Transcription du comité 1994-avril-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and French-language School Boards Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 143, Mr Philip / Loi de 1994 modifiant des lois concernant la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et les conseils scolaires de langue française, projet de loi 143, M. Philip

Jacquelin Holzman

Nepean Police Services Board

Jean Peart, chair

Dan McGuire, past board member

Brian Granger, Nepean resident

Albert Bouwers

The Glens Community Association

Pauline Meyer, president

Nepean Chamber of Commerce

John McCalla, president

Citizens for Fair Taxes

Frank Spink, chair

Claudette Cain; Cynthia Ignacz; Lou Kirby

Alex Cullen

Gloucester Chamber of Commerce

Jim Anderson, executive

Jacques de Courville Nicol, first vice-president

Citizens for Fair Taxes

Keith Dowd, representative

Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade

Willy Bagnell, president

Len Potechin, past chairman

Bohdan Yarymowich

Phil Downey

Alex Munter

Phil Benson

John LeMaistre

Ben Franklin

Citizens for Good Government

Tom O'Neill, representative

Vern Rampton

Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens' Associations

Dr Allan Gregory, representative

Carlingwood Community Association

Peter Cameron, vice-president

Kim Millan

Merle Nicholds; Allan Whitten; John Rick; John Reiter

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

*Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)

*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L) for Mrs Fawcett

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Conway

Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre ND) for Mr Waters

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L) for Mrs Fawcett

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Klopp

Johnson, David (Don Mills PC) for Mr Turnbull

O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L) for Mr Offer

White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Ms Murdock

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)

Shtern, David, manager, local government policy branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0901 in the Radisson Hotel, Ottawa.

Consideration of Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards / Projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française.

The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Good morning. On behalf of the standing committee on resources development, we are very pleased to be here in Ottawa this morning to receive public presentations on Bill 143.

The order of business for this committee today and tomorrow is to hear presentations. We have a very full schedule. For the benefit of people in the audience, simultaneous French-language translation is available.

JACQUELIN HOLZMAN

The Chair: The first witness this morning is Jacquelin Holzman, the mayor of the city of Ottawa.

Ms Jacquelin Holzman: Thank you very much. Bienvenue à Ottawa; welcome to Ottawa. I, of course, am going to be speaking in favour of an early passage of Bill 143. I have to remind you that this bill only affects Ottawa-Carleton: the 11 municipalities, the regional government, over 80 local politicians, over 80 local school trustees, three municipal police forces plus the OPP and the RCMP, for a population of about 650,000. There are also five cities within the greenbelt, which is less than 500,000 people, and of course five police forces for that small area as well.

The problem predates -- I'm not sure how long many of you have been at the provincial level, but it certainly predates the Bartlett report. The region requested a municipal review because we were concerned; we wanted the best governance and the best structure in this area in preparation for the 21st century. So a number of years ago, regional council voted to ask the then Minister of Municipal Affairs to conduct a review. However, the request went forward to request a review also of the boundary issues. Many people wanted a review of the two-tier system at the same time.

People have said there's no mandate for what is being put forward and no mandate for the city of Ottawa politicians to have taken the position that we have taken, which is in support of a change in the structure and the governance of the region. In 1988, we got our mandate because we were the only municipality to put a question on the ballot, and the question was, "Should we work towards one level of government within the urban area of the region?"

About 82% of the people who voted in Ottawa in the election of 1988 said yes, they wanted that, they wanted change, they wanted us to work towards one level of government within the urban part of the region. So therefore, Ottawa council has a mandate, a very clear mandate. As the mayor for the last almost three years and being on council since 1982, I have had no indication that the voters, citizens, the taxpayers of Ottawa have changed their position on this.

At the time when we were requesting the review which resulted in the Bartlett report and when the region asked for a review of the boundaries, when it came back to us, when the Bartlett terms of reference were announced, the Minister of Municipal Affairs from the previous government removed the boundary issue and there was no looking at boundaries and we were not to look at two tiers; it was to be within the two-tier system. In other words, we were not to examine the validity of a two-tier system or we were not going to be examining the boundaries. In my mind, that was the key that could have unlocked a problem that still faces this region and that hampers us as we move towards the 21st century.

Although the Bartlett report was completed and certain things were recommended, no action was taken. Mr Bartlett has recently said that he has changed his opinion on some of the issues. He now says that there should be no mayors on regional council.

The terms of reference for the Graham report, for the Kirby report and the Bartlett report were not broad enough to recommend the best ways to organize municipal government leading towards the 21st century.

Some of the problems that we've been facing and we faced for about eight hours, I think it was, at Wednesday's regional council: Why do we have to have two tiers of official plans? Why are there so many official plans? We spent many, many hours at the city of Ottawa preparing an official plan which was approved by the Ottawa city council, only to spend many more hours on Wednesday at regional council when region reviewed the city's official plan. So why do we need two levels of official plans? Is one large city the best form of governance for this region in the 21st century? Is one city within the greenbelt and two or three outside the greenbelt the best model for our area? Do we really need six school boards? Do we really need over 80 local politicians? And can we really have a regional council with no accountability at the regional level, no representation directly to the regional level, solely at the regional level?

Bill 143 is only one small step. You will hear, you have heard, and you may have read about me and a suggestion of collusion -- "collusion" describing my role in this whole exercise. I said to my husband to look up in the dictionary and find out what does the word "collusion" mean. It means to act in secret in order to baffle, to trick someone, to plot, to conspire, to connive, to fraud; underhand, scheming.

This cannot possibly describe the role that I have played, since from the very beginning people have known where I have stood on this issue. I've been on regional council since 1982. My position has been documented, well known; I have voted on this issue many, many times, so the word "collusion" does not imply and does not relate to any of the things that I've been doing on this.

I am only here to tell you that you should not be swayed away from the fundamental issue of direct accountability at the regional level. You will hear that there are going to be problems with coordination, problems of liaison. Those kinds of issues are local issues and we can certainly address them. They shouldn't interfere with your decision-making.

You will also hear that we've run out of time and there's no way that we can get everything into place for the 1994 municipal elections. That's a red herring. There are ample competent staff available at both levels: at the provincial level to make the legislation happen and at the local level to make the elections happen. So that's a red herring as well.

You've also heard, and will be hearing, about the police and the police jurisdiction. You may know that within the greenbelt, which is a natural belt around the urban part of the region -- less than 500,000 people -- there are five different police forces operating: The Nepean Police Force operates there; the Gloucester Police Force operates in there; the Ottawa Police Force which also looks after Vanier; the OPP; the RCMP. We have just sufficient police forces. Is that the best way to operate our region and to protect our region and to provide for a safe region?

0910

Community-based policing service, the delivery of quality and consistent police service in Ottawa-Carleton, and lessening the duplication -- who believes that crime and criminals stop at the Base Line Road before they leave Ottawa and enter into Nepean? Those are ludicrous ideas and we have far gone beyond that, particularly looking into the 21st century.

There are many issues that are unique to a capital city, but a capital city, when it comes to safety, spills over the geographic boundaries of the city of Ottawa. Such issues as racism, such issues as all of our diplomatic corps in the ethnic communities that have come from other parts of the world, who have come to our area, this is not a problem that is held within a geographic boundary.

Why would we want to constrain those who are charged with the delivery of police services by continuing to impose upon them the issues of jurisdiction as a result of our present fragmented police force structure? This bill allows for the implementation of these concepts that entitle Ottawa-Carleton to have, like all other regions in Ontario, a regional police force.

There are other areas such as the acquisition of industrial and commercial lands, the whole question of sewage treatment and the sewer system, street vending is a minor one, the environment, garbage collection, recycling. These are regional issues; these should be looked at at the regional level.

The bill seeks to introduce an ability to provide consistent standards within the region, but that doesn't mean that every part of the region is going to get the same level of service. It's not the case in the city of Ottawa.

You're going to hear how all the outlying rural parts of the region are going to expect the same level of service as in the central core of the city of Ottawa. Well, that's just not the case in Ottawa.

I moved into an area in 1957 and I'm still in that area. We still don't have storm sewers. We still don't have properly paved streets. We don't have curbs, we don't have sidewalks, and we don't need them. So for anybody to say that everybody needs to have the same level of service is ludicrous. It is not the case now. You're going to hear that because it's going to serve the parochial interests of people who don't want change, who want to bury their heads in the sand and say that how we've been structured and governed for the last number of years is going to serve us into the year 2000. Well, it's just not the case.

You're going to hear about whether mayors should or should not be on regional council. The issue is not should the mayors be on regional council or whether they should not be on regional council. The issue is, we have too many mayors, we have too many municipalities, too much bureaucracy, too much red tape, too many empires, too much turf protection, too little concern for the taxpayers and for the best way to organize municipal government for this area, which is still less than 700,000 people. And because of all of the duplication, triplication, all of the "too manys" that I have just described, we are competing against ourselves. We are not in the best position to move this area forward as a viable area in Ontario and in Canada.

So in conclusion, I believe that Bill 143 is beneficial to the Ottawa-Carleton region. It doesn't go far enough, but it is one step. I urge the committee to recommend to the Legislature the prompt enactment of this piece of legislation so that the citizens of Ottawa and the politicians in Ottawa can start to heal some of the divisiveness that your delay has caused in this area. Had you made the decision last year when it could have been made, we could have begun to build bridges and to heal some of the hurts that this whole process has caused. I urge you to a speedy decision.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Questions: about two minutes per caucus.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Very quickly, Mayor Holzman: You talked about too many empires. There are a lot of thoughtful people in the region who think that this legislation may be creating an empire that's too large. In particular, we heard the other day at the opening session of the committee that Ottawa-Carleton will be the only regional government without any mayors on it, for starters, so it'll be very exceptional from that point of view. We also know that there's the possibility that the regional councillors' roles will be defined as part-time and not full-time, and there's a strong movement among some people in the region to do that. We're now looking at a $1-billion budget in Ottawa-Carleton and some people feel that the power under this legislation will be much too concentrated in the hands of the regional chair and the senior bureaucrats at the regional level. Do you have any concerns that that may occur?

Ms Holzman: I'll just start with your last point first. The $1-billion budget, it's a large budget, but about 75% of it, I would think, is probably legislated. The whole of the social services budget is a legislated budget. You make the decisions on that; we implement it. A lot of it is the homes for the aged, a lot of it is implementation of provincial rules. So I don't think that's a factor at all.

As far as part-time, full-time, there is nobody now doing the job at the region full-time, except for the regionally elected chair, and therefore I don't think anybody needs to be there at a political level to operate as a full-time politician. We won't have time, but we could go into it.

As far as no mayors, we have too many mayors. If the initial position of the city of Ottawa was one city within the greenbelt and two or three cities outside of the greenbelt, a maximum of four cities -- if you had four cities and four mayors, there's no reason why four mayors might not in the future be on a newly constructed government. But a newly constructed government doesn't necessarily mean the two tiers that we have now. And so I think you need to look at the whole issue, which is, what is the best way to govern and what is the best structure for Ottawa-Carleton? But that's not the decision today. That's something that maybe by the year 2000 someone will have the guts to look at.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Your worship, I appreciate your frankness with regard to the one-tier system. I don't think I've heard the government indicate that this is a step towards a one-tier system, but you have clearly outlined that that's your objective and that you view this as being a small step. I think I would differ from you that it's a larger-than-small step towards a one-tier system.

Price Waterhouse was contracted by the municipalities, I think including your city, to do a study on a one-tier system. They reported that the cost of a one-tier system would increase the local municipal costs in the region by $25 million to $75 million, and there'd be $12 million to $29 million in terms of implementation costs. They also say that under a one-tier system, the efficient, low-cost operational approach of the smaller municipalities would be lost. Since this was, I think, authorized by your government, what is your response to that?

Ms Holzman: I think the important thing to remember is, why did the Price Waterhouse study have the city of Ottawa part of it? It was commissioned before the city of Ottawa was involved with it and the terms of reference etc were agreed to. We decided to join in as opposed to being outside. We joined in so we could all get the same benefit of the statistics. You have to go back to the premise in the terms of reference, and I don't buy that. I think they were advised to come up with certain information, and I don't buy that.

I'm simply saying that the idea that every part of the region has to have the same level of service -- it doesn't happen now in the city of Ottawa; I don't know why that would have to be.

As to the police services, many people would question the quality of policing services in other parts of the region, and that's for others to talk about. I can only tell you that we were part of it in order to show that we wanted to get the information that came out of it.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Mayor Holzman, you raised the question about the timing of this bill, and I know you don't follow the Legislature on a day-to-day basis. We did have a lot of legislation which had been backed up from a previous session, last fall, when we had hoped there would be agreement in the Legislature to move forward quickly on this legislation; in fact, we ended up having to have time allocation on bills such as the environmental rights bill and so on. I thought that would be of interest to you to know.

Overall, you talk to people in this region outside the city of Ottawa as well as within the city of Ottawa. Do you have a sense of how the public feels about this proposal?

Ms Holzman: I also talk to people outside the province and outside of Ottawa-Carleton and they laugh when they think that we're still so archaic, when we haven't gotten our act together to pull ourselves together. People from London have said the same thing to me: "How come you're still talking about 11 little municipalities? You've got to become an entity so you can become more competitive."

0920

Certainly people in the different walks of life I'm in contact with and who speak to me still don't understand why we have so much government, why we have over 160 local politicians and trustees. They're just mind-boggled when they realize that we're still arguing about the need for that. So we operate our little empires without listening too much to what the taxpayers are saying. They uniformly believe there's just too much government, too much bureaucracy, too much red tape and it's too costly for them.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chiarelli raised the question about whether this legislative proposal would concentrate power at the region and concentrate it in the office of the regional chair. It seemed to me, and I'd like your comment, that in fact we have a concentration of power in the office of the regional chair when every other member of the regional council is not directly elected there.

Ms Holzman: When people are wearing two hats, as all members of regional council are now except for the regional chair, by virtue of no accountability and no responsibility on the part of the other 32 members of regional council, you create a situation where that's likely to happen.

But when you have one vote per councillor elected to be on regional council, including the chairman, you have to rely on the quality of the people who are elected, and if you elect the quality of the people who understand what's going on and take the time because it's where they are elected to, it's where they are accountable to, the taxpayers and the voters who elect them to regional council, there's no reason why, just as your level of government, good decisions can't be taken. Similarly, at the local level as well you have to rely on those who get elected.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Holzman. We appreciate your coming this morning and presenting your views.

NEPEAN POLICE SERVICES BOARD

The Chair: Next is the Nepean Police Services Board. Good morning and welcome. Identify yourselves and proceed with your presentation. You've been allocated 20 minutes and the committee would like a portion of that for questions and answers, so perhaps you could reserve 10 minutes for dialogue. We'd appreciate it.

Ms Jean Peart: My name is Jean Peart. I'm chair of the Nepean Police Services Board.

Mr Dan McGuire: My name is Dan McGuire. I'm a lawyer in the city and a former member of the Nepean police board.

Mr Brian Granger: My name is Brian Granger. I'm a resident of Nepean.

Ms Peart: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We will try to keep our comments brief. Mr Granger, as a concerned citizen in the area, has agreed to be here as a resource, but the two people who will actually be presenting will be Mr McGuire and myself.

I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to address this committee hearing. Today, I'm wearing two hats: one as chair of the Nepean Police Services Board and the other as a long-term resident of Nepean. Last October, the citizens of Nepean, in public hearings and in large numbers, by oral and written communications made it very clear that they were opposed to the regionalization of the police services in the Ottawa-Carleton region. The official position of the Nepean police service is also one of opposition.

Let me make it clear: We are not opposed to closer ties with our neighbouring services, with whom we already have very good relations. There are obvious areas where integrated teams would be an improvement, such as drug enforcement squads, tactical teams and criminal intelligence units. To that end, the chiefs of the three services have been developing strategies for the implementation of amalgamation of some services. One reason for our opposition is a firm belief that a larger service flies in the face of the new thinking of what is an ideal police service. Community policing initiatives are aimed at bringing policing closer to the people and reducing the barriers that arise in a large bureaucracy.

It seems, therefore, a contradiction that with the commitment this government is known to have to community policing, as evidenced in the police act, regionalization is now being considered as the appropriate model for police services in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Although community policing would not be abandoned in a regional service, the local contact and local control will be lost.

A well-respected Canadian jurist, the Honourable René Marin, was commissioned initially by Nepean and Gloucester to do a review of police services in Ottawa-Carleton. The province of Ontario and some other municipalities joined in later. I must mention that Ottawa didn't. I commend this study to you, as in the short time available to me I am unable to touch many issues, but I wish to quote Justice Marin:

"This form of organization [regionalized police service] can weaken community involvement through distancing further the process of setting police goals and directions from local to regional level and in the process lessening the police accountability to the community it serves."

Since about 90% or more of police budgets is spent on salaries and benefits, there are no major economies to be realized from amalgamating the services. Most people agree that the cost of policing in the region will increase with regionalization. The startup funding will not offset the startup costs and the residents of the region will end up with increased taxes -- some more so than others.

However, in spite of our opposition to regionalization, the Nepean police service recognizes that the government is committed to the idea, as evidenced by the introduction of not just one bill, Bill 77, but a second bill, Bill 143. We feel that if there are to be gains from regionalization, the process needs to be a more gradual one than is currently planned.

Bill 143 has a change from Bill 77 which addresses that issue to a small extent by deferring, by one year, the amalgamation date for the services, but by not deferring the startup date for a regional police services board the transition period is going to prove inadequate.

The proposed structure of regional government is very different from the current makeup. To give responsibility for a regional police service to a regional government that will almost certainly be preoccupied with working out the growing pains of restructuring is neither fair to that council or to the residents of Ottawa-Carleton and, ultimately, the citizens of Nepean.

The bill in its present format would have one regional board responsible for oversight of three separate services. Even for police services board members who have taken the available training in police governance, being responsible for one service requires a great deal of time and dedication. With three separate services reporting to one board, the demands will be that much greater and the positive aspects of an amalgamation will surely give way to communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, jealousies, inefficiencies and all the ills that are now perceived as in need of fixing.

One of the disadvantages of being one of the first speakers before the committee is that after you have heard several other points of view, I will not have the opportunity to rebut those arguments. For that reason, I would like to re-emphasize that the Nepean police service feels that municipal policing is more compatible with community policing than regional policing would be. We also feel that while there could be gains from regionalization, if the process is too rapid even those gains could be lost.

Now Mr Dan McGuire, a former member of the board, will address cost issues. Thank you for your time.

0930

Mr McGuire: Good morning. As I indicated earlier, my name is Dan McGuire. I'm a lawyer. I practise in the city of Ottawa. In fact, I was born in the city of Ottawa, and there are very few of us left. I moved to Nepean 17 years ago and I am a resident there now and own a home there, but I still own two properties in the city of Ottawa and carry on my law firm practice there and pay taxes as business taxes in that capacity. I'm paying more taxes in the city of Ottawa than I am in the city of Nepean, and I give you --

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): We'll have to change that, Dan.

Mr McGuire: You're trying to, with the reassessment. In any event, I tell you that by the way of background so you will see that I'm on both sides of the fence in regard to costs, which I intend to deal with. I am also a member of the Downtown Rideau Business Improvement Association, so I'm spending some taxpayers dollars in that respect. So I'm on all sides of the fence.

A number of years ago I was asked -- I did not apply but was asked -- to sit on the Nepean Police Commission as it then was. One of the reasons that made me want to accept that was because I live on the Ottawa River and I had a neighbour who had been living there for many years, built his own home, and he had to sell that home because he lost his job; the firm he was with went out of business. He took other employment and was able to support his family and everything was fine -- except that he could not afford to pay the municipal taxes and had to sell his home for that reason.

I just thought that was awful. That was the main reason I went on the Nepean police board. I think you all know the salary you're paid there. At one point I complained because I said I was getting 12 cents an hour and I was going to go on strike if they didn't go to 13 cents. In any event, you don't go on there for the monetary rewards. I went there strictly to see if I could cut down the costs because I just thought it was awful, the way the taxes kept growing and making it more and more impossible for people to own homes.

I did a lot of work on that board and spent a lot of time studying the problems of policing. In fact, I was involved in the world policing association and organizations all over the world, looking at costs and what the answers were to some of the crime problems -- some very interesting things. I wish I had time to go into all of them you, but I can't. But one of the things I was convinced of is that we must turn more and more policing over to citizens. We've gone the full spectrum of citizens being involved initially, and then not being involved at all, dumping it all on the hired guns, the policemen we hire, and stepping out of the picture and taking no more responsibility.

It was my opinion and I think it's the world opinion now that that can no longer be. We can't afford to hire enough policemen to give us the kind of policing service we want. Therefore the community has to step in and take more and more responsibility for the policing in the community under the direction of the hired professionals, but we can't have enough bodies out there unless we as citizens are directly involved.

We put a plan into Nepean that in my opinion is a model plan for North America, if not for the world. We did it by stealing ideas from everyone else and then adding some of our own to the pot. We have a tremendous number of volunteers in Nepean now who do work that five or 10 years ago was done by a highly paid, highly costly police officer. We have things like housebreaking situations, car thefts, bicycle thefts, all the rest of that, being handled by volunteer civilians at no cost to the taxpayer. Well, not no cost: We have an office, so there is insignificant cost. But the dramatic reduction was fabulous for me to see. The plan went into effect and is now growing and the cost savings are fabulous.

There are numerous other cost savings we put into effect as a result of the information we were able to receive from all over the world. That platform has been laid and is progressing and improving in the city of Nepean. It's not only there, of course: Ottawa, to some degree, and Gloucester, to some degree, have done the same things. We've all been working towards this angle of getting the community involved in policing and being directly involved, which they have done.

We have moved towards centralization. When I was on the board we moved towards getting common meetings with the other police boards, and we have to a great extent centralized the drug branches, the emergency response team, the intelligence branch. That's hooked into Toronto with the computer setup there, and they're working towards having only one computer operated out of Ottawa; there still are three but they're amalgamated to a great degree.

I'm very concerned about amalgamation, very concerned. I don't think this matter has been properly studied by anyone. I have read the reports of the instant experts, and I shake my head. I didn't spend seven years doing nothing else but police work, but I spent a substantial amount of time involved in studying the issues, and I don't think they've been addressed.

I can't take time to go into all the problems I have with the amalgamation, but I'm just going to address two: first of all, the costs, and second, although Mme Peart has dealt with that to some degree, I'll touch for a moment on the lost community involvement. Does anybody has a handle on the costs unified policing will result in? I've done a quick look at it. Let me give you some numbers. A new trunk radio system is now going in; there's a committee set up for that purpose and it's on the way. That's a cost of $15 million. I grant you, it's not only for police, but the majority of the use is for police, though there are going to be some other uses for it.

To bring the computer record system into unity is going to cost at least $4 million. I was involved with putting in the new computer systems in Nepean and I can assure you I have some knowledge of that. I promise you it's going to cost at least $4 million.

Just to do the painting of the marked vehicles is going to cost over a quarter of a million dollars. To deal with the uniforms -- to make a unified uniform, flashes, badges -- is going to cost over $550,000, according to my calculations, and I assure you I have been very conservative in my calculations.

The training cost to bring all officers on stream with one set of rules and regulations: They're all trained officers now, but each force has a slightly different way of doing things, and they're going to have to train those people so they're all doing things the same way. I don't think you can do that for under $500,000. I calculated it out at 20 hours' training per officer, and that, in my opinion, is very minimal.

Then we have the difference in salaries. Gloucester and Nepean pay both their civilians and their uniformed officers substantially less than the Ottawa force. The Ottawa force, because it's larger, has stronger bargaining powers or whatever. In any event, that's the fact. The difference in those annual salaries is about $1 million. Of course, you can't just look at it as $1 million, because that's a continuing cost, so I capitalized that over 10 years and said you've got to look, for any budget purposes, at at least $10 million.

At that point, we have $33 million, most of which nobody seems to have considered yet. I go on from there.

Right now there are three satellite OPP stations. There is nothing in the legislation nor in anything I've been able to determine to say that the region is going to get these three stations. The province still owns them. That means the region is going to have to build three new satellite stations.

No one discusses these things. I can't believe that in the information I've been given no one seems to be addressing what the citizens of this region are really going to pay for this regionalization. Concepts are wonderful, but surely somebody who knows something about the police services has got to take the time to find out what the real costs are going to be. Again that's at least $3 million.

If we replace the OPP officers who are within the region, as contemplated by the bill -- and I appreciate that in some of those cases the province is paying policing where in other cases municipalities are paying, and there may be some unfairness; I don't want to address that now. The only thing I'm going to address with you is this: The cost to the citizens of the region of the city of Ottawa is going to be $7 million a year. Again, capitalize that for 10 years, because it's not a one-time cost, and you've got $70 million.

Now, I haven't touched on all kinds of other things. Get right down to stationery, the cost of the structuring of the new administration -- a lot of costs are going to be involved. Believe me, that's not going to be an easy task and someone is going to have to spend a lot of time, and that's cost, setting up that administration: Bell telephone systems, all the new equipment that is going to have to be bought there, vehicle registrations and on and on and on. There is no doubt in my mind that the amalgamation of these three forces is going to cost the citizens of the regional municipality over $100 million and I just don't think anybody has addressed this with any measure of competency to deal with that aspect.

0940

I've been involved in a lot of amalgamations and in every one of those cases we've had chartered accountants on the two companies we're going to amalgamate. In fact, in some cases we've had forensic accountants go in to try to fill gaps that the accountants are not able to foresee. I've only had one of those amalgamations in which I've been involved where they've come in on the numbers they expected; it's always way above that. I assure you that the numbers I'm throwing around to you don't even touch the surface of the real cost of this amalgamation.

The regions that have taken regionalization into account have all reported that the costs have gone up dramatically. In fact, Durham is the only one that said in their opinion it's cost-efficient and that was because that was a very spread-out area. But all of the others, Metropolitan Toronto and on and on -- I've got them listed but I won't read them all -- have reported that it's not cost-effective.

I certainly do not believe it's community-effective and, as Jean Peart has said, the trend all over the world is to get down to more localized policing because the problem of large police forces is that the citizens lose contact, there's a division between them and you have the chaotic behaviour that you see in New York City and many other large centres. The larger you get, the less involvement citizens have and the more chaos there is.

My esteemed colleague is yelling at me here to terminate my time. I have many other things I'd like to say. One of the other things is this: The Nepean board of trade and the Gloucester board of trade are totally against this amalgamation, although it's been reported that the Ottawa board of trade is for it.

I'm not against amalgamating all of the things that can be effectively amalgamated, but I think the costs have got to be addressed first. We can't go in on a matter of principle or what a political decision would be appreciated would mean, because unless we get the costs we can't address it. I would strongly recommend policing is so important and so urgent -- remember, on policing hangs our democracy; there are very few people standing between chaos and orderliness -- that this whole aspect of policing be deferred and be dealt with in a separate bill on its own. It's too important to be thrown into the mishmash that is the current bill before the House.

The Chair: I thank the Nepean Police Services Board and each of you for appearing this morning. You have used your time and then some, but you certainly got your views on the record.

ALBERT BOUWERS

The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Al Bouwers, the mayor of Gloucester --

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tannis Manikel): No, it's Osgoode. Sorry. We made a mistake.

The Chair: Osgoode?

Mr Albert Bouwers: Oh-So-Good.

Interjections.

The Chair: I'm at the mercy of people who, I assume, have correct agendas. Obviously, I don't. I apologize for that. Proceed.

Mr Bouwers: My name is Albert Bouwers and I'm the mayor of the township of Osgoode. I'm here today to speak to you on behalf of my mayoralty counterparts in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. My peers have chosen me to speak on their behalf as I have no personal vested interest in this issue since I do not intend to run for mayor or regional council in the upcoming election. I do, however, feel that as an elected representative I owe it to the people and the future of this municipality to speak on their behalf.

I stand here representing the majority of the region both geographically and in terms of population. I have served as the mayor of the township of Osgoode for the past 18 years and have represented the interests of our municipality on regional council for the same amount of time. For the past 16 years I have also been a member of the regional executive.

My membership on various provincial associations -- for example, I served on AMO as director and executive; ROMA board of directors as first vice-president; committee to review county government, chaired by MPP Ray Haggerty; committee to review local government in Ontario and conflict of interest legislation -- has allowed me to view municipal affairs from different perspectives and has given me the resources upon which to have comments regarding the issue of municipal reform.

I'm sure that you are expected to assimilate a great deal of information regarding the concerns over the implementation of Bill 143, but it is our hope that you will give serious consideration to the information and recommendations I will be making to you today on behalf of the people and 10 area mayors from Rideau, Goulbourn, Kanata, Nepean, Cumberland, West Carleton, Gloucester, Vanier, Rockcliffe Park and Osgoode.

I would like to begin by illustrating our concerns with Bill 143. The first major issue concerning Bill 143 and the one which is most near and dear to the hearts of my learned colleagues and the people they represent is that of the removal of local mayors from regional council.

It has been said that the ratepayers seek accountability. Who is closer to the issues of the people than the local mayor? You would be hard pressed to find a regional elected official that is as accessible to the ratepayers as the mayor of a municipality. The mayors live in the municipality which they serve and, more importantly, were elected by the people to represent them and their interests in a fair and equitable manner. How then can the accountability the people seek be achieved at the regional level?

As you know, public meetings regarding the issue of one-tier government were held all across the region. Attendance at the public meetings in the city of Ottawa was 30 or fewer, with a population of 300,000. They were dwarfed in comparison by the attendance in the rural areas, in the non-Ottawa areas; in the township of Osgoode, over 300 people -- the halls were just packed to the rafters -- and that's a population of 14,000. Our ratepayers made it clear that one-tier government would not be acceptable. How is it that voices of only a few are heard?

In an independent poll done by Factor Research Group of Ottawa, 420 RMOC residents responded: 71% of the respondents supported the direct election of regional councillors; 79% favoured having local mayors sit on regional council.

In the last election, the elected regional chair's platform included the promise of no one-tier government in the region. Is this not the voice of the people? Does this not make it clear that the people want their municipality to be represented by their head of council?

Since the inception of Bill 77 and subsequently Bill 143, a great deal of research and discussion has taken place between the mayors of the 10 municipalities. Each of the municipalities has also gone to the public to urge them to convince the minister to include the local mayors on regional council. The response has been incredible. Hundreds of letters were received from municipalities across Ontario in support of West Carleton's resolution regarding the retention of mayors on regional council.

A great deal of concern has been expressed from municipalities all across Ontario: the city of Toronto, Scarborough, Etobicoke, townships of Camden and Chisholm, Oakville. I can go on and on. They have supported also the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The most significant concern is that the passing of this bill would set a precedent for the random restructuring of other municipalities -- and I'm told Ottawa-Carleton is unique. I'll get to that in a minute.

As mentioned earlier, hundreds of letters have been received regarding West Carleton's resolution. One such letter from the town of Oakville reads in part:

"Oakville town council is in concurrence with the township of West Carleton that this move will undermine the very fundamental, democratic basis of county council or regional government, whereby the heads of the lower tier meet once or twice a month at the upper tier level for the collective good of all concerned."

Studies relating to the structure of municipal government in Ottawa-Carleton are readily available to the minister. These include the Mayo, the Bartlett, the Graham and, most recently, the Kirby commission. Not one of these studies recommended the removal of mayors from regional council. All of the studies included extensive public meetings. Therefore, it would be safe to say that since 1976 -- 18 years and, coincidentally, my entire term as regional councillor -- the people have not been interested in a regional government without the representation of the local heads of council. No one ever suggested the option of no mayors on regional council.

0950

In September 1993, the 10 area mayors also made a presentation, at the request of the minister, which dealt with the theory of representation by population in an attempt to show flexibility and encourage a compromise with this issue. Three options for representation by population were presented at that time: (1) population/vote, a weighted vote; (2) a scaled vote weight system; and (3) a regional council supported system. For further details, I have an addendum attached to my speech, and copies have been made available to you. The criteria for these options was based on: the minister's proposal of 18 wards, equity and fairness, maintenance of regional-wide focus and maintenance of an intermunicipal link.

During my service on the provincially appointed committee to review county government in Ontario, I was astonished at the diversity of the size and populations of municipalities within the county and regional systems. The following are examples:

Lambton county, now called Sarnia-Clearwater: total population, 124,000 people; city of Sarnia, 72,000 people; village of Arkona, in that same municipality, 707. Why didn't you kick the mayors off of those councils? That's just been done.

Regional municipality of Niagara: total population 385,000; city of St Catharines, 124,689; township of Wainfleet in that same municipality, 6,000 people.

Renfrew county -- the previous speaker was talking about too many municipalities -- has got 36 municipalities in it. The village of Braeside in Renfrew has only 510 people.

The united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry: village of Finch, 419 people.

All of these counties have their local head of council represented on the upper tier. The Ottawa-Carleton regional government structure is certainly not unique in comparison.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is on record as saying that there is no county, region or district council anywhere in Canada which does not have its heads of council sitting on the upper tier.

We are concerned that the proposed changes to the regional government structure in Ottawa-Carleton as set out in Bill 143 may be the first step towards an amalgamated single-tier government. We would welcome a plebiscite on this matter so that the public would have the right to express their opinion.

The second issue I wish to address with regard to this bill is the regionalization of policing services. The mayors of the region have serious concerns about the cost and service to the taxpayer of this proposal. Two independent studies have already been carried out with regard to this issue: Price Waterhouse and Judge René Marin.

In a letter to the minister dated September 30, 1993, the following recommendations were made: (1) that the ratepayers of Ottawa-Carleton not be saddled with additional property taxes to implement regional policing; (2) that the unfunded liabilities of some police forces remain with the taxpayers who incurred the costs through special area levies; (3) that the implementation task force include the Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester police chiefs and a senior officer from the OPP; (4) that the implementation be done in a logical fashion and that the province pay the phase-in and implementation costs; (5) that the region of Ottawa-Carleton receive household police grants on the same basis as all other regions in the province; (6) that the level of service be consistent for all taxpayers, ie, response time; (7) that no downloading of OPP costs to area municipalities in the region should commence until that is a uniform phase-in policy by the province across Ontario.

All municipalities within the Ottawa-Carleton region share a common concern that the most effective, practical and economical policing service be provided to each municipality. The report from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Review Commission, the Kirby report, does not contain adequate support for their recommendations. The report failed to provide for community consultation to determine the needs and expectations of the community at large and various special interest groups. The report also failed to provide a costing analysis for the implementation of regional policing.

Citizens are concerned about the loss of local identity and control. Current policing programs are community-based and are tailored to their needs. Community policing has been introduced and has proven to provide ratepayers with an opportunity to become involved with the programs in their communities. With the implementation of a regional police force, the cost to the ratepayer would increase substantially, carrying with it no guarantees that the level of service will remain or improve.

Apart from the financial aspects of this proposed change, we are also concerned that the emphasis on service will shift to the urban areas. The geographic composition of the region is such that a concentration of resources in any one area could be detrimental to other areas of the region.

The third issue concerning this bill is in regard to economic development becoming the sole responsibility of the region. The area mayors wish to have included in the bill permissive legislation to allow for both local and regional government to become involved in the economic health of the region.

If the region were to assume responsibility for all existing lands, both commercial and industrial, there's a concern over the balance of growth. Limiting the economic growth of any one area in the region could in turn affect job creation in that area.

In the past, we have enjoyed a good partnership with the RMOC regarding the promotion of economic growth in our area and municipalities. Does this require a change?

The final issue of concern to the mayors is that of the lack of clarity regarding the delegation of responsibility for the sewer systems. In September 1993, the following recommendations were made to the minister regarding this issue:

(1) That the cost of infrastructure weaknesses and deficiencies in specific municipalities not be borne by the general ratepayer. These costs should be recovered by the ratepayers of the municipality with the problems through a special area levy.

(2) That the region and local municipality have agreed in all briefs, including the region's, when responding to Mr Kirby's report to a formula for the division of responsibility for sewers. This solution essentially makes the region responsible for the establishment of the appropriate policies to protect the environment and to the end of pipe assets. The municipalities should continue to provide local collector sewers in the region.

(3) That an amendment to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act include a definition of local and regional responsibility consistent with the regional position submitted to the minister in February 1993.

Currently, negotiations are under way between the municipalities and the region regarding the actual responsibilities for the sewers. This again demonstrates the effectiveness of the existing municipal and regional relationship.

In closing, it is important to note that although numerous efforts have been made to encourage the minister to consider all of the options, we have failed to receive a favourable response on any of these issues. We feel that the minister has shown a blatant disregard for our concerns and those of the people we were elected to represent. It is our opinion and the opinion of hundreds of other municipalities that if the concerns which we have outlined for you here today are not addressed by the minister, a mockery will be made of the democratic system. Could this issue become a repeat performance by the minister of what occurred in the House on March 28, 1994?

It is our trust that this government will seriously consider all of the abovementioned concerns, and we look forward to favourable amendments to this bill.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Thank you very much, sir. Your worship, there are a couple of points I want to bring out, if I could. From the population of the town that you very ably represent, if we were to extrapolate that to, say, the city of Ottawa, if their representation on the regional council were the same as your own, you would then have 60 representatives from the city of Ottawa. Now, I believe you probably are in agreement with some level of representation by population, but don't you think there should be some adjustments at some level of representation?

Mr Bouwers: Yes, I have no problem with that at all. As a matter of fact, I think we gave you the three options there: the weighted system that we've offered to you. In the county system, which has existed for over 100 years, the reeve, for example, in a county council, when a municipality has a population of over X number -- I think it's 10,000 -- has four votes. So it's a very common system that has been used for years, and there's no problem that that similar system could be used in Ottawa-Carleton. We've given you -- and you'll find it as an appendix to your package.

Mr White: I appreciate that, but I'm also aware in terms of amendments to the bill that the ones that have been proposed by opposition have included an amendment that would not allow your municipality to have representation, to have a vote.

Mr Bouwers: Of course, I hope that my member did not make that. I'm sure it wasn't my member who would have made that.

Mr White: No, a member of the same party, though.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Bouwers, you were here when the mayor of Ottawa made her presentation. Essentially, I think she said that you're parochial and that you should get with it and you're afraid of change, and in the 21st century things ought to be done differently. I'm wondering what your reaction was.

Mr Bouwers: I was just amazed at some of her statements. She quotes things, for example, about the Ottawa official plan taking so long. Well, I don't know if she does understand that if the region is now in the position of the minister, the region takes the minister's place to approve official plans. So if it wasn't for the region, this official plan would have had to have been approved by the province in the same fashion. So there's no difference in that regard, expect that somebody has to protect the overall regional interests when it comes to official plans.

When we keep talking about bigger is better, there was a clear example during that meeting, where the city of Ottawa said, as a demand of the region, that it should make its shopping centre zonings conform as quickly as possible -- "forthwith" was the right word. The city of Ottawa said, "It's going to take us more than two years to do that kind of thing." Unbelievable. They're so big. They've got the staff. They should have been able to do that overnight, you might say. But there's something that is just unbelievable: When they get big, they get into a bureaucratic nightmare that they can't even operate any more.

1000

Mr David Johnson: Thank you very much, your worship, for an excellent deputation. I may be a bit biased, but certainly from my experience in the past, I've seen poll after poll where it's demonstrated that people look to their local councils and their local mayors for leadership, involvement and accountability. Your comments with regard to the police force and the previous comments from Nepean are well placed too. In Metropolitan Toronto, for example, 40 cents out of every dollar that's collected at the regional level goes to policing.

I wondered, though, maybe in terms of a question, people are still disgruntled with regard to the cost of government: federal government, provincial government, all levels of government, regional and local as well, I'm sure, to some degree.

In Metropolitan Toronto, in response to ratepayer concern with regard to the cost of government, there is, through the local municipalities, an organization that's actively studying the possibility of the elimination of the regional council as opposed to the local councils, where the mayor of Ottawa seems to think this is headed, and where you're concerned this is headed as well, to reverse the strategy there and do away with the regional government and just have the local councils. That will put a smile on your face, I'm sure. Has there been any discussion about that here, or what are your views on that?

Mr Bouwers: No question, those points have been made. As a matter of fact, another interesting one was that we could probably be better off without a provincial government, especially the present one. It's interesting that the government that works best is the government closest to the people.

The sad miscomprehension that the people have about the cost of government and the brunt we bear every day, every time the tax bill goes out, is the fact that in our case almost 70% of our tax bill is for school board levy.

We can print it on there sideways, crosswise and every direction on our tax bill that so much is municipal. We had less than 20 cents out of every dollar of our tax bill, from which we do all the services such as garbage, library, community centres, snowplowing, you name it. They're getting the best bang for their buck at the municipal level, no question in my mind. The sad part is that people have to make the cheque for their taxes out to the municipality and that's all they remember, what the great big cheque amounted to. I wish the school boards would collect the taxes on our behalf, because we only get the small part. That would fix it all.

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Bouwers. I'd like to give you my appreciation for appearing before the committee this morning and presenting your personal views and your views in your role as mayor of the township of Osgoode, and also the views of the other mayors and communities that you've represented this morning. Thank you very much for your input.

THE GLENS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

The Chair: The next scheduled witness is The Glens Community Association. Good morning and welcome. You've been allocated 20 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Pauline Meyer: I'm Pauline Meyer, president of The Glens Community Association in the city of Nepean. I speak to you today as a representative of my community and as an interested resident of this region; very interested, because municipal government is the level closest to citizens. By its very closeness, it is the most accountable level and is responsible for the quality of our day-to-day life.

By this time, you've had briefings on the bill before you, by the minister giving the political viewpoint and by staff giving the bureaucratic viewpoint. I'm sorry that more effort was not made to understand the concerns raised by the public and by municipalities during the framing of this bill. A lot of time and effort has been put forth to present alternatives based on a living knowledge of the area, but to no avail. There has been virtually no willingness to modify any aspect of the bill other than the last-minute inclusion of the French-language school board provisions, which really just muddies the water again.

On behalf of The Glens Community Association, I attended the Kirby commission hearings, which were the forerunner to this bill, made it a point to read all the studies and documentation which had been prepared as a result of the initiative to reform regional government, and responded to most of them.

The intent of the Kirby commission hearings was to consult with the area municipalities and the public to determine the type of change and the degree of change that should occur in the operation of regional government. The three previous studies and recommendations, by H.B. Mayo, David Bartlett and Katherine Graham, on the region's administrative, operational and electoral systems were the basis for this commission.

Two themes were dominant in the comments of participants at these hearings: They requested an assurance of fiscally responsible management and an assurance of equitable representation throughout the region. Neither is given in this proposed legislation, nor does there appear to be a willingness to amend the legislation to incorporate these two most important ideals.

Fiscally responsible management is lacking in the implementation of a regional police force. Startup costs are guesstimated to be in the $4-million to $11-million range. Any debt held by the three municipal forces at the time of the merger is to be assigned to the region, and thereby to all taxpayers, rather than the taxpayers of the municipality which incurred the debt. On the other hand, no credit is to be assigned to the municipalities for the transfer of their assets to the merged force. Taxpayers of the region will be responsible for the cost of the policing currently handled by the OPP in the more rural areas of the region. Although we pay a portion now through our provincial taxes, this base will shrink as a larger portion will be assigned to property taxes.

There are suggestions of provincial grants to offset some of these costs. We're still speaking of taxpayers' funding. This should not be entertained or promised, considering the province's financial plight. This offloading of provincial costs would be somewhat more palatable if legislation were to be implemented assigning the cost of policing by the OPP to each community on a province-wide basis.

The high cost associated with the regionalization of police services is probably the main reason for public objection to this proposed change. Certainly, area forces should be cooperating and forming joint squads in specialized areas. A common standard in the area of computer and radio systems should be set and each force would work towards instituting this gradually; that is, whenever changes in equipment are necessary. As well, the city of Ottawa bears a disproportionate cost to handle security at the provincial courthouse. This should be addressed by the municipalities in the region.

The choice of individual municipalities to designate industrial-commercial lands will be removed, thereby limiting their economic development, their potential for job creation and the possibility of increasing their tax base. Currently, municipalities are able to designate employment areas under the umbrella of the regional official plan. This has worked fairly well. There is an ongoing process of increasing cooperation among the municipalities of the region, leading to more effective economic planning and development. This should continue, with the region maintaining the umbrella and allowing the municipalities to develop in conformity with the regional official plan.

The section of the act dealing with sewer infrastructure and maintenance does not specifically detail the assignment of financial cost. While there should certainly be regional direction and standards, especially considering that the region owns and operates the gathering and treatment facilities, each municipality should be responsible for the financial costs of upgrading and maintaining the individual servicing and feeder infrastructure within their own boundaries. The burden of poor planning or fiscal ineptitude on the part of any municipality should not be borne by the region as a whole.

1010

Regarding part I of the act, dealing with elected representation, much has been made of the necessity to ensure accountability to the electorate of the region. Today, all persons who serve on regional council are elected: some elected to a municipal council, which automatically enables them to sit on regional council, others directly elected for both a regional and municipal role. Quite frankly, I find it mildly insulting to be told continually, "People don't know who is responsible for what."

Section 8.1 states, "...the minister shall by order provide for,...the boundaries of the local wards." I find it completely unacceptable that the democratic right of the municipalities and their citizens to determine their municipal ward boundaries has been so abrogated.

The suggested municipal boundaries for the city of Nepean show no understanding of the development patterns, of the inherent communities of interest or of the planned growth areas of the city, nor is there much attention paid to equality of representation by population within the six proposed city wards: One has a population of 11,000, the other five between 18,000 and 20,000.

The regional wards imposed, based on the previously mentioned and flawed municipal wards, just compound the problem. It is obvious that these regional wards take into account neither communities of interest nor projected growth areas. They give disproportionate representation to the city of Ottawa electorate at the expense of the other municipalities' electorates.

It is not good enough to say that changes can occur to boundaries after the next municipal election, because then will be too late and there is no assurance that the cooperation of the two levels, city and region, will be forthcoming.

This ill-conceived and hasty project should be revised and revisited in a logical and planned manner, by first directing the area municipalities to set local ward boundaries and then redrawing the regional boundaries, incorporating the principle of representation by population and by community of interest.

One other distressing aspect of the elected representation component is the removal of area mayors from regional council. The area mayors are most in touch with the municipal electorate and are in most cases the guiding hands of fiscally responsible management within their communities. This is especially true in the suburban and rural municipalities.

With the imbalance of representation by population in favour of the city of Ottawa, as evidenced in the proposed makeup of regional wards and the fact that regional councillors will only serve at the regional level, not a combined municipal-regional function, it is imperative that the mayors serve on regional council as a link between the areas' citizens and the municipal and regional governments.

Two items in this bill, a greater regional responsibility in the environmental areas of waste pickup and storm water treatment management, and the assumption of control of street vendors on regional roads, are quite sensible but are issues that the area municipalities could have and have been cooperatively working on without the need for legislation.

In this time of economic uncertainty, citizens are demanding that all levels of government show restraint and that they evince a real understanding that there is only one source of income, the taxpayer. Any escalation of the costs associated with regional government for purely administrative reasons are not acceptable. I urge you to reconsider the economic ramifications of this bill and withdraw it from the order paper and allow the municipalities to continue to integrate services where and when warranted.

In the words of a former Prime Minister, please, let us remain a community of communities; therein lies our strength.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Thank you so much. Your presentation is full of knowledge. What I think it's based on is pointing directly to the unfairness of Bill 143. In many cases you've pointed out there is going to be built-in inequity and unfairness. I don't think your last request is going to be received.

Ms Meyer: I don't think so.

Mrs O'Neill: If you had the opportunity we do to present two amendments, what would you suggest to us that you think most important?

Ms Meyer: I would certainly suggest the electoral section on the municipal boundaries and the inclusion of mayors; that would be one. The other one would be an amendment that would hit several areas, but it's the assumption of costs by the local or home municipality. The municipality that was responsible for, in the case of sewers, bringing them up to standard, the city of Ottawa, and it's not a matter of building all new sewers because we're now a region and everybody should have a sewer -- there is a real problem in our area with bringing the current sewer systems up to a proper level of service, the storm sewers and sanitary sewers together, and that is not acceptable and that has to be done. I do not believe that the region as a whole should have to pay the economic costs or the financial costs of this.

Those are the amendments I would like. I would like the costs assigned and I would like the ward boundaries and mayors included.

Mr Daigeler: I come back to the mayor of Ottawa because I feel very strongly that while there is pressure from the member for Ottawa Centre, and she's here, I think the key pressure is coming from the city of Ottawa. I don't know whether you were here at the beginning --

Ms Meyer: Yes, I was.

Mr Daigeler: -- but the mayor of Ottawa really showed very clearly where she was coming from. She wants one-tier government and she feels the other municipalities are already too many, and really, if I understand her right, she doesn't see any usefulness in their existence. I'm just wondering, what is your reaction to the presentation that was made by the mayor of Ottawa?

Ms Meyer: It's one thing for the mayor of Ottawa to say something for her 296,000 people, but you've got to remember that we have more than that on the outskirts, in the suburban and the rural areas. We're not speaking of the city of Ottawa having 75% of the population. It's less than 50%.

The regional government should be responsible for many of the things that it is responsible for today, but speaking as a citizen, to me, running down to the region for something -- it's large. There are offices all over the place; there are people all over the place. You can't get the person you want right away. You go down to the city of Nepean, you walk into city hall and bang, you find who you want. You pick up a phone and you instantly are able to speak to the person you want.

This is what we've got. This accountability at the local level is very, very important to people. Municipal government handles all our day-to-day things: the garbage, the street-cleaning, the ditches, the roads and so on, and it really is important for people to have quick, honest accessibility.

Mr David Johnson: You've sort of led into my question, actually, and I congratulate you for your deputation today.

This may be what they call leading the witness, but in the limited time, from my experience as the former mayor of East York, in a municipality in the Metropolitan Toronto region, people and ratepayer organizations, community organizations such as yours, felt very comfortable in coming before our council, televised versions of the council, committee meetings etc, making deputations.

They would come with regard to local issues; they would come with regard to regional issues; sometimes they'd come with regard to provincial or federal issues, and state their case because it was close to home and they felt very comfortable in doing that. They expected me, as the mayor, to take that view to the metropolitan council and it was very helpful to me in getting that kind of advice.

I found on the regional government, though, on the Metropolitan Toronto council, that those making deputations were less likely to be community ratepayer organizations -- they seemed to, as I say, be involved at the local level -- and more apt to be special-interest groups with paid assistance. You've kind of commented on that, but what is your experience in that regard with your organization?

Ms Meyer: Our organization has made several presentations at the regional headquarters. I find -- I'm probably cutting my own throat here -- that probably because the councillors are doing dual municipal and regional, they really aren't interested. I find that you have a much better rapport with your local municipality, and you have your elected representatives there forward your position. I find it much more willing to listen and to question and to find out what you really want and then carry it forward. I find that at the regional level they are not as interested in the individual communities' positions as they would be perhaps in some of the special-interest groups.

1020

Mr White: One point I would like to address from your talk is about the cost of sewers. I believe this bill basically allows for the sewers to be charged back to a local area, which is fairly unique. I think that addresses the concern you brought up about some areas needing more service that might be of a local nature.

The other issue I wanted to ask about was the very important issue you're concerned about with the ward setup and the boundaries. You point out that in a local area you can appeal to the OMB and ask for changes in the ward boundaries, but my understanding is that there were some problems in the setting up particularly of your ward -- a little problematical. I'm wondering if you're aware of how that was done involving the clerks of the local municipalities. Did you have any input on that, Ms Meyer?

Ms Meyer: I certainly did. I addressed the ward boundaries commission that was set up. I made written representation and oral presentation. I'm not sure which problems you are alluding to, whether it's a matter of trying to put a cross-border regional ward in. I'm not quite sure what problem you think was there.

Mr White: Your ward, if I'm not mistaken, is one which will be difficult in terms of representation because it's a large geographical one that surrounds a more urban ward. Is that not right?

Ms Meyer: Are you speaking of the ward that I actually live in or are you speaking of the wards in Nepean?

Mr White: Ward 3.

Ms Meyer: That is another little issue. Yes, ward 3 is a ridiculous ward. It stretches the complete width of Nepean and from the greenbelt south to Nepean's south border. It has brand-new development in it which is the fastest-growing component of that and will soon require its own ward. It has two older neighbourhoods. It has a mix of commercial, industrial and so on and so forth. There is very little commonality throughout that ward. Yes, that was one I addressed specifically in my written submissions.

The other thing is that we have a ward that has 11,000 people in it and the rest of our wards, as currently laid out, have between 18,000 and 20,000. It's my belief that this 11,000 ward was put there in order to accommodate a regional ward being overlaid. That seems to be the only rationale I can find for it, because that ward actually would be better on the other side.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Pauline, for presenting your views and those of The Glens Community Association. It's been a very interesting discussion and I know the committee has appreciated the dialogue.

NEPEAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr John McCalla: My name is John McCalla. I'm president of the Nepean Chamber of Commerce. My colleague, Buck Arnold, is executive director. We have prepared a brief for you. I'd like to go through that and then entertain any questions or comments you may have.

The Nepean Chamber of Commerce is the acknowledged and respected voice of business in the city of Nepean. Our 430 individual and corporate members represent 10,000 employees, and we have served the local business community since 1980.

For good and sufficient reasons, presented herein, the Nepean Chamber of Commerce objects to the substance of the proposed Bill 143 and urges it to be withdrawn.

Bill 143 imposes radical, unnecessary and unwarranted alterations to our system of local governance. We are aware that not one of the proposed alterations was contained in the Ottawa-Carleton regional review prepared by commissioner Graeme Kirby.

Bill 143 also establishes a regional police services board empowered to amalgamate the three local police services, including the Nepean police service, no later than January 1, 1997.

Although Bill 143 has not yet received even second reading in the assembly, the minister has placed advertisements in the local press declaring that the provisions of Bill 143 will be implemented forthwith.

The Nepean Chamber of Commerce perceives the local municipality as the cornerstone of the entire political process in Canada. It is the level of government nearest to, most accessible to, and most responsive to the needs of the electorate. The so-called regional issues are nothing more than simple consensus extensions reflecting a commonality of interest at the municipal level.

The proposed separation of representation to create a regional council entirely isolated and divorced from local councils is regressive and not in the public interest. Simply put, the regional municipality was created to better serve the local municipalities and it is their servant. It has no other independent legitimacy.

The present system of municipal governance has well served and will continue to well serve all the citizens of the region. Bill 143 would burden everyone with two separate individual representatives, one local and one regional, and makes no sense. Worse, it's wasteful of our very limited resources.

In particular, the imposition of new cross-boundary wards for the reorganized regional council will serve only to complicate the election process and confuse the electorate. We cannot willingly consent to the imposition of such a flawed process. To date, no one, including the minister, has produced a satisfactory explanation or rationale for the imposition of such a system.

The Nepean Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes the proposed amalgamation of the three local police services. The advantages claimed in favour of such an amalgamation are highly subjective and probably illusory. We do not believe there will be any improvement in public safety, crime analysis, solution and prevention, ability to achieve employment equity goals, ability to achieve bilingual service and clarification of accountability and liability. No sound reasons have been advanced by anyone, including the minister, to demonstrate how the creation of an amalgamated police service could possible advance the achievement of those goals.

From our viewpoint, we are aware that a study done last year by the firm of Price Waterhouse, chartered accountants, revealed that amalgamation would generate additional costs of between $4 million and $7 million. We foresee the creation of a large police service less responsive to local needs and providing no discernible benefit to the citizens either in the city of Nepean or the region.

Finally, we are amazed that on a matter as vital to the interests of the hundreds of thousands of residents in this region, the minister has not seen fit, despite repeated invitations, to visit the region and sit down with our local representatives to discuss his notions concerning the reorganization of our institutions.

That's our presentation.

Mr David Johnson: I thank the Nepean Chamber of Commerce very much for the deputation. I know from my experience that the chamber of commerce, having to live in the real financial world, is most concerned about expenditures -- thank heavens somebody is -- and puts a little bit of sanity on what governments do.

You have commented particularly on the police services board. I have a document in front of me from that police services board which indicates the cost per capita of policing in Nepean at $127 per capita; in Gloucester, $122 per capita; and in Ottawa, $168 per capita. This apparently is from Judge René Marin's report of just over a year ago. So $122, $127, up to $168.

The concern here is that if it's all amalgamated into one, what's going to happen with that cost? According to Price Waterhouse and its report on municipal services, it tends to go up to the higher level, and that's been my experience too through political life. If that happened, I guess we'd be looking at about $168 per capita right across the region. Is that the kind of concern you're looking at?

1030

Mr McCalla: What we're basically afraid of is the question of the cost of doing business in the region and in particular in the city of Nepean. We feel this amalgamation of the police services will result in additional costs, which we don't mind as long as there's some benefit, but there's no benefit. You see, the benefits haven't been defined, they haven't been convincingly explained. We don't think there's going to be any benefit, but we know there's going to be increased cost. We don't mind increased cost provided there's a recognizable benefit, but we don't see increased costs with no benefit as being a sound policy.

Mr David Johnson: Your basic concern is that costs are going to go up and the benefits aren't going to be there. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at the Price Waterhouse report I quoted earlier.

Mr McCalla: It's been a while since I looked at it.

Mr David Johnson: They make the observation that in terms of looking at the different municipalities, and I'm only going from what they say, so I'm the messenger here, "The average salaries, including benefits, of Ottawa's administrative staff are approximately $70,000, while for all other lower-tier municipalities combined it is $42,400" -- $70,000 versus $42,400 -- "and for the regional government the average is approximately $65,000."

I don't know if these numbers have been disputed, but that's what Price Waterhouse claims, and that gives one pause in terms of the costs of bigger government. Maybe it explains why bigger government is somewhat more expensive. Is that the kind of experience you've seen?

Mr McCalla: Yes. The example that's comparable is the creation of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in the 1960s. That was created strictly for engineering and infrastructure reasons. The area was growing. We had to have control of the water, sewer, roadway systems. It was an infrastructure solution. The cost of the total bureaucracy increased by a large amount, but at least we got a benefit. We knew it was going to increase costs, but there was a benefit. With the police services, we see increased costs with no benefit.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd like to ask you to take a look at how people live in Ottawa-Carleton and think about the number of times that a person who lives in your municipality in Nepean might end up using or feeling the benefit of services provided by the Ottawa police currently. Would you agree that within an area such as Ottawa-Carleton we have depended on services in each other's municipalities for a good portion of our waking time, each of us, and does that not suggest to you that at some point it makes some sense for us to plan that service in one integrated way and to provide payment for that service in one integrated way?

Mr McCalla: I think you've put your finger right on it. I think the city of Ottawa police service has a fairly high per capita cost as well as debts it has incurred through the construction of its police service. They know they're going to incur further expenses in terms of their computer systems. I think they want others to share their burden, and I don't think it's a case that the people of Nepean or the business community of Nepean is going to benefit one iota.

I think there is cooperation among the police services. They have been getting along. There have been no recorded instances of problems between them, other than minor technical problems, because I understand they don't have the same computerized systems. But other than that, they get along. They provide an excellent service to the members of our community.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Do you think it's a good idea for them to have an integrated way of having their computer systems speak to each other?

Mr McCalla: Of course, and they're going to do that regardless.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Do you think it's fair, then, to ascribe that as an extra cost for the amalgamation of the police service in Ottawa-Carleton, which was done by an earlier witness today?

Mr McCalla: No, most of the additional costs are going to be in the payroll.

Hon Ms Gigantes: So you wouldn't ascribe that as an additional cost to amalgamation?

Mr McCalla: Oh, yes, it is. Everybody gets a promotion.

Hon Ms Gigantes: But you say it should be done in any case.

Mr McCalla: No. You're going to amalgamate your computer systems in any case, regardless of this legislation.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That was my question.

Mr McCalla: The problem is that the city of Ottawa will pay for it rather than the entire region. The legislation wants the entire region to pay for the city of Ottawa's new computer system for its police service, and we don't think that's a benefit to the people of Nepean at all.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I see. Are there members of your chamber who would also be members of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade?

Mr McCalla: Indeed.

Hon Ms Gigantes: And they are represented by different positions on this bill therefore?

Mr McCalla: Yes, I believe so.

Hon Ms Gigantes: When I look, for example, at your comment, "The regional municipality was created to better serve the local municipalities and it is their servant. It has no other independent legitimacy," the chamber's point of view then might be read, and I'd like your comment, as a view of the regional government, which spends $1 billion worth of taxpayers' money locally, is really that it is a committee of municipalities.

Mr McCalla: Yes.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Do you think people in your area welcomed the direct election of a regional chair?

Mr McCalla: Not the people I've spoken to.

Hon Ms Gigantes: So they'd prefer to have a committee of municipal representatives spend their $1 billion?

Mr McCalla: Yes.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Not having seen the total list of presenters -- I represent Lincoln, in the region of Niagara.

Mr McCalla: That's where I was born.

Mr Hansen: I deal with five chambers of commerce down there, which all operate independently, and I've never heard anything to say they didn't like the way it was operating in the region of Niagara. Do the other chambers involved in this area have the same view as your chamber, or are there different views in different areas?

Mr McCalla: I'd like the other chambers to speak for themselves, but of the other eight area chambers, I know of only one, the Rideau township one, which would be sympathetic to this proposed legislation.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade is too.

Mr McCalla: It's not a chamber of commerce. The board of trade is in favour of it. I'll let the others speak for themselves.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Mr Grandmaître and then Mr Daigeler.

Mr Hansen: I guess I've run out of time.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I might as well follow up on this two-way question about the Ottawa board of trade and your chamber of commerce. I've always respected chambers of commerce, because they represent a united voice, a united front. Can you help me understand the difference in the points of view from the Ottawa board of trade and from you as a businessman? In Nepean, Gloucester, Ottawa, they're business people. Why is there such a difference in opinion between your chamber and the Ottawa board of trade?

Mr McCalla: Quite frankly, and to put it succinctly, I think this legislation is only to the benefit of the city of Ottawa.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for appearing before the committee, even though, as you know, there is only one hour of debate on third reading and there's a closure motion which was passed by the majority of the government under which we have only today and tomorrow to discuss this matter. Nevertheless, it's useful to put your views on the record.

As late as yesterday, and earlier on in the House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who's only represented by his parliamentary assistant here today, made a lot of the following support for his position to exclude the mayors from regional council. I'm reading here from his opening statement yesterday when we started this process of looking at this legislation. He says:

"David Bartlett, the author of a previous study on the future of Ottawa-Carleton; Claude Bennett, former Progressive Conservative Minister of Municipal Affairs; the former and current chairs of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade; the mayor and council of the city of Ottawa; the Ottawa Citizen; and the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens' Associations."

1040

These are the groups that the minister and, I think, the member for Ottawa Centre as well are using as the main supporters of their project, and from that, certainly the Minister of Municipal Affairs seemed to conclude that the majority of the people in Ottawa-Carleton are in favour. I'm wondering what your reaction is.

Mr McCalla: I don't believe that is a correct appreciation of the support and dissent from this proposed legislation. I believe that if they had a referendum on it region-wide the proposal would fail.

Mr David Johnson: There'll be one next year.

Mr Daigeler: You have written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs; I've received copies of that. Did the minister respond to you at all?

Mr McCalla: There's been no response whatsoever.

Mr Daigeler: I rest my case.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the Nepean Chamber of Commerce for coming and giving us this presentation this morning.

I'd like to call forward our next presenters from Citizens for Fair Taxes.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I have a copy of a letter to the Nepean Chamber of Commerce and Mr John McCalla, president, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If we're going to make reference, we should be able to do so on both sides.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr White.

CITIZENS FOR FAIR TAXES

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank you for coming out this morning and giving us your presentation. Please identify yourself for Hansard, and the committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a few moments at the end for questions and comments. Please proceed.

Mr Frank Spink: Thank you. My name is Frank Spink. I'm speaking on behalf of Citizens for Fair Taxes. We are a group of citizens operating in a non-profit organization. Our primary concerns have been the ever-increasing tax load at all levels of government, the credit card spending phase which most governments appear to be in at the present moment, the almost total lack of concern over value for money. Too many of our politicians at all levels seem to think that money grows on trees. I can assure you it doesn't. It comes out of our pockets, and we know it.

I must turn first to the manner in which this reform is being pushed through. We were told early in the summer that the government wished to introduce this reform in time for the 1994 local elections. The bill then existed in draft form, but the government did not see fit to put it on the order paper until mid-December, at which time we were told that it must be passed by year-end, otherwise it could not apply until the 1997 elections.

Time allocation was threatened, but under duress the bill was withdrawn. There was no attempt to inform or consult with the public during this time. CFFT wrote to the Premier in August 1993, asking that the public be properly informed and consulted with respect to the proposed reforms before proceeding with the bill.

In our letter we expressed a number of concerns. We invited the Premier to meet with us to discuss these concerns. He was too busy and he delegated the Minister of Municipal Affairs to respond on his behalf. Time went by and, as we hadn't heard from Mr Philip by December, we again wrote to Mr Rae asking him to use whatever little influence he might have with the minister to get us a response.

In late January Mr Philip did respond, assuring us that our concerns were unfounded, that there was massive public support for the bill. There had been, he said, quite adequate public consultation through the Kirby hearings and the government knew it was doing the right thing. This in spite of the fact that no information on cost or other impact had been provided, nor had it been provided by the time the bill was reintroduced into the Legislature in April, garnished, I might add, with a red herring about French-language school boards just to keep everybody off balance a bit.

We also observed at that time that the impossible had become possible. The December 31 deadline hadn't really been a deadline at all. We could even get by with an April 30 deadline. Does anybody sense a bit of a credibility gap there? The public was then told that even though there remained almost a month before the new deadline, it would be necessary to limit debate to one hour on third reading. Again that ugly word "credibility" comes to mind.

Having previously assured us that consultation was not necessary, the minister now magnanimously allowed us, the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton, one and one half days of public hearings. Of course, the dates, the time and the place were not made public until about 48 hours beforehand. Given the minister's proclivity for taking out full-page ads to tell us about the great things he's doing, couldn't you really have done a little better than that, folks?

I personally know a lot of people who are very upset about the lack of forewarning of this meeting, the lack of opportunity to speak to you that we have in front of us at the present moment. The Speaker of the Legislature suggests that Mr Philip was close to contempt of the Legislature. We think he is in contempt of the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton.

I would draw your attention to the short quotation which opens my presentation. I didn't read it, but it's very apt and I hope that you will take a close look at it. Taxpayers do not take kindly to the mushroom treatment, particularly when you have to pay for the manure yourself.

I have a recommendation for you: That the government engage in serious two-way communication with the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton and that the costs and other impacts deriving from Bill 143 be fully and frankly put before the public before proceeding to third reading. Closure should be neither threatened nor imposed.

We are told by the government that reform will bring us representation by population, democracy in its purest form. The fact is that rep by pop is only rational within a homogeneous community. In a community with significantly different characteristics and demographics, it can subordinate the legitimate interests of one group to the interests of a larger group with quite divergent concerns. That's why, for example, the United States has a Senate which is charged with seeing that rep by pop does not impose the desires of one large group to the detriment of another group with quite legitimate interests and concerns.

We submit that other structural reforms are required before making rep by pop a political imperative. Pure political doctrine must be tempered by logic and common sense. We believe it would be appropriate to divide the Ottawa-Carleton area into two regions, an urban-oriented region within the greenbelt and a rural region in the surrounding area. This would provide reasonably homogeneous areas wherein rep by pop might be legitimately pursued as a Holy Grail.

Recommendation 2: That the Ottawa-Carleton region be divided into two regions, an urban region within the greenbelt wherein regional government would be appropriate and a group of rural municipalities which would be better suited to conventional county government.

Bill 143 is highly permissive. It delegates extensive authority to regional council to allocate costs across the region or impose local levies for specific expenditures. Given that two of the municipalities within the region have massive debt loads, unfunded pension liabilities, deferred maintenance liabilities and infrastructure deficiencies, the other nine municipalities are justifiably concerned that there will be an attempt to offload these liabilities on to all ratepayers. Citizens for Fair Taxes shares these concerns. We believe the provincial government cannot evade its responsibility to establish policy for dealing with these liabilities.

1050

Recommendation 3: That the province clearly establish policies for liquidating and amortizing outstanding liabilities which must now be assumed by regional government. We recommend you do that before enacting Bill 143.

There is a significant difference of opinion throughout the region on the question of retaining local mayors on the regional council. Bartlett, Graham and Kirby all reported consensus that a move to directly elected councillors was appropriate. There was also a strong consensus that 10 of the mayors should also be there. This is seen by many as a necessary check and balance on the dominance of urban representatives on council. Parochialism is not the exclusive domain of rural councillors. Given the strong views on both sides of this question, it appears to be appropriate to seek public direction by referendum before precluding the participation by mayors. It should be noted that mayors too are elected and thus are legitimate spokespersons for their electors.

It should also be noted that Bill 143 does not reduce the number of elected politicians within the region. Those who favour single-tier government would see this as a more effective approach to reducing overgovernance. It must be said, however, that single-tier government would be horrifically expensive. Price Waterhouse studies -- they've been referred to before -- suggest an increase of between $25 million and $77 million in annual costs would result from imposing single-tier government.

Recommendation 4: That the public be asked for guidance by way of a referendum on the question of mayors on regional-municipal council.

Regional policing is a very contentious issue. Bartlett says there's not enough information to make an informed decision. Judge René Marin, in his study, says that the efficiencies resulting from regionalization of policing would be minor. He concludes that in those areas where improvement might still be effected, this could easily be achieved through administrative arrangement between regional municipalities: a sort of 911 number for police calls.

Region-wide use of Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester and OPP specialty police units and improved interforce communications were cited as practical solutions. Reimbursement of the local forces for this specialty service would be administratively quite simple. The commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police was quoted as saying, in 1992 I believe, "I fail to see merit in police regionalization for the purpose of increasing policing competency in the Ottawa-Carleton region."

There will be substantial costs incurred in police regionalization. Osgoode, Rideau, Goulbourn and West Carleton currently receive policing from the Ontario Provincial Police at no charge, except what we pay in income tax, of course. Bill 143 will make the regional force responsible across the region. The force may either perform the policing itself or subcontract the task to the Ontario Provincial Police.

We don't argue that the four municipalities should not pay their way, their fair share, but the method of implementing regional policing can have dramatic impact on the cost. If, for example, the job is contracted to the provincial police, the cost per capita will probably be about $75 a year, which happens to be what they charge Kanata. If, on the other hand, the regional force charges the city of Ottawa rate, and I'm using Price Waterhouse figures here, the cost will be about $180 per capita. There will be also be a one-time capital requirement in the order of $10 million for new cars, radios, computers etc. It should be mentioned that the $75 cost from the OPP does not fully cover its infrastructure costs, but those costs are there anyway.

There's also a potential for a dramatic cost increase in other municipalities. The total cost of police service across the region was $93.8 million in 1991, according to Price Waterhouse. If under regional policing the per capita cost rose to the Ottawa levels of $180 per capita, the total would increase from that $93.8 million to $103.8 million. That's almost 11%, but in fact the increase in smaller municipalities would be much higher. Smaller municipalities want to see provincial assurance that such increases will not occur. They also seek guarantees that there will be provincial funding provided over a five-year phase-in period for the municipalities about to lose their present, no-cost policing services.

Recommendation 5: That the proposal to introduce a regional police force be withdrawn.

The addition of the French-language school boards is a retrograde step. We had previously been encouraged by Mr Cooke's stated intention to reduce the number of school boards in the region. More school boards can only add to an education tax load which is already far too high.

The sections dealing with control of street vendors and taxi licensing are really quite incredible. The function of government surely is to make policy, not to try and act as bylaw enforcers. Damn it, we pay enough bureaucrats to do that sort of thing.

Recommendation 7: Redraft and simplify those sections. You're elected to make policy, not play bylaw enforcer.

The bottom line of all this is that the public wants to see more value for less money, not more money for less service. It's disgusting, to me and to my organization, to see political gamesmanship which is already encouraging aspiring local politicians to transform two part-time functions into full-time functions with pay and expense allowances 50% or more above current levels.

We do not believe that most of the provisions in Bill 143 are of a nature which justifies the headlong rush to implement them. The urgency appears to be purely political expediency and quite unjustified. In short, gentlemen, we say to you, delay third reading of this bill. Go back, get it right, provide the taxpayers with full details of cost and other impact of your revised proposals, then come back and explain why the changes make sense. We have every confidence that informed taxpayers will make sound decisions. Attempts to withhold information and stifle debate only exacerbate the taxpayers' distrust of politicians and government.

Mr White: Mr Spink, you've talked about a couple of issues that I want to pick up on. The consultation issues, as you know in the letter you received from the minister -- Mr Kirby met with 1,300 individuals, received 200 briefs over a 90-day period. We're talking about a round of consultations and a round of discussion about this issue that has gone over the last 18 years. That doesn't sound like a headlong rush to me.

Your group is called the fair tax group. I'm wondering, sir, do you think it's fair that your municipality has policing services that you receive from the Ontario Provincial Police that most of the rest of us are paying for. You are as well from the general revenue that you pay to the provincial government, but most of us pay at a local level and at a provincial level while you're only paying at one level. I'm wondering if you consider it fair that people in your municipality are only paying once while the rest of us are paying twice.

Mr Spink: I think if you will go back to the brief and to my remarks, I said to you that we do not dispute the fact that we have four local areas which are presently getting low-cost police service. No question about that.

Mr White: No cost.

Mr Spink: We agree that it is fair to pick up our share of that.

1100

Mr Grandmaître: There are five municipalities, Mr Chair, that are receiving free OPP.

Mr Spink, I know that you've spent a great deal of time -- not preparing your brief; I don't think you needed this paper this morning, because I've spoken to you before on the phone and I think you know this by heart. I think your presentation illustrates very precisely and clearly what you and your association and the people of Ottawa-Carleton have been going through in the last three and a half or four years.

Mr Spink, I've heard again this morning that this was a rush piece of legislation. Three different dates were announced, three different occasions. Even yesterday in Toronto, when the minister appeared before us, he made this major announcement about the local school boards -- not in the House. It wasn't important enough to be made in the House. It was made outside the House. So that's the way this government has been handling Bills 32, 77, 143, and who knows, maybe next week we're going to have another bill. I really don't know.

Mr Spink, I think your presentation, your deputation this morning will certainly help us in third reading, because this government's mind is made up. It doesn't matter what you say, what the people of Ottawa-Carleton say, what this committee has to say; they will not accept any amendments and it will go through.

Talking about communication and the number of citizens the minister has met, well, let me tell you, it took him four months to reply to the mayor of Kanata's concerns. Four months. He was so busy and so rushed to pass this legislation that he couldn't even answer the mayor's letter.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs O'Neill, in 10 words or less.

Mrs O'Neill: I just wanted to say, I think the thing you pointed out was, this bill does not give Ottawa-Carleton fewer politicians; it gives them more politicians. People are being misled if they think we're getting fewer politicians. The shoddy way in which this community has been treated has been underlined by you.

I have a request here today from seven community associations in my riding, from the city of Ottawa, who want to make presentation to this committee in one presentation. They can't get on -- 48 hours' notice.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mrs O'Neill. Mr Johnson.

Mr David Johnson: I add my congratulations, Mr Spink. In my experience, you speak for a large number of people in the province of Ontario when you say that the bottom line is that the public wants to see more value for less money, not more money for less service. I think that's something this government and all governments had better listen to or they're going to be in deep trouble.

You've commented on the police services in your financial analysis here, if it goes up to Ottawa levels of about $180 -- I guess you're using from the Price Waterhouse -- the extra $10 million in cost in policing. That's a real concern.

My experience in Metropolitan Toronto, just from the financial aspect, is that when we went through this same process about half a dozen years ago, the councillors had virtually no budget, no staff from the local council serving on the regional level. At this time, now after the reforms have gone through, they are directly elected. As you've indicated here, you refer to pay and expenses etc. There are executive assistants, secretaries, expense budgets, travel budgets etc. The budget for the councillors exceeds $6 million a year, up from virtually zero about six years ago. So those are the costs of this kind of approach.

I just hope all people are aware that what you're saying is absolutely right.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Spink, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking time out and giving us your presentation this morning.

Mr Spink: Thank you, Mr Chairman. However, there was one question put to me that I didn't respond to and I must.

The Vice-Chair: If you can be brief.

Mr Spink: I was asked whether all the consultation that has gone on before was inadequate. My answer is there has not been any consultation. You have had people appear before Kirby, various other people before Bartlett. You've had input, but there has been no return afterwards.

You've ignored most of what was given to those gentlemen in their commissions. You don't come back to us afterwards and tell us why you have ignored the advice you were given and why you are taking the course that you're taking. You just ram it down our throats. Thank you.

Applause.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I remind the audience that this is an extension of the House and there will be no participation from the audience, unless you're at the table.

CLAUDETTE CAIN
CYNTHIA IGNACZ
LOU KIRBY

Ms Claudette Cain: My name is Claudette Cain and I'm the mayor of the city of Gloucester. I've invited with me this morning members of our community because they were not given the opportunity to participate in this hearing, so I'll give up some of my time. In fact, the minister has about 12 written depositions of mine and of my residents.

I have with me Officer Lou Kirby, who is the president of the Police Services Association of Gloucester, and Ms Cynthia Ignacz, who is a community member of our police services board. But I want to touch on a couple of issues before I turn it over.

The mayor of Ottawa spoke of the initiation of this review by regional council. In fact, the request to initiate a regional -- pardon me, I have a terrible cold this morning. It was initiated in 1987 by myself with another colleague on regional council. It was not initiated by a member of the city of Ottawa. We wanted to have some changes, and we have made some changes since the beginning of that time and have continued that. But we don't want change for the sake of change. I have to say I'm quite embarrassed, as the leader of this community, to see some of the snickers and to see some of the condescending questions and comments to residents who have put an enormous amount of time and energy into a process that they honestly believe had some merit. I think it's embarrassing.

I want you to know that the representatives of regional council from the city of Gloucester are today directly elected. The mayor of Ottawa obviously doesn't know what goes on around her.

I want you to know as well that Gloucester along with the other municipalities outside of the city of Ottawa represent over 56% of the people of this region, not what you've been given to believe here. The input that the minister has received from across this region has been primarily from those people outside of the city of Ottawa. Why? Because they're the ones who are going to be negatively impacted by this legislation.

Almost 10,000 residents and businesses have put their names to petitions, letters, forms and everything -- almost 10,000 -- and they've gone to the minister because I've sent them to him. Yet he still states as late as yesterday that the world is in favour of this. I'm sorry; somebody is either misinforming him or he doesn't listen.

I don't have the amendments we've put forward with me today because the minister already has them. They're very few. They're about four that make a commonsense change to this legislation. We're not against change. We want to protect the investment of our taxpayers.

The municipalities outside of the city of Ottawa have invested in their taxpayers. We have money in the bank. We have secured the future of our taxpayers, unlike the city of Ottawa. I don't think they should be paying Ottawa's bill. That's just common sense. I don't want to pay your bill and I'm sure you don't want to pay mine.

I'd ask you to please look at those four amendments that we brought to you. They make sense and they bring about the change in Ottawa-Carleton.

Ms Cynthia Ignacz: I will speak to the issue of regional policing in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I see it as a twofold problem. First, the desire to proceed must be rationalized in terms of the ability of our taxpayers to assimilate the additional costs. We also must determine the adequate advantage as it relates to service delivery of professional community-based police organization.

The first issue is the cost. As stated many times before in this hearing, the initial costs are estimated at $25 million plus, and there could be a $3-million to $7-million increase in ongoing annual policing costs. Mr Kirby's report came out with recommendation number 36, that the province help to defer some of the costs by subsidizing regional policing. But we are all very painfully aware that this province is cash-strapped and the funding would not be forthcoming. Therefore, the taxpayers would end up being responsible to absorb the implementation costs and the higher annual policing costs thereafter. Nepean and Gloucester would subsidize the higher cost of policing in Ottawa, which has a much greater crime rate per capita. Is this fair, when there is already professional, cost-efficient service in our region?

1110

Other related increased costs would be things like the system of buying out in collective agreements. One example is that the Ottawa police officers hired prior to January 1, 1984, may accumulate 455 days' sick leave. This unfunded liability is estimated at $40 million to $50 million. Who would be responsible for that liability? As well, would this privilege be extended to other members of Gloucester and Nepean, which again would increase the cost and it would be absorbed by the taxpayers?

Just talking about the harmonization of salaries, there again would be a higher cost associated and it would have to be absorbed by our taxpayers.

The second issue, and more dear to my heart, is the service. At the end of the day we must ask ourselves, how well will the public be served? How safe will the members of our society be: our senior citizens, our youth, abused women, minorities, the physically and socially disadvantaged of our community? How well will they be served? The disappearance of individual municipal police services such as Gloucester and Nepean would isolate those citizens from the police. It would retard the progress in the implementation of community-based policing.

The issues must be addressed rationally. We must analyse the local situation with care. For example, Gloucester contains unique residential pockets. How would or could a regional service meet their needs? Thirty per cent of Gloucester's population is francophone. We must continue to ensure we provide the proper and appropriate responses to them, and service.

We cannot lower the priority of local problems, and with regionalization, the control of the police service would gravitate to the larger municipality. Regionalization would change the bureaucratic structure of police organizations, thus impacting on the relationship between police and community. People must come before the method and the structure of policing. The higher crime rate in Ottawa's centre core will create a need to utilize resources that would otherwise service the suburbs. All regional police in Ontario have shown this to happen.

Larger bureaucracy is increasingly removed from the innovations such as community-based policing. Senior management of smaller services are more accessible to the public, and this may not be the case in regional policing. If the community is removed from the problem-solving, the procedures and the operational standards, you are defeating the concepts of community-based policing.

The Gloucester Police Service recognizes the necessity of maintaining visible organizational access to the community and readily acknowledges that the community groups have legitimate roles in influencing our police operations. Regionalization could decrease the positive police community relationship that now exists and lose that intimate knowledge of our officers that they have with our community.

We must remain close to our community, therefore closer to the problems affecting that community, and a flatter organizational structure results in the development of more generalist officers. This complements community-based policing initiatives and enables direct interaction.

There is also a stronger team effort in police services such as Gloucester, where officers know each other and they know their community members. Larger police bureaucracies are associated with centralized control of policy, but a consequence could be that the police service will be first and the community will be second. That is not conducive with our goal that we have community accountability.

Community welfare and existence should be paramount to all other considerations. We should not lose sight of the welfare and interest of the community.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the proponents of the regional policing form their position from primarily subjective analysis. As stated before, there is not enough analysis out there to know how regional policing would affect Ottawa-Carleton.

All communities are unique and deserve a tailored service of professional police services. This delivery exemplifies the modern, community-based policing approach that Gloucester is committed to. Will our francophone and minority communities maintain their identity and the relationship with a larger bureaucracy? Individual police services in Ottawa-Carleton currently deliver programs which are community-based. They're effective, they're economical to local taxpayers and are more specifically tailored to the requirements of the community that they serve. We should not enter an agreement unless it's proven that regionalization can provide some cost-effective level of service in being accountable to our community. Thank you very much.

Mr Lou Kirby: Thank you. As introduced, I'm Lou Kirby, president of the Gloucester Police Association and am in no way related to Graeme Kirby. If I was, I would have disowned him.

I represent approximately 185 members in the police association in Gloucester, and I'm speaking for Gloucester only; I'm not speaking for the Ottawa or Nepean associations at this time.

Our association met approximately two years ago, over a year and a half ago, and held a vote on whether we wanted to go to a regional force or not. My members at that time voted 75% opposed to regionalization, based mainly on the fact that we have a very fierce pride in our ability to provide a very personal service to the population in Gloucester and we wanted to maintain that. The legislation, whether it came or not, would have a great deal of effect on a very small number of people, really, but you're affecting the lives of 185 people, virtually changing their jobs.

That's not my main concern today. My main concern is the way this legislation has been put forward, and it's not been done before. We have a possibility of a two-year gap from the time the new police service board is formed until the time that the regional police service is in place, or should be in place, or has to be in place. There was no consideration to the police associations or the collective agreements through that process.

As you're aware, under the Police Services Act, the associations are formed by employees of the board, who will then, in January 1, 1995, become employees of the regional board, leaving the Gloucester association and Nepean association with less than the 50% plus one required to form an association. On the same hand, we still have the responsibility and the duty to our members during that two-year period to represent them, to maintain their working agreement; and although with the social contract we can no longer negotiate and under the way the Police Services Act is written we cannot negotiate, it will be the responsibility of the regional police association.

There's no way that government can or should impose a law saying that the association must be formed by such-and-such a date, being January 1, 1995. I am left now with the position of representing 185 members for two years when I have no say in what happens if a grievance comes forward from our working agreement or in anything that happens within the job. I will have no way to bring that to the regional board without going through a regional association which we will not be a major part of, because with the pure numbers, Ottawa will naturally have more members on the board, making it virtually impossible for me to protect my members for that period of time.

I personally feel the legislation was rushed. It was put forward without consideration for the people it's affecting the most, our members, and it has left us in a position where we can't do what we have to do, what we're sworn to do for our membership. On that ground, I would like to make a recommendation that this legislation be relooked at and not brought forward at this time. I would like to see a further study on it for the costings, and bring it up at the next election after this one and look at it properly, not rush it through like we are now. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. Questions.

Mr Grandmaître: I'd like to make a comment on the francophone representation of this new regional government setup. I agree that there is no guarantee that francophones will be represented or will even have a seat on this new regional setup. Even back in 1969, under a Conservative government, at least the city of Vanier and the francophones were guaranteed a seat at regional council. But now with the new concept, the new setup, I'm afraid the francophone representation will not be present at regional council, and this will certainly affect the bilingual atmosphere that exists in the Ottawa-Carleton area, especially in the capital city of Canada.

1120

I was so surprised -- amazed, I should say -- to hear the mayor of Ottawa talking about the 11 small municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton. That's how she described the capital city of Canada. It's amazing.

Madam Mayor, I have a question of you. You were closer to the scene than I was. Describe how you felt when the minister kept turning you down. Meeting with the 10, if I can you call you this, outside mayors, how did you feel being treated the way you were treated?

Ms Cain: Following the AMO meeting, we were encouraged. The minister offered us a challenge. It dealt with representation by population, as was brought up by Mr White a little while ago. We accepted the challenge of that minister. We went to work with residents, we did research across this province, and we came up with what we believed were three viable alternatives.

We never got a response from the minister till I read in the paper that this bill was going through by May 1. You can go on talking, but you have to wonder, are we on a roadshow? I don't want to think that. The people of this region don't want to think that. They've put a lot of time, money and effort in what they've done.

Mrs O'Neill: Mayor Cain, you represent over 100,000 people.

Ms Cain: That's correct, and 700,000 at the regional table.

Mrs O'Neill: You have brought before us two people who are speaking on behalf of those residents this morning, and some of them on behalf of people who are going to be governed with their lives under collective agreements that are going to be disturbed. No consideration has been given in this act to any collective agreements of any employees, as far as I know.

Ms Cain: That's correct.

Mrs O'Neill: Have you had the opportunity, considering the number of people you represent and the leadership role and because you were the first person who brought this forward -- I remember that well -- to meet with any member of this government? Were you invited to bring forward your opinions on Bill 77 or Bill 143 to any minister of this government, to talk and bring forward concerns that you and your residents have?

Ms Cain: In fact, I was refused. I had for a while quite a dialogue going with the Minister of Municipal Affairs' chief of staff. Then I guess, you know, he ran out of lines and had to categorically tell me that the minister would not be meeting with anyone.

That's unfortunate because the turnout for the Kirby hearings was the greatest in -- I think of all the municipalities, Gloucester had the most, right? We had over 800 people talking to Mr Kirby. We held a focus group which had over 100 people. There are petitions just in Gloucester of over 2,000. I wanted to tell him about it and I was refused. I was refused to meet with the minister here and I said: "Can I go and talk to deputy ministers? Can I go and talk to assistant deputy ministers? Can I bring constituents with me? Can I bring police officers with me? I was refused. Is that public consultation?

Mr David Johnson: Your worship, you're to be congratulated not only for the presentation today but for your initiatives during the process and, as you indicated, the three options that you and the other mayors put forward to the government in terms of how to deal with the issue of the representation of the mayors, but apparently, unfortunately, to no benefit, up to this point.

Ms Cain: Can't give up.

Mr David Johnson: You can't give up, right. I would like to say, first of all, that it's becoming more and more apparent, as we hear the deputations, that people are obviously very proud of their municipalities, such as Gloucester and Nepean, and very proud of their police services, I might say. I'm hearing that message.

The community-based approach that is being taken is being tailored to the individual needs of the municipalities, obviously, which are different from municipality to municipality, and certainly different from Ottawa and some of the other municipalities.

I would like you to comment, your worship, or perhaps the police officer. The government has indicated, or at least I've heard it said -- let's put it that way -- that the benefit here is that crime does not know boundaries, that crime goes from municipality to municipality, so we really need a regionalized police force to deal with it. That's the number one benefit.

In Metropolitan Toronto I would tend to believe that because it is very homogeneous, but as the previous speaker said, Ottawa-Carleton is not so homogeneous, so I am yet to be convinced that the local police forces cannot deal most effectively with their own municipalities. But I'd like to hear your response to this whole issue.

Mr Kirby: In the area of crime knows no boundaries, we have to agree on that; that's a natural, known phenomenon. Regionalization in Ottawa-Carleton is not the answer to that. It's such a huge area you could not police it from one police station. Communications through a regional force would be no better than the possibility of communications through better cooperation between the three local forces as they are now. The communication gap is not reason enough, I think, to go to a regional police service, due to other reasons, the cost and so on. But that problem can be solved far better through better communication within the forces.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mayor Cain, I appreciate that you're having struggles with your health and so I am glad you have been able to join us this morning. I understand your feeling of -- well, I'd describe it as bitterness about not remaining, as mayor, as a member of the regional council.

I still find it difficult to understand, as you claimed earlier, that somehow what was being proposed in this bill was that people in your municipality of Gloucester, or in other municipalities outside the city of Ottawa, would be taking on Ottawa's debts, so perhaps you could say a few words about that, and in the same manner perhaps you'd comment on the question of how people in the city of Ottawa have contributed to the expansion of sewer and waterworks in your municipality as part of the regional framework that's been built up.

Ms Cain: I'll try and address them in the order you have. I have no notes with me but I can go by memory because I've been so intricately involved. We know at this point in time that the city of Ottawa, for example, has an unfunded liability of $23 million in the policing service. They also have a heavy debenture on their police building.

Hon Ms Gigantes: As does Nepean, I understand.

Ms Cain: Gloucester has less than $200,000.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Everybody has some debentures.

Ms Cain: Yes. What we're asking in our amendment I think is fair. It says that if we have a net liability, you take all the assets -- like Ottawa's big police station, and that's a big asset -- and you take Gloucester's assets and Nepean's and all the assets, and you subtract the liabilities from that. I don't want to pay Ottawa's sick leave fund, $23 million, thank you very much. You deduct that, and what the net liability is, if Gloucester has incurred enough liability and Nepean and Ottawa, well then, they should pay it.

All we're asking for is an ability, an amendment in there that says that if there is a net liability, the region shall levy that on the taxpayers of that municipality. Madam Minister, I want to tell you too that in that instance the mayor of Ottawa supports this. She has said so publicly, that this is fair.

1130

Hon Ms Gigantes: I could understand that, because my reading of the bill means that the work that will be done between now and 1997, when the new regional service would become physically, as it were, in place, that's precisely what would be happening and the bill provides the mechanisms for that to happen.

Ms Cain: We've had three sets of lawyers check it out and that's not the case and that's why those lawyers prepared the amendment and gave it to the minister, because it didn't provide that. It didn't give those assurances.

The other part of the debt that worries us so much is the one referred to by Mr White a while ago about the sewer debt. He inferred that the bill's all okay and we have the ability to impose a levy on any municipality. That's right, but we have that ability today. We don't have the ability today, though, to take over Ottawa's sewers just like this. This bill does that, so what we're saying is, if we take them over, if the region takes them over and there's a deficiency, not only should there be an ability, the word "shall" should be replaced with "may."

Hon Ms Gigantes: These people who live in --

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Gigantes. I'd like to thank each of you for appearing this morning. On behalf of the committee, I think they found your views interesting and they're obviously important.

Mr Hansen: Mr Chair, could I have a point of order? It was stated by the last presenter that there was snickering among the committee members here and I didn't see any snickering.

The Chair: It's not a point of order, Mr Hansen, but thank you for the information.

ALEX CULLEN

Mr Alex Cullen: My name is Alex Cullen. I'm a councillor from the city of Ottawa for Richmond ward. I sit on regional council as a result of being a member of Ottawa city council. I would first like to thank members of the committee for taking time from its busy schedule to come down to Ottawa and discuss this important reform, local reform to local government in Ottawa-Carleton, and for allowing me to express my views on Bill 143.

I believe the government's proposed reforms embodied in Bill 143 fairly reflect the work of previous studies -- and I brought them here just in case anyone was worried about them -- on regional government in Ottawa-Carleton in the past five years, in particular those conducted by Bartlett, Graham and Kirby. While it may be true that the government's proposed reforms do not satisfy everyone -- certainly in Ottawa we had hoped for one urban city within the green belt -- they are a major step to providing direct political accountability for the exercise of region-wide responsibilities.

Regional government responsibilities in Ottawa-Carleton are already of critical importance to the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton. As you may know, regional government is currently responsible for regional roads, public transit, the administration of social assistance, child care services, public health services, water, main line sewers, sewage treatment, garbage disposal, urban planning and emergency services, 911. These responsibilities amount to a total budget of over $1 billion for regional government in Ottawa-Carleton.

Bill 143 will give additional responsibilities to regional government in the areas of policing, waste management including garbage pickup and recycling, and in regional economic development. To meet these responsibilities in an effective and accountable manner requires the direct election of regional councillors, a concept endorsed by previous studies in Ottawa-Carleton by both the city of Ottawa and regional council and proposed in Bill 143. This is the very minimum that must be implemented in time for the next municipal election this November and for which I ask for your commitment.

I'm sure you're aware that the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton expect reform of their local and regional governments, particularly so after so many years of study. Citizens of Ottawa-Carleton have made it clear they expect reform to streamline, to make more effective and more accountable their local and regional governments.

The provincial government's proposals are an attempt to accomplish these goals, not only through the creation of a directly elected regional council with no net increase in politicians -- something unique in these days -- but through a clearer delineation of regional responsibilities. For example, having regional government assume full responsibility for water, sanitary and storm sewers, waste collection, recycling and disposal clarifies an important civic function and permits a regional approach to what is clearly a regional issue, the interaction of human habitation within our environment.

However, there are a number of specific concerns I would like to draw to your attention, which I'm sure others have as well. I'll start with the role of municipal mayors. Concern has been raised by some local mayors about the loss of their positions on the new regional council. I support the premise that given the nature and breadth of regional council's responsibilities, and its $1-billion budget, full-time political representation is required. On that basis alone, municipal mayors, by definition, would not qualify.

The government's proposal of electing 18 regional councillors, representing on average some 37,000 people, respects the democratic principle of representation by population. Retaining mayors on regional council from municipalities ranging in size from 2,100 in Rockcliffe Park village to less than 15,000 in West Carleton to 107,000 in Nepean to 313,000 in Ottawa clearly would not meet that principle. Indeed, the proposed regional wards match or exceed eight of the region's 11 municipalities in population.

You should be aware that the Kirby commission, in its interim report, which I have here, suggested that Ottawa-Carleton's 11 municipalities be reorganized into five, to create a better balance and more sensible planning areas. This, of course, was vigorously resisted by the area municipalities -- surprise, surprise. The minister, in his July 22, 1993, announcement of the legislation, then Bill 77, did state that had there been better balance among the area municipalities, then it would have been possible to retain the mayors on regional council.

Since that time, as you are aware, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in his November 26 letter to the rural and suburban mayors of Ottawa-Carleton, offered a compromise of a transitional period that would allow the mayors of the 10 municipalities, excluding Rockcliffe Park village, the smallest, to retain representation on regional council with voting privileges. This, however, was rejected by those mayors. In the end, however, in order to respect the democratic principle of representation by population, the government removed the mayors from the new, directly elected regional council. Our municipality, the city of Ottawa, which has 46% of the population of the region, concurs with this move.

One last item on this topic relates to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's resolution to retain mayoral representation on Ottawa-Carleton's regional council that was adopted at its annual meeting last August. I attended that annual meeting; I was a delegate. I can tell you that this motion was a late motion, moved on the floor of the meeting without prior notice, and was adopted without giving a full opportunity for those of us in Ottawa-Carleton to present the issues behind the legislation.

Those proposing this emergency motion, which I believe has been communicated to you, couched it in terms of, "If this could happen in Ottawa-Carleton, it could happen to you." This, of course, is nonsense, as what the government is proposing in Bill 143 reflects the unique situation in Ottawa-Carleton, 11 municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton that range, as I said, from 2,100 to 313,000 in population. In my view, the delegates at the AMO annual meeting were misled about the intentions of the provincial government with respect to mayoral representation on counties and other regional governments in Ontario.

Dealing with the number and determination of regional wards, one of the principles of regional government reform supported by many citizens in Ottawa-Carleton and articulated in both the Graham and Kirby reports was that, to the extent possible, regional wards should cross municipal boundaries to reduce the local, parochial nature of representation -- and I'm equally as guilty -- found on the current regional council.

This, coupled with the principles of representation by population and protecting communities of interest, led to the development of the boundaries found in the Graham report, which was endorsed by Kirby in his report. Graham's recommendations were also subject to public consultation -- communities in my ward took advantage of this -- the result of which is found in the province's proposed regional ward boundaries. I endorse both the principles used in determining these boundaries and the proposed boundaries themselves.

However, cross-municipal boundaries for regional wards have led to a misleading numbers game by those who seek to discredit the government's reforms. Of the 18 proposed regional wards, 10 are wholly within municipalities; eight are shared. Of the 10 wholly within municipal boundaries, Ottawa has six -- I have not counted Rockcliffe Park village -- Nepean has two, Gloucester, one, and Kanata, one. However, some have taken the eight shared wards and reallocated them, claiming that Ottawa will be overrepresented in 10 regional wards. On that basis, though, if we use the same principle, one could equally say that Gloucester could have five regional wards or Cumberland three regional wards and therefore they would be overrepresented.

However, this both misleads and misses the point. Regional wards that cross municipal boundaries are not the property of any one municipality; they are electing regional councillors who will have to represent the interests of their constituents. Besides, the principle here is representation by population.

1140

Policing: The government proposes changes to policing for the region through amalgamating Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester police forces and through providing police services, either directly or through the OPP, for Cumberland and the balance of the other municipalities. As you know, Ottawa-Carleton is the last region in Ontario to have a regional police force. For the urban areas of Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester, a single police force is an inevitability, as urban crime respects no municipal boundaries. Further, the government has announced its intention to charge municipalities for OPP policing. So a reform of police services in Ottawa-Carleton is both appropriate and timely. In my view, Ottawa-Carleton, as Ontario's second-largest urban area, has now reached a level of development that requires a regional police force.

The last point I want to touch on, the one that's been, I'm sure, raised by other presenters and will be raised again, is the allocation of costs. Much has been made by some that the costs of amalgamating police forces, for example, within the region will lead to greater costs for non-Ottawa taxpayers. As you know, the government has delayed the official amalgamation of the three area police forces until 1997 and has promised to fund the transitional costs related to amalgamation. The issue of costs of policing afterwards lies in the hands of the directly elected regional council, who of course will be held accountable for their actions by their taxpayers.

A similar argument has been made regarding the effect of transferring responsibility for waste management, particularly sewers, to the region. Some have said, and I just heard it here, that it's not fair for non-Ottawa taxpayers to foot the bill for the city of Ottawa's aging sewer system, although, since Ottawa has most of the jobs in the region, clearly non-Ottawa taxpayers contribute to the use of the sewer system.

This is another issue that lies in the hands of the directly elected regional council, which has a number of options before it. One is the notion of special area levies, which the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton already uses with respect to public transit, water and child care. I have attached an annexe to my presentation, the last page, where you can see the special area funding. In other words, the resolution to these problems of costs lies with the locally elected representatives, not with the provincial government.

In conclusion, I believe that while the government's proposed reforms may not satisfy everyone, they do represent real progress. To fail to take advantage of this opportunity for significant reform would condemn citizens in Ottawa-Carleton to more years of study and inaction. Since its establishment 25 years ago, the region of Ottawa-Carleton has been growing and changing, and its institutions must grow and change with it. I ask, therefore, for your support for these initiatives.

Mr David Johnson: I thank Councillor Cullen for his deputation today. I will make a few observations, and you may wish to respond to them. I'm always a little amused by the word "parochial." Sometimes when a councillor acts in a certain way he's accused of being parochial, but other people would say he or she is being responsive, so it's a fine line there between being parochial and being responsive. I just put that forward as an observation.

Mr Cullen: It's pretty hard to get elected if you're not parochial, that's a fact.

Mr David Johnson: You see, some other people agree with me on that.

You indicated in your comments that the minister has taken a certain approach with regard to the mayors. I found it interesting that last November the minister recognized the contribution of the mayors at the regional council by putting forward an amendment which would allow the mayors to be on the regional council with half a vote each, I think it was.

Mr Cullen: For a transition period of one term.

Mr David Johnson: We all realize that there's an election coming up at the provincial level and speculation about who may or may not form the next government and what may or may not happen before the next municipal election. I offer that as an observation too. But the minister at that point apparently was recognizing the role of the mayors on the regional council.

It was also interesting that earlier this morning his worship Mayor Bouwers talked to the issue of rep by pop. I'm madly digging through the brief, but he indicated that in a number of regional situations indeed there was quite a diversity. In Lambton county, for example, Sarnia was 72,000 people and the village of Arkona was 707. What's that, a factor of 100 to 1 or something like that? It's a tremendous difference, but it works there. His point was that there's a historic reason for that. Rep by pop is somewhat important, but there are other factors that go into consideration, and the history of this region, Ottawa-Carleton, perhaps would dictate that we would take a broader view than just a straight numbers game in terms of who does what.

Finally, before my time runs out, Metro Toronto has a budget of $3.5 billion and there the mayors do serve on the regional council. Some may say it's not the perfect council, but people come from here, there and everywhere to see the Metro government in action. It may not be perfect, but it seems to be working, and there the mayors play an important role on the regional council. If it works there, why couldn't it work here?

Mr Cullen: I'll just work backwards. For Metro you have a council of I believe 18 to 21 councillors -- I forget the exact number --

Mr David Johnson: It's 28.

Mr Cullen: -- so 28 councillors and six mayors, which I think is a marked difference from Ottawa, where you propose 18 directly elected councillors and 11 mayors. Even in the instance of Metro, the mayors there do not play the corporate role, which is the basic argument that the mayors here in Ottawa-Carleton are claiming.

It goes back to the issue of rep by pop. Even with the 18 regional wards we have, there is the usual variation factor, and you're all familiar with it as members of the Legislature. In our instance, it's 25% up or down. But the voter, realizing that you do adjust to reflect communities of interest, does believe that his or her vote should be equal to any other taxpayer's vote within the region, and that came out time and time again throughout our whole process. This is not something the government dreamed up: rep by pop. This is something we've had a lot of representation about from community association, the federation of citizens' associations. Community associations in my ward is a very strongly held principle, and I don't think you can neglect that.

If the government had adopted the interim report of Kirby and gone for five municipalities, the mayors would be on, there'd no problem. That's what the minister said in his statement: had there been better balance among the municipalities.

It's pretty hard to argue the range of municipalities in Metro, which has East York, some hundreds of thousands, going all the way to Toronto, which is a million whatever, and here we're dealing with 2,100, all the way up to 313,000. It's too much of a difference.

In terms of the minister's suggestion of a compromise, it was purely transitional, to try to come to some kind of arrangement and to talk to the concerns being raised by the opposition. They weren't bought into. It's gone. I'll leave that as it is.

In terms of parochial, yes, you're quite right. If we're not parochial we don't get re-elected. I have to tell you, though, this is a regional council, and sometimes regional interests have to outweigh municipal interests. Too many of us, because our first job is at the local municipality, are putting on our municipal hat.

For example, when we extend services past the greenbelt, it's city of Ottawa taxpayers who pay two thirds of that. We contribute two thirds of that budget for the region, but the votes on council are such that the services go out there because there is a desire in the suburban and rural areas to promote that kind of development.

If we had regional councillors with boundaries that cross over municipal boundaries, therefore we're going to have a more regional approach to these issues. That's what Bartlett called for, that's what Graham acknowledged, and that's what Kirby acknowledged, and that's what the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton have accepted. If they're going to be directly elected, let these things cross over the boundaries.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I want to pick up on the same theme. We had two suggestions put before us this morning, and I wonder if we could get your comments. One was from a representative of a community association who noted that when a delegation from her community went to her local council, which happened to be Nepean, compared to when a delegation went to regional council, her experience with the current makeup of regional council had been that there was a fair amount of disinterest compared to the amount of interest at the local level. I'd like your comment on what that means. She suggested that to admit this might mean she was cutting her own throat in terms of the position she was taking.

The other interesting comment came from the Nepean Chamber of Commerce when I asked whether it was fair to represent its view as one that saw regional council as essentially a committee representing municipalities. Do you think voters in Ottawa-Carleton see the regional council, or would like to see the regional council, as something else?

1150

Mr Cullen: I don't think so. With the range of responsibilities regional council has, you can go through it and you can see that if you're going to create development, for example, in the southeast urban area, there are going to be tremendous implications for all the neighbouring municipalities. You can't plan on a municipality-by-municipality basis. And there are going to be tradeoffs in terms of: Where does the transitway run? What roads get widened? Who's going to pay for the services and how? All these things require decisions that involve the interplay of, simply, that urban envelope. You can't have it as a committee of municipalities, because then you'll be in into: "What's good here? Who's winning and who's losing here?" We often have that at the regional council. I'll give you a very good example: our official plan.

We had an official plan that was coming forward for approval at the regional level, and we came upon a very major issue that was going to provide transportation links from the border through to downtown. Clearly the suburban municipalities had an interest in making sure that their residents, who are commuters, have that easy access, whereas in our community we're interested in protecting our communities from runthrough traffic. You had a clash in values.

A regional council will be able to look at the whole picture and not be so stuck on what's good for the municipality of this or good for the municipality of that. Yes, we'll be parochial, because the individual representative will say, "Not through my backyard," but that's one out of 18 councillors, or two or three out of 18 councillors, and not a municipal mindset. I think that's important, because municipal interests are separate from regional interests. We've seen this as the process has evolved.

Going back to your earlier question about the member of the community association, yes. It's because our first responsibility now is to our local municipality -- we spend 50%, 60%, 70% of our time there -- so when someone comes from another community that's not within Ottawa, we're not going to be terribly knowledgeable. It's not going to affect our ability to do our job. We have other things to do, and it's quite true: Sometimes it's hard to keep us interested in the happenings outside, in a rural community.

How will this change, though, with a regional council? When your full-time obligation is focusing on the region and you're dealing with your colleagues day in and day out, then it's going to be much easier for that representative from Osgoode or Rideau township to be able to access his colleagues and say, "I have a problem here, and this is the way it works."

Now, among 33 councillors, it's impossible. It's impossible to find us, because we have other obligations. It's impossible to interest us, because we have our other responsibilities. But being full-time at the region and having those responsibilities being located in that building, being accessible and understanding that there's a colleague there who you're going to have to listen to because you want that colleague to listen to you will allow for that interplay of politics and allow for that particular interest to be heard and listened to.

Mr Chiarelli: Alex, we've had many discussions and perhaps this will be our last. I'm not so sure.

Mr Cullen: On this topic, I hope.

Mr Chiarelli: The bill, as it is presently structured, in my opinion and I think in the opinion of a lot of people, could really be a double-edged sword. Yes, you create a powerful regional government, rep by population, a streamlined decision-making process.

You talked about this government not dreaming up representation by population, but maybe it dreamed up representation of a regional government without mayors. The research people tell us that in Canada, this will be the only regional government without representation on the part of the mayors. That may be good; it may be bad.

But one of the things that really concerns a lot of people is the concentration of power in the office of the regional chair and the senior bureaucrats.

We also have in this bill a provision that takes away the powers of a board of control, which is similar to the executive committee that's there at the present time.

Mr Cullen: A good move.

Mr Chiarelli: You're doing away with the executive committee, you're putting smaller numbers, you're concentrating a lot of power in the office of the regional chair and the senior bureaucrats. Particularly, you cannot deliver and give a commitment to this committee today that the regional councillors are going to be full-time. They may very well be part-time.

Especially if that happens, I think this bill will be a very significantly double-edged sword, in the sense that you will not have the type of buffer that somebody said is provided, for example, by the Senate in the United States, a buffer to that representation by population to look after regional interests. There's legitimate concern about looking after regional interests. The mayors, in one form or another -- I'm not even going to define now in what form that could be -- could be a very significant countervail to that risk that might be there with a very powerful regional chair. I'd just like you to comment on that issue generally.

Mr Cullen: I'm very pleased to see in the bill the removal of the powers of a board of control. Indeed, there is no other municipality in Ontario that has the powers of a board of control. There is a board of control in London, but it does not hold the powers of a board of control. The powers are that if they make a recommendation with respect to money matters, for council to change that, to increase it or decrease revenue, it requires a two-thirds vote.

We had the recent incident at the regional council where the recommendation coming from executive committee was that as a result of the social contract there be a cut to the OC Transpo budget, causing a reduction in service and an increase in fares. Regional council, by a vote of 20 to 11, sought to restore that cut. Even though it was 20 in favour of restoring that cut, 11 opposed, it lost because we didn't have the two thirds, and is quite frankly a violation of majority rule in our democratic system.

The regional chair is one vote on council. Were the mayors to retain, you would have a two-level council. You'd have directly elected councillors and you would have mayors who have another job, a full-time job elsewhere. I do not see the mayors acting as a buffer. Indeed, my experience at regional council is that by and large the mayors make their own accommodations with the regional chair and life goes on. That's part of his power base. That has been the history.

All I can say is that given a regional council of 18 plus chair, and that chair with one vote, those regional councillors are going to be held directly accountable by their electorates, and their electorates are not going to permit that one person dominate the agenda, that one person run the show. And seeing that the powers of the board of control are removed, it makes that council all that much more responsible for those activities. It's not eight people -- and only five out of eight people on the executive committee -- that requires 21 out of council to overturn.

Mr Chiarelli: You're assuming full-time regional councillors.

Mr Cullen: Not necessarily. I believe in full-time regional councillors, and I think it's going to be up to the electorate eventually to determine that. I don't have any problem with that. I think the responsibilities are there. If indeed regional council determines that it's a part-time salary, I don't believe that's going to last. I think that's going to go through the election, be an election issue, and I think the majority of the population will support full-time.

But your concern about the unfettered power of the chair, that's only --

Mr Chiarelli: And other senior bureaucrats.

Mr Cullen: That's only as applicable as council, the 18 who will be there, will permit it and as the electorate will permit it. If it's a laissez-faire council, voilà, but I don't believe it's going to be a laissez-faire council, because of the nature of the responsibilities and because they're directly elected.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cullen. The committee would like to thank you for appearing this morning and presenting your views.

GLOUCESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Chair: Next is the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce. Good morning and welcome.

Mr Jim Anderson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Members of the standing committee on resources development, members of the media, ladies and gentlemen: My name is Jim Anderson. I am the executive director of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, and on behalf of our chamber membership, which represents the interests of the 3,000 members of the business community of the city of Gloucester, we have been mandated to present to you today our chamber's official position with reference to the proposed Bill 143 which is now before the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

Mr Jacques de Courville Nicol, our first vice-president, will be making our presentation this morning. Jacques, if you will.

1200

Mr Jacques de Courville Nicol : Notre présentation de ce matin sera faite principalement en langue anglaise pour des raisons de temps et de façon à pouvoir rejoindre le plus grand nombre de personnes possible ici aujourd'hui. Par ailleurs, il nous fera grandement plaisir de recevoir et de répondre à toutes les questions qui pourraient nous être adressées en langue française, une fois notre présentation terminée.

Our members suffered a great deal under the 1981-82 recession, and their situation has gone from bad to worse in this second, 1989-94 and still ongoing, seemingly endless recession, the second devastating recession in less than a decade for our membership. Our members have had to endure and ultimately pay for, through their tax dollars, the Mayo report, the Graham report, the Bartlett report, the Price Waterhouse report, the Coopers and Lybrand report, the Partners for the Future report, the Kirby reports, and the rejection of Bill 77 and now Bill 143. After all of these reports and legislative bills, not only are we not better off, but now:

(1) We are sinking deeper and deeper into urban and suburban divisions, pitting urban Ottawa against its suburban neighbour cities.

(2) We are pitting our mayors against the region and the province in what has now become their fight to protect the very mandate which they were given by their community ratepayers through our democratic election process to represent and defend their community's best interests at the local and regional municipal levels.

(3) We are dividing the region against itself:

(a) with our regional councillors fighting for position, better income, bigger offices and broader mandates;

(b) with our suburban mayors fighting to continue to represent their local communities at the regional level in a democratic, effective and appropriate way;

(c) with our suburban police boards fighting against the Ottawa urban police board for the right to continue to serve and protect their local communities in their traditional effective, personal and community-minded ways;

(d) with our suburban chambers of commerce and business communities fighting their urban counterparts to ensure that they can continue to have a major input in their local community's economic development and to avoid having to pay for more government waste, bigger and bigger public expenditures and uncontrollable government growth, as exemplified by the downtown Ottawa $150-million regional government headquarters and the $100-million Ottawa city hall monolith, both excellent examples of monuments built with taxpayers' dollars to reflect the irresponsible fiscal attitude of urbanites who must believe that you can spend for ever if you're big enough and sophisticated enough to get away with it; and finally,

(e) with our suburban taxpayers who do not wish to be placed in the same predicament as the downtown Ottawa urban taxpayers who have allowed their elected municipal representatives to spend as if there was no tomorrow, and who are now saddled with bigger, more costly, less flexible and certainly less accountable local and regional government. What a mess.

Our members are deeply fed up with this continuous stream of "top-down" expensive and not very useful commissions, inquiries, reports and proposed legislative bills which too often do not take into consideration the serious comments and suggestions of the parties consulted and which take up a great deal of energy, time and money which could be put to better use. Bill 143 is one of those bills and only serves to threaten our daily lives and contribute to the growing instability, uncertainty and despair of our local communities and businesses.

Our preference would be to ask you to please go away and leave us alone. However, since we know that you won't do this, we have the following comments to offer:

(1) The public record will show that the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce was strongly against Bill 77, and we wish to state that we are equally against Bill 143.

(2) The chamber believes that municipal politics, education and the rights of francophone taxpayers to have access to their own school system are three separate issues and that, as such, they should not have been incorporated within the same bill.

(3) The chamber believes that the use of omnibus bills such as Bill 143, where entirely different matters are dealt with in the same piece of legislation, unnecessarily confuses the public, detracts from the real issues and creates an extremely poor piece of legislation.

(4) The chamber feels that Bill 143 is insulting, provocative and punitive for the francophone community of the region in that it offers the francophone minority the option of either supporting Bill 143 and reducing their chance of gaining adequate representation on the new regional council, or alternatively of defeating the bill and going back to their ongoing struggles between the plenary board, the Catholic sector board and the public sector board for a fair share of the education dollars, facilities and resources. We do not believe that the francophone community should be held at ransom in the current political battle which deals mainly with regional reform.

(5) The chamber is concerned that the proposed regional ward structure will allow for anyone from anywhere in the region to run in any of the regional wards, regardless of the fact that the candidate may or may not reside in the said regional ward and may or may not represent the interests of the same said ward. We understand that this is a major problem and a major source of aggravation during elections to regional council in the Calgary area.

(6) The chamber is deeply concerned with what now appears to be the planned progressive destruction of our 11 existing municipalities in favour of a future single-tier regional government. We believe that municipal governments are the ones which are the closest to the people and that as such they must be preserved if true accountability is to be maintained.

(7) The chamber is extremely concerned with the proposed unilateral decision of the government to exclude local mayors from regional council. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other example of such a regressive decision in other regional governments in Canada. We are led to believe that this is a punitive decision on the part of the government to bring our local mayors to their knees and show them who their boss really is in Toronto. It is sad and unfortunate that this should be, for we strongly believe that no one knows their local community as well as local mayors. They are the ones who really know and understand what the people need and want. They are and remain the first and closest link between any existing levels of government and the people. To remove them from regional government presents a serious threat to our democratic way of life.

(8) The chamber is deeply concerned with the public's security and more specifically with the public statement made on October 13, 1992, by our Gloucester police chief, Lester Thompson, when he stated clearly for the public record that a regional force was not only unnecessary but would be more expensive. Chief Thompson also said that having a single regional force would move 140 OPP officers out of the region and that the region would then have to turn around and hire 200 police officers in order to give Manotick, Cumberland, West Carleton and other municipalities 24-hour service. At an average salary of $70,000 per year per police officer, times 200 officers, this would represent an immediate extra cost, let alone the other costs, for the region of $14 million, which local taxpayers would have to pick up.

(9) The chamber is deeply concerned with the major economic and financial implications of the proposed regional government reform under Bill 143. We are concerned about the huge costs that this reform will trigger, probably anywhere from $12 million to $29 million in one-time costs plus annual expenditures of $25 million to $77 million, according to the Price Waterhouse August 27, 1992 study, and the increase in taxes which would be between 5.5%, at the low end, to 16.5% that will be required from local taxpayers to integrate administration, services and capital structures as a result of this infamous Bill 143.

1210

(10) The chamber is deeply concerned with the choice that the government has made to go ahead with major and costly structural changes when less costly administrative changes could have been achieved through simple bilateral negotiated improvements and reallocation of duties and responsibilities between local and regional governments.

Before ending our presentation, we would like to offer the following recommendations.

Our first recommendation is obviously to maintain the status quo and the existing arrangements as they are throughout the Ottawa-Carleton region, particularly at a time when everyone is totally preoccupied with their own survival in this punitive recessive economy.

Our second recommendation is to let our regional government and our 11 municipalities work out satisfactory accommodations and structural arrangements between themselves if and when they feel that changes are required, and if and when they solicit and obtain the approval and support of their constituents to go ahead with such changes.

Our third recommendation is that changes, if any, should be directed on a priority basis towards:

(a) Reallocating regional services: that is to say, the reallocation of "hard services," which are not usually personalized, therefore not close to the community, do not usually vary from one local community to the next and over which individual members within a local community have little or no control.

In our view, such regional services should include regional administration, planning services, bilingualism, regional roads, regional snow removal, garbage removal, transit services, sewer services, regional water services, electrical services, environmental services, purchasing services, marketing and promotion services, all services that can be performed at the highly centralized area without having a direct impact on the local individuals within the local communities.

(b) Reallocating municipal services: that is to say, the reallocation of all "soft services," which are usually very personalized, very local, specifically responsive to the individual or group needs of a given local community, usually different from one community to another, and over which local community residents usually have a direct interest and a direct input.

In our view, such local municipal services should include -- I won't list them all; you have them here -- administration, economic development and planning and so on.

Our fourth recommendation is to limit the number of elected representatives at the regional level to the participation of the 11 elected municipal mayors and to the single elected regional chairperson, accompanied by their non-voting CAOs and other support staff as required. In other words, that's what the population is voting for. These are the true representatives of this region. This is how we could reflect the various interests in the region best rather than have everybody in a general regional melting pot and losing contact with our local requirements.

This, in our view, would reduce the costs and the number of elected representatives at the regional level to a maximum of 12 members from the current 33 and would make regional council a true executive council of the municipal mayors presided over by a regional chair elected at large.

Based on the language of Bill 143, and given the potential negative impact which this bill in its present form is likely to have on our city, our region and, to some larger extent, our province and our country, we wish to restate our formal opposition to Bill 143 in its present form, for all of the reasons mentioned above and for many others which time does not permit us to cover.

We thank you for your time and your patience in listening to our presentation, and we welcome any questions you may have for us.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I've negated what the translation people are doing for me, thank you.

Mr de Courville Nicol, you have two recommendations for us which are, in some senses, overlapping at least: your first, which is to maintain the status quo at regional council, and your fourth, which is to change representation at regional council so that the only representatives on the council would be the mayors elected at their municipal base. Which is the preference? Have you put them in order of preference?

Mr de Courville Nicol: No. Given that we've not been too successful in obtaining or even gaining the ear of government representatives in trying to discuss this whole thing, we are, you can appreciate, a very frustrated group of people. However, no, the recommendations stand on their own.

Obviously, if you're going with the status quo, it means that you're not going to do anything else. If you're going with the last recommendation, we feel that's the one that is the least costly, the more susceptible to being effective, the more susceptible to represent the political interests of the region and reflect that political interests and possibly the most expedient one, instead of -- I'll give you an example, for instance.

When the Honourable Ed Philip came to the regional council to present what was to be Bill 143, he spent about an hour and a half before -- we were in the public seats and councillors and regional representatives were around the table. Out of 33 regional councillors, four people got a chance to talk: Mayor Holzman, two other members from Ottawa and I believe Madame Villeneuve from Vanier, who was cut off very quickly from her comments because she was trying to represent some francophone interest en française and I guess the message didn't get across. I said, "If this is an indication of what will happen under the new council, God forbid that anybody outside of the regional gang will have any input into what their particular community wants."

I have a very, very strong concern. I think our members have a very, very strong concern. Our business community has a very strong concern because the bill also appears to be pulling the economic development responsibility out of the local level. What will be left, for instance? Will Gloucester wait until regional council decides to move or not move? These are some of the concerns that we have.

I also want to point to one other thing and I think you will relate to that, which is the little guy on the street. I have a sister who ran for the poorest ward in the Calgary area, and she was devastated and called me and said: "You won't understand what went on. We had 27 candidates running for that one regional ward. Two thirds of those candidates were from areas outside of the ward and in fact the one who won this ward was a particularly wealthy individual who had a particular agenda and managed to get in there and win the vote because of that 27-person division." Imagine if this happens in the national capital region of Canada. This will be a disaster.

I'm saying also, we keep throwing this rep by pop concept around. I have another problem with that. When Mr Brown, our past honourable Brown, at the beginning of our great country, introduced the concept of rep by pop, the francophones were a majority and so it was said that this was not to be, we were not to have rep by pop.

Today, when the francophones are a dependent minority, all of a sudden this is a concept that's resurfacing and it appears to be the end-all and the be-all. So I'm saying again, if you introduce this concept where the majority, coming from wherever within the region, is allowed to basically eliminate any kind of francophone representation on regional council, you will have done a great disservice not only to this region but to your province and to your country.

I say generally, the bill is bad. It's not bad because you haven't put the efforts in it, but maybe it's bad because there hasn't been enough consultation and there hasn't been enough input from the people. I implore you to put this bill to the side and come up with something that will be more reflective of what this region needs and wants and should get, because it's a model for the rest of Canada and the rest of Canada will be looking at what you're doing with this region.

So I'm saying yes, if you're looking at the last of our recommendations, if you want my preference, but again, I'm not sure that's a -- these are comments that have been brought by our members, but certainly that will be my preference, to have a region that regroups the chair and the 11 municipal mayors. It seems to me that will be a lot more effective. You'd have a lot less councillors around the table wasting public money and you'll also have probably a better feel for what's happening throughout the national capital region.

Mrs O'Neill: Jacques, again, you have done your very best right from the beginning to help your constituents and members understand what's been going on with the regional government. I know you've been struggling with this for almost two years.

You're the first and only group, if I remember correctly, this morning that brought forward the mix that we have with the school boards being thrown in with now what has become an omnibus bill. I find the extraordinary jackbooting of opening the Education Act in this manner quite unnecessary. I would like to ask you why you think it was done.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I don't think we need to take that kind of language.

Interjection: She should withdraw the remark, for sure.

Mrs O'Neill: "Jackboots" is not unparliamentary; we use it all the time, and I'm sure that you have used much different with me. In any case, I would like to ask --

The Chair: If I might caution you, Ms O'Neill, please use language which will not heighten the emotions of people in the room when you're asking your question. I'd appreciate it and so would others.

Mrs O'Neill: My question stands to Jacques.

Mr de Courville Nicol: Madam O'Neill, if I may reflect on that, I think the concern the francophone community has is that it's like showing the dessert and having a huge glass window in front of it. You really want to get at that educational bill, you really want to get at that change, you really want to get at that frustrating structure that we have, and unfortunately you can't because you've got this other thing, which is not the dessert but it's a garbage pail, and the garbage pail stands in the way of your dessert.

That's the kind of bill we have. On the one hand, we would like to be supportive of that part of the bill which deals with the education changes, and I think we have to be very clear on that, but on the other hand, we're faced with that regional reform problem, so we're in neutral.

As I say, the community is extremely frustrated because this is being done. We don't know the agenda and we certainly don't want to imply that the government has an agenda behind this, but for whatever reason and for whatever purpose that this bill was put together the way it is put together, it is being perceived by francophones as insulting and punitive, largely because you have an opportunity to move, but it's almost like to move you're going to have to sign in blood in order to get that little restructuring that we're asking for within the board of education.

It's a very sad day for francophones in this area when we have to face this kind of thing where, in order to get a little bit of release in the pressure that we have in our educational organizational structure, we have to endorse a regional reform bill which we find to be extremely flawed. So there you go. You have my opinion.

Mr David Johnson: I can only say to the chamber of commerce for Gloucester, you've taken by breath away. This is a very forceful deputation, and I certainly thank you for it. The comments that you made, I think, are bang on with regard to omnibus bills. You brought to my attention the impact on the francophone community, which I can well understand in terms of how you've explained it. The unfortunate aspect of pitting people against people, groups against groups -- I think that's a most unfortunate outcome.

From a positive point of view, the suggestions that you've put forward in terms of reallocating -- instead of looking at some complicated, expensive structural change, just sitting down, applying a little common sense, negotiating and reallocating the services at the regional and municipal levels to avoid duplication, to offer services in an efficient manner -- that's the kind of thing a business person would come up with and that's the kind of --

Mr de Courville Nicol: We try.

Mr David Johnson: -- thinking we need more and more, not only in this province but right across the country. So I thank you for it. I don't know what hope there is that we can go in that direction, but I can only say you've made some tremendously commonsense points of view, and my congratulations to you.

The Chair: I'd thank each of you for appearing here this morning. We are in recess until 1:30.

The committee recessed from 1224 to 1334.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. Ms O'Neill, you had a point just after recess at noon.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, Mr Chair. I'd like to present to you and to the clerk two formal requests in writing from umbrella organizations. The one is actually a provincial organization, and that is the organization of francophone teachers, who definitely have a stake in the bill, the part of the bill that refers to the education of the French-language students in Ottawa-Carleton. They would very much like to present on Monday in Toronto. I hope their request will be given due consideration.

The other is from a group of seven community associations in Ottawa-Carleton, in the city of Ottawa, that have difficulty with the ward boundaries that have been assigned to them. They would like to present as a group. This is another umbrella organization, in my opinion, and they of course would like to be fitted in tomorrow on our agenda.

I feel that both of these requests are very legitimate. They're umbrella organizations, they're trying to accommodate our very fine time lines and I hope they will be given every consideration by both yourself and the clerk. I'll present those to you in writing.

CITIZENS FOR FAIR TAXES

The Chair: The first scheduled witness this afternoon is Keith Dowd. Good afternoon and welcome. You've been allocated 20 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Keith Dowd: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'll even read the little brief heading that's inserted here. This was a trick I learned from a long-ago friend of mine named Earle Peach, well known locally, if not in Toronto. It says: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

Hon Ms Gigantes: Earle Peach is my father. How are you, Keith?

Mr Dowd: This brief is being presented on behalf of the Citizens for Fair Taxes. This group is from over 100 homes and families, about 250 taxpaying adults. It has been working for more than two years, since the imposition of market value assessment, to restore some sense of fairness to our taxation system. When we talk of fairness, we are not just concerned with reducing the high level of taxation that is pushing us out of our homes; we are also concerned with the need to ensure that taxes are being spent in a manner that gives us value for dollar or cost-efficiency.

To introduce our position to various political levels, we have presented briefs to the provincially appointed Fair Tax Commission, the Bourns commission on local school boards, the regional panel on salaries for directly elected regional councillors and the Gloucester city council on double taxation. We have held all-candidates meetings for federal elections and plan the same for provincial and regional elections. We may also enter into the election of school trustees, since in this region we have more trustees than most provinces have politicians in their provincial legislatures.

As a citizens group, we avoid aligning ourselves with any political party. We take the position that it is our task to ensure that our members and other citizens are informed of the facts surrounding questions of public concern. Unlike governments, we are satisfied that given an informed electorate, we do not need to fear the decisions they will make. In this region, possibly the most governed region in Canada, we have had many opportunities to see government decision-making in action.

I use the word "fear" deliberately at this point. The process whereby Bill 143 has been brought to this point tells me that the government fears the result if the electorate were to be properly informed of the consequences of passing Bill 143. I note that they have limited debate by closure in the second reading and have limited debate on the third reading to one hour. I note that the amount of local publicity given to these hearings today and tomorrow is something less than that given an old movie in a neighbourhood rerun movie theatre. The government's haste, evident this week, had been lacking all last summer and early fall. The data which Citizens for Fair Taxes have been using in order to study of the ramifications of this bill have been available for many months. You could find them, with persistence.

One clue to the fear the government has about this bill is the manner in which the amendments to the regional government have been tied to a relatively unrelated item, the French-language school board amendments. If you accept one, you are required to carry the other. This rather devious method of pushing through an enactment smacks of lessons learned from an undesirable element of the republic to the south of us.

1340

Listening to the debate on Bill 143 has been tedious and remarkably unenlightening. Challenges to the bill have been repetitious and not well-founded on the information available to members of the Legislative Assembly. The form of government outlined in Bill 143 does not follow any of the recommendations of the many studies done in Ottawa-Carleton over the last many years. It is possible to trace some parts of the bill to a particular report, but unity of concept has been lost entirely and the final form of Bill 143 has not been placed before the citizens of this region at a time when significant study and input was possible. This hearing is the only form of consultation on Bill 143 that had been made available to us, and the deadline on debate and passage of the bill as announced by the minister seriously affects the credibility of the work of this committee.

Within Bill 143 there is no provision for the reduction in the number of elected officials in the region and its municipalities. In effect, the opportunity to make savings has been lost. Actually, there are already moves afoot to increase the cost to the ratepayers of the region. Consider that the total cost of salaries for elected officials plus the cost of their support office staff might be regarded as an envelope. As far as the taxpayers are concerned, this new structure in regional government will have no impact on them in matters of the services they receive or the efficiency with which they will be delivered. There is no improved benefit to the taxpayers. Therefore, there can be no reason for growth in the size of the envelope from which these services are to be paid, although individuals might draw salaries and costs from the envelope in a new distribution system.

I anticipate nods of approval from thoughtful persons who hear this argument, but just these last few weeks, municipal councillors are already slicing up a larger pie with a view to enhancing their income without thought of the taxpayer. Ottawa councillors are preparing an argument that the new councillors there should receive about a 50% increase in salary and the same in office support costs. This is in spite of the fact that a significant portion of their current responsibilities have been taken from them and placed before the regional council. They argue that with only 10 on the new council, they will have more ratepayers to serve. An examination of their work in the recent past will soon show that they have not confined themselves to policy and legislation but all too often are messing about in the administration of the staff. If they lack confidence in their executive officers, they should replace them, not do their work for them. I am tired of hearing them debate the colour of bricks to be used in paving a pedestrian crossing with the same intensity they devote to the restoration of a major historic building.

Bill 143 has a number of permissive areas in it that are dangerous to the continuing economic survival of taxpayers. There has been no cap placed on the costs of the great number of elected officials who will continue to function, nor on the perks and office support costs that they will give themselves.

I am even suspicious of the outcry about removing the mayors from regional council. Can it be that they are looking at the more than $21,000 regional salary they will be losing? I know of no other governmental structure outside of regional government where by being elected to one office you become automatically a member of the next higher level of government. Being elected to the provincial Legislature, did Bob Rae expect to become automatically a member of the federal Parliament? I don't think so.

Another area that is quite permissive and carries a major financial burden is the situation in the city of Ottawa. It is easy to understand why they should tend to support these changes. They carry the liability of an antique sewer system that must be renewed. The potential is for assigning the costs, estimated at $750 million, to the newly structured regional council which has been given responsibility for the sewers. That places the costs directly in the hands of the taxpayers across the region. The debate about installing storm sewers while replacing the old sanitary sewers is ahead, and there is no guidance or help offered in Bill 143.

Further, there is the matter of the unfunded liability of the Ottawa police pensions. Pensions are often unfunded and there has been no problem with it, except when a transfer of responsibility must be made. Then it must be regarded as a liability. Under clause 32.4(1)(c) of Bill 143, "The assets and liabilities of the area municipalities related to the provision of police services become assets and liabilities of the regional corporation without compensation." This means that if one city has a fully-paid-for police headquarters, they lose it; if another city has a debenture-financed police headquarters, they are relieved of the debt because it will be carried by the regional taxpayers at large. The police departments of Gloucester and Nepean are both using the provincially supported OMAPPAC records and a car-despatch system, a sophisticated computer operation that enables them to exchange information with electronic speed. The Ottawa police use a file system that might have been devised a week after the invention of paper.

The Marin study into the implementation of regional police service was unable to be very precise as to the costs. Others say it would be between $11 million and $15 million. The question of providing policing to two such diverse areas as Rideau township, a rural area, and downtown Ottawa was not discussed. According to the actual costs of policing in 1991, the cost per capita of policing Gloucester was $111, Nepean $116, Ottawa $180. If established as an operating system, it was estimated that in 1992 a regional police force would increase the cost of policing by $7.2 million annually. Aside: I'm so old that a million dollars still seems like a lot of money. There would not necessarily be an improvement in the quality or quantity of policing. If there is no improvement in service rendered to the taxpayer, why should the taxpayer be expected to pay more?

Someone in Queen's Park want us to have a different regional government structure than we have now. That someone has been very selective in listening to the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton. There is no unanimity locally about this question, because there is no adequate source of information about the financial and social costs that will result. Citizens for Fair Taxes are not opposed to Bill 143 merely because it is a change. We have often proposed changes far more radical than those embodied in this bill. When Bill 143 has been studied enough that the ticket price can be closely established, then our association will have no difficulty accepting the decision of an informed electorate.

The government has been severely remiss in not undertaking an active campaign to make the facts and figures known to the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton. There must be time provided to activate this important part of our democratic process. This committee must now carry this message back to the minister and the government.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Dowd, thank you so much. I think I have met you in other milieus.

The informed electorate that you keep reminding us of has certainly been brought to our attention many times today, and I can't for the life of me understand why responsible politicians do not realize that's their first duty.

I am very pleased that you have brought once again before us that we won't have fewer politicians, we'll have more politicians, and that the politicians whom I'm hearing and reading about in the media can be quite self-serving in talking about part-time/full-time job and the remuneration that goes with that.

I have been accused in the House on this bill of being unable to change. You know me well enough to know that I've been over 20 years in public office in this area. I have changed on many occasions. I love the phrase you put in your brief: "opportunities lost." This was a time for real improvement. We aren't getting it in Bill 143, and you're right.

The financial and social costs have not been put on the table at all, and I think that it's very important to balance those two that you've mentioned. I have no questions for you. I am glad you have used the term, especially in 14, "someone in Queen's Park wants to have a different regional government," because it's not very many at Queen's Park who want this. It is "someone."

Mr Dowd: I agree.

1350

Mr Daigeler: In terms of the membership of your group, does that include people from Ottawa as well?

Mr Dowd: It includes a few people who live in the area, particularly along the Rideau River, but who have businesses in Ottawa or are employed in Ottawa, yes. We don't have boundary fences that require passports to get through to go from one municipality to the other -- yet.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Dowd, thank you for an excellent brief. Looking through this carefully, I'm of the mind that you're really directing some of your concern and criticism all around the table here -- you've obviously followed the debates at Queen's Park -- and I think rightfully so. You've raised a number of issues.

Towards the end, you indicate that you really haven't been able to be informed, to get all the information, particularly the financial information. The government has said that the Kirby report has been issued and it's had -- I don't know how many the parliamentary assistant said -- meetings and debates on the Kirby report, and the Bartlett report before that etc. The message the government is trying to convey is that the people have had all sorts of information about this whole situation, and they've had enough and it's time to make a decision. I wonder what your response to that it.

Mr Dowd: My response is, does Bill 143 then embody the Kirby report recommendations?

Mr David Johnson: The answer is no.

Mr White: Let him answer for himself.

Mrs O'Neill: He's very capable of doing that.

Mr Dowd: I don't know if I thank you for that one.

The point is that, yes, there have been a number of studies. Each one embodied a philosophical approach to the study as well as very practical consequences and so forth. But this piecemeal approach isn't appropriate. If this is to be considered a mélange, an assembly of parts, all right then: As it doesn't have a unity of concept behind it, put it on the table so it can be put into shape, so it has a unity about it. I don't think it has. I think it's a piecemeal thing.

I return to a statement I made earlier in the brief. We are not taking a political position. Yes, I took a shot at opposition members as well as government members. We are not identified, and have worked very hard not to be identified, with a political party particularly. We're working for the taxpayers regardless of their political orientation.

Mr David Johnson: Do you think, on behalf of the taxpayers, that bills like this -- well, just about all bills and regulations that come forward -- should have some kind of economic analysis with them, just as a basic necessity, to show what the impact is?

Mr Dowd: Absolutely. It doesn't have to be embodied in the bill necessarily but -- what's the word? -- white paper, that's used in a local institution up there on the river. Having read a white paper that's well written, you would almost, without reference to members of Parliament, know what the bill is going to embody, because "If it carries this philosophy and it's taking into account these particular concerns, the result can only be this, this and this." It follows as a procedure in logic, which I'm sure must be available to somebody else.

Mr White: Thank you very much, Mr Dowd. I very much enjoyed listening to your presentation. When you mentioned the people in Queen's Park, I'm aware that we've had Municipal Affairs ministers of all three political stripes who have been supportive of this bill.

Mrs O'Neill: Give us a break. This bill has only been introduced.

Mr White: The issue you bring up that I want to bring to your attention is the issue about the regional council and the cost of the envelope there for regional council that I think is very important and I hope your group will pursue. As it presently stands, there was some budget struck recently by the present regional council in terms of the office expenses and the assorted sofas and furnishings, which in my understanding is quite outlandish in expense. I certainly hope your organization will pursue that vociferously. That of course is the regional council as it is presently composed, not as will be envisioned. Regardless of whether it's the present one or the one in the future, I hope and feel sure that your group will not let them off the hook.

Mr Dowd: But you people are allowing this to continue by the nature of the legislation you're proposing. You're not putting any kind of cap or any kind of guideline for these people to follow. You're letting them go any direction they want. If we try to do anything by nipping at their heels, they turn around and say: "But look ahead. The legislation has given us this power, so the province must want us to use it."

Mr White: You're right in terms of responsibility: They are accountable primarily to the local electorate. It is, however, the local regional body which, as it presently exists, as it has been set up for the last 25 years, has put that budget into place. I certainly hope you will not let them off the hook.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Dowd. We appreciate you taking the time to come down and present your views before the committee this afternoon.

OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr Willy Bagnell: Mr Chairman, my name is Willy Bagnell. I'm the president of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade. My associate is Mr Potechin, who's a past chairman and a future member of our board of directors of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade.

Honourable members, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to address your committee today. The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade is the largest independent business organization in our region.

The board of trade has made no secret over the past few years of its goal of one-tier government. A regional council and 11 municipal councils do not represent the taxpayers' best interests. The extra taxes we in the business community pay for two levels of government is excessive, to say the least. As each of you is aware, business has suffered a tremendous blow during this recession. Only the Depression of the 1930s equals the economic strife we have felt.

It has become increasingly apparent that the Ottawa-Carleton business community can no longer afford the taxes or the inefficiencies of two levels of government. The legislation presently being discussed regarding regional government reform in Ottawa-Carleton is a valiant step towards one-tier government. Bill 143 is a positive step for business and democracy.

There has been much debate over some key issues in the legislation. The economic development shift to regional government for land development is a wise move. There can be no doubt that a single body developing available land will make it easier for business to work with the government on development projects. Some local politicians have argued, however, for a compromise where, under special circumstances, the municipal government could be given authority to develop land. We feel that the regional economic development officials already have established links through the municipal advisory committee of the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp. These links and some good old-fashioned communication and horse trading should be enough to allow those links and proper communication to exist. We do not need two groups of bodies doing the same thing. It costs too much.

The issue of 11 mayors not sitting at regional council has also provided some exciting debate. Some of the mayors feel that this will adversely affect the municipalities because they won't be there to influence council's decision. The fact that we'll be directly electing 18 councillors covering all 11 municipalities seems to have escaped them. There seem to be some parochial interests emanating from some mayors. As long as the lines of responsibility are clearly defined, the need for mayors at regional council table is minimal.

The amalgamation and rationalization of the three police forces into a single regional police force is indeed a bold but logical step. The progressive move has the potential to lower taxes for the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton while still providing an excellent level of service. There is no need to assume that standards that have been set by the city of Ottawa will have to be adopted by a regional police force. Standards have to be set that make sense, that the taxpayers can afford. We can no longer buy a Cadillac if the lease payments we can afford are for a Honda.

Frankly, I have to raise a caution flag here for politicians. The residents of Ottawa-Carleton will not look favourably on politicians who play games with the police amalgamation. Standards must be set within the fiscal limits of our taxpayers and in consultations with residents and business leaders. Playing politics with public safety would be a huge mistake. It's the sincere belief of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade that a region-wide police service is in the best interests of the residents and will save tax dollars.

1400

The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has been waiting a long time for progressive change that most of Bill 143 will bring. However, we are disappointed with the education portion of the legislation. The board of trade has long been a proponent of fewer school boards. I don't think it's a shock to anybody that that's the position the board has taken. The costs today are prohibitive for running the school boards we have. A tremendous portion of the costs of these schools is paid for by the business community through its taxes. As time marches on, we feel the direction the government is leading the school boards towards is very dangerous. There can be no doubt about the importance of education, but the duplication existent in Ottawa-Carleton and the ensuing waste is awful. How much longer are we to stand for the inactivity of Queen's Park on this issue? Surely common sense must prevail and the rationalizing stop. We need less school boards.

The final chapter of the Bill 77-Bill 143 saga has got to be over with very soon. We go to the polls November 3. The citizens of our region need time to digest and understand and evaluate the performance of the politicians who are presently in office who are going to run again. We need time to understand this and then we have to cast ballots. We urge you to move forward on this bill right away.

Mr David Johnson: I thank you very much for your deputation. I must say, I agree with the objective of the board of trade in terms of reducing the cost of government. It clearly comes through this.

I question whether some of your assumptions may lead to that, though, but I will say that from my experience this is a very real and onerous problem, undoubtedly not only here in the Ottawa region but certainly in Metropolitan Toronto. Having discussed this matter with the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, it has identified as one of the most critical costs in terms of the business community in Metro Toronto the local tax, the municipal property tax, and the education component of course is the most serious aspect of that, but the regional and local aspects as well. They have impressed this upon me over and over again, that something has to be done, and I think you're conveying that same message here today.

However, I want to direct your attention to -- I imagine you've read the Price Waterhouse report that was commissioned.

Mr Bagnell: I've read so much stuff on this that I'm really sick of it, frankly, but life goes on.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, life goes on. The Price Waterhouse report came to the opposite conclusion that you've come to, in that it indicates, just quoting from the first page, "Our assessment is that the one-tier government" -- and you're clearly in support of that possibility -- "would increase annual expenditures of municipal government in the region by $25 million to $75 million." That would be each year, and then there would be a one-time implementation cost. That would actually, in their view, put taxes up and be counterproductive, in a sense, from what you're hoping and I'm hoping as well. It would out taxes up by 5.5% to 16.5%. You obviously don't agree with their assessment. Can you give me some of your thoughts?

Mr Bagnell: The Price Waterhouse report summarized based on assumptions that we consider to be invalid. The assumptions were that the standards that were set in forming a one-tier government would be set by the highest level, in whichever municipality held that highest level, which means the highest cost.

That's not necessarily the case. If I can use a hypothetical scenario, if you have one library for every 10,000 residents in the city of Nepean, and you have one library for every 25,000 residents in the city of Kanata, who's right and who's wrong? Do we have to set the highest standard, or do we set a standard that is acceptable to the taxpayer because they're paying for it? We tend to view the taxpayer as a shareholder. I've been to a few shareholders' meetings in my career, and if the shareholders aren't happy they usually tell their board of directors by not voting them in again.

In this case setting the one-tier government level and increasing taxation is not reality, because we can't afford to increase taxation, we can't afford to increase the level of services we're offering, because quite frankly they're not required.

Mr David Johnson: I would hope you'd be right, and in a better world than we live in I think you would be right, but I'm just not sure. Having been on the inside, I know there's tremendous pressure on elected people to speak up for their citizenry.

Take the issue of ambulance services, for example, in Metropolitan Toronto -- very costly: Some $60 million a year I believe is the cost of the services. Over the course of time, there's been a hue and cry to give every corner of Metro its exact same share of the services. It didn't start that way. There were uneven services maybe reflecting different needs or whatever, but that's happened.

My suspicion is, contrary to perhaps both of our hopes, that this would happen in police too here in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Over a period of time, in a one-tier system, if everybody's paying into the same tax pot, there's going to be a cry that everybody should get the same level of service, and that would automatically drift the service up to a more expensive level. I'm afraid that's what could well happen.

Mr Len Potechin: I'd like to draw to your attention that when Dr Mayo did his original report on regional government, I was involved at the Ottawa board of trade level. Dr Mayo publicly acknowledged that it was a toss of a coin as to which way he would go. Dr Mayo indicated that there would be one police force, one fire department -- not a fire department that won't cross a border because it's not their jurisdiction; and we've got fire stations on both sides of a street. There'd be one planning branch. I don't think that applies today.

I happen to be the co-chairman of Partners for the Future, which was indicated recently, and we had a number of public hearings, many public hearings, far more than people realize. We received from all walks of life the same indication: that 11 municipalities were too many, that seven boards of trade or chambers of commerce were too many, that seven school boards were too many, and we had to get together and rationalize. If we had one board of trade in the area with separate municipal affairs committees, it would be far better, and then we could combine on provincial affairs and finance and taxation and all these other things. If we had one school board with separate divisions in that school board, the administration would be a lot better. We heard that from the general public of the city of Ottawa and Nepean and all the other areas in our municipality.

You see, when anybody from this area goes to another city, they don't say, "I come from Cumberland." They say, "I'm from Ottawa." If you look at the cards of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, it says "Metro Ottawa" on them. When we market the area, we do that. Well, why can't we get on with the job and complete it?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I want to follow up on the school boards, which is probably one of the flaming issues of Ottawa-Carleton politics for the last several years, and ask about your response to the Bourns report, which was created as a follow-up to the work that Mr Kirby had undertaken as a commissioner. I don't know if you had an opportunity to take a look at his recommendations and to see the proposal that's embodied within Bill 143 as part of his recommendation on cost saving, which was to remove a layer of school board operation which had become useless, in effect.

Mr Bagnell: The Bourns report made a lot of sense in some areas, but in my opinion and the opinion of the board, it didn't go far enough. This is 1994. In 1974, I graduated from high school here. There were two school boards at that time and there was not public funding for the separate area, and then Premier Davis came along. The fact remains that in this day and age, as we create more organizations that are publicly funded we need to raise taxes to fund them, so the people who own the homes and buy things pay it, and those are the citizens and the businesses. We just can't afford it any longer.

If you look at how business and community associations, hospitals, universities govern themselves, they don't create new companies every time they do something that are run by a completely new executive. They normally create a holding company that's run by one guy, and he's the same guy who runs the parent company. They do it for taxes or for whatever, but they don't have to have six of this. There are hundreds of examples of this in the business community and in the not-for-profit area through charities and fund-raising associations in this country, in this province and in this region.

1410

Hon Ms Gigantes: Did you think it a reasonable proposal, as Mr Bourns framed it, that there be an attempt to harvest the savings possible through amalgamation of services as an alternative and a test of the will to reduce expenditures and provide an integrated level of service where common services made sense as opposed to leaping directly into an amalgamation of school boards?

Mr Bagnell: I think it's a step in the right direction. But I learned to swim at the end of a dock on the end of my father's foot and I didn't suffer as a result of it.

I think we have to leap sometimes. We make a leap of faith when we vote, because most people who voted for each of the honourable members here today didn't know you personally, stood on faith when they struck the X on the ballot next to your name that you would live up to your promises, live up to the ideals that you put forward in your political speeches, and then you went to Queen's Park to represent their interests.

Mr Chiarelli: I appreciate your comments and your brief. I think it helps to highlight part of the problem why the debate now is so sharp compared to where it was several years ago. We had the Bartlett report, Sweeney's bill, the Graham report. There was a lot of debate, very good, substantive debate on the issue, but the community at that time was not divided as it is today.

Now where does that division come from? Some people think that division comes from the amalgamation of the police. Some think it's because the mayors are not on. I think it's much deeper than that.

You talked and mentioned the term "one tier." The mayor of the city of Ottawa this morning mentioned one tier. That raises a lot of red flags in this community. People are confused with the agenda. As I said, up until Graham, we weren't talking one tier. When we met the minister and local MPPs in November 1990, for the first time the question of one tier was mentioned as possibly part of the agenda. When Kirby was initiated, the possibility of one tier was again raised. It's the issue of one tier that is spooking people today and is why the debate is so sharp today.

The issue is, are the mayors, for example, not on regional council today, not because of rep by pop but because the design is to suppress the strength and the weight of the outside municipalities in order to give more, I guess, momentum to the movement to one tier?

I think that when we see the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade talk about one tier, the mayor of Ottawa coming and talking about one tier, the Kirby report, which was sanctioned by this government, and the minister herself when she came into power talking about one tier, it has moved the debate on to a playing field that didn't exist before. If we look, for example, at the reaction from Gloucester and Nepean, it's not, in my opinion, so sharp because of amalgamation of police; I think it's sharp because they see the prospect of this being a stepping stone to one tier, and some people are actually stating that.

One tier may be good, it may be bad, but the fact of the matter is for everybody who considers themselves the lower tier, it's one hell of a threat to them, and it's that area where I think from a governmental point of view we could have maybe dealt with the issue much better than we have. But I'd like to ask your comment. Do you see this specifically as a step to one tier?

Mr Potechin: The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade historically, going back to 1968 when the first meeting of the introduction of regional government to this area took place -- I happened to be the chairman of that meeting so I'm talking from firsthand knowledge -- thought there should be one tier. We haven't been given any reasons to change our mind. We'd love to be able to change our mind, but if you turn around and look at the duplication of services that are taking place, at that point -- I can't give you the exact figure -- it would seem to me that there were roughly 3,000 people in the city of Ottawa employed by the city of Ottawa. Now half of its services have reverted to the region.

Would you please tell me how many people are employed in the city of Ottawa today, if there is one less person? The answer is no. You see, it's not the people who are divided, it's the politicians who are divided, and let me tell you, we've got far more people employed by government in this community at all levels than we've ever had before, at what cost to the people.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to appear this afternoon.

BOHDAN YARYMOWICH

The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Mr Yarymowich. Good afternoon and welcome. You've been allocated 20 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Bohdan Yarymowich: Thank you very much for inviting me. I will try to keep my presentation to about 10 minutes. I may be shorter.

I come here representing nobody except that vast unorganized majority of the citizens of this municipality who don't have an organized voice, and therefore perhaps I can speak for them. I don't pretend to do so. I hope that I will represent their views.

Let me give you a little bit of background on myself. I am a retired lieutenant colonel. I was a member of the public service. I'm now a resident of Kanata. I am active in the community association and I'm a senior citizen member of the Federal Superannuates National Association. I don't represent any of these organizations. I speak for myself.

In 1974 to 1978, I was the director of eastern Ontario region of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs ministry and therefore I have some knowledge about the municipal affairs of this community from a provincial public service point of view, and I bring that knowledge to bear in my presentation today.

First of all, I am mostly supportive of all the aspects of the bill because I believe the new structure will provide better services more efficiently at lower cost. It may not do so immediately because of transitional costs, but in the long run I believe this to be true, with the goodwill and hard work of the elected members of our councils. I have one suggestion for change regarding the education section, which I will get to later.

In the section relating to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, I strongly support all the amendments, particularly and especially disentanglement between area municipalities and the region. I particularly support an elected council because of representation by population. I believe that a regional councillor will represent his territory and the members of his community. He or she will not represent vested interests. I believe that this elected council will reduce the conflicts of interest that now exist between the various municipalities.

I do not believe that the mayors should be on the council for many reasons. I do not believe in a rabbit stew made with a little bit of horse. When somebody asked me, "How much horse and how much rabbit?" the answer was, "One horse to one rabbit." I don't believe in that kind of stew.

I believe that mayors are busy enough looking after their own municipalities without having to take time out to attend regional council. I believe that they have special interests, those of their own municipality, which they bring to regional council and they are not dispassionate in their debates about regional issues because they're always in the back of their mind. They are thinking, "Where the hell are my voters?" They're back there.

I believe that the mayors have adequate influence at the regional level simply because of their position and their own personality. I don't think they need more.

1420

On the regional police, I strongly support a regional police force. We need only look around this province to see how many regional police forces there are and how successful they have been. I think we will get better coordination. I think we will get better efficiency. I think we will get a better balance. I think we'll be able to use higher technology because of a larger force. I believe there will be a reduction in jurisdictional disputes.

I must agree that we have to guard against giantism and rank expansion. That has got to be carefully guarded against.

I believe we will protect service to minorities and outlying areas. I think it is essential that the outlying areas don't wind up on the short end of the stick.

If we examine those other regional police forces, we can learn from them and get a much superior police force. I note that the police services boards of Gloucester and Nepean this morning published a huge ad, at great expense, indicating how inefficient the Montreal police force is. I wonder why they have to go to another province to pick a bad example rather than looking at the many police forces in our own province.

I don't think this is a new issue. It's been around for a long time. It has been debated for a long time. There may be additional debate necessary, but I don't think we need to delay it too much further. The time has come to make some decisions. The time has come to make some changes.

Finally, in regard to the Education Act, it says that there may be the resolution of division by area. I'm sorry; it may be possible to get representation by area; I can't read my own handwriting. Representation can be divided by area where required. I believe that should be changed to be mandatory so that where warranted, there must be some division so that we get representation by one trustee in each ward.

I think the running of school boards has to be brought in line with the running of municipalities. At-large elections, in my mind, are a terrible inequity and simply do not provide the voter with adequate recognition of accountability. I think we should have one trustee, one ward. By extension, I think that same change should be -- I was going to say inflicted, but I think applied to all other school boards in the region.

That brings me to the end of what I was going to say. I think this move is necessary to introduce responsibility and accountability. I believe we should pass this bill. I hope it will pass in reasonable good order so that it can be applied in this fall election. I would ask you to amend that education section and apply the same rule to all other school boards: one vote, one ward, one trustee.

Mr White: Thank you very much, Lieutenant Colonel Yarymowich. I was impressed with your presentation. The people who presented just before you said that for a long time they had been in support of one-tier government and they indicated that they were also in support of mayors not being on the regional council.

Mr Yarymowich: Believe me, it's coincidental.

Mr White: What I'm curious about is that we've heard from a number of people that mayors and local councillors are the people who work closest to them. I know my friend the former mayor of East York would certainly argue that. But the question I have for you is, what argument would you put to these people in terms of your own support for the mayors not being on regional council?

Mr Yarymowich: What arguments would I put?

Mr White: Yes. How would you argue to people who say "Mayors are important. They should be on regional council?" What argument would you put forth?

Mr Yarymowich: I have argued that point. I said mayors are important. They're so important that they can get their way without being on council. They don't have to be on council to get their way, and that's why I don't think they should be there. But the biggest thing is that business of you have one mayor from Ottawa who represents 300,000 people and you have one mayor from Kanata who represents 25,000. Is that a fair balance?

Mr White: Are you suggesting as well that the mayors who are on regional council would have a disproportionate influence on their other colleagues on council?

Mr Yarymowich: Don't you think they would? I do, yes.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for your presentation. As you had written to me before on this one, I guess we have agreed to disagree, but I do appreciate what you've said and I think you sincerely and honestly held -- so is mine.

I would like to indicate, because I think some people perhaps may misunderstand from my dimensions earlier, that certainly in Nepean we have been ready to look at some reforms, but in a cooperative rather than in a coercive manner.

What I object to, frankly -- I'd like to get your comment on that since I didn't get a chance to ask the question earlier of the people I really wanted to ask this of -- is that the city and municipality that has, certainly in this area, not a very good record of fiscal management is telling everybody else, "You give up your management," which was very good if you look at the figures, "so that we can save costs."

If it was a municipality that had shown through its fiscal management that, yes, they have managed their resources well, so yes, we can actually save, frankly, I'd be much more open to it, but this argument, for example, for elimination of school boards, which is mostly coming from the Ottawa board which is spending about twice as much as the Carleton separate board, they are the ones that say, "You should give up your controls so that we can save money." That's what I find so hard to take.

I was just wondering whether you'd wish to comment. I would have loved to have asked that question a little bit earlier, but anyway, here it is.

Mr Yarymowich: That's an exceedingly good question. I've given it some thought and I agree with the facts that you've presented. I believe the problem is not in the process; I believe the problem is in the people who are there. I think what we need is better people and not different processes.

I've known Ben Franklin for many years, since I was the director of the office here, and he was always, in my mind, a very competent individual, able to give good government, and he's proven that over the years. It just shows you how good my judgement was 20 years ago. I think that's where the problem lies, not in the structure but in the personalities.

I'll give you another reason. I think it's much easier to run a small municipality efficiently and effectively than it is a large one. Let's face it, the larger the problem the more difficult it is.

Mr Daigeler: Nepean is 125,000 people now.

Mr Yarymowich: But it wasn't 20 years ago.

Mr Daigeler: No, but it's still a very competent city. Our tax increases are still below the rate of inflation every year.

Mr Yarymowich: I admire you. I almost moved to Nepean.

Mr Daigeler: We are being accused of being parochial, "You shouldn't think of Nepean all the time." I think we have shown -- this is the other point I want to make -- that we have the interests of the region at heart, but I just don't think that in order to represent the interests, economic and otherwise, of the region, you have to basically emasculate all the local identities and the local powers and the local closeness of the government that we have. It's worked up to now.

Frankly, I'm not aware, and I guess that would be my question, that there are any major problems in terms of working among the various municipal councils and through the region. It's worked. What is the problem? I think the whole region stands out in the whole country in terms of the services that it has, in terms of anybody who comes to Ottawa-Carleton is impressed with what's there. So it's worked. Where is the major problem? They're saying it costs us too much. I am saying, "Well, you're the ones who jacked up the costs."

Mr Yarymowich: Mr Daigeler, I agree to some extent with what you're saying. The problem is that we are now in the 20th century, not the 18th or the 19th century. We no longer live in horse-and-buggy days. It no longer takes half a day for the farmer to get to the local township office. He can fax his message and get a fax answer back within minutes, seconds. He can drive to the town hall in downtown Ottawa in as much time as it used to take him to get to his back 40, 100 years ago.

1430

Mr White: But it takes an hour to get a parking spot.

Mr Yarymowich: Yes, it takes a little longer to get to Queen's Park. But times have changed and they're changing even more, and we have to organize and structure ourselves for the future, not the past. That's my real conviction, that's my real concern: that we're still trying to live in the last century rather than building for the new one.

We have to streamline our structures, we have to eliminate duplication. Why do we need 11 municipalities in an area the size of Ottawa-Carleton? Did you ever count the number of municipal councillors? I don't have enough fingers, so I can't go beyond that, but there are far too many and they're all duplicating --

Mr Daigeler: But there will be even more under this bill.

Mr David Johnson: I thank you for your deputation. I can only say, as the government is intent on proceeding, that I hope you're right, but I have some disagreement.

Mr Yarymowich: I know I'm right.

Mr David Johnson: Then that makes a couple of you in this room, without naming names.

Personally, I think the issue is that yes, we need to streamline and eliminate duplication etc etc, but isn't the bottom line to find the mechanism that presents services to the people in the most cost-efficient manner? If it is, should we automatically assume that's one government?

I can tell you from my personal experience and seeing poll after poll, reputable firms, about which level of government people are the happiest with and which they think is spending their money most efficiently? Do you care to hazard a guess at the result? If you look at the four levels of government -- eliminate the board of education, but the other four levels of government -- federal, provincial, regional and local, time after time after time it's the local government that comes up at the top, that people are confident are spending their dollar in the most efficient manner and that they're the happiest with; drop way down to regional government; further down again to the provincial government; and the largest government of all, the federal government, is right at the bottom of the list. Isn't there a message there somewhere? We may assume that bigger government is more efficient, but from my observation people don't share that kind of view.

Mr Yarymowich: You've made an excellent point on the matter of costs. I think what you have failed to recognize is the other part of the equation, that is, the amount of service and quality of service we get for it.

Are you suggesting that each municipality should run its own defence force and international affairs because they do what they do better? No, it doesn't happen. Are you suggesting that one municipality can run the sewers across the boundaries of all the other municipalities? It doesn't happen. If you have to run one service across the whole region, the best way to do it is one manager.

Mr David Johnson: There are certainly differences of opinion on that. For example, in this day and age in many municipalities the local municipality does the collection of garbage -- take that issue -- and the regional municipality is involved with the disposal, landfills, that sort of thing.

There certainly could be an excellent argument put that local municipalities, tailored to their own circumstances, their own people, their own geography etc, can deliver the collection in the most efficient manner, and that the region should be responsible for disposal. There's no duplication there. That is the most efficient way to do it. If you were to have the region do the local collection as well as the disposal, there would be many people who would argue that would be more expensive.

Mr Yarymowich: I'm not sure on what basis. We do it that way now because we happen to have the lower-area municipalities. If we didn't have them, we'd have to do it by -- what would you call it? -- regionalization of that service. There would be a branch office in that municipality, or maybe the single municipality is too small. Maybe it should be three municipalities or four municipalities. That could be arranged by the central manager. It can't be done now because Kanata won't coordinate its efforts with Stittsville -- two different municipalities. You don't get the cooperation between municipalities that you will get between members of the same municipality.

Let's face it, Ottawa-Carleton is one municipality, in reality. You work in one part of it, you live in another part of it, you get your dental work done somewhere else. It is, by virtue of its existence and geography, one municipality. Why do we need 11 governments to run it?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Yarymowich. The committee appreciates you taking the time this afternoon to come forward and express your views.

Mr Yarymowich: I certainly appreciate that you allow a single member of the community to come and have his views expressed. Thank you.

PHIL DOWNEY

Mr Phil Downey: Good afternoon. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to come here and address my concerns with the bill and make suggestions that could perhaps improve it for everybody.

My name is Phil Downey. I've been a lifelong resident of the township of West Carleton, which is the most westerly, rural part of the Ottawa-Carleton region. I'm fortunate enough to also have a business here in Ottawa-Carleton. We have about 200 employees and we have offices in Manotick -- which is really part of Rideau, right on the boundary between Rideau and Nepean -- Kanata and the city of Ottawa, so we cover, I believe, the views of a lot of concerned citizens from every part of the region.

It is my opinion that if we had a plebiscite today in the Ottawa-Carleton region to vote on Bill 143, it would be voted down by a vast majority of the residents. I'd like to just point out to you what I hear from people -- people we see in their homes, people we talk to -- and the concerns the average citizen has with regard to Bill 143.

First, at a time when the majority of Canadians feel cynical towards politics and politicians, it must be the objective of our politicians at every level to work to change this attitude. The level of government which has the highest satisfaction rate today is the local municipalities. This statistic comes from a lot of different sources, one of which was the Coopers and Lybrand report to the Kirby commission. I believe one of the main reasons for this high satisfaction level is the accessibility for the public to those elected officials at a municipal level. Removing the mayors from regional council will certainly erode that in every part of the region.

Second, the people I talk to perceive that we are getting a made-in-Toronto solution to the Ottawa-Carleton problem.

Bill 143 does not address several of the concerns addressed in the Kirby commission findings. The biggest concern, and this is at every level of government, is that people don't want changes made that are going to cost more money. We can't afford to pay more taxes. I believe what's happening here is that another tier of government, almost, is being formed. In our area, for instance, we'll still have the local elected councils and the mayors, and then we'll have another level shoved in there, which is the regional councillor. Every time you remove it further away from the people, I believe, it's more frustrating because many of us just aren't sure where to go and whom to talk to when we have a problem or a concern.

My report is short and I haven't a whole lot more to say. I am not here to say that the form of government we have in the regional municipality today is perfect. I know and I agree that it can be improved upon. I am here today to tell you, though, that the vast majority of the people in the region believe that Bill 143 will make our situation worse.

1440

What I would ask is if you could do us, the residents of Ottawa-Carleton, a favour and at the same time restore some of our faith in the political process. Could you perhaps postpone the passing of this bill and give us, the residents and the elected municipal politicians in the region, a specific time to supply a homegrown solution to the problem? I believe that way we could make the changes that are necessary, save the taxpayers dollars and have a solution that's good for you as provincial politicians as well as those at the regional level.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you, Mr Downey. I'm glad you explained that you have contacts in several parts of the region. I think you have also underlined that you're not convinced that accessibility will be improved. Certainly one of the people who presented to us this morning who is aspiring to be one of the regional councillors says that people have trouble finding him, that he has other duties. I don't think it's going to be much easier: If he's hard to find now, he's going to be hard to find when he's representing more people. You have underlined that this bill is going to present more politicians and that that is more expensive. You've underlined that this is going to make things more complex, that there are going to be more people involved, and who is going to know who is involved with what?

Mr Downey: Exactly.

Mrs O'Neill: We don't need more complex government in this community.

Mr Downey: Of all communities, we know about complex government.

Mrs O'Neill: Right. You have suggested that this bill is being rammed, pushed. We are getting only 10 hours of discussion in this community on this bill and not much more in the House. We know it's going to go through. Could you tell one or two amendments that you would consider your top priority? We'd really think that would be helpful.

Mr Downey: One of the two things that I think concern us most is the fact that the level of representation, as you say, will be more difficult for the average citizen to be able to identify. Because there's another level there, there's another full-time position, which requires staff or whatever else. If there was some way of changing it so the cost would be at least no greater and perhaps less, that would be my number one priority.

My number two priority would be that the local mayors -- I believe mayors in every municipality, whether it's the large ones like the city of Ottawa or the small ones like the township of West Carleton, have a really good feel for what the people in their area require. I know some of you come from municipal politics. You've been there and you've been elected at that level.

I do think there is a problem, that the weighting needs to be changed. Perhaps we could look at some type of system whereby a voice is heard but perhaps the vote from some of the smaller areas doesn't carry as much weight. The important thing is the voice.

The accessibility point of view for the residents, and also that the views of those people can be heard before a vote takes place: Those are the two major amendments.

Mr David Johnson: I may be accused of being in the horse-and-buggy era and not being in the 20th century, but -- you come from West Carleton, and just looking through my notes, according to what I have, the fire services in West Carleton are largely volunteer. Is that correct?

Mr Downey: That's correct.

Mr David Johnson: The notes I have indicate that the cost per capita -- and you might not know this precisely -- is $25 per capita, which is considerably less than, for example, in the city of Ottawa, which is about $100 per capita, but I'm not 100% sure of that. Certainly other big municipalities would be about that. There's a difference of four to one. You're getting reasonable fire services in West Carleton?

Mr Downey: We have an excellent service. Fire service is a good example of a wonderful volunteer system that exists in that whole community. We're really happy with the quality of service we get. We had a really unfortunate fire about three or four weeks ago in the village of Carp. One of the old, stately houses that have been there for ever happened to catch fire -- actually, it was the Anglican rectory -- on a Sunday morning. It was marvellous. I don't think any fire department anywhere could have done a better job, certainly not at the cost we have to pay. That certainly is a major concern for us.

Mr David Johnson: I haven't seen the collective agreement with the Ottawa fire department, but somebody indicated to me that there's a prohibition that they cannot have volunteers working within the system. If it doesn't state that, I do know that that's not uncommon, that the paid fire staff are not anxious to work with volunteers.

Mr Downey: I really don't think we could afford it.

Mr David Johnson: If there was one fire department across the whole region, that would undoubtedly do away with the volunteers --

Hon Ms Gigantes: That's not proposed.

Mr David Johnson: I understand that's not proposed, and I thank you for the interjection. I understand that, but if we think one-tier government is going to be more effective and efficient, here's an example of a service that is given at the local level in a municipality like West Carleton and many others, Goulbourn and Osgoode etc, that is very cost-effective, because the people are involved locally in giving that service and you can't beat the value you're getting for your money in West Carleton on that particular service. If that's done, volunteers excluded, the costs are going to jump way up.

Mr Downey: I agree completely. I really think there is money saved if the closer the people are to the things that are being done, the faster they are there to complain and the faster they are there to give the slap on the back. Even though at first look you'd say, "If we can centralize everything and only have one person doing what 11 do, that should save us 10 salaries," but the fact of the matter is that when it gets down to practical terms, I believe the people who are elected who are closest to the people, and with most of those people on a part-time or at less cost than a full-time basis, I really believe that generally the cost won't be any higher, perhaps less. But more importantly than that, the people really believe their concerns are being responded to, and that's really what democracy's all about.

Mr White: Mr Downey, I was very impressed with your presentation and your interest in making sure that government is accountable.

There were a couple of things I wanted to clarify. My friend from Ottawa Centre, who of course being in this area is accountable for the entire federal government as well as what happens at Queen's Park --

Hon Ms Gigantes: And the fire departments.

Mr White: And the fire departments. Well, the fire departments will not be affected, the volunteer fire departments we were discussing.

The other thing I wanted to clarify was that my understanding is that what we will be having will be a change of 84 regional and local councillors to 84 regional and local councillors -- the exact same number. So when the comment is made that you'll have an increased number, in fact that would be erroneous: 84 is, to the best of my knowledge, the same as 84.

But wouldn't you think it would make more sense if you're electing someone, someone who's going to be on regional council and someone's going to be on local council, versus having someone who might have two or three different levels of votes? Remember, you're electing the same number of people. You know that John Smith is going to be voting for you on regional council, and it'll be looking after social services and regional roads and things like that, and Joe White is looking after the local sewers, the town recreation etc etc. There are different levels of responsibility, as opposed to now, where you have Joe, who's looking after some of those things on Monday but some of the other things on Tuesday. Don't you think that makes it simpler for a voter?

Mr Downey: I think you make a point, but I also believe it makes it more confusing, because the average voter doesn't know which person represents what unless they're pretty attuned to what's happening.

The thing I like about the mayors coming in is that the mayor sits and listens to his elected councillors and he listens to the public and he has a feel for everything that's happening there, and then he goes to a higher level and he has the opportunity to take the comments and present them. There are so many different levels. The county council system has worked like that, and I believe that somewhere else in Ontario the representative from that level moves and works at the other end.

It's not unlike a cabinet in the provincial or the federal case. The Americans decide that they're better to take people of expertise from every walk of life and move them into the executive level of government. We in Canada have always believed, why not take from our peers those people and listen to them? I believe the system that's there now is similar to the way it works on the federal level with the cabinet or on the provincial level. I think, in fact, the system works well.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Downey, thank you for taking the time to give us your presentation today.

1450

ALEX MUNTER

Mr Alex Munter: My name is Alex Munter. I'm a councillor in the city of Kanata and also chair of the Kanata Police Services Board. I'd like to give you some biographical information about myself because, if you were in the Legislature on April 7, you may have heard my MPP Norm Sterling talking about me and focusing heavily on my former affiliation with the member for Ottawa Centre.

In addition to that, however, I grew up in the city of Kanata. I'm the first member of Kanata city council and the urban part of our municipality to have actually grown up in the city. I went to school there. I started a business there which, by the time I sold it, had 20 full- and part-time employees. It was a community newspaper. I was in contact and worked with the community organizations. I defeated an incumbent alderman to be elected to Kanata city council in 1991 and I was twice elected chair of our police services board.

Because of the restrictions on time, I'd like to just focus on two elements of the discussion. I'd like to share with you some of my views, as a councillor, on the issue of representation, direct election and mayors, and then I'd also, as chair of the police services board, like to share some suggested amendments to the bill from our board.

First of all, it's important that we recognize that this debate, when we talk about the election of regional councillors, is just a contrasting of two visions of regional government. There are two equally plausible visions, and I think we should just agree to disagree, and some of us have a different view of it.

Mr Daigeler -- and I watched part of his presentation in the Legislature -- quoted letters, if I recall, from the Nepean Chamber of Commerce that viewed regional government as an extension of municipal government and viewed representation at the regional level as an extension of representation from the municipal level. That is not a view I share.

I believe a level of government that spends $1 billion annually, that is an incredibly important level of government on areas of public health, of social services, of planning, of transportation, deserves direct control and direct accountability to the voters of Ottawa-Carleton. Indeed, that is the position of the city of Kanata: Our council has voted, if memory serves, unanimously in favour of the principle of directly elected regional councillors.

Where my dissent from my colleagues on council comes in is on the issue of whether the mayors should be members of regional council, and this is where the whole debate about whether regional government is a government on its own, that deserves direct control or accountability, or whether it's an extension of the lower-tier municipalities, comes into play.

My experience both as a journalist and more recently as a municipal councillor in observing what happens at the region is that mayors go to the upper tier not to represent their constituents but, as the previous speaker said, to represent the corporation of the municipality of, in our case, Kanata, and I'll give you one example.

It is our mayor in the city of Kanata who, when we were discussing an official plan amendment at the municipal level, at our city council, voted against it, spoke of what bad planning it was, which reflected the views of regional planning staff and which our environmental advisory committee and certainly the community associations in the area affected. But because our city council endorsed this regional official plan amendment, she then went, as the mayor of Kanata, and spoke in favour of and voted -- in fact the deciding vote -- in favour of this particular regional official plan amendment because, as the chief executive officer of the corporation of the city of Kanata, she felt it was her role, even though personally she did not believe this was good planning, to represent the corporate municipal interest.

If you observe Ottawa-Carleton regional council, I think what you'll see is a lot of brokering of interests, a lot of "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" parochialism and a deal-making environment that I don't think is helpful to the best interests of the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton. What we need in this region, and what we will get in this region through Bill 143, is a direct voice for people all across the region in the running of our region: direct accountability.

Our council also endorsed the principle, during the consultation period, of regional ward boundaries that cross municipal boundaries to deal with the issue of parochialism, and I am pleased to see that was part of the bill.

In the police services board position paper -- we have prepared a number of position papers that have been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing and our member of the Legislature -- we have suggested a number of amendments. The city of Kanata is in a relatively unique position in Ottawa-Carleton -- there's only one other municipality, and that's Rockcliffe Park, that's in the same situation -- which is that we are policed by the Ontario Provincial Police but we pay for that service, unlike the townships in the region.

In discussions with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and others that have been involved in the transition to regional policing, it has become clear that the focus for that discussion has been the amalgamation of the municipal forces within the greenbelt and not so much the issue of what will happen to the those areas policed by the OPP.

The bill addresses those municipalities that get free OPP policing; it does not address the case of Kanata, which is the only municipality in the region policed by the OPP with its own police services board. What we have suggested as specific amendments is to reword section 32.2 of both Bill 77 and Bill 143 to read that the police services boards of the area municipalities are dissolved January 1996, "with the exception of boards in place for those areas under OPP contract until such time and if and when the regional board considers taking over the policing in those areas under OPP contract."

Second, that "in the event of consideration under section 32.2, the boards in place participate fully in the planning towards taking over policing in those areas."

We did not feel comfortable in commenting on whether there should be an amalgamation of the municipal forces within the greenbelt. That's not our jurisdiction. Our role is to address the best interests of the citizens of Kanata. Since it seems to be apparent that the OPP will, in the short term, at any rate, continue to police our municipality, we would request the ability to administer and control that service, as we have been to date, in cooperation with the regional police services board.

The position paper we adopted last October, a couple of months after Bill 77 was originally presented, recommended that the city of Kanata, located outside the greenbelt and not policed by its own force, should be allowed to make a decision on opting in for regional contract or OPP on future policing. That is the position of the Kanata Police Services Board.

To conclude, I would say we have been discussing regional reform in Ottawa-Carleton since I was a toddler. We've had round tables and public meetings and private meetings and commissions and reports, and I think it is relatively hard to make an argument that we haven't had enough discussion about regional reform in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr David Johnson: I thank the councillor, Mr Munter, for expressing those serious concerns the Kanata Police Services Board has with the bill. I just want to get something straight. Was the motion you just read to us -- I wish we had a copy of it because I'm trying to listen and take notes at the same time -- a decision of the city of Kanata or was that a decision of the city of Kanata Police Services Board?

Mr Munter: No, that is a position paper of the Kanata Police Services Board which was endorsed. It was forwarded to city council and endorsed by city council.

Mr David Johnson: And those were unanimous votes, I assume.

Mr Munter: I don't recall. It was certainly unanimous at the police services board. I think it was unanimous at city council.

1500

Mr David Johnson: So the city of Kanata and Kanata Police Services Board, either unanimously or nearly unanimously, would like to retain the option, essentially, of having their own police --

Mr Munter: No, no. It would be clear that we're not looking for a municipal force. The model that's useful to look at is Caledon, in the region of Peel; although there's a Peel regional police force, the municipality of Caledon continues to be policed by the Ontario Provincial Police. One of the options that Kanata now has is to establish its own municipal police service. We're not saying that's an option we're asking to retain, but what we would like, the option we are looking for, is as it relates to opting into the regional policing service or continuing a contract with the OPP.

Mr David Johnson: You wish to retain the option of having your own police services, in a contract through the OPP, but you wish to retain the option. This bill, the way it's structured at present, clearly is not intended to allow you to do that.

Mr Munter: I appreciate that. That's why we have requested an amendment.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, and I understand that other municipalities would be looking for -- certainly I can see the representative from Nepean saying they agree with you. Kanata and Nepean and perhaps other municipalities wish to retain the authority over policing within their municipalities. That's what that resolution is really saying.

Mr Munter: Within the context of a choice between regional policing and the OPP. I think what Nepean -- and I'll be corrected, I'm sure. If I've understood Nepean correctly, Nepean's main issue is its municipal police service. Kanata is not arguing for a municipal city of Kanata police force, at the police services board. What we're talking about is opting into the regional service or continuing to be policed by the OPP.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I wonder if it would be possible for us to have a comment from Municipal Affairs about how that would fit with the proposals under the bill.

Mr David Shtern: David Shtern, with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. As you said, the bill at this point does not permit that kind of arrangement. The idea is that there would be regional responsibility for policing across the entire region and that there would be one regional police services board that would make the decisions.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I wonder if you could comment a little further on your identification of the two views of what the purpose of a regional council in Ottawa-Carleton should be. When we look at the 25-year history, now, of Ottawa-Carleton regional government, I would think that the view that regional council was meant to represent municipal interests quite directly was probably the starting point. I'd just ask you, out of your experience over the last few years both in the media and as a local representative, whether you think you can identify a shift in the public's view of what purposes a regional council should serve.

Mr Munter: It would be a good analogy to compare Ottawa-Carleton regional council to a mini-model of the United Nations for our region, because aside from the regional chair all of the people who sit on regional council are first and foremost ward aldermen or mayors of municipalities. Their offices are at different city halls. When they run and when they are elected, and the issues they campaign on, are primarily on a local basis and that is their focus. So when they come to the region, they are not there as regional councillors. They are there to represent the municipal interests of the lower tier.

The problem that creates -- and anybody who observed this past Wednesday's regional council meeting will understand what problem that creates: when you have a debate going on with people who are ostensibly regional councillors but who are in fact arguing positions from the basis of being city of Ottawa or city of Nepean, whatever, municipal councillors. I think the expectation of the public, the cynical and fed-up public we've heard about, is that we are a metropolitan area of three quarters of a million people and we deserve a government that's accountable and that makes decisions in the interests of the metropolitan area and that it is not an arena for feuding fiefdoms to represent themselves.

Mr Daigeler: I would have liked the member for Carleton to ask some of these questions, as he represents your area, but as he won't be at these hearings, I guess I'll have to ask some of those questions, as I used to be the candidate for Carleton.

Mr Munter: I'm sure he would appreciate that.

Mr Daigeler: In your comments you were speaking as Alex Munter, councillor, and at other times you were saying "we" and "our," so I find it rather difficult to know exactly at what point you're representing yourself and at what point you're speaking for the police services board. In terms of where you were not speaking for the police services board, when you're putting your view forward, do you think this was the view of the people who elected you or is that your own view?

Mr Munter: In terms of the first question, when I said "I," I was representing my point of view. When I said "we," it was the police services board. The police services board has only expressed a position on the policing aspects of the bill. In terms of what the people in Kanata and elsewhere in the region believe, when I talk to people -- and I was at a meeting on Wednesday night and I was discussing this issue with about 15 residents, primarily from my ward -- there is a lot of support for the principle of an accountable, directly controlled regional council and a lot of support for the idea of taking the mayors off. This is not an issue that people are fighting in the streets over.

What's important to understand is that for the past several years, the municipal governments in Ottawa-Carleton have gone on a concerted campaign, using taxpayer dollars, to campaign against notions of regional reform. In Kanata, after the initial report from the Kirby commission came out, council used public dollars to put out a leaflet that went to every home in the municipality that said Kanata's future as a city -- and this was well after the issue of one-tier government was no longer on the table. "Residents of Kanata are asked to call the following hotline number and register their opinions on this matter. All opinions will be forwarded to Mr Kirby. For example, tell Mr Kirby if you want Kanata to remain as a separate city or if you want one massive city for Ottawa-Carleton. Give him your reasons."

If you use public dollars and if you use the authority and the moral suasion of the mayor's office to incite people, well, then you will incite people, and that is what has been done.

Mr Daigeler: The mayor is coming, so we can ask her when she comes.

Let me ask you. Have you had any meetings with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, either on the previous Bill 77 or on this Bill 143?

Mr Munter: No, I have not. I've corresponded with the minister, both as a councillor and as chair of the police services board. I have forwarded him suggestions, comments and position papers, but I have not met with him.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Munter, on behalf of this committee, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to give us your presentation.

PHIL BENSON

Mr Phil Benson: Good afternoon. My name is Phil Benson. I'm a resident of Gloucester; I live in Blackburn hamlet. Referring to the previous speaker, I just represent myself, and I guess I'm one of those fed-up, cynical taxpayers.

Just personal history: I've lived in four provinces and more cities than I like to think of, and I've seen much bigger cities, much smaller cities, lots of government, regional-tier government, single-tier government, double-tier government. The city here, the entire region here, continues to confuse me and cause me much concern.

I'm going to talk about three main things today. The first thing is accountability, the cost of government and the role of government. To start off, Bill 143 doesn't answer any of the major concerns I have. I think it fails on all counts.

On accountability, as I said, I come from Blackburn hamlet. Most of you don't know where Blackburn hamlet is, a nice, little residential area of town. We had a major problem there a little while ago dealing with a little commercial application of a development. It was on Innes Road, which is a little two-lane road that everybody considers a local road. It's not a local road; it's a regional road, which caused concerns with the commercial application.

1510

I asked at least two dozen of my neighbours, if they had a problem on Innes Road, who would they call? Twenty said the mayor; four said their local councillor. When I informed them it was a regional road, I suggested they should call the regional councillor, which we do elect; I know the gentleman well. They didn't know who he was and most people didn't know where the regional office was.

Accountability means simply that taxpayers know who represents them and who to blame. Today, if there's a problem in Innes Road, the mayor and city council take the flak. Tomorrow, with Bill 143, short and sweet, the mayor and city council are going to take the flak. Bill 143 doesn't address it. In my mind, I'm torn between two things: It either doesn't go far enough or it goes too far.

The people who are here talking about mayors being on city council -- that is something I can understand well. If the mayor is going to take the flak, it seems to me the mayor should be sitting at the council table, making the big decisions. If not, we're talking about 18 people elected regionally who are going to have a free ride at my expense, and I don't like that one little bit.

Cost of government: I did appear at the citizens' committee. Quite briefly with that is that I thought it was rather sad that a citizens' committee was sent out to set the wages of regional councillors before you did your job. Talk about pigs at the trough. I make a joke about it, but as a taxpayer, I don't have deep pockets. I had a funny feeling they were trying to shoehorn 18 more hands into my pockets, and a fat bureaucracy to go with it.

I wish they had waited longer so that you could have done your job after consultation so that, as a citizen, I would have known what to talk to. I thought that was poorly done and I'd recommend that they go back out after you have done your job to once again listen to the community to see what we have to say about whatever we're going to end up with, because we weren't sure.

I think there's just too many governments and too many politicians, too many levels here. As he said earlier, when you have a report that says there's 84 elected officials and after amalgamation, changes, switches, we're going to have 84, rather than supporting change or accepting change, perhaps the report should have been filed under "G." That isn't change; that's the status quo with moving things around, remaining confusion all around.

On the role of government, I think, after Charlottetown, every politician in this country should have learned one very simple lesson: You can't change how we are governed in an absolute sense without our approval. When you hear all these people coming to you during the next two days you're here -- it's not long enough, but that's okay -- you're going to have people arguing for one point, arguing for another, reports, reports, reports. I have a simple solution: Shelve this part of Bill 143, put it on a ballot in November, put more than one type of change -- stay the same, change the way you want in Bill 143, single-tier government, dump the regional government. Put three or four changes on there and let us decide. In the long run, if there is a logjam, let me and my neighbours in my community decide how I am governed. I don't think we can go wrong when we do that in a democracy.

As I said, I am for change. I think we should have change. But I don't think Bill 143 changes anything. I think it is again a shuffling, a move about accountability, costing factor. I just don't see it being what we need in this city today. Those are all the comments I have.

Mr White: Mr Benson, I was interested in some of your first comments; frankly, the issue about the confusion which we all feel. Even as elected politicians ourselves, we're often curious about other levels of government that affect us. You know, I pay my local taxes, I have regional councillors and local councillors in the area that I live in. I'm not always sure what the heck they do.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Or what we do.

Mr White: Oh, indeed; what we do. You were talking about a regional road in your area. My understanding is that at the moment you have three regional councillors who are also local councillors in Gloucester. Do you know, for example, who those regional councillors are?

Mr Benson: Yes, two for sure. Cantin and Faucher, and of course the mayor, that's three. Yes, I know at least two of them fairly well. I've had dealings with them.

Mr White: What you're saying, though, is that most of the people in your neighbourhood would not be able to say that this person is a regional councillor and this person is a local councillor.

Mr Benson: What I'm saying is that most people have no idea, and I made it in jest at the citizens' committee that the only time I really -- and I think I'm aware more than a lot of other people; I'm busy in the community doing many things. I think the only time people know about a regional council is when they get the water bill. That's all the regional council is for them, the damned water bill every two months. In fact, I've been in cities where the water bill's tacked on to your taxes, so you never see it.

I think there's a lot of confusion. The problem with the communities is there's not a sign on a road that's blue that says every blue sign means it's a regional property. People have no idea which is a regional road, which is a local road; which park is regional; is the region responsible for this sewer or that sewer; where do I go for planning? It's fairly confusing. I don't think that this bill addresses it.

Mr White: So what you're suggesting is that along with some of the presentations we have heard earlier, you would in fact like to see something which would simplify things for voters and for the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton that would say: "This is a one-tier government. You're electing a regional government or a one-tier government that addresses all those services; you don't have to worry whether this person is regional or is regional and local."

Mr Benson: I'm not quite saying that. Personally, my preference is to keep the government as close to the local people as possible. I would support having very strong municipal, local governments. The problem in a city of bureaucrats is that it is either too small to have a massive regional structure or, because of the size and the amount of people, we don't have enough people to pay for the monster down the street here on Lisgar Street. At the same time, the concerns of the people are more local, so we're sort of halfway between it. The city isn't quite at the point of having a million and a half, two million people, where we can really fund that and at the same time take care of our local concerns. That's part of the problem. We're in the middle stage of a developing city.

If I had a choice on a ballot, would I vote for single-tier or would I vote to get rid of regional municipal government? I'd like to have the choice; that's what I'm saying. It would take me a lot of time to think about it. My heart would say stick with local. My brain might say something else.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Benson, thank you very much. First of all, I want to thank you for giving your time to sit on that citizens' committee.

Mr Benson: I didn't sit on it; I just appeared at it.

Mrs O'Neill: Oh okay, sorry. I knew you were involved because you have been quoted in the media.

Mr Benson: Yes, I was.

Mrs O'Neill: I wanted to ask you, being an audience there then, what you thought -- you haven't stated, today, your arguments, or the arguments were presented regarding full-time, part-time councillors, if that's a real argument or is not a real argument, and what you, because you have been very honest with us today, could say to us about that particular line of thinking.

Mr Benson: At the citizens' committee, the major issue for them, all they were listening to, was basically money. The problem I had dealing with it there was I thought it was disrespectful to Parliament to have this committee there before you did your job. We don't know what's going to happen. What am I addressing; what am I talking to? So you, in your wisdom, as a House, decide on what the law is going to look like and this committee has already made recommendations and decisions. Personally, I don't think we are a big enough city to really pay for this. That's part of my problem, in my head anyway, that I think we're going to create another large bureaucracy.

They were talking down there full-time, one, two staff; they were talking big dollars compared to today. I know the mayor sits in two places and the councillors sit in two places but I just didn't think it warranted having full-time. However, if in your wisdom you decided to go to 18 full-time reps, then I'd have to examine it again. I'd be looking at saying, "Well, yes, if you're going to have 18 people there, you have to pay them and you have to staff them."

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you very much. I do know where Blackburn hamlet is.

1520

Mr Benson: I know you would. I was talking to some of the other people.

Mr Chiarelli: I take it from your comments that you're not 100% happy with the status quo either, but if you were a member of the provincial Legislature and you had a choice between the status quo or voting for this bill, would you vote for or against this bill?

Mr Benson: I'd vote against the bill and I'd vote against the bill because I firmly believe in democracy. I'm not talking about changing a boundary. I'm not here about changing a small little administrative board. I'm of firm belief that how people govern themselves is a right reserved to the people; it is not the role of government to do it.

The NDP, the government in power, has said it's not calling a snap election. It gives them lots of time to say in November, "We're going to go to the people; let them decide." They're going to be in power long enough to pass whatever the people decide, and if not, your party could commit itself, as the Conservatives could, that if they're in power, they will change it as the people decide. I would go with the people and I'd vote against the bill.

Mr Chiarelli: So you'd pick the status quo as the lesser of two evils.

Mr Benson: Yes, until the people decided.

Mr David Johnson: I think those are very thoughtful comments and I think your suggestion in terms of putting good information out to the people and some alternatives is really the way the government should be acting more often, particularly when we're talking about municipal government. Municipal government is as close to the earth as you can get, delivering the down-home services.

My suspicion here is that a lot of people are in the same boat you're in. They're concerned about the accountability, they're concerned about the cost of government, and what we've got right now I think is causing a lot of concerns -- to use that word again -- with so many people. I suspect that over the past decade or two we've built up a system of government when the economy was in better shape that now we're finding we can't afford.

Look at the provincial debt of some $80 billion; a deficit of $10 billion a year; municipalities struggling. The board of trade was here earlier and I'm sure the impact on business in Ottawa with the cost of municipal government is severe. This puts us all in a quandary.

I suspect that what we really have to look at is different types of government in different areas. What makes sense in Ottawa-Carleton may not make sense in London or Windsor or Toronto or any other place. But you have to have the people involved; I think the main message is you have to have the people involved.

Were you involved with the Kirby report or any of those? Have you talked to any other people who were involved?

Mr Benson: I've read the reports. I got to the 84 and 84 and I filed it under "G." I'm sorry; when you're talking about reform and cutting back and cutting down, you're cutting staff, you're cutting jobs and you're cutting people, and the people sitting around the table had no intention of cutting themselves. I had no time for it.

Mr David Johnson: Yes. The position that's being put forward to us is that we've had the Bartlett report and the Kirby report and people have had lots of opportunity to talk about this issue. So now the people have had their opportunity and it's time to take action. What's your response to that?

Mr Benson: My response is that I don't really care how much it was studied. I think, being blunt, I don't need Big Daddy in Toronto to tell me how I'm governed. It wouldn't matter who was in power. It doesn't matter if it's the Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats. I don't need Queen's Park -- most of you, like I say, don't know where Blackburn hamlet is -- telling me what's good for me in my home town, when it's that close to the people. As you said, local government is as close as you can get to the people.

What's the delay? Rome wasn't built in a day. Cities last thousands of years. Would it really hurt to say, "This election we're going to leave it the way it is; we're going to ask the people with the firm commitment from all the parties that in three years whatever the people decide we'll live with"? One thing that's lovely, the people could decide to leave it the way it is, and if we are stupid enough to pay those taxes in all this confusion, then so be it. If that's what the people decide, that's what they decide and we should live with it.

Mr David Johnson: Good enough.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Benson, for participating in this committee.

Mr Benson: Thank you very much for your time.

JOHN LEMAISTRE

Mr John LeMaistre: My name is John LeMaistre. I'm the city clerk for the city of Nepean. I'll endeavour to read as quickly as possible. I do have a fairly lengthy presentation.

I'm here today to express my concerns with some of the technical components of Bill 143, particularly as they relate to the municipal election process. In my employment with the city of Nepean, I have been actively involved in and responsible for municipal elections for 20 years, or conversely, nine municipal elections. I would like to draw on that expertise to explain why I do not think the electoral provisions of Bill 143 should be implemented for the 1994 election.

I want to make it very clear from the outset that I'm not here to discuss the politics of Bill 143 or the provisions regarding police services, economic development or sewers. I do not have any hidden agenda to delay this legislation unnecessarily or inevitably. I am here to address the specific technical problems this bill creates for this year's municipal election.

I would like to begin by stating that I support the principle of periodic review of local government. Although I do not believe this legislation fully reflects the true needs of the residents of our regional community, I recognize that it may well be the change that is coming. However, I firmly believe that the electoral changes proposed in this bill should not come into effect for the November municipal election.

Obviously, the government has invested considerable time and money in the development of the legislation. As an administrator, I recognize the investment of resources which has been made and believe something positive must result from that investment. More importantly, I believe that something positive can result from this if we properly plan for its implementation.

Since the initial discussions on Bill 77, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the ministry staff clearly expressed the need to pass this legislation prior to the start of the election year. This position was consistent with that taken by municipal clerks and consistent with the commitment of this and previous governments to avoid, wherever possible, significant changes to the election in an election year. Mr Chairman and members of committee, I do not need to tell you this year has already begun. We have passed the deadline for putting these changes into effect for this election.

I have two primary areas of concern. My first concern is that some basic parts of the development of this legislation were flawed and should be revisited. My second concern is the number of technical and administrative issues which would result from the implementation of this bill in the middle of an election year; issues which would jeopardize the integrity of the municipal election process.

Let me begin with my concerns about the development of the bill. Having made the assumption that there will be legislative reform based on Bill 143 in its present form, there are certain things which I must presume. Based on this assumption, I have developed my comments with the premise that there will be 18 regional wards which cross municipal boundaries and that regional council will be separate and directly elected.

When the Minister of Municipal Affairs first announced his legislative intentions, he established a technical advisory committee to assist in the development of local and regional wards. I was a member of that committee. At that time, he established the parameters through which the committee would work, the time frames within which the work would be produced and the five principles which would guide the committee. The establishment of this committee was an extremely good initiative by the minister. Unfortunately, the potential of this initiative was lost in the established parameters and the time frames.

The technical advisory committee was given 30 days in the middle of summer to review the draft ward structure, solicit public input and provide recommendations to the minister. If that weren't difficult enough, the committee's potential was restricted by the assumptions and expectations generated on the draft plan, the public and political reactions to the announcement and the need to establish a working relationship and plan. In addition, the development of wards has traditionally been a municipal function and one which involves considerable planning and public input, not something which is done in 30 days.

The technical advisory committee considered many good alternatives but was unsuccessful in reaching consensus on the ideal ward structure available under the minister's parameters. I believe that the committee could have offered some better solutions than what this bill proposes. I also believe that if the government truly wanted municipal input, it would have encouraged the work of the committee rather than inhibited it. The committee should have been given a mandate which required it to develop 18 regional wards which crossed municipal boundaries and within which local wards were wholly contained. The number of local politicians could have been defined and the local ward structures could have been properly developed by the local municipality.

The minister indicated that fair representation through a representation by population system was a central principle of this legislation. He established a system which allowed for variances of 25% above or below the mean number of electors, where justified. He indicated that population trends and the relative rate of population growth or loss were among the justifiable criteria for variance from the mean number.

1530

At the present time, all the regional wards have populations within the 25% range. However, the population trends and relative growth or loss of population in these wards are criteria which were not properly considered. Many of the wards which are currently at the highest end of the population ranges also have the highest growth potential. An example is regional ward 3, which encompasses Nepean's southern growth area. The regional ward as proposed is less than 1% from the acceptable variance limit and has little or no room to accommodate its growth potential.

At the same time, there are wards at the low end of the population range which have relatively static or regressive growth projections. An example is R17 in Ottawa's centre, which has the lowest population of all other regional wards. This situation will be compounded by the projections for population reduction in this ward.

From a technical perspective, the population distributions for these two scenarios should be reversed. Wards with anticipated growth areas should have room to accommodate that growth and vice versa.

Another major concern is the application of the principle of representation by population in the development of ward boundaries. While representation by population was a guiding principle in development of regional wards, it does not appear to have been as important in the development of the local wards. In Nepean we have one local ward which has a population well below the mean average and which has no growth potential. Conversely, our most populated local ward is in our largest growth area.

As you can see, at both the local and regional levels there are serious problems with the population and the growth potential of certain wards. These problems could have been avoided had there been more direct communication with the local municipalities and if the mandate of the technical advisory committee was properly established. These problems exist in addition to the fact that the local and regional wards were structured without adequate opportunity for the residents to identify communities of interest and participate in the development of the ward structures.

If the minister wants 18 regional wards, and if those wards must cross regional boundaries, so be it. However, achieving this does not have to come at the expense of proper ward development and long-term planning. The efforts to make these changes apply to the 1994 municipal elections have resulted in a flawed structure. This structure will be statutorily required to exist without change for a minimum of two elections or six years. Why create a poor structure to meet arbitrary deadlines? Why not take the time to do the job properly and plan for its implementation in a realistic manner?

If the problems inherent in the development of the legislation are not sufficient to delay implementation of the bill, then consider the impact of these changes on the electoral process. There are a number of specific legislative requirements which have been or will be compromised if the legislation comes into effect for November elections. I would like to identify those issues and explain their impact. The list is in chronological order of how issues develop throughout the election process.

Effective January 1 of an election year, candidates may register for municipal office. Registration is a necessary step so that candidates may collect contributions or incur campaign expenses. Candidates in Ottawa-Carleton cannot register for offices proposed under Bill 143 because they do not exist in law. Candidates who register for offices which presently exist but will cease to exist under Bill 143 risk serious difficulties in properly filing financial returns. Among these risks is the potential of being removed from office and facing legal action.

The delay of the registration process is the first sign that it's too late for this legislation this year. This unnecessary confusion is likely to reduce the number of potential candidates. How can individuals evaluate the options of local elected offices when those offices do not exist?

By March 15, the municipal clerk must meet with the secretary of the school board to complete the trustee determination and distribution process. This year, Bill 125 allowed school boards to consider a reduction in the number of school board trustees. In Ottawa-Carleton the school boards could not properly consider a reduction in the number of trustees within the prescribed time frame since the electoral areas of the board were unknown for this year's election. As a result, some boards made the assumption that a second opportunity to consider a reduction would happen. This is not provided for in the bill. We have been told that it may be provided for in the corresponding regulations.

Conversely, some school boards chose to reduce the number of trustees and selected a number and distribution which assume Bill 143 will be passed. If the bill is not passed, some boards may be left with an unworkable distribution.

By April 1, the municipal clerk must provide to the Ministry of Finance a list of assessment roll numbers for every property in the municipality by electoral ward and poll number. The electoral wards proposed under Bill 143 do not exist in law. Therefore, the work had to be compiled based on the existing ward and poll system. Recognizing the potential for change, municipal clerks have been forced to complete this work for the ward structure proposed under Bill 143 as well. This dual system has resulted in double the work for municipalities and ultimately double the cost to the taxpayer. Our taxpayers will continue to be burdened with extra unnecessary costs if Bill 143 is implemented.

Another problem exists in cases such as Nepean, where requests for adjustments to the proposed ward structure were made to the minister. The minister has indicated these requests will not be approved until the bill has been passed. Unfortunately, until such time as the minister sees fit and the regulations are passed, there will be no ward structure in Nepean. Without wards, candidates cannot register, polls cannot be defined and the public cannot be informed. It is election year. How can we have an election if we do not have a defined ward structure?

By July 31, the Ministry of Finance must deliver to the municipal clerk a copy of the enumeration list. This list is used to create the preliminary list of electors -- the voters list -- which must be available to the public and candidates by September 3. According to the Ministry of Finance, even if the bill were passed tomorrow, a list of electors based on the new ward structure cannot be made available until September 17, well over a month beyond the usual delivery date.

Without the list, residents cannot verify whether they have been properly enumerated, candidates cannot properly identify their electorate, and campaign expense limits cannot be calculated. These issues are prescribed in law because they are essential components of the electoral process. Delaying these requirements jeopardizes the integrity of the elections process.

By August 31, the assessment commissioner is required to distribute a voter identification notice to every address on the voters list. As this will not be available until mid-September, these notices cannot be delivered until the last week in September. The purpose of the notice is to make electors aware of the upcoming election, identify their ward and poll number and their school support, and provide them with an opportunity to correct any information which is inaccurate.

This year, the potential for error in the list is far greater than ever before, not simply because of the changes in ward structure but also because the time period the clerk had to review the list for errors has essentially been eliminated. If the bill is in effect for this election, the electors need to be notified of the changes which are being made. Instead of increasing the notification period, we are all but eliminating it.

Aside from the legislative requirements for making candidates aware of the election process, this bill requires a considerable public awareness campaign. Voter participation is an essential component of the democratic process. Voter turnout in municipal elections is traditionally very low in Ontario. Voter turnout is reduced when the electorate does not understand the electoral structure. The government is proposing legislative amendments which radically change the electoral structure in a time period which does not properly provide for a public awareness campaign. In addition, the government has not made any resource commitment to a campaign.

From September 6 to October 14, electors have an opportunity, through the revision period, to make corrections, including additions and deletions to the voters list. Given that the list will not be available until late September, the revision period cannot begin on September 6. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has suggested that this period will be reduced from six weeks to two weeks, but nothing has been provided in writing.

Based on the information provided to date and the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, the revision period cannot be extended beyond October 14. Electors will not receive voter identification notices until the first week of the revision period, allowing one week for them to make application for any necessary changes. The potential for eligible electors to be denied the right to vote will be very high.

From an administrative perspective, this shortened time frame is unreasonable. In 1991, the city of Nepean received approximately 3,000 applications for revision to the list. The changes generated by Bill 143 will make that number even higher. Certainly my staff can process this information regardless of the reduced time frames but, once again, not without unnecessary cost to the taxpayer.

Nowhere would the potential for confusion of the electorate be more evident than at the polls. Our poll staff is trained to perform a very complicated job for one day. Their jobs will be further complicated by the proposed changes. In addition, the number of electors who may want to be added to the list at the poll will be greater. The potential for the right to be challenged or denied is very great.

To accommodate the delayed registration period, the ministry has suggested an extension of the period after the election during which candidates can continue to collect contributions. It is very difficult for any candidate to collect contributions after the election, but this is especially true for defeated candidates. Therefore, such an extension would only benefit the elected candidate. Furthermore, this extension will require several subsequent deadlines -- the possibility for never-ending adjustments to the 1994 election process.

This is not a comprehensive list -- it's lengthy, but it's not comprehensive -- but only a sampling of the number and range of electoral processes which will be negatively affected by the implementation of the bill this year. Unfortunately, the majority of the amendments to the technical and administrative requirements are not included in Bill 143 but rather will be introduced by way of regulation. These regulations have not been made available to municipal clerks for comment, nor has the minister indicated when the regulations will be passed. Without the regulations, we cannot have an election. Without the regulations we do not know what the dates for prescribed events will be. We do not even know if the dates will be prescribed. We are in the middle of an election year and we do not know what rules to follow. This is not typical of Canadian democracy.

1540

As elected members of the Legislature, you know the importance of well-defined election laws and time periods. You understand the importance of a well-informed electorate. You have an opportunity to ensure the needs of the electoral process are properly dealt with. This opportunity does not deny you the opportunity to invoke change in local government structure. Please consider these comments and recognize we have passed the deadline for such legislative change for this election.

The basic concept of regional reform is good. There are components of this legislation which are workable, but there are better alternatives than this. These alternatives were not properly considered because the process by which we were allowed to consider them was flawed. I am asking you today to recognize those flaws, to recognize the potential for constructive change to Ottawa-Carleton. If you choose to proceed with this legislation, then proceed with a bill which establishes the basic parameters only. If that has to be 18 regional wards which cross municipal boundaries, so be it. But I am asking that you allow the residents of Ottawa-Carleton the opportunity to properly evaluate the options available within your parameters and to recommend a workable alternative for regional reform which will come into effect for the 1997 municipal elections. Thank you.

Mrs O'Neill: I think I should first correct the record. Mr LeMaistre, although on the agenda is stated as a clerk for the city of Ottawa, is the clerk for the city of Nepean. That's just another example.

I'm very pleased you came, Mr LeMaistre, because you did bring an entirely different perspective than we've had because you've had an entirely different experience than most of us have been able to have. I find it very much congruent that you are reminding that we are not going to have a public awareness campaign of Bill 143 any more than we had of the hearings on Bill 143.

I am very pleased you brought forward that there will only be one week to change the list of the preliminary electors. That's a real tampering with tradition, and in my mind even maybe a tampering of democracy, because one week is a very short time for people to be informed of whether they're on a voters list or not.

The regulations are not present and you feel very uncomfortable with that. Could you tell us some of the things the regulations will be bringing forward that you're going to have to follow even though you know not at this moment what those may be? What kinds of things will the regulations determine?

Mr LeMaistre: Regulations usually address the number of forms that are associated with the election process, and it does become difficult, when those forms are not available, to ensure that the candidates receive that information etc.

Mrs O'Neill: How will the regulations affect the actual electorate?

Mr LeMaistre: They will certainly not allow the clerks the opportunity to ensure that the election runs smoothly and runs on time and is well run. Without knowing all of the detail, it is very difficult to ensure a smooth election.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much. Yesterday we had a briefing from the ministry officials in Toronto on the provisions of the bill. I asked them what the normal process is for the establishment of local wards and they clearly said the normal process is to have public hearings and so on, and then it's the municipal board that establishes the wards. In this case we have a very significant departure, obviously, from this, that the minister is establishing the local wards.

When was the last time the wards were changed in Nepean, and what was the process you followed in order to do that?

Mr LeMaistre: We established our ward structure in Nepean in 1980. Again, the technocrats, being the clerk, myself and other staff, developed some criteria based on population, growth projections and the other criteria I outlined, and then we went to the public with those proposals, a number of proposals. The public had ample opportunity for input. I believe we had six or seven public meetings. The process took seven to eight months. We came to a successful conclusion using that public input.

I can comment that those three wards which were based on population growth -- it was recognized at the time that two wards had growth potential, and one ward at that point had probably 7,000 or 8,000 more electorate in it -- today those three wards are fairly even in terms of population distribution. I'm proud of the fact that when we did our homework it did prove well for the future.

Mr David Johnson: I too thank you, Mr LeMaistre, for a very insightful piece of evidence. It describes a nightmare, frankly: a great deal of extra work and cost for the municipalities; a later-than-normal notification to the electorate of who's on the voters list and who isn't; one week for revision, which is going to be a nightmare for you and your colleagues, I suspect, to try to sort that out; and undoubtedly a great deal of general confusion around the elections later this year.

From your 20 years of experience as the clerk in nine municipal elections -- and having worked with a few clerks in my life, I know that clerks are at the centre of all this and get a lot of the correspondence that comes in to municipalities. Something is trying to be rammed through here in a very short time. I'm not sure what the urgency is to do it this year.

Over those 20 years, has there been a huge outcry in your municipality demanding -- the government is saying the people of the region of Ottawa-Carleton are demanding some sort of change. Have you been getting those letters or that communication as clerk that we really have to have a change for this election?

Mr LeMaistre: The simple answer to that is no.

Mr David Johnson: No. Then the question remains: Why are we trying to ram this through?

In terms of the local wards, you indicated that the regional wards fit within the 25% criterion, but that some of them will grow beyond that parameter. In terms of the local wards, do they all fit within the 25% parameter?

Mr LeMaistre: No, they don't. We have a ward, the Crystal Beach area of Nepean, which is much smaller than the 25% and, as I mentioned, has no growth potential. Conversely, our Barrhaven area, which is the southern growth area of the region, is almost at the upper limit of the 25% presently.

Mr White: Mr LeMaistre, I want to assure you on a couple of points, first off, that the revision period for the preliminary list of electors can be extended well beyond October 14, right up until November 1, by --

Interjection.

Mr White: November 1 is usually before the municipal election, as I recall. In terms of the issue of the setup for the wards and the problems with that, I'm wondering if I could ask Ruth Cameron from the ministry to comment on the development of that.

The Chair: If they can do it in two minutes, they're welcome to it.

Mr Doug Barnes: The ward structure, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs published on October 19, 1993, reflects a process in terms of ward development which has been going on since 1990. In fact, we had a commissioner to deal exclusively with the construction of regional and local wards, Katherine Graham.

The ministry provided, on the first reading of Bill 77, back in July, with the establishment of the local wards committee, a draft map and definition of wards. I would say the actual movement towards the regional ward structure is a process which has not been restricted to a very short time frame, but more like two and a half years.

Mr LeMaistre: First, I should acknowledge, as I said before, that it was an excellent process. Certainly the ministry staff should be commended, because they were in the middle of what I felt was a preconceived idea and there were already lines on maps drawn with the wards. What I was trying to suggest was simply that if there had been no lines for wards and the criteria were simple, I think we could have achieved consensus with the area clerks and the ministry.

The Chair: Mr LeMaistre, thank you for taking the time to come down this afternoon to express your views.

1550

BEN FRANKLIN

The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Ben Franklin. We're having one of those days, so I'm going to say that Ben Franklin is the mayor of the city of Nepean and hope I'm right.

Mr Ben Franklin: I am here today to present the views of the majority of ratepayers of the city of Nepean, the second largest municipality in the Ottawa-Carleton region and indeed the second largest municipality in eastern Ontario, which includes right up through Belleville, Kingston and so on, with a population of 116,000.

The majority of Nepean ratepayers were overwhelmingly opposed to the Kirby commission's recommendations, the changes to municipal government in Ottawa-Carleton proposed by Bill 77 and, accordingly, to Bill 143.

Members of committee, hundreds of Nepean ratepayers have conveyed their opinions on the subject of local government reform in Ottawa-Carleton to the Minister of Municipal Affairs since the Kirby commission's first public meeting in our municipality in July 1992. As is evident by the introduction of Bill 143, the real and valid concerns of Nepean residents continue to be ignored -- I point out that we probably had one of the most extensive public processes each time there was a change from Kirby to Bill 77; we took the time and our meetings were extremely well attended -- concerns such as increased property taxes, a decline in accessibility and corresponding loss of accountability as a result of regionalization of services and a new regional council separately and directly elected without the heads of local councils.

These concerns are shared by ratepayers in other municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton. The results of a public opinion survey, conducted on behalf of the Kirby commission by Coopers and Lybrand in October 1992 -- this was conducted and paid for by Kirby's group -- found only 29% of the people of Ottawa-Carleton were in favour of increased responsibilities for regional government. There was also strong resistance to any change in the structure of local government that would result in increased taxes. This is a public opinion survey across all of Ottawa-Carleton, and the basis of any change should be built on that.

I will attempt to summarize today the main concerns of the city of Nepean residents with the major proposals of Bill 143. You will be provided with copies of the municipality's submissions to the provincial government on the Kirby report and Bill 77 which reflect the sentiments of the majority of residents, expressed at special public meetings which, as I indicated, were well attended, and with copies of hundreds of letters, petitions, faxes and telephone messages supporting Nepean's position, which was developed out of the public meetings and as a result of the opinions expressed at the public meetings and published in the newspaper.

City of Nepean ratepayers want Bill 143 withdrawn, or if not withdrawn, then they want significant amendments. It is their hope that their message will be finally heard and seriously considered today and in the Legislature.

Nepean is opposed to separately, directly elected regional councillors from wards that cross municipal boundaries. This position was communicated in our official 1989 response to the Bartlett report, our 1990 response to Graham, our 1993 response to Kirby and our 1993 response to Bill 77.

Why? Currently, four members of Nepean's seven-member council represent our residents' interests on regional council, three who are elected at large across our entire municipality plus the mayor.

The position of regional councillor is specifically identified on the ballot. They represent residents' interests on both local and regional council, and that is very clear. Residents therefore enjoy responsible, accountable, effective, understandable and -- something I don't have typed in here -- most importantly, accessible municipal government. They have four people to turn to if it's a regional matter.

It was recognized by Commissioner Dave Bartlett that this method "seems to work better than the devices used in other municipalities." I believe at the last election Gloucester adopted this style as well. You can read that on page 31 of the Bartlett report.

The minister's proposal would mean a Nepean resident could only vote for one regional representative in their particular ward, who will only serve on the upper tier. This will result in a loss of accessibility and responsiveness to issues, a weakening of lines of communication and confusion between the two tiers, and a less coordinated effort.

Crossing municipal boundaries will only create more confusion for the electorate as to who is the appropriate representative to contact.

It was interesting in listening to someone earlier today. This isn't in the text. A question was asked about who the representatives were, and if there was a regional one, they seemed to know, and they knew the mayor representing them as well.

To educate the public in a short time before the municipal election will indeed be difficult, if not impossible. I predict a multitude of complaints at municipal election time, in fact probably mass confusion.

The minister's proposal allows for Nepean to have two regional councillors elected from wards entirely within the city. Two wards are shared with the city of Ottawa, one of which is clearly dominated populationwise by Ottawa residents. The wards do not reflect the minister's criteria for representation by population.

I should point out, and I think the clerk made some good points, in terms of the numbers where you have, if you look at this projected, a ward somewhere in Ottawa around 30,000 people, and a lot of your downtown ones are that way with declining populations, and in Barrhaven growing towards 50,000 people: totally inappropriate.

The two regional wards within our municipality are extremely large, while the city of Ottawa wards have been established with much smaller populations.

Residents are also concerned with the new costs associated with separately elected council, which gets involved with salaries, staff, office accommodations and related material. For example, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's 1994 budget contains $2.9 million for office accommodation. That's changes to accommodate the regional councillors and their offices. That's for capital.

Councillor Alex Cullen, who I think you've already heard, put out a paper estimating the added cost for the actual operation would be $1.8 million. That's for the cost of taking Ottawa salaries and regional salaries and so on. On an ongoing basis, and assistance, you're going to add $1.8 million. So maybe it's $1.5 million; maybe it's $2.5 million. They're based on his estimates. It's increased cost. You know what happened in Toronto when a similar system was developed. Members of the committee, this is not in tune with the will of the electorate. I think you know that.

Delay in finalizing what election system will be in place for this year's elections is also -- take potential candidates. I think our clerk outlined very clearly the problems of potential candidates and I'm not going to get into that in great detail. But it's really not fair to go ahead with this system right now. It's better for the incumbents, but for people trying to become involved in municipal government, they are at a disadvantage and that's not a good democratic system. There is an added burden on municipal staff, as indicated, and costs in attempting to prepare for the November elections.

Nepean recommends Bill 143 be amended to ensure new regional wards respect municipal boundaries, or as a minimum be more equitable in the distribution in terms of population throughout the region where shared with other municipalities.

1600

Bill 143 will suspend the statutory rights under the Municipal Act for councils of area municipalities in the region to determine the number and boundaries of wards. When Nepean put in its position, at one time we were going to have a five-person council; now it's being mandated a seven-person council.

Nowhere else in Ontario is this type of thing proposed, where it's being imposed upon you.

The wards proposed by the minister for Nepean do not reflect community of interest, natural boundary lines or population trends, nor do they recognize the north-south development patterns.

The only opportunity for the public to comment on local and regional boundaries was three weeks during the summer period -- entirely inappropriate.

Nepean recommends Bill 143 be amended to permit municipalities to retain their right to determine their local wards and the number of elected representatives.

Nepean ratepayers are opposed to the establishment of a regional police service, effective January 1995. Residents have been competently, efficiently and economically served by their service since 1964. They do not accept increased costs for both startup, ongoing operations, loss of local identity and loss of the present sensitivity of the police service to community values and priorities.

Commissioner Kirby identified the increase in taxes for ratepayers in Nepean of this initiative. It was based on 1991 data and he estimated it at over $1.6 million annually. This is unacceptable and there is no evidence that the quality of service will improve in our municipality. In fact, and based on a number of people who attended our hearings from other parts of Canada where this has happened, there's a real fear that there will be a reduction in service in Nepean.

Two independent reports, Price Waterhouse and Judge René Marin with his review of police services, have documented that it will cost millions of dollars to establish: startup costs for a regional service. There is no provincial commitment to a specific amount of money for startup, phase-in costs and added ongoing costs. There was a promise from the minister that the provincial taxpayer will foot some of the bill, but not with a specific amount of money and not for a commitment for the entire amount. Added costs locally and provincially are what this bill will achieve.

Nepean recommends Bill 143 be amended to maintain existing police services in Ottawa-Carleton. If not, then full provincial funding of startup and a share in the operational costs should be guaranteed, as well as receipt of the same level of provincial grants for policing as other regions. Unfunded liabilities and debts of some local police services should remain with the taxpayers of those municipalities through special area levies. That's only fair.

Bill 143 transfers exclusive authority to the RMOC to acquire industrial, institutional and commercial land for economic development purposes. This proposal is in direct contrast to the government's Bill 40, the Community Economic Development Act, which attempts to stimulate economic development activities at a local level. All other municipalities in Ontario, outside of Ottawa-Carleton, will maintain the right to develop local business parks.

Nepean ratepayers agreed with Commissioner Kirby that the regional municipality should have primary responsibility for the development and implementation of economic development strategy. However, they never envisaged that this would not be done in partnership. Some of the statements that were made earlier -- there's a tremendous temptation to comment on them: "Oh, the reform has been talked about for years," and all these time-worn cliches. Some of the things that are in this bill weren't even discussed with Kirby.

We pride ourselves on working cooperatively with the business community, area municipalities and the region to stimulate economic growth. And when I say "the region," I mean "the region." In Nepean, we have been fairly successful: a 7.9% increase in local business, an 11% increase in employment opportunity since 1990.

We have currently three municipally developed business parks. In fact, we did the very first serviced municipal business park in Ottawa-Carleton and I can assure you the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade was extremely thankful that somebody was putting land on the market. Their position is that the more serviced land there is on the market, the more opportunity there is in Ottawa-Carleton. Don't just direct it all in one spot. Our last one is done in partnership with the private sector.

The Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp, the regional municipality -- I don't know if anyone is presenting the position of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on Bill 77, which is now Bill 143, but if it would have been followed, there probably wouldn't have been any of the problems because there is a very clear position by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on a number of issues and I hope you have the opportunity to read that. At any rate, the regional municipality, the chamber of commerce, all support the region having permissive authority in this matter, not exclusive.

Nepean recommends Bill 143 be amended to provide the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton with permissive authority to acquire lands for economic development purposes.

Bill 143 proposes to remove the 11 area mayors from regional council. This will be the first time in Canada that the head of a local municipal council is not a voting member of an upper-tier council. Nepean ratepayers are extremely concerned with this proposal as it severs a traditional and essential communication link between the two levels of government. It becomes even more important if regional councillors are no longer permitted to serve on both councils.

The position of mayor is viewed by ratepayers as a senior municipal official, the chief executive officer, charged with representing the views of all residents on any municipal issue, whether local or regional. I think that when you asked the gentleman earlier the question -- the first person mentioned -- he didn't care if it was a local street, didn't care if it was a regional street, but if they phoned the mayor's office, they had somebody who was accountable who they could turn to, to look to try find a solution to the problem.

Numerous municipal councils across Ontario have notified the minister of their concerns with this proposal. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario last summer approved a resolution supporting the position that heads of council should be on upper-tier levels of government.

Nepean recommends that Bill 143 be amended to permit area municipality mayors to be voting members of regional council.

In summary then, Bill 143 as it stands is not good legislation. It does not have the support of Nepean residents, nor do I believe it has the support of the residents of Ottawa-Carleton. If you go back to the survey done by Kirby and compare the results, do another survey and read your correspondence, I think you will clearly find it does not have the support of the residents of Ottawa-Carleton. I would challenge you, if you think this is a good bill, to place it on the ballot on the next municipal election.

The Chair: There's time for one brief question per caucus.

Mr David Johnson: I thank you very much, Mr Mayor, for an excellent brief and you've raised so many excellent points: the regional government and its position. It's interesting that here's a government commenting on its own future and it's significantly different from what the government is proposing. We're not even listening to the government that's directly involved.

Perhaps one quick question: You've raised the issue of costs, which all ratepayers are deeply concerned about in this day and age.

Mr Franklin: Absolutely.

Mr David Johnson: You've said Councillor Cullen has estimated $1.8 million in terms of added operational costs just for elected officials. We know there will be added costs for the police service.

Mr Franklin: Absolutely.

1610

Mr David Johnson: Have you done any kind of analysis? Have you been able to come up with a bottom-line figure of what this is going to cost?

Mr Franklin: It's difficult, for example with policing, to come up with an estimate. I believe that if you're going to implement something -- and again, there was a lot of hogwash earlier about crime doesn't stop at municipal boundaries. Of course it doesn't, but there's a lot of cooperation going on and there's a lot of joint work on drug squads and so on that is currently going on. There's a lot of joint work. Indeed, there's a lot of cooperation and there are a lot of changes that can take place and in regional government have been taking place. The whole notion that there's been no change is hogwash. Just look at all of the things that have changed in Ottawa-Carleton in the last 10 years, done cooperatively.

In terms of working out the cost, it's hard to do until you know what the plan is. It would seem to me that you look at the plan and say, "Well, here's plan A, plan B, plan C, and with that we can assess some costs, and is it a good thing?" instead of just saying, "We're going to do it." All we know is it's going to cost millions. The minister has said, "We're going to provide some funding but we don't know how much." We know that some of the municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton can opt into the region or can opt out, so you might end up with region here, OPP here, region here. We could end up with a real hodgepodge there too. There's no plan developed. It's just a principle.

We don't know how much it's going to cost. It's going to cost the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton millions of dollars, and I predict that if this goes through, even on simple things like representation, when people find out what it's going to cost in the city of Ottawa -- and they're getting confused; they're now going to be voting for their local councillor, and then, "Well, what's the regional councillor?" people in Ottawa are going to be very upset when they get this confusing system and find out it's costing them a lot more money. So, no, I don't know an exact figure -- millions.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Mayor, you and I have had this discussion before, but I want to pick up on one comment by Mr Johnson, and that was based on his reading of your comments about how regional council had recommended certain things to the government which were ignored. On that regional council, which is the same regional council which accepted the budget that you note on page 6, containing a $2.9-million line for office accommodations for the regional council that would be elected in future, in both instances the mayors sat.

Mr Franklin: Yes.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. So in fact the very mayors who are telling us publicly that they think it's an outrage about the cost that will be associated with the new regional council sat on the council which approved the budget, as I understand it.

Mr Franklin: Do you want a comment on that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Sure.

Mr Franklin: I'd be pleased to comment on that. First of all, I think if you check the voting record you'll find that many of the mayors indeed didn't vote for the $2.9 million. Regional council was in a very untenable situation. They're going to have to provide office space because of this bill; they're going to have to spend money to do it. There is an estimate that had been provided. So what more than half of the members decided to do was to say: "This bill is coming through. It appears they're very determined to put it through, so we've got to be realistic and put the money in the budget." A number of other people said, "This is nuts," and voted against putting the $2.9 million in the budget. But some of the people who voted for it weren't voting for it because they wanted it; they were voting for it because they had been told that this was going through and that they really didn't have any choice, so when regional council became operational and the new regional councillors were there they would have some offices for them and their assistants. So the cost is being dictated by the new structure.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm told that I only have about one minute and I would like to have gone into some of the things in some detail, but I want to ask you a question as a member of regional council, not as the mayor of Nepean.

You were talking about how untenable regional council's position was on a particular point. How untenable is this bill to regional council as a council? The reason why I'm asking that is because I recall receiving resolutions from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, briefs from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, setting out its position as a municipality on this bill. We have the government members of the committee here today. These are the people who are going to decide whether there are any amendments or whether this bill is going to go ahead in its present form.

I think the members of the opposition, most of us coming from this area, have had a lot of dialogue. Can you tell me why the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is not on this list of presenters presenting the position of RMOC to the government members on Bill 143?

Mr Franklin: No, I cannot answer why the RMOC is not here. In fact, I should say there are a lot of people who were not aware that they could get on the list and there are a lot of other people upset that the list was closed off before they were even aware that indeed the hearings were taking place.

However, I don't know if the RMOC was aware that there were public hearings taking place; I don't know if the chair was aware. But clearly, there was no opportunity for the council to decide to come forward to these public hearings because they happened so quickly. I guess you'd have to ask the chair that question.

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Franklin. The committee appreciates you taking the time to appear today.

Mr Franklin: That's why I want you to read the RMOC brief on Bill 77. In addition to that, I'd like to leave for the committee various cards and letters that we've received from residents, along with our brief. This represents the results of letters and faxes and so on that have been sent in to Nepean, to my office, over the past year.

CITIZENS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT

Mr Tom O'Neill: My name is Tom O'Neill and I'm here as a member of the Citizens for Good Government as well as a taxpayer of this region. I want to thank you for consenting to the Citizens for Good Government's request to hold public debate here in the Ottawa-Carleton region on this very important bill.

I'm here to ask you to make one small change to Bill 143. This one change will allow all parties to win. Bob Rae can state that his government has made good on their commitment to reform local government and the taxpayers will not see an increase in property taxes this year.

My request is to change the implementation date of Bill 143 that does not relate to the education portion until 1997. This will allow my committee the opportunity of placing this question before the people of the region on the November 14 ballot. We strongly believe that the ultimate decision on any reform package must be by the people and of this region and not from people in Toronto.

Let me say that we do not oppose change. We support positive reforms. However, Bill 143 as it stands now is seriously flawed. It will harm this region should it be passed without changes. Bob Rae and Ed Philip are rolling the dice just as Brian Mulroney did in 1992. This government has not provided the public with any financial documents to allow proper dialogue on this very important issue.

I would like to state how disturbed I was to read in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday that your committee will only be allowed to hear 30 residents out of 600,000 people in the Ottawa-Carleton region because of the strict criteria that this government has established on this committee and on this bill.

The minister has introduced his own changes that are not supported by his own commissioner, Graeme Kirby, whose report is the basis of this reform initiative. The taxpayers of the province paid $500,000 to the Kirby commission, only to have it ignored by the minister and the Premier.

Bob Rae and Ed Philip have had to pass special legislation to allow them to make these amendments to override the Municipal Elections Act, which took effect January 1, 1994. I find this special legislation an attack on a democratic system of government. The rush to implement this by November seems to raise serious questions about the motives of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. I cannot recall any democratic system of government in the western world which attempts to redefine electoral boundaries as well as the number of elected officials just weeks before an election. I would expect this to occur in the former Soviet Union, but not here in Canada.

I have some questions on 143 that the bill doesn't answer. Why hasn't the idea of two police forces or departments been recommended, one to encompass Ottawa, Vanier, Rockcliffe, another to encompass Nepean, Kanata, Gloucester, Cumberland and the surrounding townships?

The number of minority representatives will be reduced on the police services board, as a result of the merger, from the present number today. I do not believe that a large police force will be good for the taxpayers of this region. One only has to look to Toronto and Montreal to see the problems of how large police forces relate to minorities. I do not want this to happen here in Ottawa. A merged police force will not have more police officers than it does today. However, the cost of this merger will increase property taxes on every household in this region.

Walt Disney recently made a movie called Blank Check, where a child fills in the amount of $1 million. Bill 143 does not only make this movie real, but the cost of this bill will increase property taxes by more than $10 million. I'm here to say that the taxpayers of this region are not prepared to write any more blank cheques without seeing facts and figures first.

1620

Bob Rae is promising jobs, jobs, jobs. Bill 143 will create jobs, jobs, jobs. However, more politicians are not the kind of jobs we need. We would be better off to have a value-for-service auditor established in the Ottawa-Carleton region, reviewing the spending and operational budgets of all local governments, including the school boards, and make public its findings annually, rather than adopting Bill 143 as it stands.

The Carleton Board of Education last year found $3 million within its own budget. That finding concerns me, how a government could misplace $3 million, or 1% of its total revenue. Has the ministry responsible proper safeguards to prevent this from recurring? Have the regional taxpayers been overcharged? Today, the Carleton Board of Education is looking for $12 million to meet its budget requirements. I ask you, will Bill 143 address these concerns? The answer is no.

The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is planning to spend millions of dollars to build a facility to host festivals on its property on Laurier Avenue which will directly compete with the city of Ottawa facility at Lansdowne Park. Parks, recreation and culture are not within the mandate of regional government, yet the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has not questioned why the chairman, Peter Clark, would allow this duplication of services to happen. I ask you, would Bill 143 address these concerns? The answer is no.

The taxpayers want good government, accountable government. The removal of mayors from regional council is an insult to all residents in Ottawa-Carleton. I think it's unacceptable. I find it unbelievable that the mayor of Ottawa, the capital of our nation, elected by over 300,000 taxpayers of Ottawa, would be restricted from sitting on regional council because of 143. The only people able to speak for the entire community are the mayors, since they are the only ones elected by the citizens at large. Regional councillors will only be concerned with their own wards. That is why I support having the mayors to stay on regional government. I want the same treatment for our mayors that the mayors of Toronto have; nothing more and definitely nothing less.

My request is to defer the passage of Bill 143 until the people have had the opportunity to vote on these reforms on November 14. However, should Bob Rae and Ed Philip decide to implement this bill, I would suggest that they change the party's name from the New Democratic Party of Ontario to the New Dictatorial Party of Ontario, which will truly reflect how they've treated the taxpayers of eastern Ontario.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can accept that your timetable is different from the timetable which the government announced when it considered the prospect and the task of undertaking Ottawa-Carleton regional reform back in 1990, but I'm wondering, were you aware, are you aware now that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dave Cooke at that time, laid out a process which involved the establishment of a commission, which turned out to be the Kirby commission, and a period of review of the recommendations and then the tabling of a bill, which occurred in July 1993 and then the moving forward to legislation, with the clearly enunciated goal -- and again I stress that this was undertaken in the fall of 1990 -- the clearly established goal of providing a new structure for Ottawa-Carleton regional government that would form the basis for the elections in 1994? Were you aware of that?

Further, were you aware of the government efforts to move along that very well identified path during the fall session and have second reading accomplished in the Legislature by the time the House adjourned for Christmas and the undertaking in the period between Christmas and the startup of the spring session of hearings?

Mr Tom O'Neill: The answer is yes. Mark Maloney summoned a number of people and Len Potechin, of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, way back in 1992 or 1991 regarding the possible reform; at that time it was David Cooke. What we're talking about here today is Bill 143. Bill 143 has recommendations which I spoke to at the Kirby commission a couple of times, and I don't see it there; I see it in the Kirby report but not in Bill 143.

Hon Ms Gigantes: But you're aware it is the time-line question that I was asking about.

Mr Tom O'Neill: Allow me to speak, please. The removal of mayors is not in the Kirby report, but it is in your bill. This bill as it stands today is not what we talked about in public.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but the time-line question was one that was clearly identified at the beginning. I'm just trying to establish that he knew what the time lines were.

Mr Tom O'Neill: We had a public consultation here in Ottawa-Carleton. Hundreds of people attended. We spoke to Kirby. We gave him our advice. He took some; he did not accept all. We have reports. However, Kirby has put out a report which recommends mayors on council, yet this government in Bill 143 does not include that.

You asked me if I support this. The answer would be no. The taxpayers of this region do not support it because we were not consulted. We are aware of the process. The process is two people talking, with a solution at the end. Our solution was encompassed in the Kirby report.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, that wasn't my question.

The Chair: Thank you. I realize that. Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: I don't think you were here earlier on this morning at 9 o'clock when the mayor of Ottawa came before the committee, but I recommend to you and in fact I undertake to send to you the Hansard when it becomes available, because I think the mayor of Ottawa said it in even stronger terms than the member for Ottawa Centre has said it: that those people who are not in the city of Ottawa and were not in favour of these reforms should get out of the horse-and-buggy age and move into the 21st century and stop being afraid of change, and that the thing that really should have happened is one-tier government, and that this is a great step towards this, and those who are against it better wake up and get with it. I'm just wondering what your reaction is to that.

By the way, the same point was also made, perhaps not precisely in those terms but in very similar terms, by the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade. I'm just wondering what your comments are to that, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs certainly has made much of the support from the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade and from the mayor of Ottawa.

Mr Tom O'Neill: It's a good point you brought back Len Potechin's comment; it was an interesting one. I'd like you to tell me where the fire stations are across the street, anywhere in this region. It's easy for a committee to come here and say, "I represent someone, and here's a zinger for you: We have fire stations and firehalls across the street because there are boundaries." I'll ask you right now -- the province, it is your responsibility for fire safety; you have the inspector's office -- show me where we have the boundaries where they are across from one another.

Len Potechin and I go back a number of years on this. We oppose. He's for one tier; I'm opposed to one tier. One tier does not solve problems. Proper legislation, proper procedures, more accountability -- these will reduce the problems we face as government.

1630

I work for the federal government. We are going through restructuring, and I understand it, but do it in public, do it in consultation with the people. Do not come forward with a bill such as 143, with amendments after the dialogue has ceased to happen, and put it before us and ask us to support it. This is an offence. I cannot believe you would run for public office, asking the people to support you, and then turn around and come out with a bill that says, "We've listened, but these amendments are what we want, not what the people have asked for, not what your commissioner has asked for," which is to put the mayors on council.

Mr David Johnson: Commenting on that last aspect of firehalls across the street, that's a valid question. I wanted to ask that myself earlier when it came up but didn't get the chance.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's not affected by the bill, in any case.

Mr David Johnson: Add that on from her time.

Mr Tom O'Neill: No, but it was from a committee person who came here with qualifications and said one-tier government will resolve these. There is no problem there that exists today.

Mr David Johnson: You're falling into the trap of being baited, so resist; just ignore that side of the table.

My experience is that the local municipalities have barely enough money to do what they have to do because they're very cautious about how they spend taxpayers' money. Far from having firehalls across the street, they actually cooperate back and forth with each other and do what they call cross-border calls to cooperate. It's a very efficient and effective service.

You're right there in the grass roots with the Citizens for Good Government committee. Not being from the Ottawa area, I'm being told that the citizens in the Ottawa area are clamouring for this change and that they can't wait for 1997, that they have to have it immediately and they're going to be really disappointed if these changes don't go through. Is that your experience?

Mr Tom O'Neill: I'd have to say honestly that the people I've heard for change to one-tier government are politicians and the business community. The business community believes there are going to be less taxes, which I find funny. The ultimate person is the taxpayer. We support business, we support governments through the distribution of our wealth. We decided that we don't want one-tier government. I've relatives in all boundaries, including in Quebec. In Quebec they've turned down the idea of one amalgamated community. We don't want it here in Ottawa.

If you're really that stuck on it, put it on the ballot, unless you're scared. Put it on the ballot and let the people speak, the old principle where democracy was 100 years ago. We've got technology that has moved us ahead faster than ever before. We can do this ballot very easily, if you're really curious. I know the member for Ottawa Centre thinks one tier is the answer. It's not the solution; the solution is better laws.

The Vice-Chair: Mr O'Neill, thank you for your participation today.

VERN RAMPTON

Mr Vern Rampton: I'm Vern Rampton. I don't officially represent anybody but I feel that in a way I am representative of a lot of people. I live in the large township of West Carleton, which is an amalgamation of three former geographic townships. I'm a small entrepreneur who's lived in that township for 25 years and tried to operate as an independent businessman. I must say, we enjoy the privileges of being an urban fringe rural township in that we have our own lifestyles but we can enjoy the benefits of the city of Ottawa and the regional municipality.

My main concern is that to continue to thrive in our situation we need productive interaction between regional and township governments. We require both governments to function in a manner that both operates efficiently -- and by that I mean delivers their product as economically as possible -- and provides for our social, recreational, community and business requirements.

The only issue I'm going to address today, because it's the main issue to people in the rural townships -- and I was surprised to see the last presenter say that businessmen all support one-tier government, because we certainly don't, and I'll tell you why a lot of rural businessmen don't.

My belief is that most of the requirements can be met by having the rural mayors represent their constituents on regional council, even if it were the case, as it was suggested at one time -- and I'm not sure if it was suggested by the minister or the mayors -- that their vote be weighted to allow for the representation by population that bothers some people.

The remainder of my brief is to explain my reasons for this. There are really four reasons. One is to get true representation. I feel that the mayors would best do it. The second is for accessibility of citizens. Even to the regional government, it's best through the mayors. Third, for cooperation and coordination between townships and the region, I think it is best to have the mayors on the council. Fourth -- and I think this can be argued both ways, that it's most economic with them on council and with them off council, but I think it really is. I'll quickly go through these four points.

On representation, our broad geographic area would make it impossible for one elected representative to bring the varied concerns of the citizens from three very large rural townships to regional government. Our representative would represent West Carleton, Goulbourn and Rideau. Each has a different history, different problems, different perspectives that demand its own treatment even under regional government, things that a regional government handles. This would be extremely difficult for one individual to do because of the broad area and the fact that the offices will probably be at regional headquarters. Rural residents today are starting to feel disenfranchised by the provincial policy of not only the last government but the last two or three governments, and this really appears to be another step towards less representation. Please reverse this trend.

As far as accessibility is concerned, at present, at least in our township, most citizens have easy access to the mayor and his support staff at the township's office. There's a feeling that he is part of the community, that we are welcome to express our views and concerns and that we will actually have them acted upon and relayed to regional government as necessary. I don't believe that access will be easy with an elected representative, who will probably have his primary offices in regional development headquarters. For us in this large rural municipality it involves driving into the city, parking, going through security, and some people are going to find that intimidating. It really doesn't facilitate communication from our residents. There's just not the ease of accessibility.

The example to illustrate this is school boards. We elect our school board members, and today I can't even tell you who it is, because he doesn't really have -- or she; I think it's a he -- a local office. So how in the hell can I drop into the office and talk to him? That's important, at least for smaller entrepreneurs. I'm a small developer. The big developers can pay guys to sit in those offices, but we can't. I think it's really important that that happen. The school boards are the perfect example, and they're spending 50% of our tax dollar.

Coordination and cooperation: Perhaps the press or somebody has said, "Each of these rural mayors acts as their own little local warlords and they're not going to let anything happen at region that's for the benefit of all." But if you squeeze them out of the regional council, I think that's going to force them to act that way to protect their turf. When they go to regional council, they have to make the compromises, the great Canadian compromise where we often get nowhere.

Economics: We can argue this for ever, but I really think it would be more economic to have the mayors there rather than an elected representative. He's going to have to have a salary and a staff, and I think a lot of the stuff that staff does is going to be duplicating present regional staff plus what's being done out in the townships. I've never really seen solid facts on the economics of it, so that's maybe not the strongest point.

I'm a little concerned. We did have the Kirby report. Mr Kirby came out, heard all our concerns, and it was my understanding that his recommendation was for the mayors to be on regional council. Basically, this brief was put together pretty quickly because I thought his report was going to put it to rest, even though it came in and out of the press and in and out of the Legislature. I really don't understand, after the provincial government sent out Mr Kirby to do these intensive hearings and put together these recommendations, why it doesn't follow his recommendations on the mayors being on regional council.

That's all I have to say today.

1640

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you, Mr Rampton. I think you were very accurate when you talked about Goulbourn, West Carleton, Rideau and there being difficulties regarding a community of interest. As I understand, a ward boundary's going to go right down the middle of the town of Stittsville: One side of it's going to be in one ward and the other side's going to be in another. It's important to understand that even in small towns a community of interest is not being recognized.

I'd like you to say something about the economic development aspect, since you did say you're a businessman and that does seem to be one of the areas where we are having the debate, whether it be permissive or whether it be mandatory. Maybe you could say a little bit about that, because you no doubt have dealt with all these levels of government as you have planned your endeavours.

Mr Rampton: Yes, I've dealt with all levels of government. The biggest thing that affects rural residents -- we automatically see the regional roads being serviced, so forth and so on, but planning is the big issue. The region does planning and the township does planning, but a lot of the things the region implements directly affect us. I can go in and talk to regional planners but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, we have to almost rely on somebody in our own township to run in to region to try and request that the planning be done to reflect our needs.

Thus we have to have somebody who's right in our township who we can address and tell him: "We don't agree with that" or "We agree with that," or "Could you change it slightly to integrate it?" It's really hard -- if we just had somebody sitting in regional government, regional headquarters, to have the interaction.

I must say, I've made presentations to the Kirby report, I've made them to the Sewell commission. In rural Ontario, we really feel we're paying the price for a lot of things that are being planned in Toronto, not necessarily by this government but by the last two governments; this government has the joy of implementing them. You haven't been around this region, but they're now starting to implement wetlands policy.

Mrs O'Neill: I'm getting letters on that, yes.

Mr Daigeler: That's this government.

Mr Rampton: This government is implementing it, but it was originated, if not with the last one, then the previous one -- whatever. The problem is that it was an academic exercise that everybody supported, including rural areas, but now in the implementation the rules are wrong. People are really angry. It's not developers like me; we're used to having everybody try and conduct our business for us, but small land owners are really angry about this.

We feel, in many cases, that the only person we get a sympathetic ear from is our mayor or reeve and that he has to carry the torch for us. We're worried that we just wouldn't have that access with one person who's stationed in downtown Ottawa, basically.

Mr David Johnson: I congratulate you for your deputation. Speaking of the Sewell commission and the government's response, A New Approach to Land Use Planning, I would very much like to see your material on that so I may somehow get in contact with you, because I've heard quite a number of bad things about it from the rural area.

Getting back to this bill, you've commented on the warlord situation. We've heard this morning once or twice -- Councillor Cullen from the city of Ottawa is one -- that the mayors act in a parochial sense on the regional council, and he's not in favour of them being there because of that situation, that they're too parochial. My position to him was that he calls it parochial but I could call it being responsive to the needs of the local citizens. If they don't represent their citizens, who on earth does? I wondered what your comments would be in that regard.

Mr Rampton: Whether you call it parochial or representative, I agree with you that they express the viewpoints of the citizens, and in the end they have to compromise. It would be better that they be exposed right at regional council to do that compromise, rather than sit out in isolation saying, "We're not going to do it that way, we're going to do it this way." I think they would be even more parochial if they were shut out of the regional council.

My understanding of Kirby's recommendations for regional council was that there were going to be elected representatives and then there were going to be the mayors on the council, and they would actually be outvoted by those elected representatives.

But the important part, more than the vote, is that they bring the concerns, and if the rest of the people at the regional council say, "No, those aren't valid concerns," or "They have to be changed this way," at least they've heard those concerns. I'm just afraid they wouldn't be heard if it was just this one elected representative.

Mr David Johnson: My final comment is the part of your brief that you've underlined, which is what we should really be focusing on: that the governments should be required "to function in a manner that both operates efficiently -- delivers the product as economically as possible -- and provides for social, recreation, community and business requirements." That's what we want to set up, a structure that does that.

There's been no demonstration that I can see through this process that that's been a criterion or how that has been established, that the level and structure they're setting up is going to deliver efficiently and effectively, and I can see no cost analysis in what has been proposed by the government. I'd just ask for your comment on that.

Mr Rampton: Because we don't see any figures to chew on -- I mean, some people think there is going to be a saving of money. I personally don't see it, because I think this elected representative will require a lot of staff. He's going to have to have people brief him on township concerns. In the rural areas, at least, I understand it: It's hard to get that thing through from the rural representative up to region. If he's going to do it, he's going to need a staff to brief him. I think eventually he's going to be going back to the mayor anyway to find out: "What is the problem? What do we need addressed at region in the overall planning or whatever?"

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Rampton. I was very interested in your proposal. There are a couple of things I want to pick up on, first off, the issue of how your area will be represented. Given the population of West Carleton, which is around 13,000, 14,000, if you were to extrapolate that on a regional level, if you had roughly the equivalent number of votes at the regional level, the city of Ottawa would have -- what would it be? -- about 40 members on regional council.

Mr Rampton: It's got 300,000, so if you do the arithmetic, you've got --

Mr White: Well, quite a few. One of the principles that's put in place here by this bill for this area is the same as for the whole of Ontario, that you give some community of interest a preferential treatment, for rural areas versus urban areas. Those kind of things will be reflected. But representation by population -- how large a council do you think should exist?

Mr Rampton: I've thought about that. There are a couple of things I'd like to speak on. In Canada, it's a country-wide problem and it's a province-wide problem. We have concentrations of population and then we have people out in rural areas, northern areas, whatever, who really feel they're looking after these areas -- I forget what the word is -- and they want some representation. It's almost the case of the Senate and the elected representation, where you have the Senate as sort of regional representatives. So I think there is justification for some overrepresentation of rural areas.

But my suggestion -- and I don't know whether I went through it too quickly -- is that the mayors have a weighted vote. Maybe the mayor of West Carleton would only have the equivalent of 25% of a vote. I think this has been presented at hearings before on this. My feeling is that he has to have a vote to make sure hat he counts at all, but his vote is not so important as that he's there to make the case. I realize the problem with the population thing.

1650

Mr White: The other thing I was going to pick up on was the issue of policing. You're in an area where you don't pay for policing locally.

Mr Rampton: That's right.

Mr White: I'm wondering, in terms of the equity of that, how you feel that should be dealt with. You don't pay for policing in your local area, whereas people in the city of Ottawa or in Nepean or certainly in my area, in most of the rest of the province, we either pay directly for the local police force or we pay via contract for the Ontario Provincial Police, but you receive that service free. Do you think that's something your area should be paying for?

Mr Rampton: Personally, I think we should pay for it, but I'm not addressing that here and I'm not sure that's dealt with in this bill, whether in West Carleton the OPP would continue to police us or not.

Mr White: It is, yes.

Mr Rampton: It is. Okay. So we're not going to have the OPP in West -- or they'd be under contract and we'd pay for it through taxes?

Mr White: You'd be paying for it as part of the regional bill, yes.

Mr Rampton: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Rampton, thank you for your presentation today.

FEDERATION OF OTTAWA-CARLETON CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS

Dr Allan Gregory: My name is Allan Gregory. I'm appearing on behalf of the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens' Associations, or the FCA. I'm going to refer to the federation as the FCA.

It's an umbrella organization composed of approximately 25 community groups in Ottawa. We have taken an active and consistent interest in the reform of municipal government in the region for a number of years. Our direct involvement began in November 1989 when two of FCA's representatives met with the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal caucus to present our position on the Ottawa-Carleton regional review chairman, David Bartlett's, phase 1 report, which was entitled Accountability and Representation. Some members of the committee may remember that meeting, which was at Gloucester city hall.

Subsequent to that meeting, the FCA submitted a written brief to the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the day, the Honourable John Sweeney, and we also forwarded that brief to local MPPs. We're resubmitting that brief again today and I think you have a copy in front of you.

Turning to the brief, as the brief indicates on the second page, in the interests of time and space we don't repeat the overwhelming evidence, in our view, that the current system, appointing the chairman, which was true at that time, and councillors serving on both local and regional councils, is seriously and irreparably flawed.

Point 1 in our brief spoke to the election of the chairman of regional council. I should point out to the committee that our main concern, as it was in Mr Bartlett's first report, is with accountability and representation.

The objectives of accountability and representation can only be realized if there's a direct electoral relationship between citizens of the region and the person serving as chairman of the regional council; that is, the chairman can only be held directly accountable by citizens if they're directly responsible for the election of the chairman.

Further, in order for the chairman to lay legitimate claim to being a representative of the citizens, and for citizens to have a responsible voice in deciding who their chairman is to be, a direct electoral determination is required. Any arrangement other than direct election of the chairman of regional council denies the realization of those fundamental, interdependent objectives.

Our recommendation in 1989 was that the regional chairman be directly elected by the citizens of the region.

With regard to the election of regional councillors, our brief says that the same principles apply and the same logic holds in total regarding members of regional council. They must be directly elected by the citizens of the region on a ward basis if the objectives of regional representation and accountability are to be achieved.

In anticipation of, and with regard to, the proposition that mayors and/or members of local municipal councils could or should sit on regional council, it fails the acid tests of regional accountability and regional responsibility.

Further, and on abundant evidence, serving at both levels in a joint manner is not a necessary nor a sufficient condition for effective, efficient and harmonious intergovernmental relations or performance. Rather, and again as the ample evidence attests, we submit, the regional interest invariably suffers when local loyalties, needs or wants, or political careers are at risk.

Our recommendation was in 1989 that all members of regional council be directly elected on a ward basis.

Point 3 in our brief dealt with the nature and number of wards. Any a priori reference to existing local municipal boundaries in drawing the regional wards is a recipe for perpetuating the current entrenched state of parochialism which is embraced and vigorously pursued by local municipal officials throughout the region.

Regional services are regional services, period. As such, the ward should represent the distribution of regional services throughout the region. Most importantly, each ward should represent a judicious mix of the region's various urban, interurban and rural realities. These are reflected by the regional distributions of residents, enterprises, institutions, resources and amenities and the incidence of tax levies to fund the provision of regional services.

Our recommendation in 1989 was that there be 15 regional wards, and that ward boundaries be drawn to reflect regional characteristics without any a priori regard for administrative, political or other strictures of a local, municipal nature.

Those were our recommendations and the reasons for our recommendations in 1989. Nothing has changed since then except for two things. One is that we didn't understand clearly at that time how inconsistent the current system of regional government is with the principle of representation by population. We didn't understand that at that time. We do now and clearly we would want to add that to our reasons for making the recommendations that we made in 1989.

The other thing that's changed is that we have become stronger in our conviction that the present system is fundamentally flawed and that no amount of tinkering can make it right, that no amount of tinkering can make it fully accountable and fully representative.

A year later, in September 1990, we made a presentation to the Ottawa-Carleton electoral boundaries commissioner, Katherine Graham, and a year later, in October 1992, we made a written submission to the Ottawa-Carleton regional review commissioner, Graeme Kirby. We have also made written representations to Mr Sweeney's successors as Minister of Municipal Affairs, urging them to proceed with democratic reforms to municipal government in Ottawa-Carleton as soon as possible.

As I'm sure you know, our first recommendation, the one that we made in 1989, direct election of the regional chair, was implemented by the present provincial government in time for the 1991 municipal election. The other recommendations we made are very similar to the legislative reforms now proposed by the government in Bill 143. Accordingly, Bill 143 has our full support.

1700

If you turn to the last two pages of our brief, you'll find that we have attached a couple of editorials addressing the issue of whether or not mayors should remain on regional council. One is from a rural newspaper, the Stittsville News. It was published in November of last year. I'd just like to draw your attention to the second to last paragraph. They're assuming mayors will not be on regional council. That paragraph states:

"Mayors will be able to devote all of their time to efficient and effective municipal government at the local level. Ratepayers of the local municipalities should be better served and end up winners, with mayors totally dedicated to the local municipalities and with regional councillors directly elected and accountable to the voters for regional decisions."

The second editorial you will find on the last page of our brief is from a Gloucester newspaper called the Leader. It too endorses the bill's provision that mayors will no longer sit on regional council, and it ends by saying:

"Let's hope the provincial government holds firm to its intention to reform regional government and continues to ignore the tantrums of the suburban mayors. They were part of the problem; they are not part of the solution."

We endorse the viewpoints expressed in those two editorials.

I believe that you are all aware that one of Mr Bartlett's recommendations in 1987 was for the mayors to continue as ex officio members of regional council. I believe that you also are aware now that when Minister Philip introduced Bill 77, I believe it was in July of last year, Mr Bartlett was interviewed in Ottawa-Carleton, and he went on record as reversing his position on the local mayors being on regional council and he then supported the minister's bill and said that he had believed all along that the mayors should not be members of regional council.

We're convinced that the reforms contained in Bill 143 will improve the quality of decision-making of regional council and will result in its adopting a stronger regional focus. Both of these, we submit, are essential ingredients for good, fully accountable and fully representative regional government in Ottawa-Carleton in the 21st century. We urge you, when you return to the Legislature at Queen's Park, to recommend to the Legislature that Bill 143 be passed as quickly as possible.

Mr David Johnson: I appreciate your evidence today. I'm going to slip to the second page of your brief where it says there is "abundant evidence" that "serving at both levels in a joint manner is not a necessary nor a sufficient condition for effective, efficient and harmonious" government. I wondered if you would enlighten us as to what the abundant evidence is.

I ask that question because the Association of Municipalities of Ontario tells us that there is no other municipality in Canada where the mayors do not serve on the regional level.

The only other Canadian experience I am aware of over the years is in the city of Winnipeg, where precisely this structure was put in place, and exactly the opposite happened in the city of Winnipeg many years ago. It was far from harmonious; there was total warfare and the province had to step in because the two levels, which had no connection -- the mayors did not serve on the regional government. There was warfare between the two levels and the province finally stepped in and made a one-tier level of government. That's the only experience I'm aware of from a Canadian context, so perhaps you would tell us what the abundant evidence is.

Dr Gregory: Some is quoted in our brief as reference to the way that regional council dealt with regional shopping centres in the official plan. This was in the late 1980s. We watched the regional planning committee and regional council very carefully on how they dealt with major issues in the regional official plan. We feel this was a classic case illustrating our position.

"The regional situation -- regarding infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc) and area-wide planning considerations -- was virtually ignored as councillors...cut deals in order to squeeze whatever they could out of the `regional pie' for their respective municipalities". As the brief says, "There was no regional dimension to the deliberations" by council.

Another, more recent example is the way that regional council dealt with the issue of market value assessment. There too we felt that they didn't have a regional perspective, that they looked more to representing their local constituencies. As a result, market value assessment has been introduced and has hurt many people in the downtown city area.

With regard to the city of Winnipeg, I understood that it replaced its municipal government with a uni-city, with a one-tier --

Mr David Johnson: That was the second stage; the first stage was to separate the two and it didn't work. At any rate, what you're telling me is that then there is not evidence that shows that leaving the mayors off will work better; it's your view that the evidence says that having the mayors on is not working.

Dr Gregory: That's right, that's part of it, yes.

Mr David Johnson: But there's no evidence to show that the other way around works any better.

Dr Gregory: I'm not sure about that.

Mr David Johnson: Do you have any evidence that the --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Johnson. Mr White.

Mr White: Thank you very much, Dr Gregory. I'd like to quote for you some of the remarks from Hansard. This is March 24 of this year, just a couple of weeks ago, "I don't know where the minister gets his information that the mayors should be removed" from regional council. What strikes me as a change about this is that I can quote that particular remark, or I could quote several others I see in Hansard, but there are a number of members who are suggesting that they're really surprised at the form this bill is taking, the particular structure that's being suggested. Yet, Dr Gregory, I see these members being cited as having received this letter from you four years ago, almost five years ago.

Mr Daigeler: There's no reference to mayors in this.

Mr White: No, I see clearly that you're talking about directly elected regional councillors.

Dr Gregory: That's correct.

Mr White: If I'm not mistaken, this letter doesn't speak to the mayors being on regional council.

Dr Gregory: I'd refer you to the top of page 2 -- actually, the pages aren't numbered, so the third page of the brief. It says at the top, "In anticipation of, and with regard to the proposition that mayors and/or members of local municipal councils could or should sit on regional council, it fails the acid tests of regional responsibility and regional accountability."

Our recommendation follows, in the middle of the page, and was, "That all members of regional council be directly elected on a ward basis." That speaks to our position.

Mr White: Yes, so clearly five years ago --

Dr Gregory: That's what we were saying.

Mr White: -- the gentlemen whom you have copied here were informed of your position, and yet only a scant couple of weeks ago they said they don't know where this idea came from.

1710

Mr Chiarelli: Just a couple of very quick questions for Mr Gregory: In anticipation of Bill 143 passing in its present state, you're aware that at the present time there is local debate as to whether or not regional councillors would be full-time, part-time, their pay scale etc. Do you anticipate any problems with Bill 143 if regional councillors are designated part-time, which is a possibility?

Dr Gregory: Yes, I do, Mr Chiarelli. Our position is that we support a full-time council very strongly. The reason we support a full-time council very strongly is to provide a counterbalance to the power that's invested in the regional chair's office at the present time. Without a full-time council we think that the regional chair's office would enjoy far too much influence.

Mr Chiarelli: Then one other very quick question: We had Mayor Holzman here this morning, the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade and Councillor Cullen, who support the bill in its present form. They referred to one-tier government and they basically see this, reading between the lines, as a step towards one-tier government. Do you see this as a step towards one-tier government? Would you be happy with this for the indefinite future? Would you prefer one-tier government?

Dr Gregory: I think many people do see it as the first step towards one-tier government. But I would say in response to the latter part of your question that the present system has been in place for 25 years. It has been studied to death.

This bill provides us with a fundamentally different regional government structure. It will be, in our view, much more democratic; it will be much more accountable; it will be much more representative. We think that this is a major step forward. It may be in place for many years, as you suggest, but I think we would settle for it now because it's such a fundamentally improved structure for regional council.

The Chair: I'd like to thank you very much for appearing this afternoon before the committee.

CARLINGWOOD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Mr Peter Cameron: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, members of committee. My name is Peter Cameron. I'm the vice-president of the Carlingwood Community Association. It's a west-end Ottawa community association, which lies within the boundaries of the Richmond ward.

With regard to Bill 143, the association position that we'll advance will touch only on the first two parts of the bill, that is, of course, the election of regional councillors and just briefly on the police services board.

It's the position of the association that we support this bill. In fact the previous witness, Allan Gregory, mentioned that there has been a long time before any change has taken place. There have been four studies over 20 years.

It's the view of our association that the bill is a very good step because the present system is untenable. In the political process, of course, nothing can ever be perfect, but at least it's a good beginning.

We really do believe that elections should be direct. All regional councillors should be elected. The dichotomy between the rural municipalities, the mayors, and the city of Ottawa, which is the major tax base for the region, does not serve well the citizens of Ottawa and the cities of Nepean and Gloucester and so on. So that is our clear and confirmed view.

With regard to the police services, and indeed as I heard the questions to the previous witness, it is very clear that this is a first step towards a control and a centralization of government, and it's probably long overdue. In the realities of the 1990s our municipal systems are based in the 1970s.

If you simply look at our new city hall, it's beautiful; it's reminiscent of the great castles of Europe. If you look at our new regional chambers, marble halls, they're beautiful. If you look at the city of Ottawa, it's subjected to four tiers of government: federal, provincial, regional council, city council. Of course, the National Capital Commission is in there somewhere and federal departments hold great land holdings in the city.

If you look at this, we are a very overgoverned population of a million people, and if you ask, "Is there general support towards a simplification of government in this day and age?" the answer is yes.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Coming from a community association, you surely have the same kind of sensitivity to the issue of whether locally elected officials respond to people in the community, and we have heard many people earnestly put before us the proposition that we will lose something if we do not have indirectly elected representation on Ottawa-Carleton regional council by way of council members and/or mayors -- always "and mayors." I wonder if you as a community association have looked at this issue directly and what the opinion of your association is.

Mr Cameron: Yes, we have looked at it. Our view is really very simple: If there is a ward distribution system where the wards take into consideration most of the citizens -- ie, you can divide them any which way you like; you can pie-shape them, you can get city and region mingled -- so that the ward representative has a broad overview of the interests of the citizens, it's far better than the fragmented system we have today.

Let me give you -- no, I'll stop there.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I was going to ask you for an example of what you would describe as untenable about the current situation.

Mr Cameron: There is a perception among some of our members that the mayors and the municipalities regard the region as their sugar daddy; it's the pot where the money is. Very narrow parochial interests go on in those debates to get their share of the pie, because they are elected for municipalities and they do not have the regional overview that is so essential.

What this bill is is a legal interpretation, if you like, of a political philosophy. All laws are that way. What we're saying is that the political philosophy that underlies our current system we now are not happy with and we want it changed. It's on that basis.

Mr Daigeler: Let me say, first of all, that I appreciate your position since you come from the city of Ottawa position, which I think you have clearly acknowledged. At the same time I have to come to the defence a little bit of the region, because the way you were talking, you'd think that we have a very serious problem here in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

But I challenge anybody to compare the achievements in the Ottawa-Carleton area to any of the other cities in Canada. I think most people who come here say, "What a beautiful city and region: the parks that you have, the roads that you have, the transportation system that you have." I am in Toronto now more often than I'd like to be. I tell you, the traffic is a lot worse there.

Something, despite the governments we've had or perhaps because of the governments we've had, has worked. We've got a good system. We've got a very low crime rate. When you look at what actually has been accomplished, I think the governments can be proud, all of them, including the regional government. I take that position. I say "including the regional government" because in Nepean we have acknowledged and we continue to acknowledge the importance of accountability.

1720

Longer than I can remember, we've elected Nepean councillors on a city-wide basis to regional council. So we have done that; there's no argument with this. But we're saying there has to be at least some link, at least to the mayors, and there has to be some consideration for the local regional interplay. Don't pit one municipality against the other. Do it cooperatively. It has worked up to now. There may be some improvements, but don't push aside everything that has been done before.

Mr Cameron: I'm not sure if there's a question there, but I'd like to offer a couple of comments.

Mr Daigeler: That's fine.

The Chair: I'll leave that up to you.

Mr Cameron: Thank you. Number one, Ottawa is a beautiful city. It's the nation's capital. No one can deny that the parks and the amenities here are probably the best in the country.

My only difficulty with the gentleman's question is, I don't know who I should thank for this. Should I thank the National Capital Commission? Should I thank some departments federally? Should I thank the regional council? Should I thank Ottawa?

Hon Ms Gigantes: You thank God.

Mr Cameron: And I thank God, of course. So that's the first issue.

The second issue is that if we're talking political philosophy here, let me take 30 seconds on this. The European Community runs a two-tier government system. Each nation elects its Parliament or its parliamentary equivalent and then it elects delegates to the European Parliament. No European nation, to my knowledge, sends its members of Parliament directly to represent it in the European Parliament.

The reason it doesn't do that is because of the conflict of interest that the member would face, because the interests of his constituency as a member of Parliament, and his Prime Minister, Thatcher or Major or whoever, if you talk about the UK, quite clearly differ from those of the European Community. So there are separate elections and the system seems to work quite well. That's a political philosophy, and we are talking about creating some kind of political system. I don't say it's perfect.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Cameron, I thank you for your deputation. Getting back to the point that was discussed earlier, you indicated that the present system does not serve the people well and you specifically mentioned three municipalities: Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester.

We've had the mayor of Nepean here, we've had the mayor of Gloucester here, we've had the chamber of commerce from both of those municipalities, a police force from at least one or both of those municipalities, and they're all saying that the present structure does serve their communities well. So perhaps you can elaborate a little bit more. You haven't given me any evidence of that. You've kind of indicated something about a sugar daddy, but I don't know precisely what you mean by that. Where exactly does the present system not serve those citizens well?

Mr Cameron: The view of our association is that we are the governed. We're the folks who pay the taxes and we are the folks who acquiesce to being governed. That's the way our system works. It is the view of the members of our association that the present system is not efficient. We feel it is wasteful and we feel it does not serve the interests of the community at large as well as it should.

One of the difficulties is that we do not see the system of representation that is currently in place to be as effective as what is recommended in the bill, and that is why we are supporting this bill.

Mr David Johnson: Could you give me examples? We're all interested in examples of wasteful government. If there are any citizen groups that have their finger on where governments are being wasteful, I encourage them to come forward, because I agree the government is wasteful. There is no question about that: the federal governments, the provincial governments, all. So tell us, where is the waste in this setup, the structure we have at the present time?

Mr Cameron: Let's say I want to drive home, a simple, good example. I drive along the parkway. It's being patrolled by the RCMP. I get on to Woodroffe, which is being patrolled by one police force. If I drive just two or three blocks, it's patrolled by another police force. This doesn't make sense.

Let me tell you that one of the issues before government is the sharing of local services and the coalescing of administration. We have grown like Topsy in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, and now we're into the 1990s and in bad times. It's just not going to work any more. It's that kind of thing.

If you want me to bring out a litany of other stuff, I simply can't do it in the time available, but I think that very simple illustration is repeated many times in this thing.

Mr David Johnson: It's just interesting in that example that the figures that I have in terms of the policing in Nepean -- and you specifically mentioned Ottawa, Gloucester and Nepean -- the policing per capita in Ottawa is considerable higher than in the other two municipalities, cost per capita.

The numbers I have are $127 in Nepean, $122 in Gloucester, $168 in Ottawa. I've heard other numbers today that place the cost of policing higher in Ottawa and lower in the other two municipalities. In terms of the way the system is structured, based on those numbers, it would appear that the policing is being tailored to meet the municipalities and is being delivered at a least-cost fashion in the outlying municipalities, such as Nepean and Gloucester.

Mr Cameron: Two quick comments: I would have mentioned the other municipalities if I could have just rhymed them off, but I picked three of the bigger ones, for example.

Number two, I cannot argue on the effectiveness and efficiency of police, nor did I come prepared to do that. But if you have administrative structures duplicated in each sector, then quite clearly there must be economies of scale. Common sense tells you that.

If you look at the press, the federal government of course is looking at this in a very serious way. It's trying to provide administration, finance and so on for multiple departments from one locality. The provincial governments are making similar moves. Why would that not happen in municipalities?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cameron, for appearing this afternoon.

KIM MILLAN

Ms Kim Millan: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you all for giving us the time to meet with you today.

Before I start, I would like to address Mr Gregory to indicate that we at the Barrhaven Community Association are not a member of the federation of Ottawa-Carleton community associations. I would suggest that you receive a list from him as to whom he does represent.

My name is Kim Millan, and I am president of the Barrhaven Community Association and chair for Citizens for Good Government. As a resident of Nepean and a proud Canadian citizen who believes in the democratic process and the right to vote, I am appalled at the lack of respect that this government has shown the public of Ottawa-Carleton.

According to Webster's dictionary, the definition of democracy is "government by the people, political and social equality." Is this the same definition that Minister Philip and Bob Rae use? Or is the word "dictator," defined as a person exercising unlimited powers of government, a term they are most familiar with? Mr Philip's article in the newspaper a few weeks ago stating that this bill will be implemented reinforces this definition.

Notice of public hearings was once again one of the world's best-kept secrets. It was only Tuesday morning that official notice was given to the public via the newspaper. Even then, it stated that the location was to be determined. The agenda, however, was closed Monday at 3 pm for public speakers. How do you expect to consult with the public when sufficient and proper notice was not given?

As this bill affects the whole region, public hearings should have been held at numerous sites across the region. The selection of the site and the minimal time allotted for Ottawa-Carleton hearings prove that these hearings are mere tokenism. The combining of two distinct issues into one bill causes many people to be faced with a major dilemma. The issues of education and municipal affairs are important and distinct enough that they should be addressed separately. The combination of the two has forced individuals to challenge all when they might in fact not be affected by part. This action alone makes one wonder if you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and confuse the matter.

1730

Insufficient notice and the limited time slots are not the only factors that hinder attendance at these hearings by the general public. Other reasons include the cost of commuting downtown, finding affordable and available parking in the area, the inability to take time off work, the cost of babysitters, let alone the stress of driving downtown for some senior citizens.

Let us not forget the fact that we are faced with a limit of 30 speakers on a first-come, first-served basis when there are over 600,000 individuals affected by this bill. I would like to meet the person in charge of your sampling techniques.

Please do not assume that because people are not present that they are in favour of this bill, as this is not the case. We, as a population, are faced with many pressures, both in the home and in the workplace, and there is not always enough time to stand up and be counted.

This is my third submission of comments plus two formal requests for meetings with Minister Ed Philip, which were denied. Is this government by the people? At this point, I would like to resubmit all of our comments plus read some excerpts. I do have a package here that I will leave with the clerk.

The terms of reference for the Kirby report, commissioned by Mr Philip, were "To consult with municipalities and the public on the degree of interest and support for the structural reform to municipal government in Ottawa-Carleton and for the direct election of members to regional council."

Mr Kirby's findings are summarized as: The people want responsiveness, the ability to reach directly those who take quick and appropriate action; accountability through representation, making decisions on issues of importance to their community; a sense of identity, to retain a community's individuality: cultural, linguistic and physical; to protect the qualities of life which are important to a community: tranquillity, sharing of responsibility, voluntarism, rural character; but most importantly, the people want fiscal responsibility: cost-effective services, the highest quality of services or functions at the lowest cost. "Do not increase our taxes" was heard at every public hearing.

When in Canadian history have changes to electoral boundaries and government restructuring been within the same year as an election, let alone within the same six months? Only Bob Rae and his government would violate the public trust and give his ministers powers to redraw the election boundaries and legislation that governs individuals running for public office only months away from an election. The Kirby report stated that most importantly, the people want fiscal responsibility, cost-effective services, the highest quality of services or functions at the lowest cost. Bill 77 is perceived by many as a move to the creation of one level of government. Only 52% of the people of Ottawa-Carleton favoured a move to one tier, without regard to the cost. But if the cost of government was to increase as a result of a move to one tier, then 81% opposed the changes -- 99.3% outside of Ottawa and 64.9% of people inside of Ottawa.

It is hard to imagine that when everyone is trying to cut back on discretionary spending our provincial government would even consider the concept of a regional police force that would cost each of dearly. The cost will not only be in dollars and cents but in the decrease of safety measures taken in our neighbourhoods. The intensity of the downtown core would warrant more patrols than the suburban areas. Police patrols would not be as familiar with our communities or our children.

Price Waterhouse shows that the implementation of a regional police force would cause an increase in taxes ranging from $4 million to $11 million annually. The startup costs haven't even been addressed: uniforms, guns at an estimate of $600,000, the cost of new cars, a communications one-time cost of approximately $15 million. There are salary differentials across the region, there are pensions, sick leave and other union agreements that have to be negotiated. Is this fiscal responsibility?

It is very scary that, in this day and age of economic crisis, decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals can be made without any regard to significant financial studies being completed. If business was run the way this bill is being implemented, then the result would be another statistic in the bankruptcy rate.

We have worked hard to live in a debt-free, pay-as-you-go society. This is something that individuals, businesses and all levels of government dream about. So why are we being forced into a situation that denies all logic? No one knows the implications or impact that this bill will have from a financial perspective; there is only speculation. Speculation indicates that there is an increase to all taxpayers in the region. The one thing that everyone had in common during the Kirby hearings was, "Do not increase our taxes." It is hard to promise this, or even aim at this objective, if financial data are not available.

We demand that if regional reform becomes a reality, safeguards be put in place to ensure that all parties walk in on equal ground. Outstanding debts should be cleared before any mergers take place. This is good business and fair to all taxpayers. This should be a condition of a regional reform bill, and if such conditions are not met, then the reforms should not take place. To truly hear from the people on an issue as controversial and as emotional as this one, we recommend that a plebiscite be carried out during the 1994 municipal elections. Let the public decide their fate.

In addition to my statements, I am representing the concerns of the Queenswood Heights Community Association, who were unable to send a representative due to the short time frames. I have with me a letter of proxy giving me authorization to read their comments. If you permit me, I'll read it.

"Dear Ms Millan,

"The Queenswood Heights Community Association represents approximately 4,500 households in the urban community of Orleans in the township of Cumberland.

"Unfortunately, due to the short notice, the association is unable to send a representative to the public hearings on Bill 143, formerly Bill 77. We ask that you speak on our behalf and convey to the provincial government our unequivocal opposition to these elements of Bill 143 that were formerly in Bill 77.

"I have attached for your use excerpts from the Queenswood Heights newsletter. While I have been the writer, I can assure you that these articles reflect the opinion of the executive of the association."

Instead of reading all of them, I've just selected some that I will read to you. Either that, or we'll be here all night.

"Across the region, we currently elect 84 officials: 11 mayors, 72 councillors and one regional chair. Mayors of the 11 municipalities plus 21 councillors sit on a regional council. The recommendation is to reduce the number of municipal councillors and have 18 directly elected regional councillors. Cumberland's councillors, for example, would then be reduced to four from six.

"Although the total number of elected officials across the region would remain at 84, each regional councillor would hire a staff assistant. This means that in addition to the increased salary paid to a regional councillor, an additional 18 staff members would be added to the public payroll. Furthermore, if responsibilities do not shift to the region, the reduced number of councillors at the local end, most of whom hold full-time jobs, will have to assume greater responsibility, and they in turn will begin demanding support staff. Direct election of municipal councillors will be expensive.

"Direct election of regional councillors could result in no real representation for Cumberland in regional government. The ward boundaries that have been proposed will have the effect of giving the city of Ottawa control over 11 of the 18 seats. In other words, 47% of the regional population will control 61% of regional wards.

"Queenswood Heights will be combined with Blackburn hamlet and Chapel Hill to form regional ward 2, reducing the possibility of Queenswood Heights representation on council. Rural Cumberland is absorbed into the entire eastern rural portion of the region, that is, east of the Rideau River. Cumberland's best chance to elect a regional councillor would be from Fallingbrook or the Villages, which has been combined with Covenant Glen. Provincial proposals also deny giving mayors a seat on regional government. If this is adopted, then Cumberland's influence on regional council will be further reduced.

"Today, Queenswood Heights residents can easily discuss regional concerns with our mayor, who is also a representative in the region. If we do not feel he is representing Cumberland and the Heights, well, he can be replaced at election time. Under the province's proposed system of regional reform, a regional ward 2 councillor can ignore the Heights in favour of the 70% of the votes that will come from Gloucester.

"Public opinion polls taken by the Kirby commission favoured status quo. As a second choice, the public said, "We don't want one-tier government, but if that's what you're going to do, then do it all at once and get it over with." The one thing that over 85% of the public absolutely did not want was a gradual phase-in of one-tier government. So what has the province decided to do? Adopt a halfway measure and do what will cost the most, create the most confusion and provide the least benefit.

"After the next election, some responsibilities will shift from municipal level to regional level. As the region uses this to justify tax increases, will there be a corresponding tax decrease at the municipal level? Perhaps I am being cynical, but somehow I doubt it.

1740

"The recommendations in the Kirby report fail by the very criteria that the commission set for itself. They will be more costly for no proven benefits.

"The recommendations are also in conflict with the stated values and goals of the communities. The commission's own public opinion poll shows this to be true. While the commission's report makes little mention of the public meetings that were held, the opposition to change that was voiced by the public was extremely strong.

"The recommendations would handicap rather than enhance our ability to cope with the future. They drain taxes, thus reducing business's ability to invest. Big government does not have small government's ability to respond quickly to its stakeholders, nor changing conditions. The phasing of changes over a five- to eight-year period would paralyse our local governments at a time when Canada is undergoing major structural economic changes. Ottawa-Carleton shares in that change while also facing federal government downsizing and decentralizations. The people's interest is best served by local government stability."

In closing, I would like to state there has been so much undue pressure from the minister to implement this bill quickly that I would not be surprised if authors of past regional studies suddenly changed their minds and assisted Minister Philip in legitimizing his bill. I thank you for your time.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee on, as you know, very short notice and within an extremely tight time frame. I do think, nevertheless, that it is useful to hold these hearings and to hear from you, because I honestly believe, after having heard the minister in the House, that he was not really aware of how strongly people feel in this area, in particular those who are not part of the city of Ottawa, about this matter.

If anything, I think these hearings are showing the sentiments of attachment, of emotional attachment, frankly, that are there. I think that's what's so unfortunate, that this particular project is riding roughshod over this, because I do think it could have been done differently. There was ample time shortly after the last municipal election to bring in proposals, rather than waiting till the last minute and then blaming the opposition for it. I really think it's unfortunate that really what we're seeing, as we've seen today, is one community being pitted against the others.

I'm just wondering how you see the future cooperation between the various municipalities, which I think up to now has been good in this region, is going to be affected by this bill.

Ms Millan: I think what you're finding, because that's exactly it, Mr Daigeler, is that the communities are being pitted against once another. There are a lot of conversations in offices -- in my office, for example, because we have a lot of people from the Ottawa area, from the rural areas and from Nepean -- and the problem is that there's not enough information out there to make a factual, non-emotional decision on this.

Nowadays, everybody is so used to change, because the governments are doing it, businesses are doing it, but everything is based on financials. I think this is the concern that we all have, that these changes are being implemented and there have not been the financial data supplied to us. The only financial study I have ever seen is the Price Waterhouse one, and that was based upon putting in one-tier government right up front.

Nothing has been done, and I think the cooperation would come, because we all work together anyway. We all live in the region, and I use a lot of the downtown facilities myself. But I think if we looked at the financial implications, then everybody could make a decision.

Mrs O'Neill: Kim, you likely know, as I know, that this bill's going to go through.

Ms Millan: Yes.

Mrs O'Neill: What are the amendments that you would think would be the most helpful?

Ms Millan: Actually, before this bill goes through, I do hope that this government would ask the taxpayers in this region to vote on it before it ever went through.

But for the amendments, number one, I would really want to see the mayors back on council. That would allow a linkage into the regional government that, if you took it off, we would not have.

Right now in Nepean we actually elect a regional council. They sit on the city council as well as the regional council. So they are aware of things that are going on at the city as well as at the region. I think this linkage is very important.

Nowadays we're talking about the information highway and bringing communications into everybody's home. By cutting off this link between regional and the mayor, you're cutting off communication, and that's not something that we could live with.

Mr David Johnson: I wanted to follow up on that point. There was a deputation earlier this afternoon that I thought put it quite well.

The gentleman indicated that people come to the mayor for all sorts of problems, and now being on a regional council what happens to be a regional issue, that at least they got some responsibility and accountability. But if the mayors are off, the people will still come with the same problems. They won't be on the regional council but they will still be accountable, in a sense, without having the authority. So that's going to be a difficult situation.

I'd like to thank you and the Barrhaven Community Association for an excellent presentation. The comment, again on the taxes, "Do not increase our taxes," is a very prominent theme throughout this whole hearing, and I hope that concept is sinking in to the government.

But maybe in terms of my question, I'd like to shift to your proposal of a plebiscite. This is one that's been raised by other people. Would you see the plebiscite as simply being for and against Bill 143, or do you see some other way to approach a plebiscite to draw out of people what they're looking for in terms of their local government?

Ms Millan: I'll answer as a personal response rather than talking for anybody at this point other than myself. Judging by the way the Constitution referendum was done, it was a for-and- against type of situation. That caused a lot of people a dilemma, because there are areas in the bill -- change is important and in order to grow you have to have change. If you could even break it down into a few areas, the people could actually vote on the few areas, rather than saying yes or no. I think it would be better as a plebiscite to break it down into a few key areas. That's from a personal perspective.

Mr David Johnson: I know you haven't had a great deal of opportunity to think of what all those areas might be, because probably in your mind you think that the likelihood of having such a plebiscite is a bit remote, given some of the previous comments. What areas do you think people are most concerned about -- obviously taxes?

Ms Millan: That's right.

Mr David Johnson: They don't want their government costs to increase. They want the services to be delivered in a most efficient manner by the appropriate level and taxes not to increase. What else would they be concerned about?

Ms Millan: I think that if you want your mayor to sit on regional council would be one issue. The issue of regional police should be another. These are controversial and emotional issues that have to be addressed. And as for taxes, I think the third one would be if people wanted the move towards a one-tier government. The problem is that you would have to make sure that the information and the data were out there in the public so that they could make a knowledgeable decision when they put their X in the box for yes or no.

Mr David Johnson: Good. Thank you.

Mr White: Thank you, Ms Millan. I'm very impressed with the work that you've done. We seem to have a number of presentations from the Citizens for Good Government, and you're finally the chair.

Ms Millan: And I apologize. I understand during legislation through all of your meetings that you didn't know who to respond to and I did forget to type in my phone number and address at the bottom of it, so I do apologize to you all now.

Mr White: I very much appreciate that. Despite the shortness of the notice, obviously, your group got on board several times.

We've heard from the former mayor of East York -- and I certainly believe that most of believe in our hearts or have that feeling that the mayors are closer to us. The local government's closer to us. We are able to access them better. Frankly, that's how it goes. People feel closer to their provincial members than their federal members etc.

I'm wondering with this issue, where there have been a lot of comments, such as you've made about the cost of regional councillors and this $2.9 million that's been set aside by the present regional government, not the one that's foreseen in legislation --

Ms Millan: That's correct.

Mr White: -- by that money being set aside, your mayor you feel to be more accountable to you. When that vote occurred, when you heard about it, did you ask your mayor how he voted?

Ms Millan: Yes, I did, actually. I think if you look in my Citizens for Good Government proposal that was submitted a few weeks back you noticed that the $2.9 million was identified there as an outstanding cost.

Mr White: Yes, and that's what I'm curious about. So you felt you were able to approach your mayor to say, "You're accountable for how you voted on that issue"?

Ms Millan: Absolutely.

Mr White: Do you feel you wouldn't be able to do that with a regional councillor?

Ms Millan: I would like to know where the regional chair is right now and why he was not able to get on here to actually stand up and identify what his concerns are, or whether he is either for or against this. That's how comfortable I feel about approaching him.

Mr White: I believe he's been here for the better part of the day. I don't know if he's here now.

Ms Millan: Has he spoken?

Mr White: No, he hasn't, but --

Ms Millan: That's my answer. That's how comfortable I feel about approaching him.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Kim. I'd like to also thank the Barrhaven Community Association and you, personally, for so effectively communicating not only your own views but those of the community association. Thank you very much.

1750

MERLE NICHOLDS
ALLAN WHITTEN
JOHN RICK
JOHN REITER

The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Merle Nicholds, the mayor of the city of Kanata.

Mrs O'Neill: You got it right.

The Chair: Right two times in a row. Good afternoon, your worship, and welcome. If you could identify the people who are presenting with you, it would be helpful.

Ms Merle Nicholds: I would be pleased to, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I've been asked by my council to come here to present the city of Kanata's position to this hearing. It's certainly not my choice that the politicians take the place of members of the public who would like to speak, and it's very distressing the number of people in Ottawa-Carleton who did want to come here to speak.

I'm using my prerogative to have join me today those who did want to speak and couldn't get in. They're with me today. These are representatives of our business community in Kanata. Allan Whitten is the president of the Kanata Chamber of Commerce. John Rick was a former president of the chamber and is now a committee member of the chamber of commerce, and he's followed this issue. John Reiter is one of our local business people in Kanata. All three of these individuals have closely followed this issue.

As I said, I don't want politicians to take up the air time -- I think it's for the public to speak -- but I have been asked to bring the position of the city of Kanata to you. I have prepared copies of that position for your perusal. I'm going to speak as briefly as I can.

I would like to first of all say, though, that this whole issue of regional reform has been the topic of lengthy debate and consultation in my community, in the city of Kanata. Throughout the Kirby hearings and study, there was a lot of participation by Kanata residents and Kanata councillors. We even formed a Kirby task force, a group of citizens in our community, which had broad representation throughout the community, to study and analyse the Kirby report very carefully.

They made their recommendations to Kanata council. They consulted with the public and it was at a public meeting that we received the recommendations. The city of Kanata council endorsed most of those recommendations and submitted them. There's been a lot of discussion about Bill 143 as well, and recently Kanata council took a position on that. There's been a lot of involvement on the part of our community.

With respect to the position of the city of Kanata, I'm going to focus primarily on the key issues, the key concerns and the key amendments.

First of all is the one regarding the composition of regional council. The city of Kanata has not changed the position it took to the Kirby report, which is that we support 18 directly elected regional councillors, the city supports 10 mayors on regional council, all mayors except that of Rockcliffe Park, and a directly elected regional chair. This was a position supported by the residents as well.

Local council: We support the reduction of our council to four councillors plus the mayor. Currently we have six plus the mayor. I want to point out that this is not a position our residents supported. They wanted to have the status quo remain, but council took a counterposition. That was one area where we differed from our residents.

Local wards: This is one we do have some concerns about. Kanata council put forward a resolution that we support the local ward boundaries, as recommended in Katherine Graham's report. We do not support the local boundaries as proposed in Bill 143, and I've given you some reasons for this.

If the purpose of this bill is really focused on regional reform and the creation of regional wards for the newly elected regional councillors, why is the government so insistent on telling the local municipality how local wards should be drawn? The bill has really taken away the right of the local municipality to determine its own local boundaries as it judges to be in the best interests of its constituents.

Bill 143 is imposing local ward boundaries on Kanata that the city of Kanata is opposed to. This bill proposes to create one large ward encompassing the entire north half of the city. The city of Kanata is divided in half by the Queensway, by Highway 417, and under this bill there is a proposal that everything north of the Queensway is one ward. This massive ward is comprised of three very diverse communities of interest. In this ward will be the original community of Beaverbrook, two very large, rapidly expanding new communities, and on top of that a large rural community as well. So you've got a new community, a rural community and the original. Right now these communities make up three wards.

In contrast, the remaining three new wards as proposed by the bill are those that currently exist today. These three wards make up the southern half of the city -- three wards, three communities of interest. Two of these wards are older neighbourhoods where growth has virtually come to a halt. There is some potential but very little. The third ward is one of our most rapidly growing communities in the city of Kanata.

The local wards proposed by Bill 143 create a real imbalance with respect to both rapid population growth in the new areas and the unwieldy size of the northern ward.

The other point we really are concerned about with regard to this bill is in the area of economic development. The city of Kanata does not support the region having exclusive authority to purchase and develop commercial and industrial lands. The city's position is that the bill should be amended to permit local municipalities to continue to purchase and develop commercial and industrial lands. The city of Kanata supports, with qualification, that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton be given primary responsibility for the development and implementation of a comprehensive economic strategy for the region. In this context, what we mean by "primary responsibility" is leadership and coordination, not replacing local activity and initiative.

I understand that earlier today you had before you the chairman of our police services board presenting its position. I added this because I wasn't sure whether that position would be included in the briefing. But it's very important that you understand that Kanata is in a unique position, like Rockcliffe Park, in that the bill is silent on how it deals with municipalities where we are currently paying for OPP police servicing. The bill is silent on that and does create a great concern for us about that. We're also very concerned about the cost impact on the residents of the city of Kanata.

I also have attached some highlighted sections of the bill and the concerns as they relate to our policing service in Kanata. There are two I would like to highlight, one in which the bill refers to dealing with assets and liabilities of police services boards. This certainly leaves Kanata vulnerable, because currently we have no liabilities. The other one, as I've just mentioned, is that the bill does not address municipalities where we're currently paying for OPP services.

I would like to close very briefly. I've had a lot of air time on this issue, as most of you know. I've submitted a lot of material to the minister. I've worked with the other 10 mayors. I won't repeat all the things we have said. What I'd like to say is that what's being proposed here is going to have a very significant impact on local government in this region. Local government is the backbone of this province, and what's being proposed here is to break that backbone. You're taking what's working and breaking it. There is discontent with local government, discontent with provincial and federal government. Instead of looking at what's working and trying to fix what isn't working, what's being proposed here is to destroy what is working, and that's the relationship between the lower and the upper tier, the local government that's in operation here.

I will end on a personal note, and perhaps it's a cynical note. I have been in politics for just two and a half years now. I went into this with all high hopes that within the existing system a person could function and deliver good government. By proposing to change this system to try and create better government, what I'm seeing in the last few months is very concerning to me. What I'm seeing is a lot of individuals who are very eagerly rushing forward to seek a position on regional council, and what I'm seeing is a lot of people who are acting with a great deal of self-interest.

1800

I really want to end with this warning to you. You can have the most beautiful and wonderful system in place, but what it really comes down to is the individuals who are involved and what their intentions are and what it is they're trying to do. It's really foolish to think it's the system that's going to solve things. It's the people who are involved in that system.

I don't want to repeat all the things I've said. What I'd like to do is leave some time for my colleagues, who would like to speak to you on behalf of the business community.

Mr Allan Whitten: I'll just start off by saying that I received a copy of a letter from the chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade representing that their support of the bill was representative of business in Ottawa-Carleton, and I'd like to say that that's not the case. All the other chambers of commerce in the region are against the bill or major elements of the bill. I wrote to Mr Philip and suggested that to him and I think he's got representation from the other chambers as well. The business community in Ottawa is in support of it, but that represents less than half of the population, and the rest of the business organizations are quite solidly against it. I wanted to clarify that.

As a member of the Kirby commission task force, I was fairly satisfied with the compromise that was come up with on local, municipal and regional government, but there are elements of the proposal that are quite unsatisfactory. There's a theory that larger is better, and it's not necessarily better. The regional government can deliver some services efficiently, but as they get more and more services and responsibilities, I think the efficiency decreases. That's a worry here, and the net result under the current proposal would be that costs would go up and not down, as was one of the major objectives of the whole exercise, which has gone on far too long.

There's also an assumption that a large regional government managing Ottawa-Carleton could bring services to the area on a homogeneous basis, and I think it's fair to say that there are services that should differ. Ottawa-Carleton is very diverse and there are a lot of services that may be required by some areas and not by others. The Kirby commission proposals recognized that and I don't think the current proposals do recognize that.

Much has been made of input and the relationship between the governed and the government, and people in Ottawa-Carleton and certainly Kanata value the access they have to their politicians. Quite definitely that's going to be lost, the accountability aspect. Having the mayor on council is very, very important. You've heard that before, but I have to echo that in saying that the mayor can take the views from his or her constituents but also from other council members and the local government as a whole. It's very important that that conduit or that communication be preserved between the people, the local government to the region.

The current proposals are not satisfactory because there won't be that direct communication, and 40,000 people talking to one regional councillor is just too much. You need that direct relationship between the local council and the regional council.

Just to touch briefly on the police aspect, I don't think business is very satisfied with the proposals for regionalizing police. There has been a lot of vandalism and break-ins in Kanata recently, and we'd be concerned that service and coverage would be reduced or lessened rather than improved. Our policing situation is relatively satisfactory. It needs to be improved, but I think there's a concern that it would be lessened.

Economic development in Ottawa-Carleton: To centralize it has some positive elements, but businesses want choices: different locations, different prices, different uses. An AAA business park in downtown Ottawa doesn't necessarily meet the needs of some of the rural businesses that need cheap space and cheap land.

I think choices in economic development and economic development stimuli are very important. One large regional government is unlikely to develop the full range of choices that we now see in the region and in Kanata and some of the areas in the western part of the region. I think it's very important to leave an element of economic development with the local municipality.

Those are all my comments, but I believe my colleagues will have some additional comments.

Mr John Rick: My name is John Rick. As the immediate past president of the chamber of commerce, this is an issue that I've grappled with for about two years. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address you this afternoon with respect to the chamber of commerce's concerns about this bill.

Just so that you're aware, the Kanata Chamber of Commerce is made up of approximately 250 members. There are about 460 or 480 registered businesses in Kanata, and our memberships are privately sponsored and are privately marketed, unlike our colleagues at regional headquarters. The Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp uses a part of its budget to solicit memberships. I believe our organization truly represents those businesses within the city of Kanata. We're proud of the percentage of businesses in Kanata that are members of our organization.

In our view, the proposed legislation is not good for business, and it's not good for business because, first of all, it removes mayors from regional council. I think the fact that we're here this afternoon with Mayor Nicholds is indicative of the fact that we have a relationship with our local council that's the envy of the region. If there's a concern in the city of Kanata with respect to economic development, we can call our mayor and get hold of her. She knows what the issue is and, if it's a particular project, where the project is located, and we can get some response. That's not the case right now with regional government.

Secondly, the proposed legislation provides for election of councillors who would have, the possibility is, no ties whatsoever with the local municipality.

Thirdly, it's possible that the proposed legislation could eliminate the exchange of information from the cities to the region, which we feel would be very detrimental to economic development.

Fourthly, the proposed legislation could create regional wards which don't reflect representation by population and will result in a greater disparity as suburban populations grow.

In the event that you feel that we're here simply to criticize the legislation and say, "It's all bad and we have no other solutions," let me remind you that for the past two and a half or three years the Kanata Chamber of Commerce has been pushing a model for economic development in Ottawa-Carleton which was, by the way, placed before the previous public hearings on regional reform.

That model was one whereby the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp would be responsible for bringing businesses into the region, marketing the region, if you will, but its membership base would be made up of the local chambers of commerce. As a result, the portion of OCEDCo's budget which is used to market memberships to local businesses could be cut and money could be saved. OCEDCo, as a result of tapping into the chamber's network of memberships, would be able to actually expand its membership base while saving money.

Of course, there are things that the local chambers can't do that OCEDCo can do. OCEDCo can market this region outside of Canada and within other provinces; the chambers can't do that. The problem is that there are things that OCEDCo can't do that we can do better. We're in touch with our local members; we know what the local issues are. As a result, we feel that a partnership could be created that will be fiscally responsible and also very beneficial for economic development within the region.

We've been pushing that model for about three years. It was put forward at the Kirby commission and was totally ignored in Mr Kirby's final report. In fact I think his comment in the report was that local business organizations, and particularly the chamber of commerce, were parochial and had absolutely no alternative solutions to offer. Well, we've offered one and nobody has listened.

What we're saying to you is that if we can come up with creative solutions like this for economic development in our region, surely to goodness local politicians can take the existing system and rework it without totally destroying it and make it work better. We hope that what you'll do is instead of destroying the whole system, you'll take the existing system and rework it and remould it. But don't destroy it; make it work better for us and in a fiscally responsible way.

I'd like to defer to my colleague Mr Reiter.

1810

Mr John Reiter: My name is John Reiter. I'm a Kanata businessman and I was also recently a member of the Kanata Business Development Task Force.

Briefly, I would just like to add my opposition to the regional reform as it is now being proposed. The current proposal does not reflect the concerns, feelings and opinions of the majority of those who attended the Kirby commission public meetings last year, where I attended. I believe that regional reform should mean less government.

By implementing the current proposal, you will be enlarging an already unresponsive and unwieldy level of government. At the same time, it will weaken local city government. I feel that local municipalities are the most efficient and the most democratic level of government. In Kanata we're proud of our city government and we demand good government.

I also believe that by removing the mayors from regional council, you are removing direct involvement of local councillors in regional affairs and I oppose this very strongly.

I guess I challenge you in asking you -- nobody has really stated what is wrong with the current regional government as it stands -- why do we have to reform it? Personally, I feel it's working quite adequately, at least for the last three years, and I don't really see why it has to be reformed.

Mr David Johnson: I'd like to thank you, your worship, and the business people for an excellent deputation. It brings back a few memories. We haven't talked about the business community and economic development really quite enough, I think, yet through this process. I can recall local businessmen coming to me when I was mayor with problems involving regional roads or the regional transit system or trying to deal with the regional planning department to give approval to local projects, but they had to comment on it, that sort of thing. There were all sorts of problems that I, as mayor, brought to the regional council to speed up, and I think that's what your colleagues are saying.

I just wondered if you would comment a little more fully in terms of the right that's going to be lost by the city of Kanata to be involved in the purchase and development of commercial and industrial lands. We know how important economic development is to local municipalities. Have you been able to do any forecast with regard to what the impact of that may be on the city in the future?

Ms Nicholds: Actually, that's something I would certainly wonder if our business people would respond to as well. But I guess the key concern is in Kanata, with this current right that we have now, we have created one of the most successful business parks in the entire region and it's literally the engine for high technology in this region. It wouldn't be there if the city of Kanata had not started that business park, and the same with our south business park. Now we're dealing with the heart of our city, trying to develop a town centre, a downtown. If we have to leave it just to chance, will it really happen?

That's the fear I have, that Kanata may never be that sustainable city that I strongly want it to be if its town centre and its viable business central core never gets a chance to start and if the city has no opportunity to kickstart that. So, for me, that could be the future of our city. It may just be another mindless suburb at the edge of Ottawa-Carleton if it never gets to have that heart and that central core.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If I could, to Mr Reiter first, I'm a bit puzzled because, and I've heard this before, at one and the same time you say to members of the committee, "Regional government's working fine," and at the other moment you say to us, "We have an unresponsive regional government." I just wonder whether perhaps you haven't analysed why you think it's unresponsive and perhaps asked yourself the question of whether the structure may have something to do with creating that unresponsiveness.

Mr Reiter: Perhaps we're both right. It is unresponsive, but by making it larger it's going to become more unresponsive, so I say just leave it as it is until we can figure out a better way of reforming it. I think that the municipal government --

Hon Ms Gigantes: How is it larger?

Mr Reiter: By creating a larger bureaucracy., You'll have directly elected councillors, and each would have his own office.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We don't usually call directly elected people a bureaucracy.

Mr Reiter: No, but you will be creating the infrastructure that comes with having directly elected councillors. The thrust will be taking the responsibilities away from the municipality, such as economic development and policing. I think that's making it a larger --

Hon Ms Gigantes: That leads me into my -- oh.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms O'Neill.

Mrs O'Neill: I know your sincerity and I know the time you've spent on this, and I want to acknowledge that you met the challenge of rep by pop and you were the leader in that. Your personal comments are important and should have their due place. I'm glad you made them.

You know and I know that we're up against a very difficult situation here, and at this very last moment I'd like to ask you what you think we can do to fix this bill, because it's likely going through. What are the amendments we should be fighting for?

Ms Nicholds: I certainly feel very strongly, as you know, about having mayors on regional council. I think that is one amendment that must be made to this bill.

I think that what's being proposed, Ottawa-Carleton will be the guinea pig. It's only been tried once before in Canada, where they tried to remove the lower-tier reps from upper-tier council, and it was a disaster; it met disastrous ends. That definitely is going to create a totally unworkable situation, so that one certainly.

I truly also am concerned about the impact of regional policing. That is a concern that's shared around this region and it's one that's on the top of the list in my community, the impact of regional policing and what that will do. Primarily the concern is cost and service and control over our policing in the local community.

Those are two that are right on the top of the list.

Mrs O'Neill: I'm sorry your own member was not here today to hear your comments.

Mr Whitten: Could I add one point in response to Mr Johnson's question about the effect of economic development and the loss of planning? I think there's so much land out there that you have to prioritize what land you develop and what land you encourage.

I would be afraid that the centralization of regional government would concentrate focus and priorities on inner city and priorities and projects inside the greenbelt and would ignore many of the priorities, many of the business parks and economic development issues outside the greenbelt in the outer core.

Someone said that the city of Ottawa's going to control 11 of the 18 wards, and that's a concern. I think right now they're in control of regional council, yet they have less than half the population.

That would be one response, that priorities have to be set and local municipalities can set their own priorities. I believe that some of the priorities would come from the central area that would ignore the outlying areas.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Nicholds, and your co-presenters for bringing your views to this committee this afternoon.

We are adjourned until 9 am tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1819.