, we don't hear a lot of the positive stuff, that's all.
Mr Pouliot: I guess if you're poor you expect to be interrupted.
Ms Mather: Or a woman.
To give you an answer, Mr Young, I didn't think we were discussing the health schedules today so I'm not as well prepared on the health schedules as I would normally be. But what I do know about the health schedules and about the Ontario drug benefit plan is that the literally hundreds of people who have psychiatric disabilities in Thunder Bay are in a climate of fear about the changes to the Ontario drug benefit plan.
Mr Gerretsen: Very quickly. An excellent presentation, and you're right, this is not consultation. You can make a presentation, we can have a quick response. True consultation goes well beyond that.
You picked up on the transportation issue, which is an excellent one. There's a very small section that changes the words from "equal to," in other words, where the province gives an equal amount of money to a transit system to what the municipality puts in, to "not exceeding," which means that after this the province can unilaterally decide not to fund transit systems the way they are, so the fees will go up even more. Mike has got a point here. You're right on on that one.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Chris, and everybody else on the panel. Thank you very much. It was wonderful what you're saying, and you're getting your message out in an extraordinary way. You mention the various elements that obviously will affect people on low income and how many aspects there are that really, really are going to make their lives more difficult in terms of just living on a day-to-day basis.
I want to ask you to talk a little about what you mentioned just when Mr Young was making his point. Obviously Mr Young wants to ignore the fact that one of the major broken promises of the campaign was the whole question of user fees, "There will be no user fees," and the user fees in the Ontario drug benefit plan very profoundly affect people on low incomes.
I want you, if you can, or anybody else at the table to expand on how people are feeling and the fear level that simply is there. I know it's difficult to read this bill in great detail and word is getting out that we need more time, but there is a great sense of fear, which affects how people live their lives. So I just want you to tell the people in the room here, and certainly the government members in particular, what it feels like.
Ms Mather: I have wanted, ever since the cuts to social assistance, to have the opportunity to tell some Conservative MPPs a story that happened. It relates to fear. There's a fellow in Thunder Bay, one of many who's a psychiatric survivor, meaning he's been through the psychiatric system a lot, and this is not a fellow who is ever going to have a very complex functional life. This is a person, because of his illness and because of the years of abuse that he suffered, who's going to need a lot of help for a long time. So one of our members is downtown one day and she finds this inoffensive little gentleman on the side of the street crying. She says to him -- I'll call him Joe. Maybe I should call him Mike. I'm sorry. That was gratuitous. I'll call him Joe.
The Chair: Excuse me. I apologize. We have a certain amount of time per caucus and per questions. I'm into the third party's. They may choose to allow you to continue on that line, but I have to allow them their time.
Mr Pouliot: Thank you very kindly. I too was moved by your presentation, Madame, and distinguished members of your panel. You voice the concern of the marginalized, the people who don't run as fast as others in society, people who have less, people who are poor.
What this bill does is rather simple. The government takes in roughly $47 billion a year; the government spends approximately $56 billion to $57 billion. The difference is called the deficit. It's $10 billion. The government of the day has committed to balance the books within one term of office, assuming four to five years. The government of the day is also on the hook for another $5 billion to $6 billion because they've promised a 30% tax cut. So that brings us to $15 billion. In order to achieve the tax cut, which incidentally will benefit the people who can well defend themselves in this society, the government moves up the food chain. Madame, it so happens that you're the first one in the food chain to reconcile $15 billion.
Those people are in a hurry. It's the same people who tell you if you live on a northern reserve -- well, any one of us, because we're all on a waiting list, make no mistake about this -- that you can buy a can of tuna for 69 cents, that you can live on $90 a month if you don't need toilet paper, if you don't need toothpaste and if you have pasta without sauce. I found a can of tuna in Manitouwadge at 69 cents. It had a little pussy cat on the label. And that's the tragedy of what is moved here.
1050
How do you feel? I personally feel, Madame, that if I have a chance to hope, I can go through a lot of dire circumstances. What should the government tell -- because they have power, those people -- what should they tell the people who are marginalized, who only wish to have a chance to live and a chance to dream, when they see Bill 26 and what it will bring? How do they feel?
Ms Mather: How do who feel? I got lost. How do the government feel or the low-income people feel?
Mr Pouliot: Not the government. Never mind. We're all well paid here. The people whom you represent in terms of hope. Is it going to be better next week?
Ms Mather: They're terrified, they have no hope, and they're also very angry. They will remember, and T-CAP will help them to remember, at the next election who imposed these conditions on them.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming forward today. Your half-hour has come to an end, and we have to move to the next presenter. Thank you very much for coming forward today.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): A point of privilege, Mr Chair.
The Chair: May I please have the Lakehead Board of Education come forward.
A point of privilege for Mr Martin.
Mr Martin: I find it, Mr Chair, personally offensive that a group such as this, whom everybody recognizes have so little access to a table such as the one that's in front of them today to tell their story -- their story that so often goes unheard, is so insensitively thrust aside so often by those of us who are in positions of power -- have yet again today been cast aside and not allowed the two or three minutes it would have taken to finish.
I ask you if the president of the chamber of commerce or the chair of the school board or the president of the police association came forward to speak before us if you would deal with them in the same insensitive and, I suggest, rude way that you've dealt with the group who was in front of us today and not allow them the two or three minutes that they want, that they ask on behalf of the thousands of people across this province who are in the same situation as themselves, scared for their very livelihoods, to tell that one little story which epitomizes the stories of the people whom they come before you today to speak on behalf of? Is it that you're afraid or is it that it touched something in you that --
The Chair: Mr Martin, I understand your point of privilege, but I've been charged by this committee, and we operate under certain rules on this committee. I'm sure there's been a huge number of people who wanted to go on beyond their half-hour, and we've cut all of those folks off too, Mr Martin.
Interjection: In the time we've been arguing, she could have finished.
Mr Gerretsen: This is muzzling people.
The Chair: I'm charged with keeping this committee to certain time lines, and it's certainly not muzzling them. They could have used some remaining time from your party's three minutes to continue. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry, but we've come to the end of the half-hour, and I'd like to call on our next witness, please.
Interjection: It's shameful.
Mr Phillips: I realize the Chair is carrying out our instructions, but I wonder if we mightn't just all of us agree that we could spend three more minutes.
Mr Young: I would move a motion to hear them.
Mr Gerretsen: Terry, good for you.
The Chair: We need unanimous consent for that motion. I will allow two minutes for a quick story. Thank you.
Ms Mather: Thank you, Mr Young. Our member is downtown and she meets Joe, and he is crying on the side of the street, and she says, "What's the matter?" and he says, "My cheque's been cut." Now this is a fellow who doesn't know who Mr Harris is, who doesn't know where his cheque comes from. His only understanding is that once a month he gets a cheque. He's on GWA and he gets a cheque.
He gives the majority of it to the lady who runs the rooming-house that he has his one room in, he gives so much to the Thunder Bay restaurant that feeds him every day, and he buys a carton of smokes, and that's his life. His cheque has been cut and he is now faced with a fear that he doesn't know whether to pay for food, in which case he has no place to live, or to pay for a place to live, in which case he has no food. Smokes are out of the question. Joe's going to be begging smokes the rest of the winter and having smokes be your one luxury is a pretty low quality of life.
So this fellow is crying because this is in September and he is afraid of our winters and he's convinced that he has to eat and therefore he will live on the street and he will freeze to death. That is what your government has done by cutting before looking. Disabled people's money has been cut and I have been wanting to have people from your party hear about Joe since September. Disabled people's money was cut. It is a falsehood to say it wasn't and Joe is now scared of either starving or freezing. That's an atrocity in Canada, in Thunder Bay in 1996.
Interjections: Hear, hear.
Ms Mather: That's the story. Was it worth it?
The Chair: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming forward and making your presentation today.
LAKEHEAD BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from Lakehead Board of Education come forward. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd all take a bit of time at the beginning of your presentation to introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Dr Linda Rydholm: Mr Chair, members of the subcommittee, good morning. Welcome to Thunder Bay. May you have a good day here. Our director of education, Mr Jim McCuaig, at my far right is with me this morning, and Mr Mark Bentz, a fellow trustee and chair of our budget committee is also here. I am Dr Linda Rydholm, chair of the Lakehead Board of Education.
The three of us represent the Lakehead board, the public school system in Thunder Bay. We have approximately 16,500 students, about 1,400 employees, of which about 1,000 are teachers, and 45 schools. Going into the 1996 budget, operating costs are at about $101 million. Very importantly, over the past four years the Lakehead board has been progressive and aggressive in ensuring student learning while simultaneously reducing those operating costs.
I will speak first about the student learning. That's why we're around. Under our school improvement plan, there has been a renewed focus on learning for every student, and there has been a more conscious and organized assessment of the learning that has taken place. Our students in recent years have tested higher in math and literacy skills. We are very pleased with these results.
The Lakehead board has been part of a four-board learning consortium in the province. This learning consortium has offered to work with the education quality and accountability office in Toronto. That office was first begun by the NDP and has been continued with the Conservative government.
Our board in Thunder Bay is geographically in the distance. We are very far from other places in the province, but we want to assure you that we are educationally in the forefront. Learning is taking place here and we can prove it.
Our entire school system exists to support the learning. We initiated school councils, school improvement teams even before the former Minister of Education directed us to do so. We were one of the very first in the province. We have developed a long list of various partnerships within our community: schools linked up with different businesses, elementary students singing in choirs with senior citizens. We have a long list of these community partnerships.
There has been, very importantly, extensive staff development. That staff development has been essential to help everyone understand and become part of our school improvement plan. There has been enthusiasm and success.
Since 1991, our board's operating costs have been reduced considerably. Cost savings were achieved throughout the budget. Some schools were closed, some programs were cut. There has been an increase in class sizes -- more kids in the classroom. Notably, we have reduced the number of administrators and support staff. Somewhat to our chagrin, we did that even before the social contract took effect. That hurt us. But in fact, we and the local separate school board have the lowest number of administrators in similar boards per student population in the whole province. We are lean.
1100
Our board is not perfect in operations, but there have been significant cost reductions made in recent years while still ensuring student learning, student success. We are not here to praise or criticize any of the three parties, but regardless of what's been happening in Toronto, we have been improving academic learning and decreasing costs. We wonder, though, how much longer we will be able to do the two simultaneously.
In 1996, there will be further reduced provincial funding for all school boards across Ontario. Our board recognizes the economic necessity of decreasing the provincial debt -- the deficit yearly and the overall debt. We know that education comprises a big portion of the provincial budget and that education must share in the budget cuts. Reduced provincial funding for school boards is not welcome news but it is understandable.
The challenge will be for local boards to make local school budgets work properly to protect learning for students while still being fair to local taxpayers and to school staff. Local taxpayers will not welcome increasing local taxes. We've already heard quite a bit about that. Staff will want to protect their salaries, benefits, working conditions and their very jobs. Especially for school boards that have already reduced operating costs, it is going to be very difficult to achieve sufficiently more savings in 1996-97 without looking at the collective agreements.
I want to emphasize right now that our board maintains good working relationships with our collective bargaining groups, with the individual employees. There is mutual respect, trust and openness, especially in the last few years working together on our school improvement plan. However, even our employees at our board may not agree to finding operating cost savings in their collective agreements. There may be great difficulty in reaching agreements in these years of shrinking funds. There may be more unresolved negotiations going to arbitration.
Traditionally in Ontario, arbitrators have favoured employees -- teachers -- when assessing unresolved contract situations. Consequently, some boards have settled higher than they really wanted to in order to avoid going to arbitration or strike. Traditionally, the agreements after arbitration or strike have favoured employees. This has been the practice across Ontario.
Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, recognizes the difficulty that boards have had regarding arbitration. The legislation under schedule Q introduces new criteria which must be considered by interest arbitrators under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. The criteria affecting school boards and teachers will be: (1) the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation; (2) the extent to which services may have to be reduced if the current funding levels are not increased; (3) the economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality or municipalities served by the board; (4) a comparison between the employees and other comparable employees in the broader public sector of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed; (5) the employer's need for qualified employees.
These five new criteria seem fair. They seem fair to employees; they seem fair to taxpayers. They address the local and provincial taxpayers' ability to pay. This could go up or down in future times, but this legislation allows for that fluctuation.
The criteria address protection of services. Programs, services and learning should be maintained for students. The criteria also recommend a comparison with other employees in the public sector. This too seems fair. They recognize the employer's need to have employees who are qualified to do the job. This is reasonable.
Overall, these five new criteria are fair, but also necessary if school boards are expected to negotiate at the local level to save money in collective agreements. This part of Bill 26 will help school boards to preserve learning and programs for students, and will at the same time help boards to be fair to employees and taxpayers, a difficult balance to achieve.
There has been imbalance at the arbitration level, with taxpayers paying the price and contributing to the huge provincial debt. The new criteria regarding arbitration will help the bargaining process. However, there is concern that even with this new legislation concerning arbitration, school boards will not be able to find sufficient cost savings for this year, 1996. This enabling legislation, as we talk about it, Bill 26, although helpful, will probably not be sufficient for this year.
Budgets for school boards run through the calendar year, January to December, but teacher contracts follow the school year, September 1 to August 31. Most boards, like ours, are already committed at this time to honouring the existing contracts until August 31, 1996. It will be very difficult to find the required savings in the remaining four months, September to December.
Along with the reduced grants, the provincial government should provide some more specific tools to help us with achieving the necessary cost savings. We need more help. Careful consideration must be given in this direction; more help but fair help.
There is also concern that the criteria in Bill 26 affecting arbitration may not be strong enough. A recent newsletter from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, which is our big governing body and Lakehead's board is a member, says, "Ontario Public School Boards' Association has called upon the Minister of Finance to strengthen Bill 26 to state that arbitrators' decisions must also not result in any increase in taxes." As well, public school boards want Bill 26 amended so that arbitrators' awards do not exceed wage settlements that have been negotiated by another bargaining unit of the employer. So no increase in local taxes, comparing with other bargaining units.
My trustees have not had full discussion yet on these changes. You can appreciate we did have Christmas break. But this is something to think about and our provincial association is looking in that direction.
1110
In summary, the Lakehead board will work to preserve student learning and to minimize local taxes and to ensure fair contracts. Students, taxpayers and staff are all important to the organization. They're all necessary to the organization's functioning.
To achieve cost savings in our budget and in our contracts, we will need help to do it. The new criteria which Bill 26 says must be considered by interest arbitrators under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act will help, but we could use more help, more specific tools to reduce operating costs.
It is the responsibility of local boards to make the education system in Ontario work effectively in each and every community. We welcome and accept that responsibility, and with more help from the province we will be able to achieve the necessary cost savings and still maintain an excellent system.
Now for questions. My address this morning has mainly dealt around the arbitration issue. There are other parts that minimally affect boards, like the public sector salary disclosure act, Pay Equity Act, Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Those give very minimal savings to school boards. We are wondering, Mr Chair and other members present: Under the Municipal Act, will there be exemption for school boards or will municipalities be given the power to dissolve or make changes to boards including our school boards? We are wondering about that part and if anyone has answers, please let us know.
Mark Bentz, our chair of budget, Jim McCuaig, our director, and I welcome questions. As chair of budget, Mark faces a very challenging year answering to our local taxpayers. Jim, as our director, is looking at more structural changes in our organization. We'll do our best to answer any questions regarding our specific board or other boards. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. We have four minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the opposition caucus.
Mr Miclash: Doctor and gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation. Doctor, you indicated some uniqueness of the north and you also indicated that a big portion of government spending comes to education. I was at a rally this past Saturday where it was indicated that transfer payments from the provincial government to local boards would be in the amount of approximately 9%. I was just wondering if you could possibly provide some examples that will give us an idea of what this will do to programs that you now offer, the Lakehead Board of Education -- what a 9% cut in transfer payments will do to those programs. I'm thinking of programs such as junior kindergarten, adult education, programs of that nature that you offer today.
Dr Rydholm: If Tim or Mark want to add, just quickly let me know, fellows.
Obviously, you can tell from my presentation that our board and other boards seek to protect our programs. We seek to protect the things that we've been putting in place. We have already reduced, and that was under previous governments, previous cuts. We have been told about a 3% reduction. I'm not sure about this 9%. Translating $400 million to our board based on population would equal about $4 million. That's quite a chunk, but it's closer to around 3% or so. We won't know. In fact this raises a big problem in education funding. We never know until about March or April what the exact dollar figures in the grants will be for us. It's very difficult. We're already committed with the programs. We're paying for those programs that year, resulting often in local increased taxes. So yes, we're facing a tough year and we're not sure just what it will mean in cuts anywhere.
Mr Miclash: Just a point of clarification: It's 9% on transfers, 3% on overall cost, overall expenditures of the board. I thank you for that. I'll pass to other members.
Mr Phillips: Firstly, on your comment on the elimination of boards, right now, you are right: In the bill a municipality, through a bylaw, could eliminate the school board -- as simple as that. Now, the government has not been very forthcoming on what it's going to do. They said they are going to protect school boards, but we haven't heard whether it's through regulation, which as you know is the stroke of a pen, or in the legislation. So we'll await their response to you. I'll at least assure you that we'll be proposing an amendment that does protect, through legislation.
On the arbitration, you no doubt are aware that the language you want for arbitrators exists nowhere else. It at one time did exist in Ontario and British Columbia, and then was taken out because it couldn't work. It didn't work. So what you're proposing is a process in arbitration that's been talked about a lot, been tried twice and failed. I'm wondering why the school board is proposing that we embark down a road that's been tried several times, failed, and exists nowhere else now because it has failed.
Dr Rydholm: What has been happening has failed as far as we are concerned. Having nothing has failed. So we are optimistically hoping that these five new changes will help, and they should.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Hampton.
Mr Phillips: So you want us to try something --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Phillips.
Dr Rydholm: What I'm saying is what is happening now has failed. Were those exact criteria -- what years were they in?
The Chair: We're into the third party time. Mr Hampton.
Mr Phillips: Well, I assume you've done the research, but --
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Hampton's time, please, Mr Phillips.
Mr Hampton: I want to ask you a general question. I'll tell you what bothers me. Education in the province is going to take a $400-million cut. I have no doubt that's going to affect people in the classroom. At the same time, by the government's own election documents, which they refer to over and over again, there's going to be a tax cut of over $5 billion, two thirds of which is going to go to people who earn over $50,000 a year. All right?
Dr Rydholm: That's my understanding, yes.
Mr Hampton: That's by the government's own document. Doesn't that bother you? You're trying to provide a valuable public service that has a lot to do with the future of this province and the future success of this province, and you're being told, "Do it with less money; $400 million less across the province." At the same time, the government says they're prepared to offer up $5 billion in tax cuts to people, and two thirds of that is going to go to people who earn over $50,000 a year. Something seems strangely awry here. I don't think this has anything to do with deficit; I think it has a lot to do with taking money out of public services, taking money out of lower-income people and middle-income people, and transferring it to the wealthiest people in the province.
Dr Rydholm: Spending our way out of the debt didn't work. Mark wants to say something.
Mr Mark Bentz: I would agree wholeheartedly. As trustees, we have the interests of children at heart. To see these cuts coming so quickly, so fast and so big is quite saddening. I think the face of education will change dramatically. I guess the reality is that there is a debt and we are being cut. As to how the government is apportioning these costs in different areas, they're cutting some to give some back to others. Of course we oppose that. I guess we aren't really here to talk about that facet; we're here to talk about Bill 26 and how it affects the school boards.
Mr Hampton: But Bill 26 is part of that whole scenario.
Mr Bentz: Certainly. I think as trustees and educators, we oppose any cuts to the classroom, because what you're doing is basically making the children pay for a debt they did not accumulate. Children are our future. We can all agree to that.
Mr Hampton: The Canadian Bond Rating Service is one of those bond rating groups that look at all provincial governments and the federal government, and they rate their fiscal strategy. They said in a paper in the fall that the most challenging part of what the government's trying to do is not debt and deficit; it's the tax cut. They said that is the biggest wallop that has to be dealt with. So I find it a little hard to believe that the government says it's the debt and the deficit when even a bond rating agency says, "No, no, the big wallop, the big thing that has to be swallowed here, is the magnitude of the tax cut which is going to the wealthiest people in the province." I wonder, what does that say about the priority of education to this government?
1120
Dr Rydholm: We're addressing Bill 26.
Mr Hampton: Bill 26 is the operative means to deliver the tax cut and to cut those services. The group that was just here before said: "We don't understand. Poor people are going to have to handle heavy user fees; they're going to have to do with less income." For example, the lowest-paid women in the province are losing pay equity. And they're saying, "Some of the services that we depend on most, public transit, education, are being chopped in order that this tax cut can happen."
Dr Rydholm: My understanding is that with the money that is given in tax cuts, it will therefore allow that money to circulate, whether it's being spent or whether it will be invested, and then that will further the economy. That is my understanding.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. We're into the government caucus's time. Mr Young.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, order. Mr Young, please.
Mr Young: Can you start the clock over, please, Mr Chair?
You said that since 1991 you've had to close some schools and the class sizes got a little bit larger, and this is during the former government's reign. So they created $50 billion worth of new debt. I find it highly ironic that we're being criticized now for trying to restructure so that you can keep the money in the classroom and pay less in admin costs. But I do want to assure you that the definition of local boards does not include school boards. One way or another it will be addressed. I don't know exactly how, but it will be addressed.
We are committed to making the public sector arbitration process more responsive to reality, economic reality, and be fiscally responsible. New Brunswick requires arbitrators to consider "the fiscal policies of the government of the province of New Brunswick," and in Alberta they have to consider "the general economic conditions in Alberta."
In the past, arbitrators were not required to consider an employer's ability to pay when awarding an increase, and yet we know in the sector where there's compulsory arbitration the awards have consistently outstripped settlements in that sector by 1.5% to 2%. As well, the unions have to battle and wait 24 months to get their money in some cases. It costs them $50,000 to $100,000 to get their money. I wondered if you can comment on that.
Dr Rydholm: What you have said speaks for itself, and this is why we feel that any attempt to help with the arbitration process would help here in our province. At the same time, I want to emphasize again what I said earlier. We don't have any great fear at our particular board. We have had excellent settlements and excellent cooperation with our employees, an excellent understanding and mutual trust and openness, and that will continue. But generally across the province when one reads fact-finder reports regarding where there hasn't been these good relations, one realizes that when it gets to the point of arbitration that there's help needed there.
Mr Young: I want to thank you for the statement you made, and I wrote it down, "Reduced...funding...is not welcome news but...understandable." We've heard that from many different sectors, and I want to thank you for stating it here in Thunder Bay.
Mr Gerretsen: That's only the second time we've heard it.
Mr Young: You're not listening very well then, Mr Gerretsen.
I'd like to ask you what would happen if we don't address the deficit and debt in this province. What would happen to public education?
Dr Rydholm: I am not a mathematical genius; I have a son who is. It does not take a mathematical genius, though, to get to very quickly understand that if the debt continues to increase, we will be bankrupt and we will not have a school system anywhere near resembling the kinds of systems that we have right now across this province. It's absolutely essential. I'm just talking about schools, never mind other things like highways etc.
Yes, we have to, and if we don't make these difficult decisions now, whether it's at our local board, Lakehead board, or for you folks down in Queen's Park, there will come a time when very impossible, very ugly, ugly things will just happen and we will lose everything that we treasure in our province.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but your half-hour has come to an end. I want to thank you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
Mr Hampton: Mr Chair, could we just ask a point of clarification? How many times has your board gone to arbitration with teachers?
Dr Rydholm: Mr McCuaig? He's been there a lot longer than I have.
Mr Jim McCuaig: I don't have any recollection of ever going to third-party.
The Chair: May I please have a representative from the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council come forward, please.
Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, on December 20 --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: On December 20 we asked for some information to be tabled and it still hasn't been tabled. It's about --
The Chair: Which information is that?
Mr Phillips: -- settlements being 2% higher with arbitration. I wonder when we will expect that to be tabled.
The Chair: I don't recall that that was --
Mr Phillips: It's the same information that's often said orally but we've never seen --
The Chair: I believe that it's been in some presentations that have been given to the committee.
Mr Phillips: Well, can you table that, because I don't recall any evidence supporting that.
The Chair: I'll ask the researcher to look to find out which presentations that was in.
Mr Phillips: Thank you.
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and response from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if at the beginning of your presentation you'd introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Mike Poleck: Good morning. I'm representing the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council. My name is Mike Poleck. I'm the secretary-treasurer. With me this morning are Judy Mongrain, an executive member, and she will be talking about the effect on the city workers in Thunder Bay that this bill is impacting on; and Glen Chochla, who's the chairman of the political action committee, who will be addressing the interests of the health care workers in Thunder Bay and the effect this bill will have on them.
The Thunder Bay and District Labour Council welcomes the opportunity to raise our concerns over Bill 26. The Thunder Bay and District Labour Council represents roughly 43 unions in the Thunder Bay area with 9,000 members falling under different labour codes within the province. These workers deserve the right to present their position and have their voices heard.
Labour council's position is that the passing of Bill 26 is the most undemocratic action ever seen in this province. No one person or group has had adequate time to examine the contents of Bill 26. Communities have not had time to confer and evaluate the changes this bill will bring about or the effect it will have on the daily lives of the people within Ontario.
It seems that every day new information on the effect of this bill is discovered or raised. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Municipal Affairs were unable to explain the meaning of important sections of Bill 26 for which their ministries are responsible. It is our feeling that given the massive nature of the bill, there should be a process to more fully review it. The bill creates three new acts, repeals two acts and amends 44 other acts.
This bill will destroy the distinctive Canadian society that we've come to experience in Ontario. We will move towards a have-versus-have-not society.
Municipalities will be forced to implement user fees for services on a larger scale than we already have. Presently, facilities such as auditoriums and arenas are already charging user fees. As a city raises these fees to compensate for the lost transfer payments, the people who have the least ability to pay will once again be hit.
It would appear that this government intends to move Ontario towards the American style of government where different classes of people receive different levels of public service. The former Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, once said Canada doesn't have enough millionaires. What he didn't make clear is that the Conservative plan was to increase the number of poor people to allow for this creation.
The present governing Conservative Party in Ontario campaigned on a promise of using common sense. They emphasized the commonsense approach to government. They said they would listen to the people of the province and see what the people wanted. What is becoming increasingly obvious is that they meant exactly what they said -- they would listen -- but that did not mean they would respond to the public's desires or people's wants. They fulfilled the listening promise, but the actions are definitely in accordance with their own agenda and not the general public's.
Bill 26 is simply a power grab by the authoritarian, autocratic government of the day. Even assuming laws with good intentions are introduced, there's no mechanism for public or judicial review. They are given the authority to make law as they see fit. Also, they would not be answerable to the public for the results of the laws if they don't work out.
1130
During the election campaign, the people of Ontario were promised no cuts to health, no cuts to aid for seniors. The process for savings would be discussed, consultation would occur, extensive hearings. Government would work with employee unions and work together to take appropriate action.
When we look at Bill 26, these promises seem to go up in smoke. The hearings on the health care sector last week highlighted the cuts and user fees the government would impose in that sector.
Also under this bill, the Minister of Municipal Affairs could unilaterally restructure, reorganize or dissolve municipalities.
Many women in our community will feel the brunt of the wrath. Bill 26 sees the repeal of pay equity adjustments. This method was intended to raise the historically low wages of women in jobs that had no comparative male job classes in that working environment. These people were generally making the lowest wages and still will continue to do so.
Equally questionable is the enormous power given to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to unilaterally restructure, amalgamate or dissolve municipalities. What does all this mean? How far will it go? As members of a municipality, people deserve some say in the actions and the direction that the municipality takes. They chose to live there. The position of the provincial government is totally a power grab and a blatant attempt at dictatorship.
The areas of Bill 26 affecting health care which will be seen in our community remain the user fees, the allowance of US firms to compete, for-profit health care clinics, the absence of appeal processes for health care providers, the deregulation of drug prices and the direct power of cabinet and the Minister of Health over hospitals and doctors.
Even our environment is not left untouched. Northwestern Ontario has always been involved in mining. Under Bill 26, the laws governing mine cleanup after the closure of a mine are gutted. I'm sure Mr Sheppard of the Steelworkers will expound on this later. An example is the cuts to the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. The authority may have to sell land to the logging industry to fund its activities. Their funding is said to be cut approximately 70%.
Another aspect of Bill 26 that concerns our members is the attack on the collective bargaining system. In the government's plan to sell off areas of government involvement to its business friends, it has attempted to change legislation covering labour contracts. This bill is a move to throw people out of work and deny them access to existing provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the employment standards regulations. This government feels it owes nothing to long-term employees and wants to change the law to make itself look good. This is definitely not the good-faith action a responsible, decent employer would take.
Even employees who survive the layoffs will be affected. Groups that are now subject to binding arbitration and are not allowed to strike rely on arbitrators to decide their contracts. Normally, arbitrators and boards would not have limited their decision solely on ability to pay. That attitude would force public sector employees to subsidize the provision of public services. This idea generally equates more readily to an employer's willingness to pay.
Arbitrators would be asked to consider criteria such as the ability to pay, the extent of services needed to be cut if funding levels were not increased, the economic situation in general, the comparison of terms and conditions of employment and the nature of work performed by other employees in the broader public sector, and the employer's need for qualified employees. It would seem the government is setting up a climate for itself, the employer, to ask arbitrators to impose pay cuts, given the government's funding cuts we have witnessed already.
In conclusion, I just want to restate that Bill 26 is the most authoritarian power grab in the history of Ontario. What we have is a blatant attempt to centralize power in the ministries of the government. The government has tried to ram this legislation through the Legislature and impose it on all Ontarians. They did not even want the public to know its ramifications, let alone have an opportunity for discussion. These actions are associated with dictatorship.
The Thunder Bay and District Labour Council remains in definite opposition to Bill 26. We thank the committee for the opportunity to express our position. We have not had an opportunity to thank the government for anything in the last year, and it may be a while before we do again. I'll let Judy proceed.
Ms Judith Mongrain: The Savings and Restructuring Act is one of the most regressive pieces of legislation ever brought forward by this government. Though it's quite lengthy, in many ways it's unclear what some of these changes will mean, as they refer to other pieces of legislation and other acts that aren't spelled out in this bill that has been provided to us for comment. In many areas of the document it advises that certain subsections are repealed or replaced with substituted wording which is provided; it doesn't tell us what the wording change will mean. But one thing is very obvious: It will make even clearer the demarcation line between the haves and have-nots.
I want to talk on the forced privatization of public services. This bill will encourage municipalities to privatize the services they provide because of less funding provided by the province. Historically, the majority of services provided for by the public sector are services paid for with taxes because they are the basic needs for people. They require a watchful eye to ensure the health and safety of the citizens. They are services that cannot maintain quality and affordability if they are taken over by the private sector, or, if we do have a profitable service, the profit is used to offset the expenses of other non-profit services.
We find within our own municipality the private sector is very interested in taking over public services where there is a great potential to make a profit, usually because the private sector would be achieving a monopoly, a monopoly that also provides them with the infrastructure to take over the services. The private sector does not have to purchase new equipment and buildings to start this business. Just buy it from the municipality -- at a depreciated rate, of course. Is this fair to the taxpayers of Ontario?
Privatization will certainly take the heat off municipal and provincial politicians, as the citizens won't be able to complain about private companies' service or fees.
Look what is happening in this municipality. The employer has embarked on requesting expressions of interest from the private sector to operate our water and sewage treatment plants. Last year, these enterprises made approximately $7 million in profit, and $5 million of that was used to fund infrastructure improvements within our sewer and water systems. If a private firm took over the plants, who would get that profit? We, the taxpayers, would still have to foot the infrastructure costs for our systems. Where would the $5 million come from? If something went wrong within these privatized water and sewage treatment plants, would we, the citizens, ever be told?
For many years there were attempts to sell off our phone company. This year the municipality received over $7 million from our phone company that offset the cutbacks from the province.
At some point someone is going to have to pull on the reins of this runaway privatization cart and have a hard look at what all these changes mean to all of the citizens of Ontario.
When talking to the private sector business people, they tell us and they make it very clear that if people can't pay for the services, they won't get any.
Our municipality has been quite proud of the fact that they have been able to achieve a zero tax increase again this year, but user fees are being increased. As user fees have increased, fewer citizens are able to afford to send their kids swimming or skating, or to use public transit. When I suggested to a city administrator that user fees for garbage pickup would be another difficult expense to be afforded by the poor, I was told that there wasn't anything to worry about as poor people, being poor, didn't have as much garbage to put out, so their fees shouldn't be very much.
Are our sport centres, our art centre and our recreation programs only going to be available to the rich, even though all of us have provided tax dollars to start these programs?
At his retirement, our former police chief suggested that maybe there will be a way established for certain areas uptown to pay extra for more comprehensive policing.
Some have even suggested that the fire department bill individuals when they have been victims of fire. Does that mean if we don't have cash in hand, we will watch our homes or businesses turn to ashes, or that those who can't afford to pay will try to contain the fires on their own, putting their lives at risk?
The opening explanatory note that begins Bill 26 states, "The purpose of the bill is to achieve fiscal savings and promote economic prosperity through public sector restructuring, streamlining and efficiency and to implement other aspects of the government's economic agenda." Does anyone know how putting thousands of people out of work, decreasing moneys to municipalities and decreasing services to the citizens of this province is going to "promote economic prosperity"?
1140
Economic prosperity will be gained only by those who have the money to buy up public sector infrastructures and start charging the taxpayers to use the infrastructures that the taxpayers have already paid for. This bill, when passed, will cause economic and social chaos in this province that will take years to repair.
Mr Glen Chochla: I want to just pick up on a few points that Sister Mongrain and Brother Poleck have made. I'd also like to talk a bit about the changes to a number of acts that have established, of course in Ontario, a system of binding arbitration for a number of public sector workers.
What Bill 26 does is it amends legislation that provides for binding arbitration for firefighters, hospital workers, police officers and -- I think this is important as well -- physicians, because physicians' collective bargaining rights are now taken away completely by Bill 26.
What the government has done is in effect said to arbitrators, "We will create whatever economic situation we want in this province, even if that's created by giving huge tax breaks to the most wealthy in the province, even if that's created by privatizing very profitable public enterprises like the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which brings in three quarters of a billion dollars a year; even if that means that municipalities can more easily privatize municipal utilities. We'll do all theses things, we'll create an economic climate, and you must accept without questioning the economic climate, the fiscal situation that we've created for the province of Ontario."
Arbitrators in the past have dealt with ability to pay in their decisions. They've repeatedly dealt with that and they've said the problem in the public sector with arbitrations, with contract disputes, is that "ability to pay" really means "willingness to pay"; that the government sets its own rules, makes its own decisions on taxing, makes its own decisions on spending, and that it's unfair for arbitrators to just accept holus-bolus the situation the government has created.
So what they have done is they've said, "We will take into consideration somewhat the state of government finances. We will do that, but we're also going to look at what private sector settlements for similar job classifications, for similar-type jobs, have been. That's how we've developed a system of binding arbitration that has, by and large, worked out very well."
If you take away that system, if you destroy the credibility of that system, I think there are two things you're going to be faced with. First of all, you're probably going to get a good number of arbitrators who refuse to be a part of this kind of biased system. I'll remind you that -- and I think this was alluded to by one of the opposition members in the previous presentation by the Lakehead Board of Education -- in the early 1980s another Conservative government, a more moderate Conservative government but still a Conservative government -- a real Conservative government, I think, is a good way to put it. This really is a Reform government or a Republican government.
What we saw in the early 1980s was an attempt to do just this, and the system didn't work. At that time the chair of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission expressed concerns that arbitrators may cease to be available since the proposed legislation will impinge on their independence. Those were the comments that he made at the time. I want to suggest to you very strongly that you meet with arbitrators or the head of the arbitrators' association to find out what they think about what you're trying to do here.
I want you to think about something else as well. In the early 1980s we had wildcat, illegal strikes in the hospital sector. We had that, in part, because hospital workers were no longer satisfied and no longer trusted the arbitration system. Watch out as well -- in Alberta we've had wildcat strikes by hospital workers because of the things that the government was doing to the hospital sector and because of what it was doing in terms of its labour relations with employees.
So be very careful. We have a system that works. We have a system where hospital workers don't have to go on strike, physicians don't have to go on strike, police officers don't have to go on strike, firefighters don't have to go on strike. That only works because the system is fair. If you destroy that, you're not doing any favours for the people of this province.
I want to just refer as well to section 33 of the Bill 26 because that removes the requirement of a municipal referendum in order to privatize public utilities like electricity and telephone. The reason we're not undergoing a property tax increase or major cuts in services this year in Thunder Bay is because Thunder Bay Telephone, as Sister Mongrain indicated, is turning a profit and historically almost always turns a profit.
Now, what's your agenda here? If your agenda is to really deal with debt and deficit, why are you looking to privatize the LCBO, making it easier for municipalities to give away important municipal utilities to the private sector? Why are you giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy? Why?
Obviously, your concern is not really debt and deficit. Your concern is to transfer wealth from the people of Ontario to the business sector, to your friends in the business sector, and your concern is to transfer wealth from the poorest people in this province to the wealthiest. I'll be blunt: That is absolutely disgusting. I have no doubt that we would've seen already in this city an attempt, a strong attempt, to privatize Thunder Bay Telephone and Thunder Bay Hydro were it not for the protection that we have right now requiring a referendum before these utilities can be privatized. I have no doubt at all.
Just to conclude, I want to talk a little bit about what the agenda of this government is in terms of its respect for democratic procedure. What you're doing is you're trying to transfer economic and political power, again, to yourselves and to the private sector. Look at the way you attempted to ram through this bill in the first place. We had to have a sit-in in the Legislature just to get these hearings.
Mr Pouliot: We were muzzled. They locked us in.
Mr Chochla: And look at what you're trying to do to the hospitals, to community control over hospitals and community control over municipal boards. You want the power to take over hospital boards, you want the power to take over municipal boards, including school boards and including district health councils, boards of health, public utility commissions, and you want to be able to concentrate that power in your own hands. That certainly is not democratic, and it certainly has nothing to do with debt and deficit. It's just a power grab.
On top of all that, you want to restrict public access to information about what you do. You're changing the freedom of information act to make it much more difficult for the public to get access to information about what you guys are doing, and you also want to charge user fees for that. Where is your respect for democracy?
Finally, an article in the Chronicle-Journal yesterday: The city of Thunder Bay tried to get standing before this committee and couldn't get it. Even the mayor couldn't be here. What he said was he has some real concerns about what this act is doing, including the power that this gives cabinet to take over hospitals and hospital boards, all of these things. Now, surely, when the city of Thunder Bay tries to get standing and can't get it, the mayor tries to get standing and can't get it, you really have to take a look at expanding these hearings, dividing the bill up and having more public hearings on this incredible bill.
That concludes our presentation.
1150
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have two minutes for questions per caucus. We start with the third party. Mr Christopherson.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you for that excellent presentation. I appreciate it very much. We don't have a lot of time, so maybe I'll just comment on a few things, and if there's a chance for you to respond to that, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
First of all, one of the theme's from -- if I can use your first name -- Glen's presentation was, what is the government agenda? In terms of working people, and being here as the labour council, for working people the agenda is: Take away as much power as possible, take away as many rights as possible and transfer that to the employers. That is going in tandem with moving the money from the working people and the poor and the disadvantaged to those who already have. It's consistent, and it's not rhetoric. The facts are there to look at when we look at Bill 7, the anti-worker bill. The government claims all it did was repeal our Bill 40; that's not true. It goes well beyond that. It takes away rights that workers have had in this province for half a century. This government didn't allow one minute of public hearings on that when it replaced the entire Ontario Labour Relations Act.
Now with Bill 26 we see a further erosion of the rights that workers have in the province. We know that it's not just unions that are being affected by this. Again, the government wants to put a label on your forehead and say, "Well, that's just special interests; they're just organized labour." This is about working people and their rights, union and non-union. The issues that you've raised here are consistent with showing the government for what it is, and that is, taking care of its own special interests, and those special interests are those that already have.
I want to say, if I can, under the portion where you talk about the environment, this has been quite a day for breaking news. We've also had in Queen's Park today the release, just recently, within the last hour or so, by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, who answers to the Legislature, not the government, of a special report raising concerns about a regulation that was passed. The commissioner goes on to say, if I can read it: "At a time when many substantial changes are being made to Ontario's environmental laws, public input on environmental policy is even more important. This" -- meaning their regulation -- "is a blow to the province's most significant and far-reaching legislation in that area."
The timing of this regulation was concurrent with the tabling of the Fiscal and Economic Statement announced by Finance minister Eves, as well as the first reading of Bill 26. They all occurred on the same day, and that was also a day when a large number of opposition members were in lockup being briefed.
So this government continues to take away rights. This will deny people the rights that they have under our Environmental Bill of Rights that we passed to lay claim to issues that affect the environment. Those rights are suspended by the Minister of Finance for 10 months. The commissioner has now issued a news release, which I think points further to the fact that you have every right to be outraged, and if we don't see something --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Christopherson. We must move into the government's time. From the government caucus, Mr Stewart.
Mr Stewart: Just a couple of comments. First of all, on you suggesting that we're giving all the money to the rich in this tax cut, 80% of the people in this province make less than $50,000. So I assume that you don't want any of your members to get any type of tax cut whatsoever.
What I'm concerned about is that it appears when I read this that you people, your group, would like the status quo. You want to continue with this uncontrolled spending, you want to continue with a high debt, you want to continue with a high deficit, you don't want to even consider ability to pay. It goes on and on. You want everything to be totally out of control, as it has been before, to pass on a legacy to your children and your grandchildren that they will never, ever get out of. Is that what you want? That you want no change whatsoever, that what has happened over the past has worked-is that what you're saying to us?
Mr Poleck: No. Our response to that -- I want to talk about two points you made. The 50%, I believe you mentioned, of people who are getting the tax cuts: That tax cut, I would propose, is going to be used up in one day in user fees that your government has caused to be brought about.
Mr Stewart: No, I said 80% of people make less than $50,000, who will all get a tax cut.
Mr Poleck: Then 80% will be affected by those user fees that are going to come about. The status quo is not what we're interested in. What we're interested in is a fair share of the pie, as unions tend to call it. Unions are made up of people. Unions are not there for the union. The union is a group of people banded together to further their own cause. Many people in Ontario belong to unions and it's for their betterment. They are Ontario citizens as well. They spend their money. They pay taxes. What they want is their share. They don't want to see the province go down the drain. Their jobs are dependent on the province being alive too. We're all in this together. What we want is that each person, each group gets something out of this, that something comes back to them, that one group is not shut out.
Mr Gerretsen: You know, we've heard that 80% of the people make less than $50,000.
Mr Young: It's 87%.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Gerretsen: I don't care whether it's 10% or 90%; it's totally irrelevant. People making $25,000, under the Common Sense Revolution document itself, are going to get about $400 back. If you make $50,000, you're going to get about $900 back. If you make $100,000, you'll get about $3,000 back. If you make $150,000, you'll get about $5,000 back. The more you make, the more you get back. So your percentages are way out of line.
My question to you, sir, and maybe you've already partly answered it, is, would you be prepared to give up the tax cut -- which drives half of this stuff; without the tax cut, you wouldn't need half of the expenditure cuts that they're talking about -- would you be willing to give that up in order to retain the kind of services that you have now at a much more reasonable level than we're going to have under the new system?
Mr Poleck: I have no problem with that and I would believe the majority of the union members would see the same. They're going to be hit no matter what.
Mr Chochla: I concur with that too. I mean, I work for a hospital sector union. I can tell you my members would gladly forgo that if it meant preserving health care services and jobs for hospital workers.
Mr Gerretsen: I think most of the people in Ontario would do that, because it doesn't make any frigging sense, if you're trying to cut $10 billion out of the deficit that we currently have, to give $5 billion of the revenues up as well in a tax cut, which means you're going to have to cut at least $15 billion out in order to reach the goal of a no-deficit situation. I applaud you both on giving that kind of a presentation and that kind of a statement to that. I think you talk for most people in Ontario: No tax cut until we get the budget down to a zero deficit.
The Chair: I want to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming forward this morning and making your presentation to the committee.
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association come forward. Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions. I'd appreciate if you'd introduce yourself at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Michael Power: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of municipal governments across the great northwest, may I welcome you here to the city of Thunder Bay, the largest centre in northwestern Ontario. It's a delight to see so many friends around the table from all parties today.
Mr Gerretsen: Oh, we'll find out about that.
Mr Power: My name is Michael Power. I'm the mayor of the town of Geraldton. I also have the honour of serving as president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, known as NOMA. There are 50 organized municipalities in northwestern Ontario and all are members of NOMA; thus we are truly the voice of municipal government in northwestern Ontario.
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you today, on behalf of my colleagues, issues which are of importance to municipalities across this region. You'll pardon me if I am parochial in my comments to the committee, but we feel that we should more appropriately discuss those matters of this bill which impact directly on municipal government in northwestern Ontario and not municipal government in other areas. I'm sure that there are eloquent spokesmen in other parts of the province who can bring the views of that sector to this committee.
1200
To ensure that this presentation would be truly representative, copies of schedules M and Q were sent to all members of NOMA in December, requesting input for this submission. As part of the submission, in appendix A you will find appended some of the concerns from individual municipalities as they were forwarded.
The result of our location, the distance from decision-making -- decision-making not generally being made in northwestern Ontario on behalf of northwestern Ontario -- and the high cost of transportation has led successive governments to recognize these differences and to share with us the cost of ensuring that the municipal voice of northwestern Ontario is both heard and part of the process. While this is not part of your mandate, certainly we in NOMA would appreciate any words that you can take forward from this committee on our behalf to ensure that NOMA is properly represented in the decision-making councils of the province. Your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be well aware of what I'm speaking of. We sincerely hope that as a part of the necessary expenditure cuts in Ontario the voice of the northwest will not be silenced.
Previous governments have also recognized the need to hear the voice of the northwest at the cabinet table. This helps to reinforce the message of the minister who is responsible for this area. It also ensures that issues specific to northwestern Ontario are on the table for discussion. NOMA looks forward to continuing the annual meeting with cabinet at a time and place of their convenience.
We're here to discuss Bill 26. On behalf of my colleagues, I'll focus our comments on schedules M and Q, which have the most significant impacts on municipalities. It's important, however, that we remember the context in which this legislation was introduced. For municipal governments, that context is lost revenue, to the tune of $700 million, announced in the government's recent fiscal and economic statement.
The substantial loss of revenues did not come as a surprise to municipal government. Although the news of $700 million in reductions over two years was not welcomed, we understand what it means to be responsible fiscal managers and we know that the province appears to be determined to put its own house in order. That's the way municipal government has always managed. We've managed without deficits and we've always been accountable for what we spend, how we spend it and where it comes from. We're rather pleased to see that the government of Ontario is taking a leaf from the book of municipal government.
We're also pleased to see the commitment to a new partnership between our two levels of government -- provincial and municipal. We think the intent of the amendments of Bill 26 is to enhance the strong and vital role of municipal governments in Ontario. Many of those amendments are in this bill because municipal governments over the years have asked for them. We have said that we require the tools to manage funding reductions in a way that will minimize service disruptions to the people we serve.
We're encouraged by this government's commitment to further reform legislation that impacts on municipal government. Municipal government is fully capable of making the decisions at the local level. Reduced provincial funding means the province cannot expect to have the same say in how programs are managed locally. They need to get out of the way. Let us deliver the programs and let us decide what is needed.
No one wants service reductions, no one wants increased taxes and nobody likes user fees. And strangely enough, no one wants to make any of the decisions that lead to these options. But at the municipal government level we're elected to make those decisions and we're accountable for those decisions. We've been asking the province for many years for the autonomy that goes hand in hand with ever-increasing responsibilities. Managing key services in our communities in a way that reflects local priorities, local innovation and local business -- that is our business as local government.
As partners in government, municipalities are in the best position to determine the tools we need to manage more effectively and more efficiently. That's why NOMA has pressed the government for a number of reforms that will help municipal governments offset lost revenue from the province.
Restructuring in the municipal sector will be a major step forward for municipal government in Ontario. The proposed amendments in the Municipal Act point, as they should, to a locally driven process -- and we stress "locally driven" -- where municipalities come forward with locally endorsed proposals to streamline the organization and operations of municipal government.
The premise is a sound one and it's one that rejects the tired old adage that one size fits all. The diversity of communities across Ontario calls for locally driven solutions to municipal structural reform. Municipalities are prepared to provide better, more effective and less costly government.
NOMA is of the view that a locally driven process is what the government has in mind with these amendments. We suggest that this intention be made clearer, with an addition to section 25.3 indicating that the minister will establish a commission for the development and implementation of a restructuring proposal only at the request of a municipality.
We recognize that not every municipality is willing to embrace change. Municipalities are made up of people, and people sometimes need a bit of time to have sober second thought and to think about the change that's being proposed, to decide whether they wish to opt in or they can come up with a better suggestion. Some municipalities will require support and encouragement, perhaps even mediation, in order to reconcile differences of approach and opinion. We as an association can live with ministerial prerogative to intervene, but that too should occur only at the request of those involved locally.
Currently, the amendments suggest that the minister will have the power to impose restructuring on municipal governments. We do not believe that this is in anyone's best interest, including the citizens most affected. We recommend very strongly that the wording of section 25.3 be changed to reflect the government's commitment to locally driven and locally initiated restructuring.
We believe that clause 25.3(7)(f) should be expanded to cover the costs involved with all voluntary restructuring initiatives. Further, should the provincial government believe it is in the provincial interest -- whatever that may be -- to establish a restructuring committee in a specific area, then the minister should be prepared to pay for all of the costs incurred. None of the municipalities should have to pay those costs.
The capacity to dissolve special-purpose bodies is a very important part of this bill. Special-purpose bodies have the authority to make decisions that have significant impacts on municipal resources. However, they do lack public accountability. Public accountability is integral to having authority. It is high time municipalities had the power to dissolve special-purpose bodies in favour of direct accountability for decisions governing public funds and services.
It really is a question of accountability. How tax dollars are spent, by whom and for what should be clearly and easily understood by residents of Ontario. It is also a question of sound financial management and planning. Municipalities are too often in the position of having the rules change halfway through the game. A different fiscal year from the province and factors like in-year savings targets make planning on the revenue side difficult enough. We need to be able to plan for the expenditure side with the certainty that comes with real authority over how we spend our own resources. Municipal councils, not special-purpose bodies, must have the authority and the accountability for how a municipal government spends taxpayers' dollars.
We understand that the government is considering regulations that will protect certain special-purpose bodies. The purpose of this legislation is to provide greater autonomy to municipal governments -- not less. Regulations restricting our capacity to manage will counter that intention. We use library boards as an example. It's our belief as a municipal association that an exemption for library boards would be totally unacceptable and would seriously undermine the intent of this bill.
The idea put forth by some interests that municipal government is not accountable and does not either understand or take into account the needs of its citizens is false. We would no more spoil our environment than any other organization in this province or in this world. Municipal government is accountable to its citizens daily, weekly, monthly and at the ballot box every three years. Unless you happen to sit in provincial government for an area in Toronto or nearby and go home every day, you aren't as accountable every day as municipal politicians are.
Bill 26 sets out fairly broad provisions for user fees and for licensing. NOMA supports these provisions because they provide a potential alternative revenue source that is based on usage of services and, in some cases, linked to consumer choice. The scope of authority to levy user fees has been the subject of concern in some quarters. We in NOMA do not share these concerns.
The ability to charge user fees and to collect licensing fees that at least offset the cost of providing the licence is not seen by municipalities as a major potential inflow of revenue. These provisions will help us manage in the face of substantial and dramatic reductions in funding from the province. If we are to continue to meet provincial service priorities and local service priorities, we need to be able to pay our bills.
Municipal government have a strong vested interest in minimizing user fees to taxpayers, just as we have an interest in keeping a lid on tax increases. Electors will have short tolerance and long memories for any municipal government that uses these powers irresponsibly.
The issue of responsible management leads us to the Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act. Autonomy for expenditures funded under the act is substantial. We believe it is the intent of the legislation. Block funding, by definition, should come with no strings attached.
Section 3 of the act provides for regulations that can be used to create strings. We recognize that the province has a responsibility to set and monitor provincial standards and to monitor the performance of its transfer payment partners.
It's my understanding and that of my colleagues that the minister intends to set standards based on clearly articulated provincial priorities and develop performance indicators in consultation with NOMA, AMO and other key municipal parties. We believe our input is essential, but we do have concerns over the potential for excessive regulation over the longer term.
As more municipal funding is collapsed into municipal support grants in the future, there may be an inclination to restrict local decisions on how this money is spent. That would contravene the intention of the legislation, as we understand it. We would ask that this committee recommend that Ontario municipal support grants legislation clearly establish the autonomy of municipalities to manage funding in a manner that is consistent with local needs and priorities, mindful of clearly defined provincial interests.
1210
NOMA is encouraged by proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act that restore greater decision-making authority to municipal councils. We are also in favour of new provisions which limit the levying of costs against municipalities. We would suggest, however, that resolving disputes over charges made by conservation authorities would be greatly simplified if municipalities had the authority to approve the charges levied in the first place. For example, appealing decisions to MNR's Mining and Lands Commissioner, decisions that may have a direct impact on property taxes, does not make any sense and is not acceptable to us. We would recommend that the appeal mechanism in section 27 be dropped in favour of direct municipal authority over charges made by conservation authorities.
Under schedule Q, which has a direct impact on municipal government, amendments are set out to the Fire Services Act, the Police Services Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act with respect to arbitration. Most importantly, the amendments require arbitrators to consider a municipality's ability to pay. We have requested an additional amendment that requires consideration of the ability to pay without additional costs to property taxpayers.
It makes no sense to talk about ability to pay on the one hand, if on the other hand you can say: "You do have the ability. Just go out and get it." We believe the two have to be hand in hand. If it truly is going to be that they have to reflect ability to pay, then it has to be without going back to the taxpayer for more at that particular moment.
We would also like to see an amendment respecting wage comparisons, that they be expanded to include comparisons to similar jobs in the private sector rather than in the broader public sector alone. We would ask that the employer's ability to attract and retain qualified employees replace the reference to an employer's need for qualified employees.
Interest arbitration issues have been long-standing between the province and municipal government. As employers, municipalities need permanent savings in place to compensate for the more than $390 million cut from municipal transfers as a result of the social contract and the expenditure control plan. We need assurances that compensation issues can be negotiated, or at least resolved openly and fairly and with due consideration of the fiscal pressures facing municipal governments. Compensation awards through arbitration that give no consideration to our ability to pay are no longer acceptable.
NOMA urges the committee to recommend that the ability-to-pay provisions under schedule Q be revised to indicate:
(1) That property taxes will not be raised as a result of arbitration awards.
(2) That private sector comparisons are appropriate.
(3) That management retains the right to attract and retain qualified employees as it sees fit.
(4) That negotiated wage settlements in a municipality provide a ceiling for future awards.
(5) That cabinet retains the right to alter and prescribe criteria for consideration and the issues which may or may not be sent to arbitration.
These are items -- they're our items as well, Mr Chair and members of the committee -- that are not included in Bill 26 but which are of great interest to municipal government and which, in our opinion, require action by the government.
There needs to be greater control over police budgets by municipal government. The idea that municipal councillors would willy-nilly decimate police forces is a fiction. It is also a fiction that only police forces know what is needed and that the role of the civil authority is to salute and deliver all that is asked for in terms of financial means on bended knee.
The province has passed legislation removing successor rights to enable it to deal more effectively with its agenda. Municipal government requires the same tool. In a lot of instances the reason that municipal government is saddled with that obligation is because the provincial government led the way and it provided the example.
It is also crucial that supplementary assessment charges be ended.
One suggested amendment in Bill 26 is of great concern to municipal government. Subsection 25.2(13) is to be amended such that municipally elected officials who vote in favour of an act which has an adverse financial impact on another municipality are personally liable for the amount of the adverse impact. The proposed amendment provides that moneys may be recovered by a municipal elector of the municipality or a successor municipality.
NOMA is of the view that this is an unwarranted financial consequence for municipal politicians who exercise their responsibilities in good faith, and we ask that this amendment be deleted.
Municipal government in northwestern Ontario is obligated to be involved in activities beyond what is often considered the normal role of municipal government in some other parts of the province. We, for example, in municipal government are actively involved in the recruitment and retention of health professionals to our region.
We were recently delighted to see the media campaign in which the medical profession has expressed its undying love for northern Ontario and everything about the north, and we in northern communities look forward to the coming flood of health care professionals to our area. In the meantime, we have to share with you that we're highly supportive, as municipal government, of the initiative of government to ensure that there will be some health care professionals in northwestern Ontario.
Many of our members found it very difficult to attempt to deal with such a large volume of material in such a limited amount of time. From very many of my colleagues I did receive the comment that they found it difficult to digest it, to understand it and to provide input to us. They have had a long time to provide input and we certainly have, as municipal government, made representations to a series of governments of all political stripes around this table over the years.
But this particular bill with its complexity coming before municipal councils in December -- and it got to them because we sent it to them -- didn't really give them enough time. They would have preferred, and I bring this forward to you from our membership, an extra month to be able to become more acquainted and to provide a better response for me to provide to you today.
On behalf of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, may I thank you and the members of your committee for coming to Thunder Bay to hear us. It would have been most difficult for us to have attended your hearings in the city of Toronto.
Attached you will find copies of correspondence from those member municipalities which were able in the time frame that they had to submit concrete suggestions to us.
1220
The Chair: Thank you. We have two minutes per caucus for questions, beginning with the government caucus.
Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Power, for your presentation. As you know, I've been a great supporter of municipal government for a long time. It's the closest to the people, it represents the people, and it will continue to do that. I believe that the municipalities in this province are ready to respond to the type of comments and to the type of things that are in this bill to allow you to look after your own municipalities, and certainly there is great diversification in this province.
The municipalities of this province wanted autonomy. AMO pushed it. All the municipalities wanted it. They wanted it over the years. They finally got it. They know they can create and be a strong and vital role in government of this province. There's no doubt about it. I believe that there should be locally driven solutions. I said earlier today, and I mean it, that Geraldton should be able to solve its problems and not have interference.
One of the things that is coming out today is that the minute this bill goes through and we give municipalities the controls that are in here, they are instantly going to start to raise taxes, they are instantly going to put in user fees and this province is going to hell in a hand-basket. How do you respond to that? I don't believe that will happen because the municipal councils of this province are as dedicated -- in many cases more dedicated -- than other levels of government are.
Mr Power: Mr Stewart, it's not my view that municipalities are going to holus-bolus raise taxes. They're going to have a very difficult time holding the line. I put it to you that 1996 is not the year when the crunch will hit, but 1997. At the current moment my council -- I know this city that we're sitting in -- and a number of other councils have brought their budgets down and there are no tax increases. User fees have always been in place in many municipalities for certain services. They will continue to be in place. You may see some increases. That's only justified because the costs of delivering the service go up, and that has been something that has gone on in the past.
I put it to you, from your experience in municipal government as a former warden of Peterborough county and a very long distinguished career there, sir, that municipal government is not going to do things which are not in the best interests of its citizens. Our citizens tell us every single day what they want to see and what they don't want to see, so we know.
Mr Miclash: Michael, again, thank you for your presentation -- always very straightforward; some excellent recommendations as well. I want to go back to the actual drafting of Bill 26, the bill that we're dealing with today. We know -- we've gone over it many times -- how we ended up here in Thunder Bay today, and we're happy about that. I want to ask you, as representing such a large geographical area of Ontario, were you, or do you know of anybody who was, consulted in the actual drafting of this legislation?
Mr Power: Certainly I would have to say to you that we as municipal authorities were consulted about things we would like to see as changes. We never did see a draft of the bill.
Mr Gerretsen: Michael, it's always nice to see a former municipal politician that I spent so many happy years at AMO with. You're very consistent, AMO is very consistent. Just very quickly, though, the problem has been that when the chambers of commerce come in front of us, they say, "We don't want any taxes. We don't want any fees," or "We want you to put the lid on at the province." The province then comes back and says, "We didn't mean head taxes," and the mayor of Mississauga, when she talks about tax gases, "We really didn't want any gasoline taxes" etc. It is your position, is it not, that the municipalities --
Mr Power: Mississauga and northwestern Ontario have nothing in common.
Mr Gerretsen: No, but I'm talking about you wanting all the powers to tax in all these different areas because there may be a possibility somewhere down the line, when the province cuts you back even more, that you may need these powers. That's what it's all about, as long as the people out there understand that you want the powers. You're not going to do it and others aren't going to do it until it's absolutely necessary somewhere down the line to actually utilize some of these powers. Is that not the AMO position?
Mr Power: The AMO position, sir, as you well know, is that municipal government is a responsible level of government, that we can work in partnership with the province and, on many of the things that have been stated, these hypothetical poll taxes are figments of the imagination of people from God knows where. They are not part of the reality of northwestern Ontario.
Mr Gerretsen: They may be elsewhere.
Mr Pouliot: Thank you kindly, Michael. As always, a renewed pleasure for what is -- well, we've become accustomed over the years to a well-prepared and a well-presented, most articulated brief.
With respect, Michael, as a friend and a colleague, Mississauga and northern Ontario have some common ground. They have things in common. They have a doctors problem, for instance. Mississauga has too many and we don't have any. And I could go on and on.
There is a Spanish proverb, and in the literal translation, roughly translated, if you wish, it says, "Don't offer advice, give me money."
I listened intently to your brief, and I too echo the sentiment, having been at the municipal level for a number of years and shared the same table, the same panels, numerous times, both in terms of northwestern Ontario and Thunder Bay municipally.
You see, Michael, with this phenomenon -- the feds are sending less money to the province, the province is sending less money to the municipality -- I'm trying to draw a simple analogy with some validity, a parallel that means something, the following analogue: You give $7 to little Harry and you say to Harry, "Here's $5 to go to the cinema, $1 for the popcorn and $1 for the coke." But now the provincial government is telling Harry, through you: "Here's $4. You can do what you wish, Harry. You don't have to go to the cinema, you don't have to buy popcorn, or you can buy four popcorns, but you're only getting four bucks."
Your brief tells us that. It says, "Give me, give me; give me the capacity, more jurisdiction." But given the diversity, some people have the capacity to do nothing, because there's not much they can tax in their municipality. User fees are not the order of the day because you're going to deter people. They depend on government transfers. They depend on their money coming in to provide essential services.
What's your feeling about the ability in terms of gas taxes? There's only you and I here. The people in Geraldton will not know. Would you, under dire needs, consider taxes like gas taxes? You know, people go to the pump, and heaven knows we pay, but a few cents more per litre for your community? What about head tax?
Mr Power: Would you like to buy a bridge? I have one.
Mr Pouliot: Yes, yes, yes.
Interjection: You bought it.
Mr Pouliot: Michael tried to buy the same bridge twice before.
Michael, one final question here. You're asking for more time, because there's so much to say, yet so little time. The people across here, these people here, were dragged into this. You don't have to say, the screaming and kicking. They didn't want to be in Thunder Bay.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, we're running short of your time. Please put your question quickly.
Mr Pouliot: How confident are you in the next two fiscal years that the majority membership, the majority of the municipalities that you represent, will not raise taxes? Roll the dice, Michael.
Mr Power: I'm not a gambler, as you know, Gilles. Death is certain, that we know, at some point in time, and at some point in the future it's probably fairly certain you will see in some areas of this province tax increases. I would say to you that in northwestern Ontario, from what I'm hearing from my membership, you are not going to see large tax increases, and what you're seeing is a greater consultation with the people in all the communities over what they would like to see done and if they would like to have some services reduced or delivered in a different manner.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Pouliot, we're out of time. Thank you, Mr Power, for coming forward and making your presentation today.
Before we break for lunch, we have a point of privilege, briefly, Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: I just wanted to read into the official record that there are three more groups who've given me copies of their presentations that they wish to make publicly but are unable to do so, so they gave me their written presentations and I'll present them to the clerk. They are the Thunder Bay elementary unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association; the second is the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Thunder Bay district; and officially the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association as well. I wanted to get that on the record.
1230
Interjection: Point of order?
The Chair: Mr Sampson has already asked for a point of privilege.
Mr Sampson: I'm just replying to a point of privilege that was raised earlier this morning with respect to some amendments that were tabled, or alleged to have been tabled, in Kitchener. I was able to confirm that on the health committee, the government side did table some amendments this morning. I would not normally have been aware of it since we are not involved in the health aspects here. I believe they're the same ones that were passed to me by Mr Phillips, but I haven't confirmed that they're the exact amendments. But I'm aware that some amendments have indeed been tabled that, in their view, reflected some level of consistency of the comments that they've been getting, I gather, on their tour.
I can confirm that no non-health items were dealt with, as they wouldn't have been, and I can say that we have been obviously listening, as the government side. As you go through these things, you start to sense where the general directions are and where the consensus of proposed amendments may be heading. We've been having discussions, as anyone would normally have expected us on the government side to do, and we'll bring forward amendments, as they relate to the non-health items, to this committee when we're comfortable that they are properly scoped out and reflect what we've heard without frankly prejudicing those who have yet to speak to us.
Mr Chairman, I just wanted to reply to that point of privilege that was raised by Mr Phillips.
The Chair: Mr Christopherson and then Mr Phillips.
Mr Christopherson: I want to lodge a protest in the strongest possible terms on behalf of our caucus. I accept the fact that Mr Sampson personally did not mislead us, but that's not the issue. The fact of the matter is that you're the government, and you're supposed to know what you're doing. You went on at great length, and we can read the Hansard back later, to explain why there was not a need on the part of the government to present amendments. Now you're reversing yourself, coming up with a lame excuse as to why it's okay for the health committee --
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): No.
Mr Christopherson: No, don't wave it off, Mr Turnbull. The fact of the matter is that you're treating two different committees differently, and right now the people who are in Kitchener making submissions have an advantage over the people in northern Ontario, here in Thunder Bay, because they don't know what your intent is.
You didn't know what was happening this morning. You're still not prepared to table the amendments. We have felt strongly about this from the beginning, and so have the Liberals, and we continue to protest, and I want it formally acknowledged that we protest this type of discriminatory behaviour in terms of the treatment of two different committees. And on a personal level, I suggest that you get your act together.
Mr Gerretsen: Turnbull is a senior member of this government.
The Chair: Mr Phillips, please.
Mr Phillips: I'm sure the public in Thunder Bay sometimes wonder about the whole process, but I think you may now have an idea of what we're dealing with. The government, five minutes into the hearings, said it had amendments. The minister said he was bringing forward two amendments. As a matter of fact, we asked that morning, "All right, table the amendments." We now are several weeks later, they refuse to table any amendments, and now we have the embarrassment of the government saying, at 9 o'clock, "We're not tabling any amendments till all the hearings have taken place, till we hear from everybody," and 15 minutes later, 1,000 kilometres away, the government begins to table amendments.
We're being played like a yo-yo. The opposition is and the public is, and you'll only see what they want you to see. I will say once again to organizations like the chamber, like the fire organizations here, like the poverty groups that we heard from, like the union groups that we've been hearing from, like the board of education that made a presentation today, and the municipalities in northwestern Ontario, we've got a government that is so arrogant, so sure that they know what is best, they keep saying to us: "We won on June 8. That was all the consultation we need" --
Mr Young: No one said that.
Mr Phillips: Yes, indeed.
Mr Gerretsen: You've been saying that in the House a number of times.
The Chair: Mr Phillips has the floor.
Mr Phillips: Now he says, "No one said that." The Premier in the House has said it. He said: "The consultation took place on June 8, and we'll consult eight years or we'll consult five years from now again." You can understand, I think, the anger that we feel, that we're told one thing out of one side of the mouth and then something else comes out of the other side of the government's mouth.
The motion that my colleague Mr Christopherson moved this morning is very much in order. He moved the exact request, that the government now table its amendments, that 15 minutes later, as I say, 1,000 kilometres away from here, 1,500 kilometres, the government began to do.
I think you owe it to the people of Thunder Bay to start to table those amendments, right now, because they're done. They're in somebody's briefcase over there, I guarantee you, if we could look in the briefcases. The amendments have been to cabinet; they've been passed. They're in Mr Turnbull's briefcase. They've probably been discussed with those members across, but the public won't see them. You'll see them perhaps at 9 o'clock on Monday morning when the train runs through the Legislature.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Phillips. The committee will now recess until 1:05.
The subcommittee recessed from 1236 to 1318.
SOUTH NEEBING COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
The Chair: I believe we have representatives from the South Neebing Community Organization before us; Mr Greg Laws. Mr Laws, you have half an hour this afternoon to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation to entertain questions from the three caucuses. I assure you, they will be along right away. I'd appreciate it if you'd take some time at the beginning of your presentation to, for the benefit of Hansard and committee members, introduce yourself and repronounce the organization that you represent.
Mr Greg Laws: My name is Greg Laws, and I am the chair of the South Neebing Community Organization. The South Neebing Community Organization is pleased to present its comments on Bill 26. It is unfortunate that the community centres, as well as arenas, parks and homes for the aged, will be negatively impacted by the new user fees which may come as a result of Bill 26. These fees, brought in by municipalities taking advantage of their new powers, will also restrict access to recreation to those who can afford it. It is also unfortunate that this committee will be unable to talk with the many users of these facilities.
Thus, while commenting on Bill 26, we believe it is important to acquaint you with some of those many users of our and other Thunder Bay community recreation facilities. Our slide show will present you with a variety of images of users, volunteers and others who help make community recreation a reality. Bill 26 is much more than "An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings" etc; it is an all-out attack on the quality of life enjoyed by all people in Ontario.
With that, I'll start at the slide projector.
The South Neebing Community Centre has existed for many years. The building in its current form was opened in June, 1966. That's it right there. Prior to that, another building nearby had served the community in a similar way. Through many expansions, renovations and upgradings since 1966, the South Neebing Community Centre has survived from generation to generation on the strong support of local volunteers. The South Neebing Community Organization administers the use of the community centre and nearby grounds and participates as well in the Thunder Bay Community Centre Council.
Today, the South Neebing Community Centre serves an ever-expanding client base. It is rented out for a variety of special events and provides a base of operations for one of the many teen outreach programs in the city. There is nothing unique really about the South Neebing Community Centre; it is very similar to the 13 other community centres in Thunder Bay.
Of most concern to the South Neebing Community Organization is that with the changes proposed in Bill 26, municipalities are likely to begin to charge new user fees for access to community centres and other facilities that we already pay for in property taxes.
Community centres are not likely to be the only facilities affected by public sector restructuring. Hospitals, public utilities such as Thunder Bay Hydro or Thunder Bay Telephone, and even whole municipalities can and may be restructured using the powers of Bill 26. This from a political party that had promised us less government.
Our comments today do go beyond schedule M of Bill 26, which amends 13 statutes related to municipalities. Clearly, many of the schedules or sections of the bill will have a negative impact of the sense of community and quality of life in Ontario.
A sense of community and appreciation for Ontario's quality of life is sadly lacking in Bill 26. The bill attempts to reduce us all to numbers -- cuts to services, cuts to staff, and cuts to other numbers, so that we all forget the faces behind these dramatic changes.
Well, we're here to remind you that the numbers have faces and names and families.
Community: a place of "joint participation, sharing or ownership," according to one's dictionary. Bill 26 will reduce or negate our ability to participate in, share opinions on or take ownership of decisions made in our municipalities.
For example, this government has talked a lot about the value of referenda in deciding where or whether casinos are built. Yet, Bill 26 removes provisions for referenda by municipalities on the privatization of hydroelectric utilities, water systems and sewage treatment.
To help others understand Bill 26, I think everyone needs to know some of the underlying ideology on which it appears to be based. This ideology can perhaps be summarized by, but is not limited to, the following three false assumptions:
(1) Debt is bad.
(2) Governments are bad.
(3) Special interest groups are bad.
Each of these false assumptions also contains its own contradictions.
False assumption 1: Debt is bad. If this is true, why is the government cutting $6 billion out of our spending and then turning around and giving perhaps $6 billion, some estimates have $10 billion, in income tax cuts?
The Toronto Star calculated that the $6-billion tax cut proposed would mean approximately $1,150 in new charges per taxpayer. Thus, there will be no benefits from a tax cut to those earning approximately $40,000 a year or less. In fact, these people can expect to pay more in new fees than the value of the tax cut. People with incomes of $70,000 or above begin to see net savings of $1,620 or more per year. What this might pay for is anyone's guess. Perhaps a membership at the country club of their choice.
Furthermore, if debt is bad for a province, why is it good for a province to download its services and expenses to those municipal partners? This in turn just causes municipalities to either cut back their services offered, reduce capital spending and possibly increase their municipal debt load, or turn around and dig deeper for revenues in the form of user fees, property taxes etc, which in turn takes money out of our pockets and might increase our personal debt load.
The final example: Lastly, why do major multinational corporations carry long-term debt? For example, in 1995, Inco carried $9.22 billion in long-term debt and Bell Canada had $11.734 billion in debt. If successful companies such as these can manage their debt loads on a long-term basis, surely a government with a multitude of experts should be able to do so, especially if communities and quality of life are at stake.
The second false assumption was that governments in general are bad for people. The Mike Harris government has already announced grant reductions to municipalities in the order of 50%. In Bill 26, it also wants to grant the ministers more power to restructure municipalities without legislative change or public input. One hand seems to want to pass the buck and the other hand wants to take control. We have to ask, why aren't communities and citizens recognized as important contributors to the job of governing? Why is a sleep-over at Queen's Park required to get the minimal amount of time that we have today for public input on Bill 26? In some cases, it appears this assumption may be true after all.
False assumption number 3 is that special interest groups are bad. Yet if this is true, why does the Mike Harris government seem so enamoured with the chamber of commerce view and the Empire Club in Toronto? Why is it that the economic élites are the ones to benefit most from the proposed tax cuts? How can cuts of 22% to welfare cheques be justified in the face of changes proposed in Bill 26?
Any government which fails to consult the people most affected by its proposals is morally bankrupt. Bill 26 hearings would not have been possible without the combined efforts of our two opposition parties. Yet what have we really gained in this process? Some constructive criticisms, maybe a few new ideas, maybe some slightly biased opinions, but has respect for the electorate been fostered? Has the Mike Harris government really been listening?
The unlikelihood that this government is listening makes Bill 26 a very scary piece of legislation. It means that communities are up for grabs and our quality of life in Ontario is optional. It also means reduced access to services, joblessness and poverty which will continue or increase, increased or new user fees for municipal services, concentration of power into the hands of provincial ministers, increased uncertainty, lower consumer spending and so much more, as has been presented to you by many other groups.
If we were to list our recommendations individually, it would imply that they could be counted, and there are probably other sections of the bill that should concern us that we haven't learned about yet. However, in a general, omnibus sense, the thrust of our presentation has been to ask only one question and to try to answer it:
Is the forsaking of communities and the quality of life worth the savings to be extracted in Bill 26?
Our answer is a resounding no.
I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present this presentation and the city of Thunder Bay, the recreation division, for its help with the slides. I believe there are a few more to go and perhaps we can wait till that's over and then I'd be happy to answer any questions.
1330
Slide presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Laws. We have four minutes per caucus for questions.
Mr Gravelle: Thanks very much, Greg, for your presentation. You made some really good points and I'm certainly grateful that you made the link that probably needs to be made more often: that ultimately in terms of the tax cut, one of the measures in Bill 26 is going to force user fees upon people, which is in essence downloading on municipalities.
It's particularly good to have someone representing a community centre such as yours, because probably not often enough do we hear from people who are literally on the ground, so to speak. That's one of the questions I want to ask you. The people served at the community centre, I'm sure, haven't had a chance, many of them, to look at the bill in any great depth. That's been one of our concerns with the short time frame. At what point do the potential user fees on the services you provide have an impact where you're no longer able to be the centre people expect? Tell us something about the clientele you serve, if you would, and who they are in south Neebing area.
Mr Laws: The community centre now serves an area which is the southwest corner of the city of Thunder Bay, approximately 2,500 households, perhaps 5,000 to 6,000 people. A lot of new and younger families are moving to that area. There continues to be a higher number of new homes going in there, a whole new subdivision going in in several different places and a new school as well, so it's growing again.
The problems we face as a community centre -- it's an older building, as I mentioned, 1966. It seems like the people moving out to that area maintain their connections in a lot of cases to the inner city area and they come in and bring their children, so we don't always get as much use as we could out of our community centre. It's probably underutilized at this point.
Mr Gravelle: Obviously, you won't be able to fully utilize it if the situation occurs where you've got to increase the cost to keep it going, let alone capital improvements, which I presume are way down the line.
Mr Laws: Yes. I will be making a capital request for the community centre next year, to the community centre council, to do some upgrading. But this fall, prior to the city's budget discussions, there were at least three aldermen who expressed an interest in making community centres pay for all their utilities. That's something we don't do right now. We don't pay for our heat and light. If that came to pass in the 1997 budget for the city of Thunder Bay, we would probably be forced to close the doors right then. Some of the community centres could perhaps pay their own way for heat and light. Some of the larger centres have catering out of their community centre and in that way they may be able to function, but we don't have that luxury.
Mr Phillips: I have a short question along the lines of what my colleague just talked about in the fees. The government has struck a deal with the municipalities. They cut their transfer payments, then they said, "In return for that, we'll give you the right to impose" -- it's called unlimited flexibility. They have to do it somewhere and they will do it somewhere. One mayor said it's his intention to put a user fee on library use, to increase user fees on skating rinks, on recreational facilities. Then he went on to say, "Don't worry, we'll find corporate sponsors for underprivileged children to use the library, to use our recreation centres." The minister, Mr Leach, said he's very supportive of that.
I'd like to get an opinion from somebody like you who deals with young people on a consistent basis. What kind of community are we heading towards if a young person whose family does not have resources has got to find a corporate sponsor in order to use a library? What kind of Ontario do you think we're heading towards?
Mr Laws: Certainly not the one I grew up in. It's a tough sell. Corporations should have some responsibility to their community. But when we were faced with the budget cuts in the city of Thunder Bay, for example, we advertised in our last newsletter that perhaps corporations or local companies would like to take on and sponsor the production of our community newsletter which comes out once a month. We had one response. If that's the level of interest of companies and corporations, we're in real trouble. Community centres will be optional, will be available for people who are able to pay that new fee.
Mr Hampton: I want to ask some questions that in one sense come out of the questions just asked. Thunder Bay, as a city, has gone through some ups and downs. You had a pulp mill close here. The harbour and the grain operations don't employ as many people as they used to and don't employ them as long-term as they used to. Looking ahead, say, four or five years and looking back over the last 10 years, do you think the need for the kinds of community services and supports your community centre has provided is going to go down or up?
Mr Laws: Certainly, the need is there. Again, south Neebing is an isolated part of the city; it's a fair ways out of town and it can take 20 minutes to drive to the centre of the city. The biggest area of concern is the teen population. Vandalism has increased, and other things are happening that just indicate they have nowhere else to go. There is no mall out there for them to hang out in. There are no other options in terms of recreation. The new school is being built almost directly across from the community centre, but that's not going to be a hangout either. They tend to congregate in that area, yet there's not the programming available for them.
1340
You mentioned commercial assessment as well, and I just wanted to touch on that. The city of Thunder Bay's commercial assessment is down approximately $8 million from 1993. This continues to put pressure on the property taxpayers, that to pay for the same level of service, more money's going to have to come out of property taxes.
Mr Hampton: If the kind of community centre you have can't operate in this new fiscal reality the government wants to create in the province, what do you think happens to those kids? What happens to the people who rely on that community centre?
Mr Laws: They end up being ignored, and they will not necessarily turn their attention to constructive use. They may be motivated to do other things along the lines of vandalism. We had one incident this summer, supposedly something like a swarming incident, involving a number of youths. Simply put, time on their hands is going to be a problem. We need to program more at our community centre and we need to make it more accessible to those people. At the same time, we're looking at a city council that perhaps is saying to us, "You're going to have to pay your own heat and light as well." That makes it very difficult for us.
Mr Young: There are a couple of statements in your presentation that I agree with; I don't agree with your conclusions. But a couple of points are very important to look at. You say that Bill 26 means: "reduced access to services; joblessness and poverty will continue to increase; increased or new user fees for municipal services; increased uncertainty; lower consumer spending." If we don't get our debt under control, which now takes 17 cents of every dollar of revenue in the province, that's what is going to drive all those things, that's what's going to make all those things happen. And that's what Bill 26 is designed to do: help get our debt under control.
You say debt is not bad. There are times when governments borrow money for infrastructure when they absolutely have to, and if they have a way and a will to pay it back, I understand that, but governments have not been particularly good at doing that. When you hit 17 cents of government revenues to pay just in interest, debt becomes very bad.
You ask the question, why is the government cutting $6 billion out of spending for revenue? The government's not cutting the money out of the economy. The money stays in the economy, but it goes into the consumers' hands and the workers' hands. The 87% of the population who make under $50,000 a year will get more money. That money will stay in our economy -- it's not as if it flies away -- and that will be the largest job creation program in the history of Ontario. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr Laws: It stays in their hands up until the point that a municipality or other body is forced to charge them for some other recreational activity or charge them for membership in their community centre etc. That will go back into the economy, sure enough, but will it generate any new jobs? I don't see that working. The community centre, in our case, is mostly volunteer-based. We're not going to go out and hire new staff based on any tax cuts.
Mr Young: Do you understand that Bill 26 is designed to let municipalities downsize or contract out or amalgamate or do whatever they have to do to reduce the operating cost of government so they don't increase taxes and create new user fees? That's what it's designed to do and what we believe it will do.
Mr Laws: I understand that. We're also, in one way, fortunate in Thunder Bay in that the municipal phone company is still municipally owned. That's what really saved us this year in terms of property taxes, because $3.5 million of profit from that municipal phone company is going to go back into the city's portion of its shortfall and is going to cover that shortfall. It means the property taxes for 1996 will stay at roughly zero assessment. But I don't think a lot of other cities have that ability to dodge the bullet.
Mr Young: Another comment you made here is, "Why is it good for a province to download its services and expenses to its municipal partners?" With respect to the previous government and the previous Liberal government, that is exactly how we got into this mess. They handed down to their funding partners, without giving them money to pay for it, junior kindergarten, heritage language classes, court security, higher general welfare payments, the employer health tax, the commercial concentration tax. This is how we got into this mess in the first place. We are saying we can't afford certain things any more. We're giving the municipalities tools to do the same thing we're doing and lead by example. That's how we can preserve the services to your client.
The Chair: Mr Young, you're going to have to leave that statement as a statement because we've run out of time. I want to thank you, Mr Laws, for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
TOWNSHIP OF RED LAKE
The Chair: Would Pat Sayeau please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Sayeau, and thank you for coming today to appear before our committee. You have a half-hour this afternoon to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourself and your organization at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.
Mr Patrick Sayeau: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the panel. My name is Patrick Sayeau. I'm a municipal councillor on the township of Red Lake council and actually I'm appearing here today as a representative of my colleagues on the township council. The brief that you have in front of you has been signed by all of them.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here to make a few brief comments on behalf of myself and my colleagues on the council of the corporation of the township of Red Lake.
I would also like to say, just before beginning, that Red Lake is about 500 miles from Geraldton, and Michael Power and I did not speak to each other, coincidental as it may seem, while our briefs or presentations were being prepared. As I listened to Michael's brief, I thought that he was reading some parts of mine, but I suppose that stands to reason because the township of Red Lake is a member of NOMA, the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, and also a member of AMO, and in some ways we're both reinforcing the voice of our umbrella organizations.
During the last few years it has become blatantly obvious that the public mood will not tolerate further increases. Of the three levels of government -- federal, provincial, municipal -- the elected municipal councillors live closest to the electorate. We do business, socialize and interchange on a daily basis. The message is clear: No more taxes. And the public is right. I don't believe that we have a revenue problem in our municipalities, we have a spending problem.
The township of Red Lake has addressed its municipal spending problem. In the last six years we have delivered four years with zero tax increases, followed by two consecutive years of 5% reductions in municipal taxes. We are pleased to see that the province of Ontario is starting to address the provincial spending problem. Bill 26 is central to that process.
The province of Ontario spends $1 million per hour more than it receives in revenue. The consolidated provincial debt is approaching $100 billion. The province is spending close to $9 billion per year just on interest costs to service the debt. Clearly, the provincial spending problem must be addressed with haste and without delay. With numbers like those mentioned, every day counts and every hour costs an extra $1 million.
This bill, Bill 26, was presented for passage on November 29, 1995. The hearings on the bill began on December 18, 1995. It will not come back before the Legislature until January 29, 1996. At 24 hours a day, 43 days taken for these hearings, the government of Ontario has committed and will spend an additional $1.032 billion in uncontrolled provincial spending in addition to the actual cost of the hearings. That's not to say, of course, that the people shouldn't be heard. That's not the point that I'm trying to make.
Clearly, the rate of provincial expenditure must be controlled. Our comments will address briefly a few of the measures outlined in Bill 26 to control expenditures by restructuring government activities.
It is not unexpected that municipalities will receive a reduction of some $700 million in provincial support over two years. However, we still believe that Bill 26 represents the provincial response which will enable the township of Red Lake and other municipalities to deal with and react to provincial funding reductions without increases in municipal taxes.
1350
A few comments on schedule M: Restructuring of municipalities with the ability to combine townships and add adjoining unorganized areas to the new structure without the cost and expense of the present annexation system is welcomed.
Changes to the Municipal Act: New section 25.2 provides the mechanism of a ministerial order in response to a local proposal to restructure which has the prescribed degree of local support. This prescribed degree of local support will be established by regulations. This section clearly provides the means by which municipalities may restructure voluntarily, based on a prescribed degree of local support, without the present expense and delay of OMB hearings, often initiated by small minorities. One can never expect 100% support for structural changes, and no doubt the prescribed degree of local support required by the regulations will recognize this impossibility.
Other changes to the Municipal Act: New section 25.3 also provides a mechanism whereby a commission may be appointed to initiate and facilitate a restructuring process of municipalities. Section 25.3 is an important supportive mechanism for municipal restructuring. In our situation, the township of Red Lake, we have suggested, hinted at and even proposed some restructuring with other municipal jurisdictions and the adjoining unorganized area within the local planning area. However, when minority groups and vested interests threaten Ontario Municipal Board hearings, local elected municipal officials, such as myself, who have businesses to run in the community, have little stomach for a prolonged, expensive and little understood process with only a 50% chance of a win result.
The support of the provincial partner in recognizing the need and providing an efficient mechanism for structural change in some geographical areas is required.
The Ontario municipal support grant: The township of Red Lake endorses the comments of AMO regarding the new Ontario Municipal Support Grants Act. Autonomy for expenditures funded under the act is substantial. We believe that is the intent of the legislation. Block funding, by definition, should come with no strings attached.
Section 3 of the act provides for regulations that can be used to create strings. We recognize that the province has a responsibility to set and monitor provincial standards and to monitor the performance of its transfer payment partners. We understand that the minister intends to set standards based on clearly articulated provincial priorities and to develop performance indicators in consultation with AMO and other key municipal parties. We believe AMO input is essential, but we have some concerns over the potential for excessive regulation over the longer term.
As more municipal funding is collapsed into municipal support grants in the future, there may be an inclination to restrict local decisions on how this money is spent. That would contravene the intent of the legislation as we understand it. We support the AMO recommendation that the Ontario municipal support grants legislation clearly establish the autonomy of municipalities to manage funding in a manner that is consistent with local needs and priorities, mindful of clearly defined provincial interests.
Schedule Q: Schedule Q of the bill sets out amendments to the Fire Departments Act, the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, the Police Services Act, the Public Service Act, and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act with respect to arbitration. Most important, the amendments require arbitrators for these acts to consider a municipality's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.
We endorse the position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in recommending that this section be clarified and strengthened by requiring consideration of the ability to pay without additional cost to property taxpayers.
Recent arbitration results, such as the District of Kenora Home for the Aged, Pinecrest, also suggest that serious consideration should be given to making this section of the act retroactive.
On November 28, an arbitration award was given in an arbitration between the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Kenora district home for the aged, Pinecrest. Among other things, the arbitration awarded a wage increase of $2.36 per hour on all classifications, or, in other words, an average 18% in wages over the four years covered by the award. The retroactive portion of the award is approximately $1.8 million. The yearly operational cost is estimated to exceed $600,000, or 10% of the present operational budget at Pinecrest.
To pay the retroactive portion of the award will require the complete expenditure of a capital fund that the municipalities have built up over the last eight to 10 years to fund renovations at the Pinecrest Home. Funding the ongoing yearly costs would mean an 84% increase in the amounts taken from the municipalities if the full impact of this increase were passed on. Pinecrest is currently struggling to cut 10% to 12% from its budget to avoid this result, a process that will result, at the very least, in significant job loss and, at worst, will drive the level of service to the residents to an all-time low.
In this province, there are three sources of funding of homes for the aged: the Ministry of Health, the municipalities and the residents themselves. There is a legislative cap on funding from both the Ministry of Health and the residents, leaving the municipalities as the only funding source for any increases in costs such as an arbitration award. In addition to this, the Ministry of Health is considering a reduction in its contribution to homes that are red-circled. The Kenora district home for the aged, supported by 13 municipalities, my municipality of Red Lake among them, is under serious funding pressure and it would not be overstating the situation to say that the recent arbitration award, in combination with reduced Ministry of Health funding, puts Pinecrest's future in jeopardy. Pinecrest is not the only home facing this dilemma.
Schedule Q of Bill 26 lays out some issues that arbitrators must consider when handing down their awards. We applaud those particularly as they apply to an employer's ability to pay, and we truly wish that they had been in place prior to the award just described. We recommend that the government consider a retroactive clause to encompass awards made since the intent and extent of the government's economic program was delivered to municipalities at the AMO conference in August 1995. The message was clear at that time.
The township of Red Lake is not in any position to absorb any increases in levies from homes for the aged, no matter what the reason for the increased levy. Additionally, we recognize that AMO has requested that an amendment respecting wage comparisons be expanded to include comparison to similar jobs in the private sector, rather than in the broader public sector alone.
We have also asked that the employer's "ability to attract and retain qualified employees" replace the reference to an employer's "need" for qualified employees. Collective bargaining and any resulting arbitration that we at the municipality of Red Lake deal with is not specifically covered under any of the acts named in schedule Q, but I think I've demonstrated how we've become the recipients of the result. Therefore, we strongly support AMO's recommendation to add an amendment that gives cabinet the ability to implement regulations for additional criteria that an arbitration board must consider.
These interest arbitration issues have been long-standing between the province and municipal governments. AMO has worked very hard to keep these issues on the provincial-municipal agenda. As employers, municipalities need permanent savings in place to compensate for the more than $390 million cut through municipal transfers as a result of the social contract and the expenditure control plan. The township of Red Lake needs assurances that compensation issues can be negotiated, or at least resolved openly and fairly, with due consideration to the fiscal pressures facing municipal governments. Compensation awards through arbitration that give no consideration to ability to pay are no longer acceptable.
1400
The township of Red Lake supports the AMO recommendation that the ability-to-pay provisions under schedule Q be revised to indicate: that property taxes will not be raised as a result of arbitration awards; that private sector comparisons are appropriate; that management retains the right to attract and retain qualified employees as it sees fit; that negotiated wage settlements in a municipality provide a ceiling for future awards; and that cabinet retains the right to alter and prescribe criteria for consideration and the issues which may or may not be sent to arbitration.
There are other sections of Bill 26 that are important to the township of Red Lake in other ways.
Schedule H, amendments to the Health Insurance Act and the Health Care Accessibility Act: This section of the bill provides the tools to manage the supply and distribution of physicians in order to ensure physicians are practising where they are needed, and improve access to medical services.
The Red Lake area has been in need of a sixth physician for over a year. Additionally, the only surgeon has announced his intention to retire in a matter of months. The retirement of the surgeon will leave 6,000 to 7,000 area residents without local access to basic medical services enjoyed in other areas of the province.
In the meantime, the basic skills required to serve our residents are becoming more and more concentrated in the large urban areas of the province. Hospital operating rooms are expensive to develop, equip and staff. In some areas of the province they are overbooked weeks in advance, while in Red Lake hospital the same expensive facility may sit unused for lack of a surgeon's skills.
Schedule H will provide a mechanism to ensure physicians, trained at public expense, are practising where they are needed, in Red Lake and other remote rural areas of the province.
This schedule also provides the government with the ability to pay for physicians' services based on factors such as geographic area as further enticement for improving access to medical services.
We approve and endorse the intent of schedule H as we believe the potential exists to address the continuing problem of recruiting physicians for northern areas.
Finally, schedule N, Amendments to Certain Acts Administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Implementation of this schedule will reduce the number and type of activities for which land use permits issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources are required.
At the present time, the public works superintendent of the township of Red Lake must apply and wait for a land use permit from the MNR before beginning work to thaw a frozen culvert or beginning work on a road reconstruction and resurfacing project. The superintendent must wait for a provincial civil servant to issue a work permit for necessary and essential work approved and paid for by an elected municipal council.
This has long been an issue of contention for our municipal council and is seen as unnecessary and unwarranted duplication of services at best. Reports suggest that MNR currently issues approximately 54,600 permits annually at a cost of $3.5 million. Implementation of schedule N will mean that as few as 5,000 permits will be issued.
We applaud and endorse the intent and purpose of schedule N which will remove unnecessary administrative work for our municipal employees and result in provincial savings of up to $3 million over two years.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee on behalf of the township of Red Lake for the opportunity to appear here today, and although I'm not an expert on Bill 26, I do look forward to answering any questions.
The Chair: We have just a little more than three minutes per caucus for questions. We start off with a member of the third party.
Mr Pouliot: I remember vividly -- and I say this as an anecdote -- during the four years and nine months that we were the government I had four different ministries, including Transportation and Northern Development. I recall, it could have been yesterday, how your township -- with high respect of course, in other words, and why not -- was always calling for a few dollars more.
Mr Sayeau: Of course. That's our job.
Mr Pouliot: That's right, because the money was there. But it seems that on the road to Damascus there's been a conversion.
Mr Sayeau: Not at all.
Mr Pouliot: Mr Sayeau, the social contract will end on March 31, two and a half months from today; 850,000 people across the province will come calling. Some of them will be in Red Lake and you're the spokesperson for Red Lake. You will not raise taxes. The police people providing essential services, your fire department, no less an essential service, Harry Smith the snowplow operator, Jane Jones the day care centre operator -- what are you going to tell them when the social contract ends and they come to negotiate and they would warrant some reconciliation?
They're not getting any more money. You're getting far less money this year and the year after, and who knows in the third year? Those people have been under restraint for the past three years by way of the social contract. What are you going to tell them? Because they're coming in March, sir.
Mr Sayeau: First of all, in response to the comment that there may have been a conversion on the road to Damascus, my standard answer to that question is that as a municipal councillor I'm obligated to take every nickel that I can get from every provincial grant that's available. The provincial government's job is to make sure that it's not available. So I don't think there's been a great conversion.
Mr Pouliot: You're so honestly dishonest.
Mr Sayeau: As far as what we will tell our employees when they come at the end of the social contract: We will negotiate in good faith with our employees and hope to achieve the necessary understandings that will result in us being able to absorb the transfer cuts that we've been given and deal with them in a financially responsible manner without a deficit budget.
Mr Stewart: Mr Sayeau, it's interesting to note that municipalities, and yours included, over the last couple or three years have had a zero increase in taxes, and yet the previous governments, the last two, have raised theirs I think in one case 32 times and the other 33 times, and yet they're suggesting that you people do not have the ability to operate your municipalities in an efficient manner. I have real difficulty with that.
Restructuring, something I've been very involved with: There are approximately 829 municipalities in the province of Ontario. All have clerks, all have staff, all have roads, all have tractors, all have graders, all have everything.
Mr Sayeau: Boys have to have their toys.
Mr Stewart: Absolutely. Do you think that there is enough teeth in this bill, in not an intimidating way, to get the municipalities in this province to restructure? I believe that economics are going to force restructuring in this province. Do you feel that what's in that bill will allow the people to do it but yet be locally driven?
Mr Sayeau: I think that it's a great start. What doesn't cease to amaze me, as I travel and meet municipal colleagues from other municipalities, is the tremendous sense of challenge that I'm seeing among municipal councillors, reeves from all over the province. Everybody realizes that the crunch is on.
In our area, when we knew that there were cuts coming and we were warned that they would be in the neighbourhood of 20%, we planned a worst-case scenario to address that and there was not a single councillor who talked in terms of tax increases. Everybody talked in terms of, "How are we going to do this better, simpler, cheaper, more effective, more efficient?" and that's the feeling I'm starting to get from my municipal colleagues all over, because the days of municipal tax increases, you just don't see them any more in our area of the woods.
1410
Mr Stewart: But it appears upper levels of government, as has been shown in the past, can raise them. It doesn't seem to have -- they don't want to be very efficient at all and I think that's what we now have to address by these types of tools, to get on with putting the province back into an efficient basis.
Mr Sayeau: Well, then do your job.
Mr Miclash: Thank you for your presentation as well, Pat.
I have to say that I was a little bit surprised at your statement regarding the cost of the hearings and I must say, as a member representing a northern riding, I worked very hard to get these hearings to come and listen to the views of people such as yourself, the views of health care professionals across northern Ontario and not only for that, but for them to get to see the area as well. We don't have any members on the government side representing northern Ontario and we must remember that. I was very, very happy to get the committees to travel throughout northern Ontario and, as I say, was quite surprised by your comment.
Mr Sayeau, in terms of health care, you mentioned about the home for the aged relying on the Minister of Health for funding to go into its operations. We know that health care throughout the north relies heavily on recruitment of physicians, health care professionals, into the north.
In terms of weighing the importance to the people we service throughout northwestern Ontario, do you think a 30% tax reduction or the guarantee of retaining their health care is more important to the people in northwestern Ontario?
Mr Sayeau: First of all, I thought I'd clarified that the comments regarding the cost of the hearings were not intended as any criticism of the process, because I do really believe in the process.
Mr Miclash: Thank you.
Mr Sayeau: I was just trying to illustrate the fact that over what is relatively a short period of time, as a matter of fact, during the half hour that I'm sitting here, the province is going another $500,000 in debt. It's another way of looking at it.
But in answer to your question concerning the personal income tax cuts, I think those personal income tax -- and again, you're forcing me to speak as an individual rather than as a member of council, and you must remember that my answer is going to be as an individual.
The potential for stimulus, I believe, is significant and I think it can benefit municipalities in a number of ways. For every verandah that's added, for every fence that's built, for every basement that's converted, for every addition that's added to the home, there's a potential for an increase in assessment.
It's amazing to me how small increases in assessment in a municipality translate into tax revenue. So I think there's a lot of hysteria surrounding the bill and a lot of hysteria surrounding what's going to happen with the tax cuts. I think that they'll be stimulus more than detrimental.
Mr Phillips: I'll just follow up briefly on that because you make mention of managing the finances well, and I think we understand that quite well. The last time a Conservative government ever balanced the budget in this province was 1969. The idea that the Conservatives could manage the finances is a fallacy frankly, and so I take no lessons from them at all.
The province's financial plan is this: They're going to cut $8 billion of spending. You've already been hit fairly hard. Of that, $5 billion goes not to what you want it to go to, I gather, which is reduce the deficit, stop paying all these interest payments; it goes right out the door in the form of a tax break. So it doesn't answer what you think is a fundamental here, which is to reduce our deficit. In fact, this little chart shows that $2 billion of it goes to people making more than $85,000.
The reason I've raised this question is because, as you're going to be forced to deal with reduction of services or adding fees, is it the -- am I interpreting you right, that the Red Lake group supports this use of the money? In other words, a $5-billion tax break, $2 billion of it going to people making more than $85,000, in order to, I guess, make the government look good in the eyes of their supporters, but in the end the municipalities, I think, are paying the price of this. Is that how we reduce our deficit/debt interest payments, by dividending $5 billion, 40% of it going to people making more than $85,000? Is that what you're supporting?
Mr Sayeau: Again, if you'll refer to my brief, which was presented on behalf of the township of Red Lake, that particular issue was not addressed.
Mr Phillips: But the $1 million an hour was.
Mr Sayeau: The $1 million an hour was, absolutely.
Mr Pouliot: Half a million on your account.
Mr Sayeau: Right. I think the two go hand in hand.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sayeau. We've come to the end of your time for presentation. Thank you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.
LAKEHEAD REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
The Chair: May I please have representatives from the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority come forward. Good afternoon and thank you for coming today to appear before the committee. You have one half-hour this afternoon to make your presentation. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if you'd take some time at the beginning to introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard and committee members.
Mr Rick Potter: Rick Potter, chairman of the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. With me this afternoon is Mervi Henttonen, our general manager and secretary-treasurer. On behalf of the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with committee members about our comments, concerns and proposals regarding Bill 26.
Firstly, I am here today as chairman of the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. I've been an authority member for 10 years as a provincial, city of Thunder Bay and, currently, an Oliver township representative. I have been chairman since 1988 and have been involved in various capacities with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. In point of fact, I have worked for and been associated with conservation authorities throughout the province for over 30 years.
During my tenure I have seen many changes fiscally and philosophically in the conservation authorities program, but I can honestly say that these have been managed by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority efficiently, professionally and always with continued quality service to our watershed residents.
During my address to the committee I wish to discuss specific sections of the proposed legislation as it affects the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority in particular and the 30 conservation authorities across Ontario in general. I will also be outlining the serious implications for the environment and future generations that will certainly result from these changes.
To begin, I would like to provide a brief synopsis of the mandate, programs, and achievements of the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. This will help provide a context for more specific remarks later on.
The mandate of a conservation authority is to conserve, restore, develop and manage natural resources on a watershed basis, which includes protecting people from flooding and erosion. These are the essential reasons that inspire conservationists and, ironically, a somewhat visionary Conservative provincial government to establish conservation authorities by the Conservation Authorities Act in 1946.
I submit that the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority since 1954 and conservation authorities throughout the province in the last 50 years have served the province extremely well. Considerable effort and capital were expended initially to protect existing developments from flood and erosion risks, that is, looking after mistakes prior to having a conservation authority.
In the Lakehead region our largest capital project to date has been the construction of the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway. Chronic flooding plagued the floodplain lands adjacent to the Neebing and McIntyre rivers in the intercity area of Thunder Bay. Construction of the floodway, completed in 1984 at a cost of $15 million, now protects this area from flooding. Millions of dollars of commercial development have now been made possible in formerly flood-prone lands.
Another major capital project was erosion protection along the Kam River. Bluffs along the river were stabilized to protect existing homes, roadways and utilities.
The major, and some of the minor flood and erosion problems have been resolved, although many minor problems still have not been addressed. Complementary to the remedial work, preventive programs have been in place for several years now to keep new problems from developing.
1420
The dual goals of conservation and flood reduction are interconnected. Major capital projects are conspicuous forms of flood and erosion control. However, the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority uses many of its "conservation" programs to help lessen the flood/erosion risk.
Concrete is not the solution to conservation. For example, the authority, in an extremely proactive manner, regulates and reviews development near watercourses to ensure new construction does not put life and property in danger of flooding and will not impact on the watercourses and other property owners. Our flood forecasting system monitors the flood risks and puts into action an emergency plan to warn people in flood-prone areas.
This authority manages 2,500 hectares, or 6,000 acres, of conservation lands. While most people know these areas as great places for hiking, field trips and nature viewing, they also play a crucial role in flood control. Properties in headwater areas, such as Mills Block and Williams Agreement Forest, as well as other forested properties, such as Wishart and Hazelwood Lake conservation areas, hold back water and help to moderate stream flows. Still other lands, such as along McVicar Creek and the Kaministiquia River, are owned chiefly for flood and erosion control purposes.
Conservation lands are assets for many other reasons. They provide much-needed recreation opportunities for residents as well as tourists. They're used as sites for field trips and conservation education by schools, scouts, seniors and other groups. Our usage is doubling and tripling on an annual basis.
Many people from southern Ontario, and this may include some of the honourable members here today, view northern Ontario as an expansive wilderness of forest dotted by a myriad of lakes and rivers, with a million places to enjoy recreation. This idyllic perception may be true in some areas, but sadly not in the Lakehead region. Much of the forested land in our jurisdiction is privately owned; cottages line the shores of most inland lakes and much of Lake Superior's shore. In all the great outdoors near Thunder Bay there are very few locations where the general public can access the abundant natural beauty of northern Ontario. We are unfortunately not that much different from southern Ontario in this regard.
Fortunately, there are conservation lands owned by the authority. Along the 200 kilometres of Lake Superior shoreline in our jurisdiction, we offer five access points to Lake Superior, including two boat launches. Public usage of these 200 hectares of waterfront increases dramatically each year. We also have a 270-hectare parcel of undeveloped land which can be used to meet future access needs. Before we started this there was not access between Minnesota and 60 miles north of here.
Our watershed management responsibilities include services to municipalities in the form of planning advice, correcting flood and erosion problems and dealing with issues that cross, and I repeat "cross," municipal boundaries. We provide these services in a cost-efficient and professional manner.
Our per capita cost to the province was $3.68 in 1995. In Ontario conservation authorities served 9.3 million residents at a per capita cost of $3.60. We maintain that this relatively small investment in the environment is more than recovered by direct and indirect benefits to the environment and economy. However, the government seems to place very little value on the environment, as witnessed by the proposed changes contained in Bill 26, and the announced halving of the province's per capita contribution to $1.83 in 1996.
Scope of the cuts and legislative changes: I shall now make my remarks regarding the proposed Bill 26. Many of these have been previously presented to this committee by the ACAO and other conservation authorities. However, I feel it is worthwhile to reiterate them as they relate to the LRCA.
(1) The limitations on projects and programs eligible for provincial and municipal funding are extremely restrictive. Maintaining existing flood control structures and paying taxes on lands deemed "provincially significant" ignores the strength of managing natural resources on a watershed basis. It also puts a halt to many preventive and additional benefits derived from watershed management.
(2) The proposed amendments provide no mechanism for member municipalities to agree on a majority basis to services and levies other than flood control. It is reasonable to assume that municipalities will still see the wisdom of watershed management, and working collectively on studies, conservation areas and other programs. However, there is no mechanism to do this. Additionally, if one municipality chooses not to support a program, that could effectively kill the program desired by the majority of municipalities.
(3) Bill 26 does place additional burdens on municipalities. Lack of provincial support for comprehensive watershed management will hinder the conservation authorities' ability to assist municipalities in regulatory services, watershed information and floodplain management. The conservation authorities' role in floodplain management is being downloaded to municipalities. They would assume responsibility in these areas although they may lack the expertise. This would increase their liability and will mean added expenses to acquire the needed level of knowledge. Bear in mind that some of our member municipalities have less than 1,000 residents and a handful of staff, decreasing on a daily basis.
(4) There are provisions in Bill 26 which could impose undue costs on municipalities. This amendment would allow the Minister of Natural Resources to impose flood control measures even if the local community did not consider it a priority and then send them the invoice for the work. We are concerned about this top-down approach that flies in the face of local decision-making and priorities.
Some changes increase duplication, such as giving power to a second ministry to review user fees. We view this as an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.
(5) We urge the government to examine the concepts put forward in the ACAO's Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario: A Blueprint for Success document and to facilitate the one-window and other streamlining initiatives contained in that document.
(6) The Lakehead Region Conservation Authority also endorses the comments as outlined in the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario's written presentation to the standing committee submitted on December 17, 1995, which are appended to this presentation.
(7) Finally, we are extremely concerned by the lack of environmental policy from the government. Many of the provisions and amendments in Bill 26 will serve to weaken the status quo in natural resource conservation. They will also contribute to disparities in environmental quality and management between municipalities.
We urge the province to maintain a role in environmental policy that recognizes (1) the watershed as a unit for resource management, (2) the contribution of a healthy watershed to a healthy economy, (3) preventive efforts as preferable to reactive programs, and (4) sustainable resource use.
Impacts: I'd like to be very clear about my next remarks. The legislative changes in Bill 26 and the cuts announced in the government's November financial statement will have serious and detrimental impacts on the environment and the economy of Ontario.
The government is sending a clear message that they have little regard for the long-term health of the environment. After decades of working to the point where we are preventing problems, that is, being proactive, now the government wants to throw the people of Ontario back in time. They would abandon the broad range of preventive programs, which I outlined at the outset, and only maintain flood control projects that already exist. Perhaps the government feels that their job is over in reducing the risk to life and property from flooding and conserving watershed resources. They would only support provincially significant lands, which would leave out more than 4,000 acres of conservation lands managed by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority.
I submit that the government will fail in its expenditure reduction efforts in this regard by its shortsighted actions. Indeed, the Conservative government will increase the debt of Ontario.
The savings that the government hopes to realize in cuts to the conservation authority program will be far outstripped by the increased expenditures in future years. Current and future taxpayers can look forward to expensive capital works, more concrete, costly programs to clean a degraded environment, a lower quality of life from fewer green spaces, a lower tourism potential, and so on.
The people of Ontario have already paid this price once to correct mistakes made from the first decades of the 20th century.
As I stated at the outset, healthy watersheds contribute to a healthy economy. The government, through its abandonment of proactive and preventive watershed management, will be throwing away an investment of millions of dollars and years of work. Along with it may go numerous ancillary benefits to watershed residents and the local economy. If watersheds are allowed to degrade, there will be far-reaching consequences. The government will fail in this regard to achieve any real saving. Instead, they will be creating a further debt load that current and future generations of taxpayers will have to bear. A shortsighted and short-term reduction in expenditure will yield substantial costs in the future.
1430
This position can be supported by numbers. Let us take the example of the Neebing-McIntyre floodway. Imprudent development in the past resulted in life and property being at risk from flooding and millions of dollars of property damage over the years. Add to this expense and social disruption the $15-million cost for a major capital project to correct the problem. Additionally, look at erosion along the Kam River. Past development in an area near active bank erosion once again needed a large capital project to protect the development. The cost for this was $5 million. Add it all up and you have cost the taxpayers in excess of $20 million. This could have been prevented.
Compare this to the cost to municipal and provincial taxpayers for conservation areas, plan input and review and the broad range of other watershed management services offered by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. These two capital projects alone equal roughly two decades of preventive watershed management programs.
Continued preventive efforts will minimize the need for costly capital works to fix new mistakes that will undoubtedly arise from the government's current proposals. They can save money both in the short and the long term.
The watershed management efforts of the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority are a tremendous asset to the quality of life and the economy of the Lakehead region and the province. The authority works for a healthy environment, which in turn contributes to a healthy economy.
Recreation opportunities on conservation lands are available to all watershed residents and contribute to the tourism potential of our area. Cleaner water results from our efforts, which reduces expenses for water purification, increases the value of waterfront property, recreation and tourism, and reduces health care costs that would result from a degraded environment.
Conservation authorities do not halt development but ensure wise development near watercourses and sensitive areas. They do this on a watershed basis that goes beyond municipal borders -- that is a critical point: watershed basis that goes beyond municipal borders -- and saves the individual municipality money. It all means reduced long-term costs for municipalities and the province.
In short, the investment in preventive programs means real long-term savings and a host of spinoff benefits that add value to the provincial and local economy on a short-term and long-term basis.
Let's look at some alternatives. The government's proposals hope to achieve a cost saving, but they will also hinder our ability to deliver the benefits described above. There are alternatives that can achieve similar cost saving and maintain all these benefits and improve service to the public.
More than two years ago, conservation authorities produced A Blueprint for Success. I hope that most of the committee members have been apprised of its contents -- I know some of them are very familiar with it -- but I will summarize it briefly.
The blueprint identifies areas of overlap and duplication between various government ministries and conservation authorities. One example is the litany of agencies involved in permit approvals. The blueprint proposes to reduce areas of overlap and thus reduce the associated costs. At the same time, the public benefits from improved service. We have proven a 30% more efficient way of doing business. Conservation authorities are the logical choice to deliver this service, since we have considerable expertise and lower operating costs. We also operate on a watershed basis and can serve more than one municipality at a lower cost than if they had to deliver the service on their own.
Savings of millions of dollars can be achieved through this streamlining effort. Service to the public is maintained and indeed improved. The additional benefits of watershed management are continued. The province's goal of greater local control is achieved, since the conservation authority works for all its member municipalities.
The people of Ontario will not benefit from a short-term economic fix. There will be serious economic and environmental implications. The changes to conservation authorities outlined in Bill 26 will substantially weaken our ability to assist member municipalities, substantially weaken our ability to assist the very people who created us, in conserving watershed resources and meeting community needs for a healthy and safe environment.
The Lakehead Region Conservation Authority and conservation authorities have proven themselves innovative organizations capable of achieving objectives: greater local control, cost-effectiveness, service to the public, accountability and long-term economic and environmental health. This system has worked well for 50 years with substantial results.
Ontario's conservation authorities were recognized at the International Joint Commission. They are currently being considered for award by the United Nations.
The proposals I have outlined offer the province an opportunity to meet its fiscal realities without jeopardizing the additional economic, social, health and environmental benefits the conservation authorities deliver to Ontarians.
The need for conservation authorities has not gone away. We know that healthy watersheds enhance the quality of life and contribute in so many ways to a healthy economy. We urge you to continue to support the existing mandate of Ontario's conservation authorities.
It is shortsighted to ignore environmental responsibilities. The impacts will be a liability on all our future generations.
Mr Sampson: Last week we heard from the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. At that time we also heard from a person who identified herself as a significant private donor to conservation authorities. She indicated that her knowledge of conservation authorities and her extensive involvement have led her to believe that the authorities are prepared to do better with less money. If it was a reality the conservation authorities had to deal with, she felt the individual authorities should and could deal with less money. What's your response to that? Do you feel the same?
Mr Potter: My response is that history has proven we have done a lot better with a lot less money. Previous governments have reduced real term dollar funding to conservation authorities in the past decade by about 75% to 90%. We still exist, which is a testament to the efficiency. This conservation authority alone went before the city of Thunder Bay last week. We are prepared to do with 10% less.
The bottom line is twofold in your question. Number one, can you do better business with less, as Mr Klees likes to say? Can you do less with less? We have said on a resounding and a repetitive basis, you're darn right we can, and we have. The second question, really the most important part to your question, should be, is there anybody out there who can do as good a job for the same money? We have proven through examples with the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, with the Grand River Conservation Authority that we are able to achieve savings in the order of 40% to 60% and with an increased time frame of 30% turnaround in permit approval. Nobody has proven to do the job conservation authorities can do nearly as efficiently.
Mr Sampson: Is it your view that the expenditure reductions, the cutbacks being dealt to the conservation authorities should reflect -- how should I put it? -- the differences in efficiencies between the various authorities as opposed to an across-the-board cut? Should we say, this one's doing better with less money already, so it gets less money cut?
Mr Potter: When you deal with 38 conservation authorities -- I think we include in excess of 630 or 650 municipalities -- obviously there's going to be disparity in how you're doing business. As a northerner, as some of the northerners here can attest, we do things differently in the north than we do in the south and things cost more. I hesitate to bring up the septic tank issue.
The point I'm making is that there shouldn't be a reward for incompetence or inefficiency in any business. I don't think your government or any other that would be sitting here today would want that. But there should be a reward for efficiency. So the answer to your question should be that if you have a viable organization delivering a quality and efficient product, you should not be unduly penalized. If we're trying to achieve true fiscal savings, we should be encouraging the efficient aspects and not encouraging the ones that don't deliver a quality product.
1440
Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much for your presentation, and a good strong one it was in so many ways. It's important to restate the fact that the government is not asking you to do more for less, they're telling you to do less for less in terms of what the responsibilities will now be.
I wanted to take the opportunity to focus a little on what won't be there if this goes through as it is. You'll be receiving 50% less funding to deal with flood control and provincially significant lands, but what will be the loss? I think it's important for people in Thunder Bay particularly to understand what will happen down the road. You alluded very strongly in your presentation to what the impact could be down the road in future costs. Even in specific terms of what you're mandated to look after now, it would be interesting and useful for people to recognize what might happen down the road.
Mr Potter: Sure. We are in the process right now of trying to address some of the tasks we've been given since November 29. We're looking at closing areas. We're looking at actually selling off property. We're looking at logging and forestry on conservation authority land to try to pay bills.
And let me put my municipal politician hat on. I don't have the nerve to go before many municipal councils and ask for a whole lot more money, so we're looking at staff reductions. There's going to be a decrease in the time frame in which we'll be able to do our job, turn around permits. There's going to be a decrease in public education. There's going to be a decrease in availability of the 6,000 acres of property we own. Property that was entrusted to us by private people, property that the province, by contributing to its purchase, said is germane and necessary, will have to be sold. People will no longer be able to access Lake Superior. The only public boat launch between here and the United States of America is the one that's operated by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. Those are just a few of the things.
The long-term picture is what really scares me. You're not doing anything now, and problems don't go away. For 52 years, you've been telling people, "You can't build a house on a floodplain." Now you're essentially allowing that. You're abrogating a responsibility. People will drown. Houses will be lost. There will be loss of property. This is not a pretty situation. And what's really terrifying is that once it's gone, it will never come back. One year will ruin 52.
Mr Hampton: Thank you, Mr Potter. I want to make sure I understand some of the issues you've raised. My understanding is that as it stands now, if you have a river 20 miles long that runs through, let's say, five or six municipalities and it's in the conservation authority's jurisdiction, the conservation authority can approach those member municipalities with a plan for flood control and flood prevention and say, "This is how we propose to do tree planting," or "This is how we propose to ensure that we don't have any damaging floods along this river," and every municipality would kick in some money.
Mr Potter: Exactly.
Mr Hampton: Correct me if I'm wrong. That avoids the freeloader principle, prevents a municipality saying, "We won't pay, and we'll take a chance that flooding will happen downstream to somebody else."
Mr Potter: Exactly.
Mr Hampton: Is one of your concerns that this is now opened up to the freeloader principle?
Mr Potter: Very much so. Mr Hampton raises a critical point, that rivers don't recognize municipal boundaries. Along the Kaministiquia River, 11 municipalities are involved. If my municipality decides it's not going to do anything for flood control, the city of Thunder Bay, which is on the receiving end, is darned well going to have to. That's not fair to anybody.
Mr Hampton: I'm aware that in southwestern Ontario, for example, in the early part of the 20th century a number of drainage ditches were built; the tree cover was basically cut off. I'm aware that from about the Second World War on, it has cost the province of Ontario literally hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of building flood control dams and additional drains to undo the environmental damage we did prior to the Second World War. What do you think will happen if we allow this freeloader principle and if we start selling off, not provincially significant, but probably municipally significant, regionally significant land that in some way can touch on flood control and flood prevention?
Mr Potter: I would submit it is provincially significant because the province is going to have a large degree of liability when someone sues it for allowing that.
The point you make is critical, Mr Hampton, and I would commend you on that point, that for $10 today in planting trees you can save $1 million worth of concrete five years down the road. We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to do good business, to do environmentally sound business, to provide a recreation potential and still prevent us from having to spend these moneys.
As has been mentioned in the prelude to the question, in southern Ontario perhaps in some cases it may be too late. We, in some parts of northern Ontario, have a benefit. Let's not make the same mistakes. Let's protect what we have, let's improve what we have, and let's save the environment and money.
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO STEELWORKERS AREA COUNCIL
The Chair: May I please have representation from the Northwestern Ontario Steelworkers Area Council come forward.
Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee on general government. You will have half an hour this afternoon to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. You may wish to leave some time at the end of your presentation for questions and responses from the three caucuses. I'd appreciate it if, for the benefit of Hansard and the committee members, you'd introduce yourself at the beginning of your presentation.
Mr Moses Sheppard: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Moses Sheppard. I'm the staff representative of the United Steelworkers and I service an area from Manitouwadge in the east to Red Lake in the west of this region. I should also tell the committee that I'm deaf and hear nothing out of the left ear and I have hearing aid assistance in the right ear. There may well be times when I'm ignoring you; there will also be times when I haven't heard you. Quite frankly, it doesn't much matter to me which.
There are two or three things that I want to talk to you about. Going directly to Bill 26, I want to talk to you about the reclamation of mines following cessation of mining. Mining is predominantly a northern Ontario phenomenon.
There are a couple of peripheral issues that I want to talk to you a bit about. One is the business of democracy. I should tell you, I spent five years in the Royal Canadian Navy and I spent five years in the Royal Canadian Air Force. The services in the 1950s were big on democracy, and they articulated a vision that is not consistent with the one that's going on in the Legislature these days. The military believed that we should be subservient to the civil authority. It was also assumed that the civil authority would be half civilized.
It is said that this bill is being driven by the deficit. The Ontario Mining Association was one of the first to write the new Minister of Labour and to congratulate her on her appointment to be the minister. They also extolled her virtues and the virtues of the Premier for having appointed her.
The president of the Ontario Mining Association wrote on July 4, 1995, to the minister and he requested that she turn her immediate attention to the repeal of Bill 40, the Labour Relations Act, the dismantling of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, amending the Workers' Compensation Act, cancelling the royal commission on compensation, restructuring all the bipartite processes, for instance the Joint Steering Committee on Hazardous Substances in the Workplace, and the dismantling of the Occupational Disease Standards Panel.
The OMA, we believe, did that because they believed that having executed those various items, that would somehow or other assist with the deficit problem.
I don't know how many of you know that there was a point in Canada, in the period 1948 through 1970, when the federal government had something called the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Twenty-two years it lasted, which has got to be one of the longest emergencies in financial circles in any country.
1450
Gold producers in Canada, predominantly in Ontario and Quebec, sucked $261 million out of the taxpayers' pockets in those 22 years, the same group that's now telling us, "Go hell bent for leather and get the deficit under control." They didn't tell us that they helped create that debt. I remind you, a quarter of a billion dollars out of taxpayers' pockets went into the coffers of gold mines.
What did they do with it? Let me tell you that Madsen-Red Lake Gold Mines in 1951, one year, got $173,000 under the emergency gold measures act and paid dividends of $349,000. Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines received $636,000 and paid nearly $900,000 in dividends.
Our old friend Sir Harry Oakes once owned Lakeshore Mines in Kirkland Lake. In 1951, that mine paid $700,000 in royalties and got $203,000 from the federal government, the same federal government that's now saying to the province of Ontario, "We have no money to give you by way of transfer; we're in debt up to our ass." They forgot to tell you that they were part of the problem.
Imagine the unmitigated gall of these people. Can you imagine? They are supportive of a government that says to widows, to young people, to mothers on welfare, "To hell with you." That's what they're doing. The Ontario Mining Association is supportive of that. And now, I understand under your 26, you're proposing to let them decide about what to do with reclamation, post-shutdown.
Let's talk a bit about that. I worked in Atikokan at Caland Ore, an iron ore mine. We have in Atikokan two holes in the ground, one dug by Steep Rock iron mines and another dug by Caland Ore, which mined under royalty to Steep Rock iron mine. Those mines were abandoned, in 1979 in the case of Steep Rock and in 1980 in the case of Caland Ore, and they went away.
Caland Ore, by the way, is a subsidiary of Inland Steel of Chicago. In the period that I worked there, for eight years plus, we mined high-grade sulphur ore, ore so high in sulphur content that it couldn't be milled. If you put it into pelletizers it would blow them up. It was so high in sulphur content that one of the truck drivers accidentally dropped a truckload on a high dump and the following day the sun set it on fire.
What did we do with that? We asked in those days that it be completely encapsulated, that it be taken away from the perimeter of the mine because that mine is a lake. It's Steep Rock Lake. It is now going back and being reclaimed by nature.
I want to know from you, because Steep Rock iron mines has no more interest in this and Caland Ore never did, who is monitoring that mess? If there's a breach of those dumps, and there are thousands of tons of high-grade sulphur in them, and it gets into that lake -- ultimately you know, I expect you know, that all water west of Atikokan flows into the Arctic. We will have battery acid in the Arctic Ocean. Who's monitoring it? It's 15, 16 years since it was shut down. Who in 10 years will know that it was there? Who's going to pay for the ecological death?
Quite apart from anything you do to Steep Rock Lake, it has the potential to destroy the ecological system downstream. You know, we all know, we've all read about the incidence of PCBs in the mother's milk of Eskimo women; a language and a culture so old that they cannot comprehend that PCBs can show up in mother's milk and hurt children; a culture that survived all of those years and forgot and didn't know that there are nasty things going on, thanks to us.
We took that high-grade sulphur ore out of the deepest part of that mine, between 1,000 and 1,100 feet; open-pit mine. There is still high-grade sulphur in situ in that mine. If there is any kind of seismic disturbance and the underwater unravels, you will not only have the threat of the high-grade sulphur -- which is going to be, I suspect, at or marginally below the water level of that lake once it's reclaimed -- you will have the damage that may be going on at 1,000 or 1,100 feet below the surface.
My understanding is at the moment that the question of the liability of these mines is now wrapped up in the courts. Two or three small timber companies moved in, used the surface buildings, and now there's a ruckus going on about who at the end of the day will be responsible. There is as well a small business on that lake of a man who's harvesting trout, or fish of some sort.
There is as well in the adjacent mine at Steep Rock in the days when I was at Caland a PCB spill. Some of you will remember Alec O'Neill who was the president of my sister local at 3466. Alec forced that company to clean that mess up. He forced them as well to bury the tools that were used in the cleanup and it was put in a clay-lined pit. But who's monitoring it? Where is it now in relationship to the lake water? Does anybody give a rat's ass anymore about these things? We don't believe they've been mapped. We don't think anybody's inspecting it. We have the feeling that nobody really cares.
I should tell you, you're in Thunder Bay; you're in the near north. There's a great big world west of us. You ought to go up and visit them some time. They'd love to see you. They're Ontarians; they'd like to have some input. If I lived in Kenora, it would take me six, seven hours by road to get here. If I'm a welfare mother, where would I get the gasoline? How would I get here? So think about that whole north. You could put all of southern Ontario north of Kenora and lose it; you wouldn't be able to find it. The north is riddled with places like Atikokan.
Let me enumerate for you: Red Lake, Balmertown, Cochenour, Madsen, Ear Falls, Ignace, Pickle Lake, Beardmore, Manitouwadge, Geraldton. All of those have one thing in common: They've all got at least one mine that's shut down and left a mess. All of them left a mess, despite the fact that we had all of these wonderful regulations that the current government is opposed to. They left a bloody mess, and you're now suggesting that even that minuscule effort was too much and you're now prepared to give it all back to them.
Let me tell you that the north is littered with abandoned tailings, a place where children go and play in the afternoon sun; tailings that have in them exotic and wonderful things like arsenic and mercury and lead and silica and Christ knows what else, because we're talking about 20 years of milling and all of the byproducts of the milling process that have gone in there too. We're talking about tailings on McKenzie Island now inching into Red Lake. We're talking about mining activities that are probably responsible for 200 to 300 barrels of God knows what in Howey Bay in Red Lake, the source of the drinking water of that community.
We're talking about active mines. Let me tell you a bit. Not more than five years ago, an active mine in Red Lake lost at least a ton of mercury to process. It's not a spill if you lose it from process. If you started off with two tons of mercury and at the end of the day in processing gold you only had a ton left, that's not a spill. It disappeared. We think we know where it went. We think it went into Balmer Creek.
No prosecution. When we approached the company, they said, "We didn't break any law." We reminded them of the obligations of a citizen. Quite apart from what we write down and the legalities, we all have obligations as citizens to ensure that the environment is not damaged because of inactivity or bad activity by us. I should say, it might have been 20 bloody tons for all I know. They never argued that it was less than a ton.
1500
The CEO of that company told me he didn't like mining in Ontario. He wanted to go to China and to Chile because they don't have bad labour laws and bad environmental laws -- bad, presumably, because somehow or another the ones that we had, as bad as they were, he found those oppressive. He wanted to go to China and to Chile. The good thing is that he can't take the mine with him.
You also must recognize that mining is not an innocuous activity. In mining we use explosives by the ton. I once detonated a blast that drove the seismic instruments at the University of Minnesota right off the rail. We use trucks, 6,500-and 7,500-ton trucks. We use things that could turn this place upside down and walk through the centre of it. All of these things are designed to have a negative impact upon the environment. We continuously inflict damage upon our surroundings by the use of these tools and we don't want you to say to the mining companies, "You can now manage this yourself."
Let me tell you this afternoon, we have one mine in northwestern Ontario that brings air that's breathed by miners underground to 38 degrees. The rest of them will bring it to 32 degrees or they won't do a damn thing with it. If it's 40 degrees below zero outside, that's what you'll breathe underground. In 1996, that's what we're doing. Not one of them has potable drinking water. I've showed some of you the wonderful toilet pictures. I'll bring them back if you want. We still defecate underground in plastic bags and nowhere do I know of a place where you can go and wash your hands after you've gone to the bathroom and before you eat your lunch.
We have a mine where we have a dozen people with mysterious illnesses of the lung. We are told by the health and safety people of the company that there is a collective psychosis at work. A collective psychosis. These people are not only jamming it, they've convinced the doctors and the hospitals and the X-rays technicians that it's all a big game.
I've attached to this document -- you ought to have a look at it -- some soil sampling from Balmertown. They got ready to build a primary school in Balmertown three or four years ago and somebody had the good sense to say, "Why don't we do some soil samplings?" and indeed they did. Have a look at those soil sample reports. At least I think they're here; maybe they aren't. Yes, it's two or three pages from the back, "Soil Chemical Analysis." A test hole at one metre: cyanide 0.4 parts per million, arsenic 1,300 parts per million, mercury 0.44 parts per million.
In those days you were supposed to have not more than 10 parts per million arsenic in urban areas. We had up to 2,100 in an area adjacent to a residential area where we were about to build a school. You are now going to give the reclamation of mines back to people who allow this to happen?
You will find in here something from your own chief of environment in the city, Dr Griffin, about water, both in the mines in Balmertown and in the municipality.
They use wonderful little buzzwords. They've had, it is said, bacti problems. Anybody know what "bacti" is? Imagine if you were a resident with a grade 6, grade 7, grade 9, a grade anything, what is a bacti problem? Well, I rather think it's bacteriological. Why don't we say that? I rather think if you said that, people would get really upset and annoyed. They would come and kick your ass, so don't tell them that. This is the group that you people now are going to turn mine reclamation back to. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and I mean that. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Finally, let me go back to where I started: the business of democracy. I told you that the navy and the air force taught me a lot of things about democracy. It said that I ought to have the right to be heard. It didn't say that the guy I was talking to had to agree, but it said as a minimum you should be heard. You people wanted to deny me that. You wanted to deny the people of Ontario the right to examine your proposed Bill 26. Why?
Governing is not a licence to hammer the population. Governing is a trust, and a very fragile one at that. The people of Ontario have demonstrated, and God knows I have dealt with Tories for as long as I've been around. I remember Dr Stephenson, hardly a pushover, but I could sit down and I could debate with Dr Stephenson and at the end of the day we could come to an agreement. She wasn't totally happy and neither was I and neither was the trade union movement.
We dealt with people like Jim Auld, and the king of the north, Bernier. These were not rabid socialists but, God damn it all, we could accommodate each other. We had the decency to sit down and to dialogue and to talk and to work it out and to make it work.
I don't understand the current government. It's got this province split right down the middle. That's not governing; that's terrorism. Why do you want to jump on Ontario workers? These are the people who drive ambulances after they're finished work. They teach Sunday school. They deliver Meals on Wheels. They're the volunteer firemen. They're wonderful people until they sign a union card or until they want a collective agreement or until they insist upon having some rights, and then all of a sudden they become nincompoops, because that's what you've done.
I have a feeling that when you go to Queen's Park you're supposed to take your head with you and think the stuff through, rationalize, arrive at solutions that are reasonable and that are workable. I should say to the opposition members that while I'm not approving of the tactics they used in getting at least this extension, I know why they did it. But I have to tell you that my 15-year-old thought you should have all been spanked and sent to your rooms. I said the danger with that is that some of them might enjoy spanking.
You see, what are we teaching her? What are we teaching children? Are we teaching them to divide, to create chaos, to have two groups of people? Is what we want them to learn about democracy? I've said that you ought to heed the old admonition, "Physician, heal thyself." Go back to the Legislature and talk among yourselves about a better way. There's got to be a better way.
My 15-year-old and every 15-year-old and every child in this province should be able to look at what's going on the parliamentary channel and be pleased and be happy and feel good that their point of view, while maybe not supportable, at least has been debatable; it got on the record.
If you insist on cutting off debate, then, my friends, let me tell you that democracy will not survive for long. I don't know what you will have. I'm not asking that you agree with me, but I demand that I have a right to come here and I demand a respectful hearing and so does every Ontarian. All of you, those of you in the Tories who supported the bill on labour, for instance, you propose to teach us about democracy. You want to democratize unions. Well, if there's something that this government hasn't got to teach unions, it's about democracy, because you either don't know anything about unions or you don't know anything about democracy, or maybe you don't know anything about either one of them.
1510
My union has been democratic for its entire existence. If you want to see democracy in action, I invite you to come to any steelworker union meeting and sit up front. Stay there for a couple of hours, and when you leave you will be convinced that there is democracy in my union, and I think in all unions in this province. No government in this country, federal or provincial, can lecture the trade union movement on democracy. You have stolen our rights, you have taken our agreements and torn them up, you have legislated us back to work, you have put us in bloody jail; you have nothing to teach us about anything. We have earned the right to be here. In the event you've forgotten, you have signed every labour code at the United Nations and before it the League of Nations since 1906. I would suggest that you go back and read them and understand what it is you agreed to do all those many years ago.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sheppard.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. I'd like to get some questions from the caucuses. We have about two minutes per caucus, starting with the opposition caucus, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Gerretsen: I'm sorry I missed hearing your entire presentation, sir, because it was really and truly heartfelt. I totally agree with you. I dealt with Tories an awful lot too in my former life as a municipal politician, and they were consensus builders. From the little that I've seen as a new member of the Legislature, these people are not that way. They're dividing the province.
I wonder if you could just make one very brief comment. You know a lot about mining. I'm from southern Ontario and I don't know anything about mining. There are 15 schedules in this bill and one of them deals with mining, tied in with everything else: municipal affairs, health, you name it. Do you think that's the proper way to introduce legislation, to get good feedback from the public, when everything is put in together, and shouldn't that bill have been divided, as far as you're concerned?
Mr Sheppard: That's all I've said today, that if you want to find out what's going on in mining, go talk to some miners. You haven't done that. In fact, it looks like you're trying to avoid them. There are no mines in Thunder Bay. Sudbury has some. Go up to Timmins if you want to see something for yourselves. Look at the beautiful park they had in Timmins when they started to do tailings reclamation a number of years ago. They've now turned it into a lake. It looks like a shithouse on wheels up there. The point is that yes, they should have isolated it; they should have gone to people who know mining; they should have talked to all people in mining, not just to the people with the money in mining.
Mr Miclash: Mr Sheppard, thank you for your presentation. All I wanted to say was that you truly reinforce some of the things I've been saying on the health committee hearings over the last week and today so far on these hearings: that there was very little, if any, consultative process in the drafting of Bill 26. I've yet to find anyone, as we travel throughout the province, who actually had some input into the drafting of that bill. I think you made that point very clear here as well. It's a pleasure to be here to listen to your northern perspective, because there is no way we would have gotten that at hearings that the government wished to have during that week in Toronto.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Miclash. Sorry to interrupt.
Mr Pouliot: I am not an expert, far from it, but I'm comfortable with what you have said about separation of metals and what ends up as tailings and the obligatory statutes vis-à-vis reclamation. You know that I worked for 20 years in a mine. I've promoted and depressed metals through the use of chemicals. I'm a tradesman, a flotation operator, so I'm comfortable with chemicals.
I listened intently to what you said. I used to make those speeches, but not with the same emotion. I did it at work for a good number of years and I ended up being -- only by a stroke of good fortune, because it brings on another dimension -- the Minister of Mines, and not only I -- of course not -- we pushed for mine reclamation. It's not the end of the world. There are 3,000 defunct mines in the province of Ontario. It simply meant that for every rock that you put in the box you would put a few pennies aside for the day when you become extinct and that money would be used to address a definite plan.
The mine owners, the copper and gold barons, did not object. Oh, they screamed, but when we did pass the legislation they were more focused on what was to happen with the money in the fund. It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't leave a legacy where every other generation will start to pick it up, but what we have here is -- I don't know why it doesn't save any money; it costs money.
We have people without -- with respect -- giving this documentation all the attention it deserves, I don't think it will come back to haunt them. I trust that any government will -- again with respect -- at least come to its senses, because nobody will benefit by pulling the rug from under mine reclamation. Surely, that's not what good citizenship is all about to mining. If you have a polluted environment it's bad for business. It's not good for business. The technology does exist today more than ever, of course, to rectify what has been a secondary thought in a bad situation. I share entirely your comment and it's nice to see you again.
The Chair: Mr Sampson.
Mr Sampson: The number on your submission here is 161, which tells me we've seen 161 written submissions so far --
Mr Sheppard: About mine reclamation?
Mr Sampson: No, total submissions.
Mr Gerretsen: It's the first one.
Mr Sampson: I wanted to tell you that this is the first I think we've received in a format that I would rather see, which is somebody speaking from the heart as opposed to reading from a document. I wanted to thank you for doing that. You've set a standard that I think the people following you, 162, 163 and whatever, will have a hard time meeting.
The issues that you raise are certainly of concern. The environmental issues as they relate to closed mines are something that I think we, in this day and age, will be paying for that we didn't think we were doing to the environment a number of years ago. As I said yesterday, environmental standards have changed as we've come to know what it is we're doing to this Mother Earth and they will change going forward. We could get more focused on it or we could get less; it just is a matter of the way society changes.
I put to you, though, that what we're trying to do in this particular legislation is to establish the flexibility to deal with that, because situations happen on mine closures that we didn't know would have existed two years ago. What this legislation is trying to do is deal with that reality.
Mr Pouliot: There's nothing wrong with not knowing.
Mr Sampson: I sat quietly while you gentlemen gave your speech and I'd hope you'd do the same here.
That's the intent. That's what we're trying to do. There are powers here given to the minister to deal with emergency matters. Those weren't in the legislation before. Clearly, the examples you've given to us so far indicate that the current legislation hasn't done a very good job in protecting the environment. So we need to find better and smarter ways to do it.
Mr Sheppard: Nothing wrong with the legislation. It lacks enforcement.
Mr Sampson: Legislation and enforcement go, unfortunately, hand in hand. So I just wanted to leave you --
Mr Sheppard: Laying off all the inspectors -- who's going to do the enforcement?
Mr Sampson: It's going to have to be done by the inspectors. That's their priority.
Mr Sheppard: We can't even get mines inspected with respect to the health of miners. We're now into something called "internal responsibility," whatever that means. We've gone on with that nonsense for five or six years. I had a fight not more than a year ago with one of the rich mines that can produce gold at $96 an ounce and couldn't provide water underground, a six-month, bloody fight. You had regulators. What somebody said was, "Use the internal responsibility system."
We're not talking about rocket science here. Either the water is clean or it isn't. If it's not clean, why doesn't somebody say, "Go get some clean water and take it down to the miners; do that every day; wash the bucket that you take it down in"? This is not difficult stuff.
The Chair: Mr Sampson, I sorry, we've come to the end of your time. Mr Sheppard, I'd like to thank you for coming forward this afternoon and making your presentation to the committee.
Housekeeping announcements: Folks who are going from here to an airport, there's a shuttle that will make three trips starting at 3;30, and then probably every 15 minutes in between. You should be on one of those.
Mr Phillips: There are a couple of people who have requested to speak: the regional chair in Ottawa and the mayor of Peterborough. I'm not lobbying strongly, but I just think that maybe -- it's perhaps difficult -- if we happen to be in their municipalities, it's a little unusual if we don't permit those two. I dare say they'd both be speaking in favour of the bill, I've no idea, but I wonder if I might not move that we extend the hearings by half an hour in Ottawa and Peterborough to hear the regional chair and the mayor in those two municipalities.
The Chair: Okay, I'll ask for unanimous consent that the last half-hour in Ottawa and the last half-hour in Peterborough -- so be it. Motion carried.
We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 am.
The subcommittee adjourned at 1522.