Tuesday 24 August 1993

County of Simcoe Act, 1993, Bill 51

Gary Thiess

Township of Mara

Thomas V. Garry, reeve

Frank Mangan, administrator, deputy clerk and treasurer

Colleen Cooney

County of Simcoe Restructuring Committee

Nancy Keefe, chair

Township of Rama

Dan McMillan, deputy reeve

Bill Knowles, councillor

Kelly Clune

Edward Carter

William C. Cooney

William Hodgkinson

Township of Tay Hydro-Electric Commission

Patrick Armstrong, member

Town of Penetanguishene

Robert Klug, mayor

Ray Marchand, Penland Development Inc.

Anita Dubeau, reeve

Midland Police Services Board

J. Douglas Reed, chairman

Larry Hembruff, chief of police

Town of Midland

Edward Symons, mayor

Township of Tay

Jack Hunter, reeve

New Township of Tay

David Walker, councillor

Rowntree Beach Association; Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations

Patricia O'Driscoll, secretary

Township of Tiny

Gail Barrie, councillor

Harry H. Powell

Continued overleaf

Continued from overleaf


*Chair / Président: Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord L)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)

Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC)

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)

*O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L)

*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND)

*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND)

*Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West/-Ouest PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L) for Mrs O'Neill

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Ms Carter

McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mrs Cunningham

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND) for Mr Hope

Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND) for Mr Martin

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ministry of Municipal Affairs:

Griggs, Jeremy, fact-finding officer, municipal boundaries branch

Hayes, Pat, parliamentary assistant to the minister

Temporale, Rick, chief negotiator, municipal boundaries branch

Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Doug

The committee met at 0902 in the Highwayman Inn, Orillia.


Consideration of Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe / Loi concernant la restructuration du comté de Simcoe.

The Chair (Mr Charles Beer): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's the second day of the hearings of the standing committee on social development, today in Orillia. We're very pleased to be here and look forward to our morning of hearings.

I was remiss yesterday, when we were in Midhurst, at the end of our meetings not to officially put on record our thanks to the county of Simcoe for allowing us to use its administrative building, and somewhat belatedly I would like to note that for the record. It was a very good place to hold our meetings, and we're delighted today to be at the Highwayman Inn here in Orillia.


The Chair: We have a full morning of presentations, so we'll move right to our first presenter, Mr Gary Thiess. Mr Thiess, if you'd be good enough to make your presentation and introduce your colleague, please.

Mr Gary Thiess: Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity of being here this morning. If I might, just as a preamble, I feel quite happy that the former reeve of Orillia township, Jack Fountain, has agreed to participate this morning. He was the reeve when I first became a councillor. He first became the reeve of Orillia township and he has 18 years of experience as a member of council and county council in the county of Simcoe.

The Chair: Mr Fountain, welcome to the committee.

Mr Thiess: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to present some views of the disenfranchised 1,100 property owners, 80% of them permanent residents from Eight Mile Point, Forest Home, Bass Lake, Maplewood Parkway and Moon Point associations.

All of these citizens' groups have at one time or another made presentations to the study committees clearly indicating their community of interest, their community of choice. The ministry response was a form letter and no recognition. A case in point: the presentation by the Eight Mile Point Trust and Cottagers Association on August 29, 1990.

If you refer to exhibit 1 in the presentation -- I hope I've marked them just inside the green book -- exhibit 1 was a presentation made on August 29 and recommendation 1 from that submission was that Eight Mile Point should be in one jurisdiction; recommendation 2, that Orillia township should remain as it is.

These recommendations, along with the submission by Orillia township, "though not opposed to the boundary through Bass Lake," drew the committee's attention to the source of the North River, a significant drainage course in Orillia and Matchedash townships in Bass Lake. It was Oro township and the city of Orillia that determined that Bass Lake was an environmentally sensitive body of water.

The lone study committee representative from the northern municipalities, the reeve of Matchedash, reported to her colleagues that Bass Lake's only significance was its provincial park, and when questioned, thought the North River flowed from Matchedash Bay to Bass Lake. When the township of Orillia's submission correctly reversed that information, armed with the recommendations from the Eight Mile Point residents' association, the committee drew the line that enhanced the present Oro-Orillia boundary to reflect the wishes of the resident population and the environmental concerns that might or might not occur on Bass Lake. That is in the green book on page 35, section 2, map 11. That's the line that the initial committee drew.

By the time the next round of public consultations were held, the council of the township of Oro circulated a document which erroneously reported that if the Bass Lake area were to be amalgamated with the township of Orillia, a 24.9% tax increase would occur. They got that information from the draft financial report that was circulated in the early stages. That is exhibit 2 at the back of this submission, "Township of Oro."

By March of 1991, a number of municipalities in the county had serious doubts about the validity of the figures contained in that draft report. Nevertheless, Reeve Drury chose to circulate what we will call, as I said, exhibit 2 to the residents of Bass Lake living in Oro township. Had the report been distributed to Orillia township residents living in Bass Lake, then they, like their counterparts in Eight Mile Point, might have had a true comparison of the current values. It did not happen.

Those residents, mostly from Big Cedar Estates modular home park and a select few from the north shore of Bass Lake, having been recently introduced to market value assessment and faced with a 24% increase, played to Reeve Drury's oratory at county council. County councillors also responded to the promise of defending these residents from the evil city, recently sent away by the county for exercising their ability to control the study committee.

I was elected in November of 1988 to represent ward 3 of Orillia township. Ward 3 surrounds the city of Orillia. It is ward 3 that the city salivates for. We have quiet residential areas, some of them shoreline on Bass Lake and Lake Simcoe on large lots. There is a progressive industrial park that is the model of a municipality working with small dry industries to create jobs and a supporting tax base. Finally, there is a commercial corridor that abuts Highway 11 as it traverses the township.

When the county took over waste management, the only regular service expectation was a modest road that would enable these residents to access other infrequent services and to shop for essentials, probably in Orillia.

There has been a lot of development pressure on ward 3. There could be a lot more pressure, but in the last 24 years the council of the township of Orillia, displaying excellent stewardship, has always held that the city of Orillia should have room to expand its boundaries.

The 24-year period began shortly after a bitterly contested annexation by the then town of Orillia, with promises of such city luxuries as water, sewer and bus service. There are, after 24 years, still significant areas in the city that do not have any of these services.

The realization of what had happened and what could happen led to the formation of the Couchiching area plan, wherein the future growth of the city could be encouraged in that area of Orillia township south of number 12 highway -- that is the Coldwater Road -- and could eventually encompass all of that area that has now been given to the township of Oro-Medonte.


Of course there were strings before country restructuring came along. The city agreed that further expansion would require need and service agreements. For their part, the township agreed to stop any further development in the aforementioned area so that development could occur unencumbered. In 1988, the city of Orillia asked, not demanded or threatened, but asked for 680 acres of land for industrial development.

What eventually ensued was an undisputed agreement whereby the city of Orillia acquired 1,900 acres of prime developable land that, from inception to ministerial approval, took a year, the only stipulation being that "the city was obliged to wait 10 years" -- that is 1999 -- before a further request could be entertained, and again need and ability to service was a requirement.

The current official plan for the township of Orillia, initiated in 1989, has just received ministerial approval in June of this year and so is probably one of the most current in the county. It evolved from the Couchiching area plan wherein the city of Orillia and the townships of Matchedash and Orillia agreed on a number of issues, most importantly, the determination of the development of the city. This was an amicable arrangement until county restructuring. Now Oro-Medonte, without experience of past negotiations, is to be given the land in question, to quote Reeve Drury, "To protect against the advances of the city."

Today, I count myself with the 1,100 residents who have indicated through several referenda that we don't want to live in Oro. We pay our dues to Orillia and enjoy living in Orillia township. Further, Orillia townships's 8,500 residents paid library services to the city to the tune of $145,000 this year. We furthermore contribute to the recreational programs of the city while maintaining a passive recreational outlet for city residents that probably tips the scales in our favour.

A year ago, Mare Brown, in a letter dated March 24, 1992, to Orillia township's clerk-administrator, James B. Mather, indicated that the wishes of 1,100 people lay in the hands of 10 elected officials of Oro-Medonte, and since they were not about to change their position, our request could not be considered. Although not documented, a comment was made by an adviser from the municipal boundaries branch -- by the way, I think that's exhibit 3 in the back of this submission -- that perhaps a million-dollar offer might allow us to buy ourselves back. Now, isn't that incredible?

On another occasion, again undocumented, Orillia township council travelled to Toronto to meet with one of the chief negotiators of the day of municipal boundaries branch, Don Taylor, who was the instrumental architect in the south Simcoe amalgamations. At our suggestion that what was happening to Orillia township was unwarranted and unfair, his retort was, "Gentlemen, decisions like this are made every day; they're made in bars; they're made in parking lots, whatever it takes to get the job done."

I just cannot accept that statement. To suggest that, stripped of most of its industrial and commercial assessment, the remnant township is to be merged with the smallest village and the smallest township in the county whose proud service capability is still 20 years behind present standards, is about as sadistic a move by ministry staff as someone who pulls legs and wings off a fly until it can no longer move.

Finally, I'd like to draw to the committee's attention the present representation aspect of Bill 51. I was elected to represent ward 3 of Orillia township, some 3,000 souls, 1,100 of whom, including myself, are destined to become a part of the township of Oro-Medonte. How about that: resident in one municipality, council representative in another.

Pardon my lack of dedication for not wanting to legitimize the precedent-setting situation. It's only 10 months, you say? Not so. For a year now, since Mare Brown's edict of March 24, 1992, I have experienced the futility of serving with four fellow councillors who are, even now, scrambling to establish control of the assets accumulated by past councils with a very efficient, albeit well-paid, staff who have diligently served this municipality well, ranking fifth-lowest overall in the county in salary and wage expenditures. Their accomplishments are many, and I offer as evidence a ministry publication. It's exhibit 4. We'd stack our administrative costs up against any municipality in the county.

Mr Chairman and committee members, you've heard it all. All I can do is implore you to read again the draft report, pages 60 and 61. That's the green book. Look again at the study committee's guiding principles and the criteria for a viable municipality. I'm not boasting when I say Orillia township has it all. We have more to give than most municipalities and we've offered to share with two of the smallest, and therefore poorest, municipalities in the county.

The thanks we get is dismemberment. The analogy is that the hand that was in our pocket, grabbing for our wallet, tore our leg off. It's no laughing matter. The committee that set out to create 16 relatively equal, strong municipalities has come up short on what could have been a model experiment. The ministry, in concert with those self-serving representatives who exerted their will on their less politically connected neighbours, should be made accountable.

I thank the committee members for giving me this opportunity to appear. How the ministry and the government could arrange this series of meetings at this time has cynicism reigning supreme. My compatriots are all in Hamilton at the AMO convention.

Thank you very much for listening so patiently to this presentation. If there are any questions, I've almost five years of experience since MPP Allan McLean told us at our inauguration that our paths had taken us to a source of education available nowhere else. If you want to test me to see what I have learned in five years, I'd like to show you that my intentions are not politically motivated. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, perhaps I should say for that education. We will go then to questions.

Mr Allan McLean (Simcoe East): I have very brief questions, because this has been an ongoing problem with this part of the municipality. I guess the thing that disturbs me most is the people who lived there had no say whatsoever in where they would like to live. I'm pleased to see your presentation point out that very fact. It shows to me the flaws that have been in the study committee, with not listening to what the people want.

The question that I have for you, Gary, is simply, what can we do now, as a committee, to change the boundary line that has been put there by the study committee? The study committee has agreed to it. The ministry says there will be no major changes; there will be some minor ones. What do we do now, as a committee, to rectify the wrongs that you have pointed out in your brief?

Mr Thiess: In response, I might say -- and I go back to yesterday's submission by John Brown. The futility of this situation, as John indicated, was that as an insignificant number -- our representation at county council was three votes. We have a permanent population of 8,500 people. Our counterparts to the south, Oro township, show a population of over 10,000 people. They had two delegates and five votes. It was very difficult for the reeve of the day to win enough points to secure our presentation.

Tthis is not substantiated in any way, but it almost looked like it was a buyoff. Five votes from Oro township were secured by the dismemberment of Orillia township. That's the flawed process that everybody refers to.


Mr McLean: Probably not all the committee members are aware what the background was that was read to them yesterday by the fact-finder. The point was, with the weighted vote of county council, after the south end had been restructured, the numbers were not there for the majority of municipalities in the north end, who were opposed to it, to have enough votes to stop it in the north end. That is where the problem came in: When you had the weighted vote in the large municipalities in the south, they outvoted the small ones.

Mr Thiess: It's a position that would probably still hold true. Representation by population is recognized as the determining factor as to the number of votes that everybody has. Under normal circumstances, I'm sure that would be satisfactory, but in our particular case, the politics being what it was, if you like, there were points to be gained here.

The Chair: We have time for one more question.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Thank you, Mr Thiess. I just want to ask the parliamentary assistant representing the government whether the government's inclined to correct this wrong or not, given what you've heard this morning.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Actually, as Mr Wilson knows, the procedure is that we do ask the questions of the people making the presentations. However, that's what this committee is here for, to listen to the people. I don't think you've seen this before, that a committee such as this would come out and listen directly to the people for their concerns. We do have a procedure where we'll be going clause by clause to deal with the whole report. At the present time, it would be foolish for me to say, "Yes, we're going to change boundaries here and there." I don't have that authority, and I think Mr Wilson knows that.

Mr Thiess: Again, Mr Hayes, I guess the futility is that we've been listened to many times but we've never, ever received any acknowledgement for our position.

Mr Hayes: Like I just said, this type of committee --

Mr Thiess: We've got 1,100 people who participated.

Mr Hayes: When we talk about restructuring, there has been other restructuring that has taken place over the years across the province. I believe this is the first time that -- and I'm pleased to be here and I'm glad we're able to come and at least listen to the people, to their concerns. That's exactly what we're doing.

The Chair: I'm afraid that because of our time constraints we're going to have to end there, but I want to thank you for coming before the committee and for providing us with all of the background material as well and setting out very clearly what your specific point and issue is.

Mr Thiess: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Mr Jim Wilson: In the interim, perhaps I could make a comment to the parliamentary assistant. I'm not at all pleased with that answer. Mr Hayes, you're the most senior government official here. It strikes me that these hearings -- which, by the way, the government didn't want to have; we had to force you into them -- if they are going to be just a futile exercise --

We've been told for over the last year now that the government isn't inclined to change any boundaries, so why do we have citizens -- by the way, this is their first opportunity to explain first hand to Queen's Park some of the wrongs they feel have been done in this whole process. On Thursday is clause-by-clause. That's two days from now, the last chance to make, as far as I know, any amendments during this process, and we need a better indication from the government whether you're seriously going to consider these presentations or not.

Mr Hayes: I think, Mr Wilson, you're well aware that there were lots of submissions that were made. There were boundary changes that were made and, at the same time, county council has made a decision on this particular issue. I'm not sure whether a provincial government should come in and start just strictly dictating and changing things where a majority of county council has made a decision. But we're certainly willing to look at it through this whole process.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I think we're going to have to move on.

Mr Thiess: One last comment, if I might. If there's a real concern about the change in this, the township of Oro-Medonte doesn't know what it's getting, so they are not going to miss the fact that this area doesn't belong to them. They are both very viable municipalities. They don't need that assessment. It's a shame that Orillia township has to suffer this gross indecency.

The Chair: Thank you again.


The Chair: If I could call on the representatives from the township of Mara: the reeve, Tom Garry, and the treasurer and administrator, Frank Mangan. If you'd be good enough to come forward, gentlemen. We have a copy of your presentation, and once you're settled, please go ahead.

Mr Thomas V. Garry: I'm very pleased to be here this morning and to introduce our administrator and deputy clerk and treasurer of the township of Mara. We're very pleased to be in front of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity of allowing us to make a presentation this morning before the standing committee on social development.

This presentation is made to the committee with respect to Bill 51 to outline concerns of the corporation of the township of Mara with respect to section 43 and to reiterate concerns with sections as previously expressed in submissions made in September 1992. Specifically, the municipality has very grave concerns with respect to section 34, the municipal boundary review, city of Orillia, and subsection 43(20), one vote per member of the transition council.

On behalf of council and the electorate of Mara township, I request that this committee and all persons involved with the legislation give serious consideration to the concerns expressed by this municipality with respect to city boundaries and transition council votes.

The municipality has recently determined that an error exists in subsection 11(15), exception for the township of Mara. It has been determined that the wording of this section should provide that "the township of Mara may, by bylaw passed during 1993," instead of "the township of Ramara," which is stated in the act.

In addition, comment has been provided on the following sections and no responses have been received by this municipality: section 9; subsections 21(1) and (2); subsection 29(2); subsection 43(19); subsections 45(1) and (3). I request that this municipality be provided with responses to the inquiries which will permit restructuring to take place in an orderly manner that will provide everyone with an understanding of the specific sections of the act.

It is believed that these sections will have great long-standing and far-reaching effects on the municipalities created by January 1994 and to continue with duly elected councils from December 1, 1994.

Respectfully submitted. I thank you. Both Mr Mangan and myself will address any questions you might have with respect to our submission and our presentation which you have in front of you, with regard to the sections pointed out.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your submission, which is very specific and detailed and laid out. I don't know if there are any -- Mr McLean?

Mr McLean: Who did you want to receive the response from? Was it from the ministry or from the county restructuring committee?

Mr Garry: From the ministry.


Mr McLean: Have you ever received a response from the ministry with regard to those concerns that you raised on sections 9, 21(1) and (2)?

Mr Garry: No, we've never received a response from the ministry regarding sections 9, 21(1) and (2), 29(2), 43(19), 45(1) and (3), Mr McLean.

Mr McLean: It's in your brief, but you didn't talk about it, and that is section 34, with regard to the boundaries -- "dealt with in an established manner rather than at the discretion of the minister." That has to do with the two cities, your position on that. I want to relay some of the concerns I have, that the cities can apply, under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, to modify their boundaries whenever they want to, to have an arbitrator look into it. Section 34 doesn't stop that from happening. Why do you suppose section 34 is in the act?

Mr Garry: Our position in our municipality is that section 34 should not apply to the township of Ramara, or the township of Mara for that matter, in that we have a natural boundary between the city of Orillia and the township, that being the Narrows, a body of water which can be environmentally unsound to make or take services across the natural boundary and the possibility of the pollution of the headwaters of the Great Lakes by either sewage or other materials which might be carried by pipe over or under the Narrows. I think that's of grave concern and I think the township of Mara, having that natural boundary of the Narrows, should be respected and maintained and not violated.

Mr McLean: What bylaw has the county repealed with regard to the plurality votes? I didn't know they had repealed one.

Mr Garry: Yes, Mr McLean, the county has repealed the plurality of votes on committee, not on county council but in the committees. The county has repealed the plurality of votes on committees whereby each person on a committee has one vote and not a plurality of votes as has been in the past.

Mr McLean: We may not have been here today if that had taken place in county council.

Mr Garry: That's correct.

Mr McLean: Would that be right?

Mr Garry: That is correct.

Mr McLean: So the weighted votes in the south end or with the large municipalities are what carried the -- well, what's going to happen now when your municipalities for the year 1994 with regard to -- I believe the act states that there's one vote for each individual member of council.

Mr Garry: That is how it's stated in the act, Mr McLean. The act states actually that during the pre-election period, we'll have one vote; each member of council will have one vote. At the present time, the five members of council of the township of Mara represents the interests of 10,087 electors and the council of the township of Rama represents 3,160 electors. In accordance with the legislation, during the pre-election period, the five members of Mara township will represent 76% of the electorate and will have only 50% of the vote. Alternatively, five members from Rama township will be representing 24% of the electorate and will have 50% of the vote. It is the position of the township of Mara that weighting all of the votes will reflect the percentage of the electorate being represented and should be permitted during the pre-election period only.

Mr McLean: I guess the bottom line on that is once you're dissolved and the new boundary is in effect, it's all one municipality.

Mr Garry: That's correct.

Mr McLean: Ramara will be one municipality for 1994.

Mr Garry: That is correct.

Mr McLean: So you still want to go by the percentages. If it's one municipality, does it make a difference?

Mr Garry: It was my feeling and the feeling of many others I've spoken to regarding this that the five representatives from Mara township were not elected by the persons or the electorate in Rama township and vice versa, the electorate in Rama township did not elect the representatives in Mara township.

The Chair: I have Mr Wilson, Mr Conway and then the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Jim Wilson: Dr Garry, in section 9, it does contain the word "may," that the county may, by bylaw, allow for plurality votes but doesn't necessarily have to. I gather that's not satisfactory.

Mr Garry: I believe that is the county council "may by bylaw provide that a member who has one or more additional votes in council by virtue of this part shall have the same number of additional votes as a member of any committee."

I think there's some misunderstanding here because that has been provided for by resolution of county council, the date I cannot recall. It was in the spring of this year when we asked for this to be resolved. It was resolved by county council so that now the plurality of votes is with county council and not with the committees thereof.

Mr Jim Wilson: I guess my point is, I understand that, but in the future, should the county want to change that, my reading of this section is that it would allow them by bylaw to do that. Are you objecting to this section being in the bill at all, or would you rather that simply the status quo be maintained, which may mean we just delete this section?

Mr Garry: I believe that this section, all of the bill, should be deleted and that the present situation at Simcoe county should exist.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Chairman, given that we still have a few minutes, I wonder when it's the parliamentary assistant's turn? If he could just go through the other pages of the brief, point by point, that would be very helpful.


The Chair: -- that way you can deal with all the points.

Mr Sean Conway (Renfrew North): Reeve Garry, I very much appreciate your presentation. My friend Mr McLean helps me understand some of the nuances of all of this, which are considerable.

I'm just looking at the first couple of recommendations, and they have to do with this plurality weighted vote. I'm intrigued to know what the thinking is around not allowing the population distribution of the county, which is more or less reflected at county council, to therefore be reflected in the committees. Is that simply because the county council can override whatever the committees refer up, so that the interests of larger municipalities, or the people, as it were, are protected in that respect? It would be unthinkable, for example, at the Legislature to have committees that didn't reflect the distribution of the House as a whole.

Mr Garry: At county council, Mr Conway, it's a little different. At county council, not only do county councillors sit on committees -- for example, I sit on a social services at the county, and also the city of Orillia, for example, sits on that committee and each person on the committee now has one vote.

Prior to that, if a motion were recorded, for example, and the vote was recorded, then the plurality of votes would come into effect. For example, I would have, representing the people of Mara, three votes. The representative from the city of Orillia -- I don't know how many votes he would have because it has never come up.

Mr Conway: Thank you. I appreciate that.


Mr Hayes: Thank you for your presentation. On the issue of the votes, you people asked for an amendment, I think, for the interim councils, like through Al, is that correct?


Mr Hayes: Well, it says it here. It's not this particular council, but there is one. I'm sorry. I think the committee would probably look favourably upon that, so one or two municipalities wouldn't be able to, say, have the hammer over the head of the other municipality. I think this is one of the areas that we'd be looking favourably upon.

The other thing, of course -- section 34 comes up a considerable number of times. I think the more we hear the more we will take a better look at that particular section.

At this time I would like Mr Griggs from the ministry to address some of the issues that were raised about the various sections in the bill that you people have stated you have not got response from the ministry on.

Mr Jeremy Griggs: I just had a question, first of all. In your comments, are you referring to a letter dated October 6, 1992, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs? We received a letter under the signatures of both the township of Mara and the township of Rama commenting on the draft bill that was circulated to the municipalities. In fact, we have on record that a response was sent to both municipalities dated December 14, 1992, addressing all of the concerns raised. I can go through them quickly, if you'd like.

Regarding section 9, which is the plurality of votes at committees of county council, you have indicated that you would prefer that the status quo be maintained; in fact, that's what this does. Section 9 is a continuation of a current provision in the County of Simcoe Act, 1988. The reason it's included in Bill 51 is that it's continuing a section in a bill that's being dissolved. In fact, that bill is being incorporated within this bill.

The section is permissive, as has been indicated. It allows county council the option of passing a bylaw to allow for multiple voting at committees or not. So it's not forcing multiple voting at the committees; it's at the discretion of county council, which is currently the case, as you indicated. They had multiple voting at committees and now they've decided not to. That's not changing.

Regarding section 11(15), thank you very much for pointing out the problem with that section. I should point out that if an amendment is considered, it would likely point to a submission from both councils, not just one of the townships, regarding the bylaw. Would that be acceptable? You had indicated that you would prefer it to have a reference to the township of Mara and, because the amalgamation involves the two municipalities, it would likely require resolutions from both councils.

Mr Garry: I'll have my administrator answer that question for you.

Mr Frank Mangan: I don't think our concern with that section applies to what is desirable or what the two municipalities want. It is impossible for the township of Ramara to pass any bylaw in 1993.

Mr Griggs: Whatever it takes to correct the section.

Mr Mangan: If the section is left that way, it will be impossible to implement --

Mr Griggs: We will likely be bringing forward an amendment to correct that problem.

Regarding subsections 21(1) and (2), this is regarding the treatment of the municipal levies and the county levies. Because the new municipalities will be made up of parts of former municipalities, each assessed at different years, there is a need to provide for the distribution of not only the county levy but also the local levy of that new municipality between those parts. That's what these sections provide for.

In essence, each of the parts of the individual municipalities are treated as municipalities for the purposes of distributing the county levy, the school board levies and the local levies. The reason for that is you have to bring all those parts up to a base assessment year to allow for the distribution of that levy on the basis of assessment. That's what that section accomplishes. That concern was also addressed in the letter that was sent to you.

Mr Mangan: Is it intended that these factors will be changed annually or continuing with the current situation?

Mr Griggs: I just want to take a quick look at this section. I believe the section allows for the minister to set these equalization factor annually, and they do change from year to year because of changes in assessment in those areas, new development and such. So they would be changing annually, and the sections do provide for notification to the municipalities. That's a standard treatment basically to deal with that distribution of the individual levies between the parts of the new municipality. Of course those sections would cease to apply if there was a reassessment in the area bringing the entire municipality up to one base year.

Regarding subsection 29(2) about urban service areas, the draft legislation provides for the establishment of urban service areas by allowing the municipalities to designate urban services. You've indicated sewer and water. There are a number of other services that can be said to apply to a specific area. Examples are sidewalks, street lighting and garbage collection where it only applies to a portion of a municipality. All these things that benefit a specific area could be treated as an urban service and charged to just the ratepayers receiving that service.

Mr Mangan: So you're indicating that our sewer and water service areas have to be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr Griggs: No, I believe it provides for the establishment of urban service areas by --

Mr Mangan: It indicates a municipality may, with the approval of the OMB, by bylaw identify an urban service area.

Mr Griggs: Yes, and also under subsection (4) it allows for the minister to do the same things the Ontario Municipal Board does during 1994. So the idea is that during 1994, that transition year when the interim councils are sitting and the new municipality is getting its new operations into order, the municipality could make a submission and it would be implemented through minister's regulation rather than having to go to the OMB.

Mr Mangan: At present, OMB approval is not required for establishment of these areas. Why is it being implemented in this legislation?

Mr Griggs: I'm going to have to consult with some other staff. I wasn't aware that that was the case.

Mr Conway: We may as well take that as notice, I guess.

The Chair: Could we take that question as notice? If we could do that, we'll get back to you on that. I think if we could just move through the other points, I regret, as always with the number of presenters, we're going to be tight on time. So if there are some that will need some further information, we'll get that.

Mr Griggs: Do you want me to continue?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Griggs: I'll be very brief.

Section 34 Mr Hayes has spoken to regarding the future review of the city's boundaries.

Subsection 43(19): This again was answered in the letter from the minister to both councils. It indicates that the bill sets the latest possible date for the inaugural meeting of the municipality and that the new council would have to be sworn in.

Mr Garry: I don't think the specific questions that we have asked here were addressed in that letter.

Mr Griggs: Well, the questions, as I read them, are: What is the purpose of the first meeting of the council? It would be the same as any other first meeting of a council that's newly elected. Is it an inaugural meeting? The first meeting would be the inaugural meeting of the new municipality, yes, and that council would have to be sworn in at that first meeting.

Again, regarding your concerns with respect to multiple voting on the interim council, Mr Hayes has spoken to that as well.

Again, on subsection 45(3) regarding the treatment of development charges bylaws, I'm going to have to check into that as well and get back to you.

Mr Garry: I'd like to thank you, Mr Chairman, and members of committee for your attentiveness this morning and for the interest you've shown and the questions you've asked. I appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the specifics of your presentation, and I'm sure you'll get a response to that other question you asked.



The Chair: I would now like to ask Ms Colleen Cooney if she would be good enough to come forward.


The Chair: Yes, that's a map of the county. We had people yesterday. We'll move that forward so it'll be easier for us to see it as you speak. Welcome to the committee, Ms Cooney, and please go ahead.

Mrs Colleen Cooney: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee on social development. I would like to start with a quote from the Honourable L.T. Pennell when he said, "Facts are stubborn and will not yield."

The process of restructuring Simcoe county has been anti-democratic and has been flawed from the very beginning.

The consultation committee on the restructuring of Ontario's 26 counties was announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in a previous government in 1988. The Tatham report was produced by a task force of eight members in the Legislature from the same political party.

In late 1989, the first study committee was formed in Simcoe county and was given the mandate "to undertake a comprehensive review of municipal government in the Simcoe area." The amalgamation of eight south Simcoe municipalities into three had been approved by the Legislature in June 1990. The study committee was to consider the restructuring of the north of Simcoe county.

A document named What If... was produced in August 1990. According to Mr Allan McLean, our local MPP, new boundaries were drawn up only two weeks to a month after the committee first began deliberations. The what if had been transformed magically to this is how.

It is apparent that the idea of restructuring was a top-down initiative, not a locally driven initiative. It is apparent that this process is anti-democratic.

Facts are stubborn and they will not yield.

The townships of Simcoe north which are being considered for restructuring were not equally represented on the study committee from the very beginning. Note the map, and you will see, in red dots, the members of the committee coming from the already restructured southern townships, four from the city of Barrie, which is not part of the political structure of Simcoe county, and three from the city of Orillia, which is not part of the political structure of Simcoe county. There was one member from Matchedash to represent the northern communities. Rama township, Mara township, Medonte, Oro, Vespra, Sunnidale, Nottawasaga, Tiny, Tay, did not have a representative. These were the townships being discussed for restructuring.

That is anti-democratic. That is a top-down initiative which we will not accept. This is unfair and unjust. It is apparent again that the restructuring of Simcoe county has not been a locally driven initiative.

Facts are stubborn and will not yield.

I'd like to address the issue of public consultation. It has been our experience that public consultation opportunities and open houses are not meant to glean information from the public but to inform and convince the public. Our letters to the county and provincial leaders have not been taken seriously. Enclosed in my package, which I'll leave with you, is a sample of 12 of the letters we have sent to Premier Bob Rae, to ministers of Municipal Affairs, two of them, and to the local wardens.

The present opportunity of addressing this standing committee after second reading of Bill 51 seems very late in the process to be seeking public opinion. We were given three days' notice to request the opportunity to make a deputation to you and six days to prepare. I received my written information yesterday by Purolator. That's not really seeking public input. As a citizen, I feel insulted.

Real public consultation has already taken place and is being ignored. In the fall of 1991, the electors of Orillia township were given the opportunity of democratically voicing their opinion. On the ballot was the question: "Are you in favour of retaining the present boundaries of the township of Orillia?" The answer? Yes. Of those who voted in the election of 1991, 91.2% said they wished to retain the present boundaries of the township of Orillia. That is one example to illustrate to you a fact: that the citizens of the communities in the north of Simcoe are not being listened to.

Facts are stubborn and will not yield.

We're wondering about a hidden agenda. There has been quite a bit of fast-tracking during this process and final reports which have been kept secret from the public as well as from elected political representatives until after they're voted on at the county council. A draft report which was widely distributed to many of us was greatly changed when the final report appeared for vote at county council.

It seems to many that there is a hidden agenda, and when we look at the greater Toronto area, GTA, and the problems created by Toronto attempting to dump on its rural neighbours, we can only guess what our Simcoe north politicians will be outvoted on in the future if Bill 51 passes.

We were dismayed to read in the initial document, What If..., a brief history of Simcoe county which completely ignores the fact that there is a history in Matchedash, in Rama, in Mara, in Flos, in Tiny and in Tay and that there are people living up there and that there is land north of Simcoe which has many, many people, not just forests and limestone quarries.

We are concerned too about the planning committee which has been developed in the county. Why are politicians who are not part of the county on that committee? Why are not all the townships represented? Does this mean that our local democratically elected representatives will again be outvoted at county council when it comes to decisions about land use, for example?

Not all options for restructuring have been considered. For example, the option of dividing the northern townships from the southern townships into two political units has not been examined or presented to the public.

Facts are stubborn and they will not yield.

We have witnessed the upset which has occurred throughout Simcoe county, particularly in the north, over this restructuring. We have witnessed the speed with which Queen's Park and the politicians of south Simcoe are attempting to bully the politicians and the people in Simcoe north. We have witnessed the valiant struggle of our democratically elected representatives attempting to represent the views of the residents of these northern townships, some of whom are still living on land their ancestors pioneered.

It seems only logical that the only options left for the present are to leave things as they are or to divide Simcoe county into north and south, two political structures.

We refer you to the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Review December 1989: A Reappraisal of the Regional Government Structure. This regional review took two years and cost $250,000. The recommendation of the reappraisal for that area is, "A unitary system of two one-tier structures as a democratically viable, socially acceptable, effective and efficient alternative form of local self-government to meet the challenges of the future in the Haldimand-Norfolk area."


The chair of that review committee, the Honourable L.T. Pennell, writes: "As to change, so much depends on how the issue is raised and when it is raised. Experience admonishes against premature decision. Time is the most decisive element in all phases of government."

Simcoe county is much larger, both geographically and demographically, than is Haldimand-Norfolk. The process which led to Bill 51 was flawed and anti-democratic. Bill 51 is not democratically viable, not socially acceptable and will not lead to an effective or efficient form of local government for north Simcoe. Facts are stubborn and they will not yield. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We will begin questioning.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Ms Cooney, for your presentation. I guess, coming from Toronto, and this being my second day on the hearings, and hearing a number of presenters talk about the plebiscites and referendums that have been held, unless I'm not hearing correctly, it seems that the majority of these plebiscites and referendums came down decisively on the side of not moving forward with restructuring. So I guess my question is, How do we find ourselves here today and where is the hidden agenda and what is the hidden agenda?

Mrs Cooney: I'm not understanding your question. How do we find --

Mr Owens: How do we find ourselves here today? Who moved us forward? Who moved us into the hands of the province?

Mrs Cooney: It was initiated, I guess, as I mentioned earlier, back in 1988 by a task force of politicians, all from the same party. Simcoe county, at Midhurst, apparently initiated an amalgamation of the southern townships and from there proceeded to try to restructure the north against the wishes of the politicians and the people of the north. We can be easily outvoted because of the heavier population in the south. Our opinions and voices are not being heard.

Mr Owens: We've also heard that the status quo is not working in some locations either.

Mrs Cooney: Nothing is ever perfect, but people have been able to get along with one another and work cooperatively up to this point.

Mr Owens: Sure, and my question is not with respect to human relations but in terms of working with other counties. What is the answer if Bill 51 is not the answer and people are saying the status quo is not the answer? What are your suggestions?

Mrs Cooney: I would like to know which people are saying the status quo is not the answer. The people in the south?

Mr Owens: Some of the local politicians that we heard from yesterday in Midhurst.

Mrs Cooney: From which township?

Mr Owens: Springwater.

Mrs Cooney: That's from down near Barrie. We're talking about Matchedash, Orillia, Rama, Mara, Medonte, Tiny and Tay up to the north.

The politicians in the south have different problems than the people in the north. We're very rural. In fact, Matchedash township has a population of about 500. We have summer residents, which brings the population a little higher.

The Chair: I'm afraid we're going to have to move on to the next question.

Mr McLean: Thank you, Colleen, for coming this morning. This is what these hearings were supposed to be about, to hear people such as you who have not been heard through this whole process. When I look at the list of people who are appearing, the majority are from municipal councils or councils that are not happy with what has taken place. The reason why we're here is because we were told, time and time again, that if we didn't do it, the province would.

Yesterday, it came very clearly from the parliamentary assistant that this would not have happened. He said very clearly that the province was not going to do it if the county didn't want it, and the county was very adamantly saying, "We want it because if we don't do it, the province will." So here we are. Where that came from nobody knows. But I've said what you have said in your brief many times, and I thank you for coming today.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mrs Cooney, I want to reiterate what my colleague Mr McLean has said. As you know, I've introduced two private member's bills in the Legislature. Both were defeated by the NDP. Surprisingly, although the Liberals forced restructuring in the south end, where I lived, or was born and raised, in the Alliston area, we had support for those private member's bills from the Liberal party. Again, as Mr McLean said yesterday at the county administrative building, I wanted to clear the air, because we've been told, time and time again -- Mr McLean and I have appeared before county council. We've told county council over the last three years: "We're your MPPs. We don't have a gun to your head. If you decisively say no, you don't want restructuring or you want a greater time frame to ensure that people are truly consulted, that would be fine." Yesterday, the government indicated that this was its position. The Premier was here in Orillia during the 1990 election campaign and said he would never force restructuring on the people of Simcoe county if they didn't want it.

Mrs Cooney: That's why we find it very difficult to understand what's going on.

Mr Jim Wilson: My question to you then is, is county council, as it's currently structured, simply not working in terms of representation?

Mrs Cooney: It's certainly not working for the townships in the north. That is why we may need to look at dividing north and south, because if we can't be represented by the politicians, and we get outvoted and we're being trampled upon, it's only going to make matters a lot worse.

Mr Jim Wilson: Are you of the opinion that the south end, because it was forced to restructure, said, "Since we were forced to restructure, you have to restructure too?"

Mrs Cooney: I don't know what the reason is; I really don't know. But when we look at what's happening with the GTA in Toronto and the rural neighbours, we can suspect what might happen.

Mr Jim Wilson: One last comment: Because my riding encompasses south Simcoe and parts of north Simcoe -- because we do consider Collingwood and Wasaga Beach to be in north Simcoe for government purposes -- I want you to know that not everybody in south Simcoe is trying to bully the north. In fact, politicians from Tottenham and Alliston will tell you that to this day they have nothing good to say about restructuring in the south end.

Mrs Cooney: So why --

Mr Jim Wilson: That's a question we're grappling with. We don't know exactly why.

The Chair: Final question, Mr Conway.

Mr Conway: Thank you, Ms Cooney, for a very lively and focused presentation. I don't know that Larry Pennell has ever had a more enthusiastic supporter in his long public life.

I look at the situation as you describe it and I think there is clearly a fairly substantial body of opinion that would support your contention that a lot of the rural townships, particularly in north Simcoe, have been not very well treated in this whole process and that the status quo may not be all that bad.

I have in front of me, for example, a scathing brief we got yesterday about life and democratic society in Tiny township. Now, if I were to believe what I heard yesterday from the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations. It's just one opinion, but I might conclude that the current state of democratic society in Tiny township, which I believe you would include in north Simcoe -- would that be fair? --

Mrs Cooney: Yes.

Mr Conway: -- is perhaps not as idyllic or as happy as we might be led to believe?

Mrs Cooney: I'm not familiar with Tiny township, but I know that since restructuring has been thrust upon us, there has been a lot of bickering and a lot of upset and a lot of people wondering what the future has in store for them. It seems to have accentuated any problems that have been dealt with in a civilized manner before.

Mr Conway: If you had to choose between the following two options, looking at this from your perspective in north Simcoe: (1) the status quo in some moderately altered form, but very moderately altered form; or, (2) a severing of the county of Simcoe as we now see it into two distinct units, one north, one south, which of those two choices would you personally incline towards?

Mrs Cooney: I would think that nothing should be rushed into, as this restructuring process is being rushed into. I would have to look at them more carefully, but when I hear a recommendation for a smaller political unit to be divided, then I think maybe that has merit here, particularly in the light of the fact that we are very different from the south of Simcoe county, which is so close to Toronto.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Cooney, for coming before the committee and also for bringing your map.



The Chair: Mr McLean, I'll just call the County of Simcoe Restructuring Committee, the chairperson, Ms Nancy Keefe.

Mr McLean: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: Mr Owens said that Springwater said that the status quo was not acceptable. For the record, I've been informed by the administrator of Springwater that they did not say that and that the status quo would have been acceptable.

The Chair: Welcome to the committee, Ms Keefe. Once you're settled, please go ahead with your presentation.


The Chair: Order, please. We're here to listen to the representatives.

Ms Nancy Keefe: I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee. We thank you for coming to our area in our beautiful Simcoe county. I am not here to in any way discuss with you the questions or the input from other people; I'm here to support the presentation of our restructuring study report to the ministry.

I thought maybe I'd just read this whole book to you; this is the executive summary.

The Chair: The executive summary?

Ms Keefe: No, I'm just being facetious. This happens to be the whole proceedings of county council when I was the warden of the county. Certainly, Al McLean would be quite familiar with that, because I'm sure he has one in his own library.

In June 1989 Simcoe county council initiated a study of the county of Simcoe to consider reorganization of the county structure in order to ensure that the system is fair both in terms of representation and providing services and that the county and its local governments are strong and effective now and for the future.

The study committee developed the terms of reference and a mission statement. Extensive public consultation and individual meetings with the local municipalities on three separate occasions provided valuable input into the study in the final report.

The final report was distributed on June 28, 1991, and on July 16 the county of Simcoe voted on the recommendations. I might tell you that each recommendation was voted on separately. It took two 12-hour days to do that. It was an extensive input, if you will, a debate on the floor. I believe that it was probably one of the most lengthily debated subjects in the history of Simcoe county, the final report of the study committee and county council's recommendations with respect to the final report and any additional documentation considered appropriate. Interested parties, municipalities and public, had three months, until October 16, 1991, to send comments directly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. People could also send copies to the county of Simcoe, which we received.

Most of the research undertaken in the first six months of the study related to the issues and their implications for service provision. The environment was discussed, the financial, the boundaries and sustainable development and seasonal residents, and we had priorities identified. I do not wish at this point to go any further into the report, because you certainly have it at hand. It's important for Simcoe county to be a viable county so that it may be able to compete in the economic world, not only for the economic-industrial aspect, the tourist aspect, but for the people themselves.

So I would conclude. I would just like at this time to say, I guess like some of the politicians who are sitting at this table, around as a group, I have been in local politics since 1979. I deliberately came here today to not be in my own municipality, because I am not waving the flag for anything other than the Simcoe county study for the whole of Simcoe county.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Waters.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Nancy, nice to see you.

Ms Keefe: I'm not sure it's nice to be here, but --

Mr Waters: Well, I think we all have other things that we'd probably like to do off and on. I know that you've been part of the Simcoe county restructuring ever since it started and you've been very active. I know that probably better than other people around the room from our conversations, both formal and informal. But I've heard a lot about these votes and about the north being opposed to restructuring. It's my understanding that from in particular the last vote, indeed a number of the representatives of the north voted for restructuring, if you could expand on that, because I think there are some misconceptions out there.

Ms Keefe: I do believe that when we're talking about voting, it's not like some levels of government where you don't have free-will votes. We always have free-will votes. You're free to do and vote any way you wish to vote. Yes, there were in the north people who in fact voted in favour. Now, if you are aware, the first vote, those two 12-hour days that we did were favourable. We then were asked by county council if they could, to reassure themselves, have another vote. We had that vote and it came more in favour of restructuring. So when I say that, there was every opportunity for the county council to make their second decision on how they wanted to vote.

I've heard discussion today on the plurality vote. Al McLean was the warden of Simcoe county. We've always had plurality votes. As a warden, if you were unhappy with that then -- and I'm with you as a warden -- we should have been discussing that and making some decision on it. This is in fact the first time I have ever heard a discussion on the plurality vote because of the issue, and I believe that if the decision, if you would, should come out of the act, should come to the county to make that decision, I could live with that.

Mr Waters: Going along with the restructuring, do you feel that the basis of Bill 51 is good? It's my understanding the county sort of set down the guidelines for that.

Ms Keefe: Yes, I do.

Mr Waters: And things like section 34, there's been much discussion; in fact, I believe Mayor Laking indicated yesterday that it wouldn't be the end of the world if that were to disappear from the bill. So with some minor amendments like that, do you think it will work for north Simcoe?

Ms Keefe: I must say that I really am disturbed when I think about ever even thinking of splitting the county into north and south. I have a lot of difficulty with that, because once that happens, if it ever happens, the county will become -- our heritage will be as if somebody took a great swath right through the centre of it and separated us from each other. Simcoe county has a wonderful heritage, and the protection of our county is what I think this is about. It's the protection and the ability to be able to say to big, ugly Toronto, the GTA, that in fact we are viable and we are strong and we do have our principles and we do have our economic balance. That is why I would never want to see that happen.


Mr Waters: Can I have just one very quick one? I've been a good boy for two days now. The very quick question is this, Nancy: The fact that we have had Bill 51 and the second reading and it's out in committee, and maybe to the public it's been a hurried process, but in your opinion, is that being driven by the county and the representatives of the people at the county level or is it being driven by MMA?

Ms Keefe: Let me make it abundantly clear. This is Simcoe county's study. We own it, we voted on it, we accepted it and we passed it on to the province. That is a fact. Never, in my opinion, will anybody, provincially or federally or anybody else, ever be able to say that this is not our study. We wanted it and we went through the agonies and the joys of getting it ready to be sent on.

The Chair: I have Mr Conway, Mr Wilson and the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and thank you, Ms Keefe. I have some hopefully quick, pointed questions. Matchedash and the new town of Tecumseth, how much in common do they have any more?

Ms Keefe: In common?

Mr Conway: I just ask the question because I see big, bad Toronto sprawling up, and what I used to know as rural south Simcoe is now looking more and more like it, you know.

Ms Keefe: We will always be rural, with a small scattering of towns, which are not very many, to supply the needs and services, the libraries, schools, the higher levels of education. We will always be that. I'm trying my best right now not to be parochial, because my municipality is in the north. I think that our strengths, in joining together in smaller units, will help us to be able to remain that rural.

Mr Conway: What do you say to people like Mr Thiess, a resident of Orillia township who was here this morning and who made quite a strong argument about his unhappiness with the way in which the boundary line was drawn to take that portion of Orillia township and tack it on to Oro-Medonte -- what I think he said, and I don't want to misrepresent him, but he left me with the impression -- for no apparent reason, for no good reason.

Ms Keefe: In the process, if there was to be discussion with any boundary change, it was to be between the municipalities that were affected. So in their wisdom, if they couldn't come to a conclusion, then it wouldn't happen. So we did not enter into that.

Mr Conway: Ms Cooney just finished telling us in pretty direct tones that, in a way, the whole thing was cooked against many of the rural northern townships because when you look at who the county put on the committee, there weren't very many representatives, if any, from a number of those townships that are going to be very severely affected as a result of Bill 51.

Ms Keefe: I did not sit on the study committee until I became warden of the county. I must tell you that I sat in 90%, if not more, of those meetings as an observer. When I became the warden of the county, I automatically went on the committee and then became the chairman. I don't feel that there was any problem with the makeup of the committee. It was voted on and accepted. The only person who was appointed was the warden of the county.

Mr Conway: A final point that was raised yesterday by a number of presenters might be passing strange: that the cities of Orillia and Barrie were uninvited or allowed to leave the scene, as it were, as the process developed. Do you have any comment about how we can be looking at any kind of restructuring of Simcoe county that does not involve, to a greater degree than this process apparently did, Barrie and Orillia?

Ms Keefe: I think the cities of Barrie and Orillia in fact will eventually resolve their problems with respect to their needs. I wasn't on the committee at that time but it became bogged down, and again the weight, if you will, or the numbers sitting on that committee -- it was felt that it was better for us, as Simcoe county people, to design our own destiny, and so they were asked to --

The Chair: Mr Wilson.

Mr Jim Wilson: Nancy, I want to thank you for appearing before the committee and I want to say in a preamble that I truly respect you as a politician. You're one of the politicians who has been absolutely consistent with respect to restructuring. We may not agree --

Ms Keefe: That's right.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- on all of the points, but I do want to say that for the public record.

Secondly, I want to say that I agree with you with respect to your comments that never should we allow a north-south split. I don't see that as a solution to our problems, mainly because I have a riding that encompasses a bit of the north and a bit of the south and I would not want to see it split.

You did mention you've been in politics since 1979. As you know, one of the complaints we've had has been about the process of restructuring. I guess I feel, as a provincial politician, because the final responsibility does lie with the Legislature to pass this legislation, that people very much feel disenfranchised from this process, they very much feel left out and they come to our offices often complaining that they can't or don't seem to have their views heard at the county level within the current structure of county government.

I'm just wondering, in the form of a question, why do people feel that way? You, in your brief presentation today, indicated some of the process. There have been public meetings but none the less people don't feel they've been heard. I want to give you the opportunity to explain how you view things at this point.

Ms Keefe: I really can't help you with the flood of correspondence or comments that you get. You'll know that local politicians and local people, if they feel that the next level of government is where they need to be -- and I myself would crank on you as hard as I could if I wanted to get something done. I think that's the process we go through and I think it's something that we are able to -- the freedom of being able to do that. The frustrations lead you to these things and everybody's at liberty to do that.

As I say, in our democratic way, and let it never happen that it ever gets changed, we can go close to our provincial people. We have always been able to pick up the phone and call anybody in the provincial government and talk to them. If that ever gets shut down we're in big trouble. The same thing happens at the county level. But when you consider the makeup of a county council, of busy people who have livelihoods, their municipal politics and their county politics, it does take a lot of time. So this is one of the reasons why I think your door is always open, and my door is always open. That's why that happens. We appreciate the fact that this can happen.

Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate it too, but you mentioned that county councillors are quite busy with the other responsibilities they also have to their own areas, the municipal councils and their livelihoods. It strikes me, though, that perhaps it runs counter to restructuring because we're giving more responsibility to county councillors. I think it's why the term "regional government" comes up from time to time, because people envision in the future that there will have to be a larger bureaucracy to deal with some of the new responsibilities that are being downloaded on to --

Ms Keefe: I think what you're going to find out in due course is that you'll get a different kind of politician who will have responsibility for the county that will make him or her much more responsible to the activities of the day in the county. This is what I believe it's about.

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you. That's helpful.


Mr Hayes: Ms Keefe, thank you for coming before the committee. There have been statements made here in this committee in regard to the province holding a gun to the people on county council, but of course no one has been able to really back that up or prove that that's been so. But do you at any time feel that the province has come to county council and said, "If you don't go through with this restructuring" -- you know, you felt like you had the gun to your head, that you were forced to do it? This is what we are being told.

Ms Keefe: Are you asking me if I said that?

Mr Hayes: No, I'm not asking you if you said that. There are members of this committee who have made that statement. They said that others have said that to them.

Ms Keefe: Well, I've never said it. I have never said it and I do not use loose sayings when I'm in my political life.

Mr Hayes: I'm sorry, Ms Keefe. I'm not suggesting that you said it. There are members of this particular committee who have said that they were being told by other politicians -- I'm not suggesting that you said it -- that the gun was put to their head and they had to go through with this restructuring.

Ms Keefe: Mr Hayes, I'm really mystified when you would ask me that question, because I don't know what other people say, but I know I didn't say it, and I will also tell you --

Mr Hayes: Okay, I --

Ms Keefe: I mean, I'm really upset about that question. I'm sorry. But I will assure you that I did not say it nor have I ever heard it said.

Mr Hayes: No, I didn't suggest that you have said it. But did the committee ever feel that it would be restructured whether the county wanted the restructuring or not? I guess I would put it that way.

Ms Keefe: I think where that whole issue got off the rails is from the south end. I was on county council when that happened. That may have then happened there, but it certainly did not happen, as far as I am concerned, in my term as chairman. And I must say, recognizing of course that three governments -- it's been a long process. We've been through three governments with this project.

Mr Hayes: There's been a lot of talk also about the south Simcoe restructuring. There are people saying that we can't show whether there was any benefit to it, if it costs the people more. There are people saying that after the south Simcoe restructuring there was no -- really, it doesn't prove that there are any benefits or it's going to cost people more. Could you relate to that?

Ms Keefe: I guess my professional life, in my other life besides politics before I retired from it, in economic development, told me -- in economic development and in my career -- that in fact what we were doing was the right thing for us to do. I believe that my educational background, my life for 20 years in economic development, prepared me well for working on this project, and I believe it's the right thing to do.

Mr Hayes: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming before the committee this morning. We appreciate it.

Ms Keefe: Thank you. It's my pleasure.


The Chair: If I could then call upon the deputy reeve of the township of Rama, Mr Dan McMillan, who is the next presenter. Mr McMillan, we have received a copy of your brief. Please get some water, and once you're all set, if you'd be good enough just to introduce your colleagues and take time to get settled. We welcome you all to the committee this morning and appreciate your coming.

Mr Dan McMillan: My name is Dan McMillan, deputy reeve for the township of Rama, and a member of the transition committee for the new township of Ramara. The committee is comprised of all members of council representing both the Rama and Mara townships. I am here as a representative of Rama council, accompanied by Councillor Bill Knowles, Councillor Kathyann Johnston and Clerk Bonnie Yateman.

I wish to address the proposed amalgamation between the townships of Rama and Mara and some of the concerns which our council wishes to express to you and others which have been expressed here today; examples, general comments, section 34 and section 43.

The township of Rama, from the start of this process, has requested status quo for our municipality. In 1991, in Rama township, a referendum was put on the ballot asking the question, "Are you in favour of boundary changes combining the townships of Rama and Mara and the form of regional government proposed by the county of Simcoe restructuring committee?" with approximately 90% of the electorate voting no.

Approximately 20 years ago, Rama and Mara townships were members of Ontario county when it was being restructured and called regional government. At this time, Rama and Mara opted out of Ontario county and became part of Simcoe county. As we can see from hindsight, this was a very clever political and financial move for the ratepayers of both Rama and Mara townships. This has proven once again that bigger is not always better.

However, when it became apparent that this status quo was not an option, the council for the township of Rama worked diligently towards creating a well-positioned and workable environment for the new township of Ramara.

The financial impact of this process has never been clearly defined to this municipality. In the early stages of the process, it was indicated that the property taxes in Rama township would decrease by approximately 3% and Mara's taxes would increase by about 1%. In the spring of 1993, we were told the opposite by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and that further information would follow to explain this. No explanation has been received at the present time.

On section 34: The council of the township of Rama feels that section 34 should be deleted from the bill, as this is already covered under present legislation.

Reeve Tom Garry of Mara township spoke to you earlier today about subsection 43(20), one vote only, and Mara township's concern over the effects of this section. The township of Rama was never advised of Mara's request for a plurality of votes and feels very strongly that when January 1, 1994, arrives and the corporations of the township of Rama and the township of Mara are dissolved and the new municipality is formed, all council members will be there for the representation of all the ratepayers as a whole in the new municipality of Ramara, not just, as Reeve Garry indicated, 10,087 electors from Mara and 3,160 electors from Rama.

I would also like to point out to the committee that the total number of electors from Mara township includes approximately 4,300 electors in one time-share facility, who only have ownership for a specified limited period of time each year. These people do, however, have the right to vote in the municipal election.

In previous discussions with Mara township, it has been ascertained that in the past two elections, only approximately six of the time-share electors in total have voted in both elections. This was discussed in great detail and reflected in the ward boundary determinations. Due to the fact that about a third of the total electors of the new municipality of Ramara will be represented by these time-share persons, any reference to percentages of eligible electors is grossly misleading.

The transition committee for the township of Ramara has worked under the one-vote-per-member rule from the onset of the meetings, which have been going on for approximately 20 months. In that time frame, we have made the following progress: the name of the new municipality with public input, the organizational structure, all staffing of the new municipality, ward boundaries, administration facilities and locations, major expenditures, quotations for outside services have been called, and integration of all township departments.

Although the transition committee has no legal status, the council of the township of Rama has adopted the proceedings of the transition committee as the proceedings of Rama council, although this has not been done by our counterparts in Mara. What will happen to all the decisions and accomplishments which have already been made under this approach if the legislation is passed allowing weighted votes?

The transition committee has followed provincial guidelines in Making It Work and has made some very crucial decisions, some of them not popular with some members of staff. The general ratepayers appear to have no problem with the decisions as made.

All through this process, the transition committee has compared this amalgamation between the two townships as a marriage, with the shotgun wedding set for January 1, 1994. If one half of the marriage has more say than the other, then it is impossible for it to work.


In closing, the members of the township of Rama council and future members of Ramara council feel very strongly that all ratepayers must be represented equally by the new 10-member council in the pre-election period, and any variation from the one vote per member of council during the pre-election period is totally unacceptable.

Myself and my members of council feel very offended by the remark that Mr Hayes made earlier, the statement that the committee would look favourably on plurality votes. Thank you for allowing me to make these comments.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll begin questioning with Mr Conway.

Mr Conway: Thank you, Mr McMillan and colleagues. It sounds like Ann Landers may be busy for the next little while around parts of Simcoe county, because this marriage looks promising but not entirely without stress.

I want to just look at your submission at the bottom of page 10 and 11, "We have made the following progress," that list of items. It does appear that a lot of good work has been done here. I'm not from anywhere near Simcoe county. I come from Renfrew, which is a big rural county -- more rural, certainly, than most of Simcoe, and certainly not as well-off.

I'm interested just from the point of view of the average citizen now looking at -- this is, I think, one of the very few presentations we've had that's been as specific as you have about the work that you have done together as two municipal corporations coming together as now the new township of Ramara.

So I'm a citizen and I live in either one of the old townships of Rama and Mara and I'm probably listening and hearing, "All right, so we're going to have a reorganization and we're going to streamline government." The impetus for that probably is coming more from someplace else than it is from the local community, but we understand; we've been through some of this before. So it's 1993 and I'm a bit concerned -- I'm more; I'm very sensitive and concerned about costs and bureaucratic structures and everything else. If I went to the inaugural meeting or I just went to a meeting today down in what is to be the new Ramara and said, "So explain to me what you've done" -- you had two structures, presumably; you had two municipal organizations. Let's just look at the one, staffing. What have you done? Is there any kind of reduction, or has there just been kind of a fusing of everything that's there?"

Mr McMillan: On the staffing issue, all our departments are set up. The structure is in place. The department heads are all in place and they're in the process of getting their support staff in place at the current time.

Mr Conway: Let me be more specific than that. You both have municipal offices.

Mr McMillan: Correct.

Mr Conway: So let's say today if I take the two budgets for running just the municipal offices in Rama and Mara. Let's just say, for the sake of argument -- this may not be at all accurate -- that those budgets are, say, half a million dollars each. That won't even be close, but let's say they are. If you put them together today, those costs are, say, $1 million. Under the plan that you've worked out, say six months, let's say in June 1994, will the costs for those same services in the new township of Ramara be $1 million? Will it be $900,000? Will it be maybe $1.2 million?

Mr McMillan: That's unknown to us at this point in time.

Mr Conway: Guess.

Mr McMillan: What it's going to cost in the near future is still under -- as the fact-finder said yesterday in his opening speech, we would not reap any benefits for three or four years of restructuring. It's going to cost money for that.

Mr Conway: I understand that, but I want to you now to guess. Guessing in your business is probably very dangerous because you're all, I think, elected officials. But you see my point. I'm just a citizen and I live in one of your townships. I'm just looking at, this is all good work, so I wonder, is this going to save me any money? Is it going to cost me? In the new township of Ramara, am I going to end up with a lot of layering that wasn't there before and that is going to drive, say, the per-unit administrative cost in the new Ramara well above what, let's say, the costs were separately in the two previous townships?

Mr McMillan: I would say that it would go up, would increase. As is indicated by the MMA, Rama's percentage of taxes would go up by 1%.

Mr Conway: You've got two clerks presumably, right?

Mr McMillan: Correct.

Mr Conway: So what's the agreement for the new Ramara? Do you still have two clerks? Do you have a head clerk and a deputy clerk?

Mr McMillan: We have the department heads in place. We have a clerk, deputy clerk, treasurer. All the staffing is placed for department heads. That is agreed by the transition committee, even though we have no legal status.

Mr Conway: But you've now got a clerk in Mara and a clerk in Rama, right?

Mr McMillan: Correct. Mara has an administrator.

Mr Conway: All right, whatever. Have you decided what you're going to do with -- in my experience in government, and I've been around the Legislature for 18 years, these are the things that just keep you up at night and cost more money than most people could ever imagine. You've got two people all through this thing doing this. You're bringing them together. My experience is that you end up with two people, that you don't ever end up with one.

Mr McMillan: There has been no reduction of staff in the staffing of the new municipality.

Mr McLean: Is there going to be a new office building?

Mr McMillan: Not at the present time. We have secured a land option from the county for some land for a new administration building some time in the future. At the present time, we'll be using Mara's present facilities, from January 1, 1994.

Mr McLean: So in the future you'll be able to tell the people their taxes will be lowered.

Mr McMillan: Pardon?

Mr McLean: In the future you'll be telling the people their taxes are going to go down because you're building a new administration building, right?

What do you have to comment on with regard to, you said there are 4,300 people who live in Lagoon City. Is that part of Mara's population?

Mr McMillan: Yes, it's considered part of their electorate. It's a time-share facility.

Mr McLean: Did you indicate somewhere here there are only six votes, or 6% of them voted?

Mr McMillan: No, there were only six votes in the last two elections. We were given that information when we were drawing the ward boundaries. It's a time-share facility.

Mr Conway: Can I ask a supplementary on that, Al?

Mr McLean: Yes.

Mr Conway: The population stats that we got from one of the presenters yesterday shows the township of Mara in 1988, the data, 4,226. Is Lagoon City -- I'm just trying to understand how many --

Mr McMillan: I think that's permanent residents.

Mr Conway: All right, permanent residents.

Mr McLean: You've heard some of the people here this morning talking about what's gone on with regard to the county restructuring. It was indicated, and the parliamentary assistant was trying to bring it out with Ms Keefe the last time, that maybe the wording has been changed, but some of us had heard from people who had indicated that if the county didn't restructure, the province would. Did you ever hear those remarks made?

Mr McMillan: Not specifically, but indirectly, yes, that it would happen the same with south Simcoe.

Mr McLean: Do you have any idea where they came from? Nobody seems to know who started them.

Mr McMillan: No.

Mr Bill Knowles: Rumours that float. You just hear them. I've heard them lots of times.

Mr McLean: Anyhow, I'm not so sure what -- go ahead.

The Chair: We'll move on then to Mr Wessenger.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): Thank you for your presentation. I'd just like to get some information about Rama and Mara. Is it fair to say that this new municipality will not have very much in the way of commercial or industrial assessment?

Mr McMillan: Percentagewise, very low, yes.

Mr Wessenger: So this is really basically a pure rural municipality. What I'd like to ask you is that we've heard presentations sometimes by other presenters saying that municipalities are not viable unless they have an urban centre, unless they have commercial and industrial assessment. I'd like you to comment on it. Do you believe that's true, that all municipalities, to be viable, should have a certain amount of industrial and commercial development? Do you feel that about your own municipality?

Mr McMillan: That we should have it?

Mr Wessenger: Yes.

Mr McMillan: Definitely we should have a certain percentage of it to make it viable. We have functioned in the past. Rama and Mara have both functioned in the past.


Mr Wessenger: But you don't have enough at the moment. Do you have enough of that assessment at the moment to consider yourselves economically viable?

Mr McMillan: We have enough to survive.

Mr Wessenger: You have enough to survive. You indicated about the electors in the Mara situation being sort of substantially overinflated by using the time-share provisions. I certainly think that's a valid point. I'd just like to ask, would many of your electors be, say, cottagers and so forth?

Mr McMillan: About 45% of our people are seasonal people.

Mr Wessenger: Would that be the same in Mara too, do you know?

Mr McMillan: I'm not exactly sure of their percentage. A certain percentage, I'd say so.

Mr Wessenger: In determining your ward boundaries, did you look at permanent residents as sort of the basis for determining those ward boundaries?

Mr McMillan: All electors.

Mr Wessenger: You looked at all electors?

Mr McMillan: Yes. In the new ward boundaries, approximately two of the wards will comprise about 60% of the new municipality.

Mr Hayes: I'd like to get Mr Griggs to clarify the issue dealing with the interim councils on the voting for you, if you don't mind.

Mr Griggs: I just want to point out that if there is an amendment carried forward for multiple voting at the interim councils, it would be based on the number of electors, not on population, as it is with the county council multiple voting system. So where you have a concern that your seasonal residents wouldn't be taken into account, because it would be based on electors, as your wards are, it would reflect that in the multiple voting. It would be based on electors, not permanent residents.

Mr McMillan: I can understand, maybe, your position if there are three municipalities or more going in, but if we have two municipalities joined here, to give one more votes than the other just because -- at the inaugural meeting, when we are sworn in for the new township, we'll take an oath to uphold the statute law of the province of Ontario, and that is to represent the corporation of the township of Ramara, not just certain percentages of it

Mr Conway: Can I understand something on that point? Just forget all the seasonal stuff. I'm just looking now at these two: Mara and Rama. It's roughly three to one --

Mr McMillan: Correct.

Mr Conway: -- Mara having three times as many permanent residents as Rama. What I hear you saying is that you really do not want, under any conditions, an interim arrangement for the new, that is the first year, the transitional year, 1994. You want no part of it and would strongly recommend against this committee recommending anything that gives a weighted vote for that first year for the new township of Ramara, right?

Mr McMillan: That's correct. We worked for 20 months as a transition committee on the rule of one vote, one member. If all that is changed, where you have a plurality of votes for the township of Mara, all that 20 months of work is thrown out the window.

Mr Conway: For those of us who are sort of neophytes in this, the concern is that this transitional structure with the weighted vote might allow some people to sort of cook the books -- not cook the books; I take that back -- to organize things in a way --

Mr McMillan: Definitely.

Mr Conway: -- that might just -- organize it in a certain kind of way. That's the concern, right?

Mr McMillan: Correct.

Mr Conway: All right. I wanted to be clear on that.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming before the committee. The Chair normally can't ever say anything, but as you're from Rama, I just want to note that my great-uncle for many years, his name was Bob Morton, ran the general store in Longford Mills. As a kid, I think that was the most incredible, wonderful, marvellous place that anybody could every have.

Mr McMillan: It still is.

The Chair: I just wanted to say that, having the representatives from Rama here. Thank you for coming.


The Chair: Our next witness is Kelly Clune. Welcome to the committee, Ms Clune. Please make yourself comfortable and go ahead with your presentation.

Ms Kelly Clune: I guess I should say at first, because I've heard some concerns from people living outside the city of Orillia, that this meeting is being held in the city of Orillia and it's in reference to restructuring, and there was some concern about that fact: Why wasn't it held elsewhere? I just thought I'd throw that out. It's a very interesting point.

My presentation focuses primarily on how restructuring affects waste management in Simcoe county. It seems that some people are convinced that by centralizing the control of programs in Simcoe county money will eventually be saved. So far, a great deal of time and money has been spent on the restructuring process, while many programs and services in the county are unattended to or left to deteriorate.

The fact that the restructuring process in itself is flawed is one thing, but considering that nine municipalities and their residents were opposed to restructuring, this is significant. In this time of economic restraint, we cannot be wasting our tax dollars on something people do not want or do not need.

The nine municipalities opposed to restructuring reside in Simcoe north. South Simcoe, then, is virtually restructuring the north. In the voting process on county council, the south can outvote the north due to its heavier population. This means that not only could we see proposals for quarries in north Simcoe being passed, but since Simcoe county was the first county to accept Bill 201, which gives the county the right to assume responsibility for garbage for the entire county, we could also see proposals being accepted to fill those empty quarries with waste from the entire county, and with free trade, who knows where the waste may come from next?

The county has already developed a costly compensation policy to determine new locations for landfills. North Simcoe, being less populated, will undoubtedly be determined a prime location.

Since the county took over waste management, we have seen millions of dollars spent and layers of bureaucracy built with little or no services extended in terms of educating the public on reduction of waste or offering reuse and recycling alternatives. The emphasis has been on disposal.

Ontario has a waste crisis. We must get away from focusing on disposal and concentrate on reducing, reusing, recycling and composting. People need alternatives to disposing of waste. They need to be taught how to reduce their waste and how to participate in the programs that are available, but few diversion programs exist and no education has been done in terms of waste reduction.

Imagine how much further ahead we would be in solving our waste crisis if the money spent on this restructuring process had been allocated to waste reduction and diversion.

By centralizing waste management we take the problem further away from the people. The only hope we have in solving the waste crisis is to involve people.

Municipalities must take responsibility for their own waste. By keeping it local and keeping it small the problem is far more manageable. We have seen Metro Toronto's garbage problem grow to insurmountable proportions. The crisis must now be solved with Band-Aid solutions which are not only unacceptable to those less populated areas being dumped on, but more importantly, the solutions to the crisis will only prove to develop costly problems in the future in terms of health problems and environmental damage.

Although the city of Orillia has a representative on the county's waste management master plan steering committee, the city is not even politically part of the county. Knowing that only three years ago, Orillia representatives were prepared to sign a deal with a large incinerator company to deal with Metro Toronto's garbage makes people very nervous about this setup.

As with the city of Orillia's consideration for a massive municipal waste incinerator, the primary concern with the restructuring of Simcoe county appears to be economics, but our future economic situation depends on a healthy environment; therefore, the priority must be environment.


As municipalities become responsible for their own waste, they will create local jobs while they protect the environment. They will realize that what was previously considered garbage is actually a useful resource which, when properly managed, provides jobs and revenues.

Municipalities working together can coordinate diversion strategies and determine materials which create environmental and financial difficulties, and they will work together to find alternatives or they will work together with other levels of government to ensure that those hard-to-deal-with products are eliminated.

The restructuring process to date has done nothing to help municipalities work together but has pitted them against one another. We now see municipalities scrambling to get a piece of the pie. The restructuring process will take away the voice of the local people. It's corrupt and it's undemocratic. Restructuring of Simcoe county has been a costly mistake and should end now.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Are there any questions? Mr Conway.

Mr Conway: Thank you, Ms Clune, for your submission. I think you make some very telling points around a key issue that I see is putting an enormous pressure on municipalities and citizens everywhere in terms of their governmental structures at the municipal and perhaps even at the provincial level, because in my area, the county of Renfrew, 36 municipalities, many of them very rural, the thing that's killing them is the cost of waste management. I accept a lot of the criticism that you've levelled and I suppose one of the questions I have is, what do we do to create a more fertile ground for some of the new ways? I think I know what you're saying, and I'm inclined to agree with a lot of it. My problem is that I'm not so sure the public I represent is anywhere near me yet on that. Let me just ask that question initially. I think you're right in many respects, but I'm not at all sure that in our democratic society public opinion is yet on your side.

Ms Clune: In terms of managing waste and dealing with waste issues? Well, it certainly becomes very much a public opinion when we go to rural communities and say: "This is where we're dumping Toronto's waste or this is where we're going to dump all of Simcoe county's waste. How do you feel about that, people living in the rural communities?" So then you realize that people do have an opinion on the issue.

Mr Conway: In my area, Ottawa, as long as it's Toronto, as long as it's the big, bad city versus the rural countryside, I am not at all worried -- well, I shouldn't say I'm not worried. I know how that dynamic is going to play out, but forget that. I look at some small rural townships that I represent, and probably Mr Waters could maybe help me here; they're much more like Matchedash than most other places in Simcoe county. Oh, Dan's gone. Forget all the city stuff. I'm sitting here looking at rural townships maybe in north Simcoe. I'd be interested to know, for example, what Matchedash does with its garbage. Does it deal with it locally or does it have an arrangement with another township?

Ms Clune: Simcoe county has taken over all waste management issues.

Mr Conway: Anyway, the point I want to make is that when I sit as a provincial member for my area, one of the things that is really going to pressure people into different kinds of structures -- it may not have to be formal; it may be just on a contract kind of basis -- is the cost of waste management.

Ms Clune: So waste reduction is the ticket, and municipalities need to express that to their residents.

Mr Conway: Exactly, but if you're a municipal council in an area of 500 or 800 or 1,000 people, and particularly if you've got cottagers around -- I go to the landfill in my very rural township and I just watch what goes on there.

Ms Clune: That's when local municipalities get serious about waste issues.

Mr Conway: Well, it gets serious but it gets very expensive. If you're a township of 400 people and you've got a long parade of seasonal folks who are living under a different kind of regime in city X, where there are a whole series of things they can't do, then the temptation becomes, "Well, let's put it in the car or the truck, and when we go up to the cottage on the weekend, pay a little visit to the landfill." You and I would both agree that this probably shouldn't be allowed, but to make it not happen, I've now got to start incurring costs, I've got to hire my friend McLean and put him out there, gate the landfill and I've got 400 people. Boy, all of a sudden, the cost in my little rural township is going up. Then, to make matters worse, even with a much more progressive reduce, reuse and recycle regime, I still have a certain amount of landfilling. My old landfill is no longer viable. Now I've got to go and find a new one.

Ms Clune: Yes, and that's the idea of municipalities working together, and if you're talking about costs, I think all you need to do is look at how much Metropolitan Toronto's spent on hunting for landfill. If they spent more money on waste reduction and educating people on how to make use of programs --

Mr Conway: I don't want to talk about Metro. I know all about that.

Ms Clune: I'm talking about Metro because you're talking about the big cost of --

Mr Conway: I want to look at just little -- Metro also has been big and wealthy. I'm talking about little rural townships that are small and not very wealthy, just as they try to organize themselves in a much more progressive world now, but we're doing a --

Ms Clune: They're incapable of organizing a waste management program?

Mr Conway: No, I'm not saying that at all. I guess all I am saying is that I think you make a good point, but from my vantage point I see the waste management pressure as probably the single biggest pressure in my part of the world that is driving people, both as citizenry and as elected officials, to contemplating some new arrangements because the cost of whatever we do now is really getting --

Ms Clune: And that is my point exactly. I think restructuring has everything to do with waste management. I think it's corrupt and I think it will cost people a lot of money, and by centralizing garbage we're looking for very costly problems for the future.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Kelly. Section 35 of the bill indicates that once it becomes law, the county can direct its garbage disposal to go to any one of, I believe, the 17 sites that's approved now. As it is presently, only the minister can direct that, but this bill is going to change that now. The county can close 10 of them if it wants to and only have seven open in the county if it wants. Are you aware of that?

Ms Clune: Yes, and I'm aware that the south outvotes the north and I'm aware that the north is likely to be the one they're going to designate as landfill or incineration or whichever those committees decide is appropriate, which neither is, as far as I'm concerned.

Mr McLean: For some time I was hoping we would have in the county a pilot project with regard to a major facility to recycle the waste we have, and I know you've been involved in that for a long time. Do you think there's any chance that this type of thing could be brought forward?

Ms Clune: I think the answer lies within the local municipalities becoming responsible for their own waste. When they do that, they realize what's being created, they realize what products are a problem and cannot be dealt with and they work to eliminate those products or find alternatives to them. When we look for a megaproject, when we look for a massive recycling facility to deal with all of Simcoe county's waste, we're looking at a problem; we're looking at something that's going to cost a lot of money. You're going to get contaminated materials from all over the place and they're going to be hard to deal with. It's going to be a very big mess. If you keep it local, people become responsible for their products. They become proud of the facility they've got. They keep their jobs local. The revenues from the resources come back to the municipality. Soon, I really think what will happen is that you will find municipalities will want to maintain their garbage within their own community. It will be a resource which will provide jobs and revenues for the municipality and we won't be looking at trying to dump some garbage on our neighbour.

Mr McLean: But that's not the way it is now.

Ms Clune: That's not the way it is now, but it takes us all working together to achieve that goal.


Mr McLean: But Bill 208, which the government legislated, gives the authority to the county to look after it.

Ms Clune: Bill 201, yes.

Mr McLean: So once it's in the county's hands, that's your waste authority. I can assure you there's no municipality that wants to take that back out of the county, because the county wants to keep its hands on it.

Ms Clune: I'm sure they do, because there's lots of money to be made for a few people, which is unfortunate. I think we need to get rid of Bill 201 quickly.

The Chair: Ms Clune, thank you very much for coming before the committee and in particular for focusing on that one issue which we haven't heard about in quite the same detail. Thank you for coming.


The Chair: If I could then call Mr Edward Carter, if he would be good enough to come forward. Mr Carter has a map which the clerk will circulate. Mr Carter, welcome to the committee. I see you have a colleague with you, if you'd be good enough to introduce him as well. In just about 10 seconds we'll all have a copy of your map.

Mr Edward Carter: My name's Edward Carter and I live on lot 21, Concession 1 of the township of south Orillia. Assisting me here today is Mr Gordon Blair, who's also a resident of that area.

I'd like to speak to Bill 51, part I, section 2, paragraphs (j) and (k); sorry, (j) and (o).

These are the paragraphs that refer to schedules which unfortunately I don't have. They weren't part of the bill but I presume that they refer to the area that's marked in blue on the map that has been handed out. It essentially comprises concessions 1, 2 and 3 of the township of Orillia, the southern division, which are to be transferred out of the township of Orillia to the township of Oro.

I'd like to submit that these lands have a historical focus in the city of Orillia because of their proximity and because of the nature of the growth of the community. Residents of this community, outlined in blue on the map, use all the types of services and facilities that are required and necessary to the people living in this community. They're all focused in the city of Orillia, facilities such as schools, which is where our children attend and that's where they get bused to and where they form lifelong friendships. So right from a very early age they do get a focus in the city of Orillia.

Most of the people in this community do their shopping in Orillia; they work in Orillia; they use the library in Orillia; they use some of the recreational facilities in the parks. The cultural facilities and events such as the Orillia Opera House and the Leacock festival are supported by the members of this community. Mr Blair himself is an example of somebody who is deeply involved in those types of things.

The service clubs and their ancillary fund-raising: Mr Blair is also a member of the Golden Key and runs one of the fund-raising events on a weekly basis in Orillia.

Our charities, such as the cancer fund and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario and all those myriad things: The members of those places come out -- not all of them, but the people in this area are people who participate in those types of things.

The hospital: When the ambulance comes for you, he takes you to the city of Orillia, not to the city of Barrie. The people on the board come from this area in blue.

Fund-raising: If people in this area wish to make a donation to a hospital, they make it to the Orillia hospital, not to some other hospital. We use the doctors, the dentists and the pharmacists so that all these emergency facilities are there.

Our garbage goes to the city of Orillia and the next one is probably going to end up in the rural area surrounding Orillia. Our automobiles, when you call for the tow truck -- he comes from the city of Orillia. We buy our vehicles in Orillia usually.

In other words, the residents of this area, when they think in their minds, they think north. They don't think going south, they think north.

In fact, the residents of the township of Orillia, and particularly this area, have cooperated with the city of Orillia and recognize that the city of Orillia is the focus of the community. They've gone so far that in the official plan for the township of Orillia, for the last 24 years or so, the area that's marked in yellow on the map has been designated as an urban expansion area for the city of Orillia. As a result, there is no development going on in there and this area is being preserved as a place for the city of Orillia to expand and that's been in the official plan of the township of Orillia for well over 20 years. Recent annexations, which have actually taken place more to the north of the city, have been worked out with the township in such fashion that they don't require expensive hearings, one thing and another, and the township's always been very sensitive to the status of the city of Orillia as the focus of the community.

It would appear to me that the recent Sewell commission would indicate that we're to look forward to more dominance of the urban areas and that development is to be channelled into those areas. You can see here that just by the location of these lands, they are in essence under a great deal of influence from the city of Orillia.

From that standpoint, I feel it's a gross error to take these lands and turn them around and add them to a municipality whose focus is south. Now, when the city of Orillia wants to do something, it's going to be dealing with somebody whose focus is in a totally different direction and always has been. I would think it would be much more logical to leave this area with the township of Orillia so that in the future the city of Orillia can expand without having to get into a totally different type of thing.

I'd like to speak also about a petition which was sent to the Minister of Housing on November 4, 1991. Mr Blair and I, after talking to many of our neighbours and seeing what was being said in the community, wondered if we were kind of on our own or whether the people of the community felt the same way. So we undertook on our own to circulate a petition throughout the community. It went to about 1,100 residents and out of that we got 635 replies, which is a 58% return on those petitions. A 58% return on anything like that -- most of them were done by mail or by handing out, stuffing in people's mailboxes, one thing and another, and then they had to mail them back or forward them back somehow. Each of those petitions was individually signed with the date and lot and concession number in which they lived. Out of those 635 replies, 100% of them were in favour of leaving these lands with the township of Orillia.


I'd like to read the minister's letter:

"Thank you for your letter of November 4, 1991, forwarding petitions from citizens concerning the recommendations of the Simcoe county study relating to the township of Orillia. You are to be commended for your efforts in providing this information for my consideration.

"As indicated previously, I will be carefully reviewing the study committee's report and the recommendations made to me by county council. Before making any decision, I will also be considering the views of local municipalities, the cities of Barrie and Orillia, and the public."

I would submit that the final report does not consider the view of the local municipality nor does it consider the view of the public as forwarded to the minister. That was signed by Mr David Cooke.

In my letter when we forwarded the 635 petitions to Mr Cooke I said, "In fact, we believe that the citizens most affected by this proposal are the least to be consulted." I must commend this committee for at least, at the last moment, coming in and asking for consultation with those who wanted to express their views.

In that petition some people sent us a donation to help us with the cost of doing that because Mr Blair and I funded the cost. So much money came back that there was a surplus, which indicates that people were really serious about this. We donated that money to the heart and stroke fund because I think that's the fund the residents of this community are most going to need if they are cut off from their historical roots.

I'd also like to refer to subsection 43(11), which appears, I believe, on page 30. This gives the composition of the township of Oro and Medonte after restructuring. Nowhere in there does it ever refer to the residents of the township of Orillia or, if restructuring goes through, the former township of Orillia that is included. This means this area in blue will have no elected representative for a period of over a year.

Clause 44(2)(e), which appears on page 33, requires the municipality to set up a ward structure, and the people who are to set up this ward structure are the people of the townships of Oro and Medonte, but nowhere does it give the people of this portion of Orillia south a word in how they are to be governed in the future. In other words, I think we've been forgotten. I submit that a long-time tenet of the democracies in North America and throughout the world is that there's no taxation without representation. I believe something definitely should be done with respect to that.

In summary, I'm asking that the lands outlined in blue in concessions 1, 2 and 3 of the township of Orillia south be left with their historical roots, which is the township of Orillia with their emotional and economic focus in the city of Orillia. That is the way it goes.

We ask that serious consideration be given to the wishes of the people of this area, as reflected in the petition that has been in the minister's office since November 1991. I would submit that this amounts to a straw vote of the people in this community.

In the event that our request is not granted, then please ensure that our rights to representation are considered. As the matter now stands, the historical and social development of this area will be destroyed for generations to come because we're going to be taken around and turned 180 degrees and that creates an emotional disruption in our lives.

I would also submit that this province has more urgent matters to attend to than restructuring. This province needs to put people back to work and I think that by fiddling here, which is about all that has been done because there is very little rate change, other than disrupting people's lives -- but I would suggest that this whole proposal of restructuring just amounts to fiddling while Rome burns.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr McLean: What you're telling the committee here today, sir, is that the Orillia fair grounds and all that whole area is going to be now in Oro township, according to the drawings.

Mr Edward Carter: It would appear that way.

Mr McLean: I'd like to ask the facilitator, how did this change from Orillia to Oro?

Mr Griggs: Again, these were recommendations made by the study committee to county council. County council endorsed all of the recommendations. It was a local process directed by the county study committee, elected from the floor of county council. All the recommendations were endorsed by county council.

Mr McLean: But who drew the lines?

Mr Griggs: The county study committee did.

Mr McLean: Under whose advice? I thought they said that the two municipalities would have to make an agreement and I'm sure -- I know -- that Orillia township didn't agree to have this go into our township. So who's telling who what's gone on? This is totally unacceptable. It's totally wrong. Common sense would tell you that it should have remained in Orillia township and here we have it in Oro. Do we have the power, as a committee, to change that, Mr Parliamentary Assistant?

Mr Conway: While you're contemplating that, because Ms Keefe, who was just here, is with the County of Simcoe Restructuring Committee, and when I asked her the question, she seemed to give a thoughtful answer which seemed to suggest -- I don't want to misquote her -- I got the impression that she and her committee didn't seem directed. I'm with Mr McLean on this one particularly. This is the second or third minute we've had on this point.

Mr McLean: Mr Thiess's whole presentation was on this very issue. Orillia township never, ever agreed to that, to be part of Oro township, so how could you say that, and nobody's saying who drew the line?

Mr Hayes: I don't know. The restructuring committee, the county council -- we already have that answer. All I can say to you at this time is that we can look at it, but I think the one thing is that I guess one of the problems we're faced with is that if you get all of the township of Orillia and the county and those to agree, it could be changed in that way. I know what you're saying, Al, that it won't, but I'm not quite familiar enough with this and I'll --

Mr McLean: Well, I'm familiar with it.

Mr Hayes: I know you are and I appreciate your comments.

Mr McLean: I was told before that it had to be by an agreement and I took it upon myself to phone the reeve of Oro to ask if he would consider discussing it. This council said that it was not. That still doesn't make it right.

Mr Hayes: Yes, if Mr Griggs could respond to that.

Mr Waters: Might I suggest something then for us to look at in clause-by-clause, some sort of an amendment to try to deal with this. I know that Mr Wilson, Mr McLean, Mr Wessenger and I -- one of the things we had said when we had our meetings with MMA was that yes, the county wanted to be through it by January 1, 1994, but we wanted to make sure that we did have an opportunity to make amendments and to personalize this for north Simcoe.

The ministry, as I recall, said it was more than willing to accept those amendments and look at those and work that through with us. So I hope that on Thursday, when we're doing clause-by-clause, there will be amendment to reflect that and that we will indeed -- I am assuming, because I know I have a couple of amendments I want to bring forward, that those things are indeed going to be dealt with in a fair and just manner on Thursday.

The Chair: On the same point: Mr Conway.

Mr Conway: An excellent submission, and it's now one of a number that deal with this very specific point. I appreciate what Dan has just said and what Al and the parliamentary assistant have said. I don't profess to know nearly as much of this as other people, but I'll tell you, I am very inclined to support that kind of an amendment unless someone can indicate, more completely than I've heard to date, and I just ask you, Mr Chairman, that if they're not -- they may be coming, but I would like somebody to come and explain why we should not amend the bill in a way that is perhaps being suggested by this presenter and others. If Oro township or Medonte -- there must be somebody out there who has fathered and mothered this change. I would certainly like to hear from them before I got an amendment, because if I were to get an amendment now, on the basis of what I've heard from Mr Carter and others, I would be very inclined to support it.


The Chair: Just before turning to the parliamentary assistant, I know Mr Wilson and Mr Eddy have a comment on the same point, so perhaps we can deal with that before moving on.

Mr Jim Wilson: Yes. On the same point, Mr Chairman, I think it's an excellent presentation, as have been a number of other presentations, with regard to how these lines were drawn. I think it would be appropriate, as Mr Conway has suggested, that we ask members of the steering committee to explain their reasoning for some of these boundaries. I know I've already asked legislative counsel to draft up four amendments regarding boundary changes in the south end, because although they've been restructured, they're not happy, and also with respect to Adjala and Tosorontio townships, and we've had, yesterday and today, more boundary changes suggested. I think that if those people don't voluntarily appear before this committee, we should ask the Speaker to subpoena them.

The Chair: Mr Eddy, on the same point.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I think the way to clarify it is, if we're following the principle, and I agree with it, that there has to be agreement between the receiving municipality and the municipality giving up the area, we need to know that directly from an elected representative of the municipality. It's as simple as that.

The other thing, a clarification: I guess I'm clear on the point about no representation. That's because it's going into another township, just being added on, and until the next election that area doesn't have representation. That's your point, is it?

Mr Edward Carter: That's my understanding, and it would seem to me that these lines have been drawn by backroom brawls and dart games where they just throw darts at things, and once they've grabbed the land, then they forget about the people they're actually grabbing. So they disfranchise them, and that's not right.

Mr Eddy: And this could be true of any area that's being changed, I guess.

Mr Edward Carter: I haven't examined the boundaries of the other areas.

Mr Eddy: Okay. We'll look at it.

The Chair: The parliamentary assistant?

Mr Hayes: Just to that question about who drew the boundary lines, I think it was made clear here earlier by Miss Keefe, who was a member of the Simcoe restructuring committee. I think she indicated right here that those are the people on that committee who drew up the boundaries for Simcoe county. There's your answer: the people who were duly elected to do it.

The Chair: I want to thank you very much for coming before the committee. Clearly you have elicited a great deal of interest and this will be pursued.


The Chair: I call on our last presenter for this morning, Mr William Cooney. If Mr Cooney would be good enough to come forward, welcome to our proceedings this morning, and once you're comfortable, please go ahead with your submission.

Mr William C. Cooney: "In a democracy, the highest office is the office of citizen." Those are words from Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter in the United States.

I am not representing any organization or particular interest. I am simply speaking here this morning as a citizen.

As humans seek to organize themselves into political or economic bodies, we often, in fact almost daily, hear of mergers and takeovers. After great debate, for example, you will all recall, Great Britain entered the European Community in search of larger markets. Similar groupings are being discussed, to say the least, for North America and for the Pacific Rim. Very large transnational corporations emerge continually, and this takes place both in, as we are well aware, capitalistic countries and it takes place in countries governed by socialism also.

Based on what is said and written -- that's the only source I can get for information -- the majority of economists and business efficiency experts supports this trend towards vastness in human organizations. Yet, in contrast, sociologists and psychologists insistently warn of the inherent danger: a feeling of smallness, the loss of integrity, as of a small cog in a vast machine, a fear of being dehumanized, and even dangers to efficiency and productivity stemming from bureaucratic inefficiency.

Modern literature, as well as TV, show at various times and places a picture of a sharpening division -- this is a very general statement -- between us and them, whatever the us and them may be at any one time or place, the us and them torn by mutual suspicions, a hatred of authority at times below, a contempt for people from above: on the one hand, people becoming sullen and irresponsible, while their rulers try to keep things afloat by more organization, more coordination, fiscal inducements, exhortations and, if all else fails, threats.

I don't know if you or anyone else really likes large organizations, being ruled by rule, where the answer to any complaint is, "I don't make the rules; I only apply them." Yet it seems evident that large organizations are here to stay. Therefore, we have to think, and navigate our course very carefully. It seems to me the fundamental task is to achieve smallness within the larger context of vast organizations.

When we see the working of a large organization, any one, we see a sort of pendulum effect going on. This is an historical process. The organization will go through phases of centralizing and then decentralizing. Part of the problem is that each of these phases can be backed by very persuasive argumentation. It follows that what we need is not an either/or approach but one and the other at the same time, and that is a difficult task.

Any organization, it's obvious, large or small, needs a certain clarity of purpose, a certain order in its dealings. If things fall into disorder, nothing will be accomplished. Yet orderliness, pushed too far, is sterile and lifeless. Humans need elbow room, scope to do things, to do things that have never been done before, the new, the unpredicted product of man's creative ideas.

So the pendulum swings from order to freedom and back. Centralization is on the side of order; decentralization is on the side of freedom. Accountants and administrators favour order. The man of freedom and progress is generally called an entrepreneur.

In a question, say, of national defence, most would agree it can be done only by a central and federal control. In education, however, we in Canada prefer a provincial jurisdiction, and even there the pendulum works. A trend towards centralization, bureaucracy, more administration is obvious in the area of education, and then, because of the higher taxes involved, we see a swing back to establish a more local voice and a more local control in the process.


The British Coal Board, a huge organization, several years ago broke itself up into 17 distinct companies, each dealing with an individual coal face. General Motors sets up a variety of divisions and teams. Now, I've got to be careful here. The coal board is very remote from us; General Motors isn't. So I mention that word, not that GM is a good example of anything. I cite it here simply to give an example of the pendulum process at work. In fact, at another forum in another time, I would gladly take on General Motors for their bad practice.

These comments are simply a background for what I hope can serve as a solution to this problem of large organization, this pendulum effect. I use the word "solution" and not "answer," because I don't believe there are any answers. In English, normally we can use the words "solution" and "answer" interchangeably, but they're not the same. An answer is something I can swear to: two plus two, do you have an answer? A solution is much different. A solution is like dealing with a clogged drain. You apply a solvent. Life goes on in the household. The drain will get clogged again some time. So we're looking for a solution.

The solution I would suggest is this little word right here, in case you haven't seen it before in your lifetime. It's not a household word, but it is an extremely important concept.

The Chair: Just for the record, could you say what that word is?

Mr Cooney: Yes, it's the word "subsidiarity."

The principle of subsidiarity can be talked about, obviously, in many ways. I choose to make a quotation, very brief, from Fred Schumacher's book, Small is Beautiful, and I choose this description of it because it is concise and clear:

"It is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature furnish help to the members of the body social and never destroy them and absorb them."

These sentences were meant for society as a whole, but they apply equally to the different levels within a large organization. The higher level must not absorb the functions of the lower one on the assumption that, being higher, it will automatically be wiser and fulfil them more efficiently. Loyalty can grow only from smaller units to the larger, not the other way around, and loyalty is an essential element in the health of any organization.

The principle of subsidiarity implies that the burden of proof lies always on those who want to deprive a lower level of its function and therefore its freedom and responsibility in that respect. They have to prove that the lower level is incapable of fulfilling this function satisfactorily and that the higher level can actually do it much better.

"Those in command," to continue the quotation, "should be sure that the more perfectly graduated order is preserved among the various associations, in observing the principle of subsidiary function, the stronger will be the social authority and effectiveness and the happier and more prosperous the condition of the state."

From this it follows obviously, in my personal view, there is no satisfactory evidence that restructuring of north Simcoe is a good thing.

In the 19th century, there was a very common expression in the States, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I was amazed to hear this expression being chanted outside the offices in Midhurst at one of the restructuring meetings.

From an administrator's point of view, the present structure may not be as tidy and orderly as desired. However, the county as a whole may well be happier. Tidiness is not the supreme good. Nor is it our purpose in life, and certainly not mine, to satisfy bureaucratic dreams. And in the case of the most untidy form of government, democracy, Winston Churchill once agreed that it was the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Untidy as the present may seem, we expect our legislators to listen to the people of north Simcoe and reject out of hand, without fiddling around with amendments, Bill 51.

Just as a footnote before questions, last May I was at a meeting in Washington and had the opportunity of meeting Dr Robert Bullard, who wrote this little book, Dumping in Dixie, an intriguing thing. So I got talking to him a little bit and mentioned to him there is a possibility of dumping going on in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. He said, "Where are you from?" "Orillia." He said: "Watch out. The borders of Dixie will reach there too."


Mr Cooney: Schumacher: Small is Beautiful. I'm not selling them.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Cooney, and also for introducing the word "subsidiarity." Any questions?

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr Cooney, I found your dissertation to be quite interesting and cerebral.

You talk about tidiness and you talk about the bureaucratic desire to have things nice and neat. I think in a very real way you're correct, because as far as I can tell with two successive governments moving with restructuring, the south end and now the north end, it had to be bureaucratically driven. Why else would, for example, the NDP, who were totally opposed to forcing these sort of things when they were opposition parties -- when Dave Cooke as Minister of Municipal Affairs gets into office, he's not in too many months when he decides restructuring is a good thing as long as it's locally driven. So we went into the jargon that it had to be locally driven, and eventually the county did locally drive it. At least we have the chairman, Nancy Keefe, here today telling us that without a doubt it was locally driven.

Outside of your presentation, though, and as a ratepayer in the county, how do you feel in terms of -- and I can guess the answer but I want you to say it for the record. Do you feel disenfranchised at this whole process? Have you had any input to date? I'm interested in the process that we've gone through, and to me the process has somehow failed the people. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.

Mr Cooney: We have had input, but it hasn't been listened to. That is the problem. It's the process itself that is flawed, basically.

When Mr Cooke states that it's a locally driven initiative, I would like to see one letter to the editor from a concerned citizen or one letter in, say, Mr McLean's file, saying: "Al, now what we need around here is a little more restructuring. This is one of the things that the people here are demanding." I've never heard any indication of that. Is that a response to your --

Mr Jim Wilson: It's a good point. But the problem is, those in favour of restructuring would say to you, as they say to me, "Well, people only complain when they're unhappy, and those who are happy about restructuring just aren't speaking up."

Mr Cooney: Apparently, it's just the opposite. It's those who are in favour of restructuring who have been speaking out, voting on committees and making recommendations. It's the ones who are opposed who haven't been vocal enough, I'm afraid.

Mr Conway: Just a quick point. I know you cite a number of American authorities, and I'm very sympathetic to people who, you know: "Just leave me alone. I don't want to be having to deal with all this change." If I had my way in politics, I'd say I don't want to change anything. But for that to happen, for small to be beautiful, small's got to stay small. I can't all of a sudden -- you know, somebody invented electricity. Somebody invented the automobile. In the debates of the Legislature 75 years ago, "Well, just keep these cars off the streets because we've got buggies." But unfortunately, the politicians weren't able to keep the cars off the streets, and electricity came and a variety of other -- and the world changed.


It was Sam Rayburn who once said -- I'm sure you know Mr Rayburn, legendary Speaker of the House of Representatives and one of the shrewdest and most-elected politicians in the United States. Rayburn once said, "You know, any jackass can kick the barn door in, but it takes a carpenter to build one."

I've spent most of my life in opposition, and it is an easier politics to just pick at the problems. But Rayburn made a good point. There is an important role for people in opposition to criticize the inadequacies of government, at whatever level, but at some point we do have to build a barn door. At some point, we do have to build some new structures to accord to and with the contemporary reality.

I remember the five and a half years I spent in government. I learned a lot of things in government I never even dreamt about in opposition. I never even imagined that some of the educational prospects of north Simcoe could be quite as complicated as they were, apparently. So the point I make, I guess, is that I like small and I believe it to be more beautiful than big. But the world has got to help me if we're going to keep small beautiful, if you know what I mean.

Mr Cooney: I know what you mean, all right. Nowhere in my little brief presentation did I suggest that progress is unimportant. In fact, I suggested very clearly that on the side of freedom and creativity, the entrepreneurial spirit, that's where you have progress.

What I was outlining is a pendulum, that the argument goes back and forth. I stated quite simply and quite clearly that there are very good arguments on both sides for centralization and for decentralization, and therefore follows, as night follows day, the necessity of careful thought. That's why I brought in the principle of subsidiarity as a way of breaking that logjam of coming up with better thought.

The Chair: Mr Cooney, thank you very much. I'm afraid we have one more presenter and then we have to get to Midland. But I want to thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation.

Mr Cooney: Thank you.


The Chair: If I could then ask Mr William Hodgkinson, whom I omitted from mentioning, and he will be the final presenter. Mr Hodgkinson, if you would come forward, please. I believe the clerk has passed out your -- no? Okay, we're getting extra copies.

Mr William Hodgkinson: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity of appearing, and I do wish to thank Mr Arnott for clarifying that my call had been made to his department to be here today.

Gentlemen, as a taxpayer in Mara, I wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Ed Philip, regarding my concerns on the Simcoe County Act, 1993. The minister replied on August 10, 1993. I appreciated his response, but my concerns were not adequately addressed; therefore, my appearance before you today.

First, my concerns regarding planning becoming a responsibility at the county level: Being a taxpayer in Mara and automatically of Simcoe county, I see no value in creating additional bureaucracy at the county level. While the minister's comments reflect some concerns, as residents bordering on Lake Simcoe, about the quality of the lake, preservation of our natural wetlands and good agricultural lands, I do not believe another level of bureaucracy at the second tier of municipal government is effective in dealing with these problems or concerns. They are too far removed from the people. It appears as one more way the provincial government is downloading its responsibilities.

I appreciate the minister's desire to have some body resolve land use conflicts, avoiding costly Ontario Municipal Board hearings. Setting up a planning department at the county level will only create another empire, additional costs for the taxpayer, and ultimately a dictatorial attitude by administrative executives.

Secondly, I recognize that the legislation provides a guarantee to all present municipal employees. What I fail to see is why, with the public sector and the federal government combining jobs, eliminating jobs, streamlining operations in an effort to be more productive and competitive, this policy should not also apply at a municipal level. After all, there is only one taxpayer and only so much ability to pay the increasing burden of taxes. In Mara, a breakup of the nepotism and the family compact would be welcome.

Third, it was refreshing to see the minister indicate section 33 does not give the minister the authority to change the city boundaries. That was probably the only thing in his letter that really pleased me.

Fourth, and this was since I wrote to the minister, section 43 of the act has been raised by Mara council and appeared in the local media. Gentlemen, I am appalled that Mara council feels it needs weighted votes when Mara and Rama join to form Ramara. Each was elected to serve its respective constituents for the three-year term of council. We know each, as a corporate entity, ceases to exist at December 31, 1993.

These 10 people are the board of directors of the new corporation of the township of Ramara. In any other corporate setting, one director does not have any more powers than his counterpart. Therefore, it is ludicrous to even consider this proposal to be anything other than an undemocratic grab for power. Or is it a last-ditch effort to grab power and maintain the status quo? In that Mara council has not adopted any of the restructuring committee resolutions, it is an attempt for them to have their own way.

What was the sense of going through the restructuring process to have it all shot down at the 11th hour? What confidence will the people have in the new municipality with this type of procedure? Where is the trust? Where is the cooperation?

If Dr Garry, the reeve of Mara township, and Mara administration get their way in this respect, I would like to suggest that there will be a holy war start and this will be the first shot in the 1994 municipal elections.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hodgkinson. Are there any questions at this time? Mr Eddy.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. You're not opposed to the amalgamation of Rama and Mara townships?

Mr Hodgkinson: Definitely not, sir.

Mr Eddy: You see that as a plus, having the two townships amalgamated?

Mr Hodgkinson: I believe, again, that if it has to come about, that is the logical combination. If we go back into the history, Rama and Mara were all one township at one time.

Mr Eddy: I wasn't aware of that. I knew that they were formerly in Ontario county, of course.


Mr Hodgkinson: But they were all one township, the township of Mara, if we go back into the late 1800s.

Mr Eddy: You have 10 members of council, 5 from each at the present time, I expect, being a township council. So you have 10 elected representatives for the interim period. That means there could be a tie vote on any issue or even on every issue, I suppose. There are ways of breaking a tie, of course. That system is in use in county council. I believe it's on the election of a warden where there is a tie vote. The head of the municipality with the highest equalized assessment would have an additional vote in the case of a tie only.

Do you see the need for a mechanism because there will be 10 people, an even number, sitting on the council for the interim period, or do you not see that as really a problem?

Mr Hodgkinson: I recognize what you're suggesting might be a problem, but knowing the members of each of the councils, I don't think that this would necessarily be a problem.

Mr Eddy: In other words, let the council work it out.

Mr Hodgkinson: Yes.

Mr Eddy: If it's an even number, they have to work it out.

Mr Hodgkinson: Eventually, they're going to be responsible for the way they work it out, anyway, to those of us who are taxpayers or electors in the new township of Ramara.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for coming.

Mr Hayes: Mr Hodgkinson, I know you've got some concerns about the county taking over, in other words, the planning or joint planning, whatever. I guess really what I'm saying here is that when one municipality, if there is a development there or a change in zoning, do you feel that this doesn't affect any of the other municipalities in that county? Don't you feel that there should be, not control, but a better structure so you can have planning so you don't have one municipality adversely affecting another?

Mr Hodgkinson: You basically have that in place at the present time, I believe, sir. Sure, not at the county level; it then is that of the province, but you do have that ability at the present time, and I don't understand why we need to shift that from the current situation into another group of bureaucrats and add an additional cost to every taxpayer in the county of Simcoe.

Mr Hayes: Yes, but if every township had their own planning board, for example, and just did their own thing, I think you would find that in changing that for county council there'd be less chance of going to the OMB, which can be very expensive. The other thing too is that you would have a whole picture of the county to have a more or less controlled type of development or a plan that would take in the whole county for the benefit of the county, including the municipalities.

Mr Hodgkinson: I guess in answer to your question, as a number of the other presenters have made today, we see the county bureaucracy growing -- it's right out of control as far as waste management is concerned. I'm concerned that if this portion of the legislation goes through, we will be creating another Topsy at the county level and we're not going to be any better served in planning than what we are at the present time.

I realize that you have to have some overall strategy and some overall growth or potential growth or whatever, but I don't think the county level is the area to do it in. They're too far removed from the people, and from what we have seen in the past, I'm concerned that they in turn are going to come down with a heavy hand and say to each of the individual municipalities, "This is the way it is going to be." That is my concern in regard to planning.

The Chair: Mr Hodgkinson --

Mr Conway: Before the witness gets away, I just wanted to be clear on something. I mean, I work at Queen's Park and live near Ottawa, but didn't I hear the witness say that there was patronage and nepotism in Mara township? Surely it cannot be.

Mr Hodgkinson: You want to come out and see, sir.

Mr Conway: I thought that was the exclusive preserve of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The Chair: On that uplifting note, Mr Hodgkinson, thank you very much for coming before the committee.

Before adjourning our hearings this morning and just noting that at 2 o'clock we will begin again at the Best Western Highland Inn in Midland, I want to thank all of the people who presented this morning as well as what is obviously a number of people who have been here to show their interest and to listen to the discussion. On behalf of the committee, thank you all. The committee stands adjourned until 2 o'clock in Midland.

The committee recessed at 1206 in Orillia and resumed at 1401 in the Best Western Highland Inn, Midland.

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our hearings on Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe. This afternoon we are, of course, in Midland to hear from a variety of groups and individuals.


The Chair: We have a very full schedule of presentations, so without further ado I'll call upon the representatives from the Township of Tay Hydro-Electric Commission. Mr Patrick Armstrong and Mr Alex Smitten, if you would be good enough to come forward, and please pour yourself a glass of water. If you'd be good enough to -- is it Mr Armstrong or Mr Smitten?

Mr Patrick Armstrong: It's Mr Armstrong. Mr Smitten may be here later. He had to go to Toronto.

The Chair: Please go ahead when you're ready.

Mr Armstrong: I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the new hydro-electric commission for the to-be-restructured township of Tay. I would like to say that the presentation was put together rather quickly with the short time frame and say at the outset that Port McNicoll and the other municipalities had originally wished to stay as they were, and with the vote of county council, had come together when it was a fact at county to make the best of the situation. Some of the concerns that will be addressed by myself for the hydro-electric commission will be backed up later today with the presentation being made by the newly formed municipality of the township of Tay.

I'd like to take a few minutes at this time to summarize the presentation that I've given to you.

We do not feel that Bill 51 properly and adequately addresses the reformation of hydro-electric for the newly restructured municipality of the township of Tay. Examples are costs that relate to organizing for startup, equipment, vehicle purchases and staffing that will be required.

Firstly, the costs related to the structuring of the commission are the same as those of the municipal sector, and meetings are required to discuss the needs of the new commission related to staffing services, whether contracted or performed by employees, the housing for the staff, the vehicles and the inventory. Also to be considered are furnishings, computers, fax machines, the telephone system, copiers, mailing machines etc. Presently, all these costs are shared with the municipality by two of the three commissions, being Port McNicoll and Victoria Harbour. Waubaushene's commission works completely independently from the municipality.

It has been determined that the new commission will require a material handling truck to replace the smaller obsolete truck currently owned by the Port McNicoll PUC. The other commissions do not own a vehicle, as they contract out the work. Also, a smaller truck, such as a half-ton, is required as a personnel carrier. The new commission will cover much more mileage in the new municipality and it is much more economical to use smaller vehicles when possible to get from one area to the other. The estimated cost to purchase a material handler truck is $140,000, and the half-ton, approximately $18,000.

The commission has looked at a building to house the office staff of the new commission, and it is looking at leasing the surplus building from the municipality at an estimated annual lease of $14,000 and part of the municipal garage to house the trucks and inventories at an annual cost of $4,800. These costs are not inclusive of utilities, janitorial or ground maintenance. At present, Port McNicoll is sharing costs for the office with the municipality and leasing two bays from the town garage.

We have determined that the new commission will employ three full-time inside workers plus one part-time worker. We will employ three full-time outside workers and the cost of these employees will be 100% costed to the commission. The current commission operates in the following manner: Port McNicoll has two inside employees at shared cost with the municipality. They are one clerk-secretary and one clerk; two outside employees, being one linesman and one labourer. Victoria Harbour has two inside employees, who are actually municipal employees and the municipality bills the commission for their services. They have no outside work, as all the work is contracted out. Waubaushene operates with one inside worker and no outside workers and contracts the work out as well.

The new commission will require a computer system as the current system is majority-owned by the municipality. The other equipment must be fully assumed by the commission at additional cost to the commission. These include, as mentioned before, the telephone, fax, photocopier etc. We have been told by Municipal Affairs that there is no direct funding available for the hydro-electric commissions. We are told that we must apply to the municipal sector for a share of its funding. We do not feel that this is appropriate. The new municipality will be dealing with the funding issue later this afternoon. The reasoning why we don't feel it's appropriate will be brought out at that time.

It is our contention that special consideration should be given to commissions such as ours where extra costs will definitely be encountered because of the separation of the commission from the municipal sector. We are encountering additional costs preparing for the restructuring which were not budgeted for and could affect the hydro rates in the new commission.

In conclusion, we feel that special consideration must be given to the restructuring of our commission, as there are additional costs which other commissions will not be facing. Also, we may yet encounter further costs that we have not seen. When three commissions become one, there are definite differences to be dealt with that do not need to be addressed by all municipality and commissions restructuring.

We submit this to you with the hope that you will give serious consideration of our needs expressed today and bring about some changes improving Bill 51 to give assistance where it is needed in the form of special consideration to the hydro-electric commissions concerned.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll begin questioning with Mr Waters.

Mr Waters: I know that you've had some problems and I imagine the rest of them will be touched on later as we go through. With this, you've talked to MMA and you've talked to the county and their answer at this point in both cases is: "You'll have to deal with it in another way. You'll have to find your own way to deal with it; there's nothing set aside for this problem."

Mr Armstrong: From the county standpoint, the basic concept is that the bill is now with the province. From Municipal Affairs we've received, after direct consultation with the municipal clerk and the CAO-designate of the new municipality, letters which are attached at the back of the presentation and state that there is no money in the restructuring funding for the hydro-electric commissions, that it is to be applied through the municipal funding. Quite frankly, working on both sides of the issue with hydro-electric and the municipality, the moneys that are required and will be addressed later, there is not sufficient funding to share it with the hydro-electric commission.


Mr Waters: Then that's my understanding of your concern, is that there aren't going to be the dollars sitting on the other side of the fence that you can draw on.

Mr Armstrong: Definitely not.

Mr Waters: One of the things I'm curious about is that you seem to be the one group that is faced with this. I would have thought that it would have been not only your particular situation but that some of the other restructured areas would have had to face that. We were looking at Ramara, the new township of Ramara, which has some small communities in it, the size of which you are. Yet they didn't seem to have it, and I'm trying to grapple with why, or is it that they haven't realized it?

Mr Armstrong: Either that, or without following through with Ramara, do they in fact have a hydro-electric commission or are they serviced by Ontario Hydro in full?

Part of the newly restructured municipality of Tay will be serviced, as it presently is, by Ontario Hydro. The urban centres of Port McNicoll, Victoria Harbour and Waubaushene have PUCs or hydro-electric commissions, and that is why -- it's become a real problem with us; how it applies to the others, I really can't say at this time. I'm surprised that there aren't more presentations on behalf of hydro-electric commissions.

Mr Waters: I know in Jim's area that he has the same situation where there are a number of small towns, and I'm curious that it would only be us in Tay who are facing this. But I'm awaiting the rest of the presentation later on, so I'll hold the rest of my questions till then.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. I think you certainly have a dilemma here with financing. I don't believe there's any provincial funding going to restructuring for municipalities, is there?

Mr Hayes: Yes --

Mr Eddy: So there is funding available. I don't know; it's not usual for a municipality to fund a hydro commission, though, is it? The power commission act governs the operation quite closely, and I don't know whether money can come from the municipality. It's uncommon if it does. You can't build up reserves in a hydro commission because of the act. You're not allowed to do that. The rate has to be approved by Ontario Hydro. It's a very closely controlled system that's very awkward.

It would look to me that the only answer is going to be increased hydro rates. Is that what you're faced with? You're trying to not do that, I understand, but --

Mr Armstrong: We're trying not to, and as everyone is aware of, with the 0% increase proposed by Ontario Hydro through restructuring and with additional costs, it's going to be impossible to keep the rates down. But any increase would have to be approved, as you say, by Ontario Hydro and would seriously affect, I would assume, the servicing and the budgeting process.

Mr Eddy: So your request to us is to look at designating some of the funding that's going to the municipality for restructuring specifically for the hydro-electric commission restructuring.

Mr Armstrong: I guess, in short, what we're looking for is funding for the hydro-electric commission. I would like to just stipulate, though, that when I listened yesterday at Midhurst, $2.6 million for the municipalities, I don't feel, is sufficient with the costs that we're projecting, and to expect the hydro-electric commission cost to come out of that $2.6 million doesn't seem justified. I think when restructuring was considered, the hydro-electric commissions possibly did not have the input that they should have had to deal with funding from the province.

Mr Eddy: Thank you.

Mr Conway: Just on that, maybe just to give notice to the parliamentary assistant for a comment maybe later today or later in the week, but I look at this, and assuming you're right or nearly right, and that would be my assumption, you're talking here, in this one area, of one-time expenses in addition to what you would now normally be doing, of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- my guess.

Mr Armstrong: Yes.

Mr Conway: I'm going to guess it's probably like hundreds of thousands of dollars and ongoing operational costs above and beyond what you've now got of probably, on an annual basis, hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

Mr Armstrong: The projection in operations would indicate there will be a substantial increase. However, what we are looking at as well is that, with three municipalities coming together and the split of the area serviced by the hydro-electric commission, by the bill, as I understand it, we cannot leapfrog and jump from one place to the other to bring it in if we have to purchase from Ontario Hydro and follow in a systematic line. So for some time I would have to say that yes, the costs will be there because people will be expecting the same consideration and rates as their neighbours are getting.

Mr Conway: Now, the other assumption I would make and I would recommend for everybody to make is that there's going to be little or no money coming from central governments that are sinking under the burden of red ink. If I were giving you advice, I'd say I wouldn't be looking for -- you should be looking for it, but your chances of getting it I think are not very great. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm right. What alternatives have you got? I would hope that there's got to be a way to do this other than just cranking up a whole pile of new expenses that just nobody is going to want and few people are going to be happy about.

Mr Armstrong: I wish I had the answer. We've looked at it very carefully. The commission, combined with the three existing commissions, has taken a hard, fast look. Hopefully they are looking at coming in as economically as possible. For example, the new truck, the existing vehicle that Port McNicoll has is not suitable to service the larger area, plus it's outdated and the Municipal Electric Association, I guess it is, on safety standards may well say, "Look, next year that truck has got to be off the road."

So that cost may be there already, but as a result of the larger restructured commission, it requires a different type of truck: a material handler versus just a bucket truck. So there are additional costs as a result of restructuring that we have to deal with. Staffing is another area that we've looked at versus contracting. I would say it's an ongoing exercise to try to keep things in line and keep rates reasonable.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Pat. I thought this amalgamation was going to reduce costs. I thought that with all the Victoria Harbour and Port McNicoll offices they would be redundant and no further in use or there would be extra equipment. You're not talking about savings in your brief. You're looking realistically at what you feel is going to happen. With the computers that you're talking about and all the office equipment, if two offices close, there should be all kinds of them floating around.

Mr Armstrong: Not so. Again, the municipal presentation later will explain that area. For example, the Port McNicoll building, where the municipal office is now, will be deemed to be surplus. Therefore, the offer is made to the hydro-electric commission to either lease or purchase that building. The current Tay township office, the same as Victoria Harbour's end port, is inadequate in size to house the staff and the councils. There are other costs that have to come in from that side as well from the hydro-electric side.

Mr McLean: So they're going to build new offices for the new amalgamated municipality?

Mr Armstrong: You tell me, Al, because I think we've got some indications of costs of expanding the existing building to accommodate and it's anybody's guess where we're going on costs.


Mr McLean: Nobody knows.

Mr Hayes: Thank you, Mr Armstrong, for your presentation. The bill itself says that you would continue existing services, and also if services were being supplied by Ontario Hydro that would not change either.

Actually, in Tay township -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the area would be smaller than the current area, so why would this add extra costs? You're talking about your sharing a computer, for example, with a municipality. Why wouldn't you continue to share that computer? Why would you have to do all these things? Would you have to do these whether restructuring was here or not? Restructuring says that you keep existing services. It doesn't tell you to go out and expand.

Mr Armstrong: As I understand, the existing services are the services supplied to the consumer. I think it's not proper to assume that you can continue on a cost-shared basis when you're satelliting, which would be the case with the scenario that you're using.

Right now you would have to know, in small municipalities, in Port McNicoll, for example, that the total office staff are shared costs, shared equipment, a shared building. Victoria Harbour duplicates as well, and the only independent operation is a one-person operation at Waubaushene servicing the smaller of the three urban centres. With restructuring, it is not possible to move the people into the new municipal building and share costs, as we're looking at space deficiency for the municipal sector alone, which would require, as we see it, adjustments.

Mr Hayes: The other thing you talked about was replacing equipment, trucks for example, and I think you did indicate that eventually you'd have to purchase vehicles. I'd like you to tell the committee why you would really have to -- maybe I'll put it another way: Would you have to replace trucks or get added trucks regardless of restructuring?

Mr Armstrong: Equipment wears out. Yes, it would have to be replaced. The fact of restructuring and coming into a larger service area requires a different type of vehicle. Therefore, the replacement of that vehicle is moved up and the value or the purchase price of that vehicle becomes a larger cost due to what's required in the new municipality.

Mr Hayes: I'm still trying to figure out where you get the larger service area, but I just want to read really quickly just a couple of lines in the bill, and that's the distribution of power to continue. It's section 14:

"Subject to section 15 of this act and despite section 18 of the Public Utilities Act, Ontario Hydro shall continue to distribute and supply hydroelectric power in those parts of each local municipality that Ontario Hydro served on the 31st day of December, 1993."

Mr Armstrong: Why the extra service area?

Mr Hayes: I'm just wondering why you feel that you have to spend all this extra money to continue the service that is there.

Mr Armstrong: The current vehicle owned and operated by the Port McNicoll Public Utilities Commission operates within the boundaries of the municipality. It does not go into Tay township, it does not go into Waubaushene and it does not go into Victoria Harbour. Victoria Harbour and Waubaushene have their own commission. They do not have vehicles. They contract the work out.

It's the intention, economically, that it is better to service with our own employees and equipment rather than to continue putting out normal maintenance costing to contractors. Capital costs that are beyond the scope may very well still be out. That would have to be a budgetary decision, but the mileage they'll be covering with that vehicle to service the urban centres within the new municipality will definitely be a broader range and increase mileage for that vehicle. It will be on the highways where now it stays on town streets in the shorter run.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming before the committee this afternoon, and I understand that there are some other points that will be made later by others that will touch on some of the points you've raised.


The Chair: I will now call our next witnesses, from the town of Penetang, Mayor Robert Klug and Reeve Anita Dubeau. While they're coming to the table, the parliamentary assistant has several documents that he wanted to have distributed. Do you want to just mention what those are?

Mr Hayes: Yes.

The Chair: If the representatives from the town of Penetanguishene would come forward and just get yourselves --

Mr Hayes: For the committee, some of the discussions this morning and dealing with some of the boundaries, and we do have the information here dealing with Oro and Medonte and also Orillia township. We've copied this. These are the recommendations that were made by the committee and also adopted by the county council. I do have copies for all the members of the committee and maybe we can get it passed around.

Mr Conway: Depending on what's there, I would appreciate that very much; it might be useful at some point. We'll have to look at the material, and I appreciate certainly the efforts of the parliamentary assistant. Depending on what's in the material, it still might be useful to have somebody who actually is willing to take authorship of these recommendations to come and speak to them.

The Chair: Thank you. Mayor Klug?

Mr Robert Klug: Yes, Klug is my name.

The Chair: If you would be good enough to introduce your colleagues and then please go ahead with your presentation.

Mr Klug: Gladly. I'd like to introduce Reeve Anita Dubeau and a member of our -- actually, our economic development committee is one, but also a developer who has a major investment in the town of Penetanguishene, Mr Ray Marchand.

The Chair: Fine. Go ahead.

Mr Klug: Honourable Chair and members of the standing committee, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present the comments of the town of Penetanguishene on the proposed county restructuring contained in Bill 51.

The town of Penetanguishene has been actively involved in this study process, and we have tried to make positive comments and recommendations on all aspects of restructuring, both local and county-wide. As a municipality, we have consistently had two areas of concern. First was the necessity for the county-wide strategic and official plan, and we note the county's commitment to generating these documents. Secondly, we have concerns about the alterations of our boundaries and our ability to effectively integrate and administer these new lands.

Specifically, we have concerns with our southerly boundary, which will now be with the town of Midland. The county's assertion that all municipalities must provide for buffers between themselves and their neighbours is the nub of our concern. With the proposed southerly boundary between Highway 93 and Fuller Avenue, we would have already developed land right up to the boundary line.

We would ask the consideration of a legislative amendment to move the boundary approximately 600 feet south to the Brunelle Side Road. This movement would result in the transfer of approximately 200 acres from the new Midland to the new Penetanguishene. It would involve 11 owners, six of whom already receive water supply from the municipality system and two of whom, notably McLeod and Marchand -- Mr Marchand to my left -- account for 190 acres which are parts of parcels which extend into the town of Penetanguishene.

Although we know that roadways make poor municipal boundaries, we believe the adjustment of our boundary from the northerly limits of lot 113 to the southerly limits of lot 113 make sound planning and administrative sense and would allow Penetanguishene to integrate these areas as our buffer with the town of Penetanguishene.

An area of concern to the town which did not arise during the study process but has since been brought forward by our police service board is a potential for huge policing costs for the Oak Ridge division of the Ontario Mental Health Centre. The resources which the current policing body, the Ontario Provincial Police, have extended in the last few years at this installation would be far beyond the ability of the town of Penetanguishene. The possibility of a major incident or crime at the installation which could involve our entire 10-member police force for a lengthy period of time is too daunting to be considered. For this reason, we must insist that the legislation transferring the Oak Ridge facility to Penetanguishene jurisdiction specifically exempt the town of Penetanguishene from providing police coverage. We believe that if police coverage by Penetanguishene is mandated we must have legislated commitments from the province to provide for cost recovery of such policing.


I am enclosing for your information copies of our previous submissions to both the county of Simcoe restructuring study committee and the Honourable David Cooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am also enclosing a map which shows the lands we would like to have transferred to Penetanguishene's jurisdiction.

I thank the committee for its patience and attention and hope that we may hear its reactions and recommendations to our comments prior to Bill 51 being reintroduced for final reading.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll begin the questioning with Mr Conway.

Mr Conway: Just one question. Thank you very much, your worship and colleagues. It seems to me that your concern about the potential for municipal policing of the Oak Ridge facility is quite a legitimate concern. Parliamentary assistant, is there any reason that you're aware of why we could not accede to that request? Is there any impediment to, for example, designating that as just a responsibility for the OPP, which still must maintain a detachment in the area of Penetanguishene? Am I correct?

Mr Hayes: Mr Conway, I think this is an issue that the ministry will have to deal with the Solicitor General on to come back with a proper answer on it and to negotiate.

Mr Klug: When we were researching policing, we realized that there was some major cost in the history of the Oak Ridge development.

Mr Hayes: This will be dealt with by the Solicitor General -- the two ministries.

Mr Conway: It's a good brief, and that's the only thing. I think it is quite a legitimate point. I would certainly like to see some redress for the municipality.

The Chair: Mr Wilson and Mr McLean.

Mr Jim Wilson: I think it's a very good brief too. You raised a couple of very good points with respect to policing. My question really is to the parliamentary assistant. When Bill 177 was passed, the first restructuring of Simcoe county in 1990, it contained significant clauses with respect to policing. This bill contains no mention of policing whatsoever. Is that because this issue has only come up recently? One would have assumed that, where municipal police forces are asked to expand, discussions would have already taken place with the Solicitor General's office.

Mr Hayes: If I may, I'd refer that to Mr Griggs, please. He's been following through with it.

Mr Griggs: Bill 177, as you know, created three town municipalities in the southern portion of the county. Under the Police Services Act at that time, if you were considered a town or if you named yourself as a town, you were required to provide policing. In that case you had fairly large areas of townships that were currently being policed by the OPP that had to provide local police forces or expand fairly small urban forces, local forces.

With the Simcoe county study, the new municipalities that are being created from amalgamations of whole municipalities have chosen to be referred to as townships and as such won't be required to provide policing. The only cases where there will be an expansion of local police forces is regarding the towns, specifically, Penetanguishene, Midland and Collingwood. I guess the feeling was that the town forces could adequately police those areas in that they were fairly small. If the annexations were proceeding under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, there would be no provision for the continuation of OPP policing in those areas. However, this is a new concern that's been raised and we'll certainly look into it.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'll take that as a commitment from the government to do that. With respect to the issue of the boundary moving to the southerly boundary of lot 113, I guess it is --

The Chair: Excuse me. I just want to be clear with our witnesses. Mr Marchand, you have, and we also have, a copy of a letter from you.

Interjection: Mr Marchand has a submission he would like to make at this time.

The Chair: Did you want to read that into the record? I mean, it is part of our record now. But before we go on with that specific issue, I just wanted to be clear.

Mr Ray Marchand: I'd like to read it and then answer any questions if there are any.

The Chair: Perhaps then, Mr Wilson, could I ask Mr Marchand just to read his -- it's a brief letter but it relates to the same issue? That way we've got everything on the table.

Mr Marchand: "Honourable Chair and members of the standing committee:

"Ladies and Gentlemen,

"Our company is a real estate development company that is in the process of developing a 51-acre parcel of land that has 16 acres in Penetanguishene and 35 acres in Tay township. The map is enclosed. The draft plan approval on the 16 acres is imminent.

"We were extremely happy when restructuring was proposed that was granting the land north of the Brunelle Side Road to Penetanguishene. Only weeks before restructuring was finalized, the land was granted to Midland. It would be quite impossible for this land to be serviced by Midland. It is substantially more logical for the land to be serviced by Penetanguishene.

"It is our opinion that the Brunelle Side Road boundary would benefit not only our company, but all other landholders north of the Brunelle Side Road. It would also be a benefit to the town of Penetanguishene and not be any loss to Midland."

Thank you for hearing our submission.

The Chair: Thanks very much. Now we have that jointly on the record and we'll go back to Mr Wilson.

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr Marchand. Just reading the background material, this was referred to the county. What was the response from the county?

Ms Anita Dubeau: Right from the beginning it was suggested that two municipalities had to agree to make any changes. We did have discussion with the town of Midland, but their argument was that there was a watershed there and we recognized that. The flow of the land perhaps is not readily -- the south part of Brunelle Side Road is in question and certainly should be left undeveloped for some time. But we couldn't get anywhere.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Marchand, does this effectively split your property now; you'll have to deal with two jurisdictions?

Mr Marchand: Yes, we would. My intention when I originally purchased the land was to ask for voluntary annexation. At the time before restructuring began, I spoke to the current mayor and asked him if we could do this and he said yes, we could ask for annexation. Then shortly thereafter, restructuring began and the mayor said, "Why don't we just wait and see what happens."

So we were extremely happy when the boundary was previously set at the Brunelle Side Road. Shortly before it was pretty well finalized, we were told it was going to move back to the old Tay boundary. So this became a real problem to us.

Mr Owens: Why was it being changed?

Mr Marchand: I have no idea.

Mr Jim Wilson: This reminds me of south Simcoe. When it was amalgamated, the ministry was rather adamant that you not use Highway 27 south of Cookstown as a boundary line. Therefore, I have cases where the house is in one jurisdiction and the barn is another jurisdiction. We're going to take an attempt on Thursday to try and correct that once again, but haven't had much luck to date.

I agree, and I think Mr McLean agrees, that from what you presented to us, all of your parcel should be in Penetanguishene by the looks of it.

Mr Marchand: It would be a tremendous benefit to us because we have no other alternative but to ask for a voluntary annexation and we are in the process of developing the first 16 acres. I called again today to see if we had draft plan approval because the Ministry of Municipal Affairs said that all was in place and we should be in a position to have draft plan approval now. We'd like to proceed and begin developing the other 35 acres.

Mr Jim Wilson: I guess we want to hear what the town of Midland has to say about this when they do their presentation.

Mr McLean: Anita, were you on county council when the restructuring lines were being drawn or was that before your time?

Ms Dubeau: Restructuring had been discussed. I've been sitting in the county this last term, two years, so it was in process.

Mr McLean: But was this line changed while you were at the county?

Ms Dubeau: I believe so.

Mr McLean: Were you informed of any proposal --

Ms Dubeau: No, we were not. It just kind of happened.

Mr McLean: I think we've got to find out who's changed minds in this restructuring process. We went through this this morning in Orillia with the lines that were changed. Nobody seems to know who's doing it. Is there a ghost in the crowd who's doing this?

This line that was changed, who changed it? Somebody will say, "Well, it was the boundary committee." Somebody is doing it and we've got to find out who it is. Somebody is answerable for this.


Mr Klug: Our original meeting with Midland proposed that the boundary line for Penetang southern boundary be south of the Brunelle Side Road for the same reasons that Midland has proposed that north of the Brunelle Side Road as a buffer. They identify that southern region as the watershed for Midland. It's a very wet area and you see no development in that area.

Mr McLean: But that's not answering the question.

Mr Klug: It did change somewhere at the county and we can't figure it out. We wanted to get back with Midland to discuss it, but the criteria said that where two municipalities couldn't agree, the boundary would stay at the line that was finally set and how it was set.

Mr McLean: But you didn't agree to change it from the first line.

Mr Klug: No.

Mr McLean: How can it be changed when you didn't agree to it? They say it can't be changed back when they won't agree to it. How they could they change it from you when you wouldn't agree to it?

Mr Klug: It's a very good question to ask and I certainly would like to know where it comes from.

Mr Conway: You're both agreed that one buffer is enough?

Mr Klug: One buffer, and we assured both the town of Midland and the county that we would use it strictly as a buffer and certainly not consider development on it of any major impact.

Mr Waters: I'm in agreement with my compadres across the way. This is getting confusing because it seems every time we go into another area there are some boundary changes that we don't seem to know -- nobody knows why, how.

Maybe what I would propose is that we ask you, Mr Chair, or the parliamentary assistant -- whoever is the appropriate person on this -- to get the Simcoe county restructuring committee back, either tomorrow night when we've looked at all of this or first thing Thursday morning for half an hour or an hour or something, to go over some of this so we can have some understanding as to who changed them and why, because I find it very frustrating.

The Chair: You've made that suggestion. Perhaps we'd just let members think about that and at the end of the day, before we break, we could come back to that point. I just don't want to take --

Mr Klug: We would like to be a party to that information.

Mr Waters: We'll be certain to pass it on.

The Chair: Mr Waters, sorry, can we proceed then? The parliamentary assistant.

Mr Hayes: I've tried to answer this question and maybe I haven't been clear enough. I think it's very simple and I think everybody knows and the members who sit on the county council -- you had the county restructuring study committee that gave the report and recommendations to county council, and they voted on all those. We have the final draft, the one that went to county council. Those are the people who have made the changes or made the boundaries. It's the study committee that made the presentation.

Mr Conway: You make a good point. I guess the difficulty we're having is --

Mr Hayes: What you're suggesting is I have someone, a person or persons, come before the committee to explain, to let you know who did it. Is that what you want?

The Chair: Mr Conway, and Mr Wilson, just on this point --

Mr Conway: Just very briefly -- and I appreciate, Pat, what you said. It really concerns me when I hear people like this group saying -- this is their boundary line and they've advanced an argument and there certainly seems to be some unanswered questions to them. When Ms Keefe was here early this morning, I thought she was quite good, but when she was -- I think I asked her the question around the Orillia township thing quite specifically and she didn't claim very much ownership of that decision.

So I guess I'm with Dan and others, before we get to the end of the day or before we get to the end of the process -- because I suspect there are going to be some amendments. I suspect also there are going to be some people who are going to be annoyed that the committee is thinking about amending the sacred lines of this peace treaty. But I'll tell you, there's got to some better information before this committee, I think, is satisfied that the decisions that were made were well and properly made on the basis of all reasonable evidence tendered.

Mr Hayes: My understanding of this is that those boundaries, recommendations, were made two years ago. This is the information I have been given on some of those boundaries. If I can ask one very quick question because another understanding after Penetanguishene, in their presentation to the committee, talk about -- and I thought that from my understanding, from what you were saying, that you wanted, that Penetanguishene wanted this particular area as a buffer, and if you wanted it as a buffer, I'm sitting here saying, well, why are we talking now about developing it? I'm asking the mayor.

Mr Klug: We think it's good planning to have a development, not just come to an abrupt buffer but that it slip back into a rural use, and we would take every assurance that the development that he would have would be on full urban services and that closer towards Brunelle Side Road there would be little to no development. We think we can safeguard that far better than the town of Midland.

The Chair: Reeve Dubeau, did you wish to --

Ms Dubeau: Yes, I just would like to comment to the parliamentary assistant re the decision process at the county level: That is correct, those issues were discussed, but they were not unanimous in the decision. We opposed those very issues at that time, but the majority rules.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming before the committee and making your presentation.

Mr Klug: Thank you very much for your time.


The Chair: I'd now like to call Mr Larry Hembruff, the chief of police representing the Midland police board and service, and Mr J. Douglas Reed, who is the chairman of the police services board. The Chair will have to admit a conflict of interest, given that the chair of the police services board and I went to school together. However, apart from that, he's a fine fellow. Welcome, gentlemen, to the committee. Doug, it's good to see you. Please go ahead with your presentation.

Mr J. Douglas Reed: I believe I drew the short straw. One of us wasn't on three weeks' holidays, the other was involved in the wedding of his son, and you'll have to guess which one that was.

We're here to endorse Bill 51. I am the chairman of the Midland Police Services Board and I have been since the board's inception some 20 months ago. We're here to support Bill 51.

I guess if I only had "a" regret about the bill, it would be the business of policing. I don't believe the bill addresses that subject at all. However, Bill 107, the police act, certainly takes care of that, and I'm very confident that our board can deliver the necessary services pursuant to the Police Services Act with regard to the newly restructured areas.

As a matter of fact, as the chairman, I can assure you that this morning, board members met at the local high school for a meeting, and at the end of that meeting we passed a resolution indicating that the board would make the necessary plans to assume the policing of the restructured areas of both Tiny and Tay townships, and if the need arises to expand our current police force so as to provide acceptable levels of service, given these times of restraint.

As you know, the need to spend tax dollars wisely is always at the forefront of all of our agendas and we could use a little shot in the arm from Queen's Park to help us over the transition period. However, I remain confident that we will meet our continued policing needs, that we will be able to serve residents and visitors alike when it comes to the business of public safety.

I'm sure you would be pleased to know that the Midland police services and the board were the first municipal forces in the province of Ontario to sign the social contract, of the 116 forces that were involved.

As a matter of fact, this particular police force takes a great deal of pride in the number of firsts that it is involved with. We are involved in race relations and employment equity. We have an excellent Neighbourhood Watch program. We have fully contained platoons. Our people prior to Christmas took the pepper mace training, including the chairman of the board, much to the chagrin of his wife. A paddy wagon was purchased late last year by the Civitan club. We have a canine unit that now is almost operational. Next week, both dog and handler go off to training college for some 14 weeks.


I watched the provincial Legislature when there was a member of Parliament who called attention to the fact that there was a canine unit down around the St Catharines area that was funded by a service club. Well, we must be the second one, then, in the province of Ontario because the Lions Club bought our mobile unit, an animal breeder provided us with the German shepherd and so the story goes. Almost every week you'll see some kind of fund-raising taking place in the town of Midland with regard to the canine unit.

I can assure you that our police force is not a slouch in any state of mind. We have been involved with community-based policing for the last year or so. We were one of two police services in the province of Ontario to focus in on being a model police force. Recently, we just completed a survey in the community and the chief now has set up a chief's advisory committee that will go through the survey and will spot some of the gaps, and already we know where some of the gaps are and those gaps have already been filled.

Our annual budget is in excess of $1.5 million, of which almost 90% goes to wages and benefits, and still I can assure you there are police people from across the province of Ontario who would give their eyeteeth to join the Midland Police Service. I think they would want to come to Midland, not only because we're located at the gateway to the 30,000 Islands but because we have extremely high morale within the department and we have an excellent rapport within the community.

Inasmuch as demands for service drive up the costs, and inasmuch as we have operated on a bare-bones budget and a shoestring budget for the last couple of years and inasmuch as the social contract has taken its toll here in Huronia as well as everywhere else throughout the province of Ontario, there will be some growing pains when we start to deliver service come the first of the new year. I would sense that this would occur, but I'm very confident that the police chief and his police service will be up to the task. As the chairman of the police services board, I look forward to the challenge.

Our motto here in Midland is "Community First," and I'm confident that we will be community first in Midland and also in the larger environs that we will be assuming come January 1.

I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work and the difficult work that has been involved in putting this act together. It has not been easy by any stretch of the imagination and we look forward to its royal assent. We look forward, as we said today, to endorsing the document. I can assure you that we are prepared in the weeks and months to come to pull all the material together so that come January 1, we'll be providing the best police service that we can in the restructured areas of Tiny and Tay that we'll be assuming. We're here to (a) endorse the bill and (b) welcome you to the heart of Huronia.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll begin the questioning with Mr McLean.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. Good to see you again, Doug.

Mr Reed: Thank you.

Mr McLean: Chief, I've never had the pleasure to meet you. I don't need to have that pleasure either, in appropriate circumstances.

Mr Larry Hembruff: We can arrange it.

Mr McLean: What's going to be your increased population of the area that you cover? The area's not increasing that much, but it's the population mainly.

Mr Reed: While Larry's looking for those figures, of course, there are the malls that will keep our people busy. That's for sure.

Mr McLean: Yes, the malls.

Mr Hembruff: It will be 224 persons in Tiny township, 1,968 persons in Tay township.

Mr McLean: How many in Tay again?

Mr Hembruff: There will be 1,968.

Mr McLean: So that'll be mainly Sunnyside and out in that area?

Mr Hembruff: Correct; Portage Park.

Mr McLean: How many staff do you have now?

Mr Hembruff: Thirty-one with civilian staff.

Mr McLean: Including your civilian staff?

Mr Hembruff: Thirty-one.

Mr McLean: You plan on increasing that by -- what is your recommendation?

Mr Reed: Last fall when we did our initial impact survey, and when we talked to other forces that had been through the same exercise and as we travelled throughout the areas that we would have to cover, it appeared that we would require as many as five, plus an additional vehicle, plus at least three micro towers, because we found that there were gaps out around Tay Point where the communication was dead, and out behind the drive-in theatre it was dead out there.

Since then, as late as or as early as this morning, we've decided that since the area is being reduced a bit, we'll give it another drive through and we will meet with members of our police association, our senior officers and so on and fine-tune it.

I would think that probably still we'd need several, two to three at least. Again, it's the mall areas where shoplifting and accidents on the mall property and so on are really time-consuming. It could be, too, that we may have to contemplate setting up an extended service office so that we can have a presence there (a) for a presence, and (b) to have our people readily available instead of having them come in to investigate a shoplifting.

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr Reed and Chief Hembruff, for your presentation. I can well imagine that your police force is not a slouch. I had the good graces to have Chief Hembruff in Alliston for a number of years and he's certainly a community-minded person. Good to see you again, Larry.

Mr Hembruff: Thank you.

Mr Jim Wilson: You mentioned that you may need to expand the force a bit to service the new areas, particularly the malls, that you'll be acquiring. Currently, are those areas of Tay and Tiny that you'll be taking over serviced by the OPP?

Mr Reed: Yes, that's right.

Mr Jim Wilson: That's substantially paid for by the province of Ontario?

Mr Reed: Right.

Mr Jim Wilson: I guess it's a concern, as Larry will know when south Simcoe was amalgamated, policing costs is one of the concerns that ratepayers raise, because I think a number of people see it as another form of downloading from the province. For example, in the areas you take over, Midland taxpayers will have to pick up the cost, given that as far as I know, this hasn't been addressed in this legislation so there's no special deal as in the south Simcoe study. There was a phase-in for policing and the costs were phased in over five years, or phase-out, I guess, of provincial funding for policing.

In this case in this particular bill, there is no section at all dealing with policing. Do you know what the estimated cost might be to the ratepayers of Midland, hence the savings to the province of Ontario?

Mr Reed: I think if we were to have to buy the service from the OPP or if the OPP continued to provide the service, the town of Midland would still have to meet it in either scenario.

Again, we were talking initially in terms of five people, a vehicle and a steno, and we're looking at a little over $100,000 -- correction, $275,000. That's five staff and a steno, plus the micro towers.

This is a tough one, but we think that if we were to buy the service, we would be getting a duplicate service, that our training would be duplicated. We feel comfortable that we can do it. It's going to take a lot of elbow grease, but we've got an excellent rapport within the association. We're not going to ask them to do 72 hours a week, but I think if we can work together in harmony with them, we can work through this thing.

I would think that during the transition period we may be able to get away with a couple of people and use one of our Criminal Investigation Bureau cars to do that kind of work out in the community. So instead of hitting everybody over the head with one big sledgehammer, we may have to work into it slowly and we may start with two and use one of our current vehicles.

Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate your honest responses. I just note to committee members that when the county is moving ahead with restructuring, some of these issues aren't, in my opinion, discussed as forthrightly with the public -- it's been my contention, as committee members will know, that this is another example of a form of downloading. I think the question of whether communities should be paying for policing or not, whether it be in areas that are currently serviced by the OPP, is a separate question that should be dealt with by the Legislature. In part, I see these restructurings as a way of the province offloading some of that responsibility and cost on to local ratepayers, and I think that's what's going to happen, although in a small way, in the Midland area. I just want committee members to take note of this as an example of some of the costs we talk about when you're restructuring.


Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I appreciate you coming before us today, because it again brings a little different light to the committee members as we sit through this process and hear about how the restructuring is going to affect different portions.

Coming from the area that I represent, which is the other side of Lake Simcoe -- it's a largely rural part but a part of Durham region, a little part of York region -- the police services, when you mention community policing, are quite involved with that. In fact I know the OPP officers, the association out of Beaverton, are planning to do a bit of a fund-raising car rally for the women's shelter. There is quite a bit of community policing that goes on in Pefferlaw. The York Regional Police went into the Lions hall and set up kind of an outpost for a period of time, and they've been involved in setting up community policing down in Stouffville. So there's a lot of cooperation. Over in Sunderland, the Durham Regional Police were right on the main street talking to some of the local people. It's changing quite a bit. It's evolving. So I'm glad to see that you're involved in that.

The question that I've got -- and this is new to us, some of this -- is, does Penetanguishene have a police service or do they purchase that from the OPP?

Mr Reed: They have a municipal police service and we do the dispatching out of our radio room. As a matter of fact, we dispatch for almost a couple of dozen different organizations: the area fire departments, the bylaw enforcement, public works, Penetanguishene police. We have what I think is, again -- it's an old Pickering college cliché -- just a terrific rapport with the Penetanguishene police and with the OPP and with all the forces. When the need arises we're there to back them up and they're there to back our people up. Often we cotrain.

It was interesting earlier this year that the police associations in both municipalities talked about the possibility of amalgamating police forces into sort of a mini regional police service. That's pretty exciting, because usually politically it comes this way down and here the front liners, these guys and girls who have been out on the road who know what's happening, are saying, "You know, if we got together, we could probably save some money and we could probably enhance our morale and so on." Our boards tackled it, the councils have tackled it, and it may not be on quite the front burner now as it was in the spring, but we're talking. These are the kinds of things that occur when your communities and police forces are so close together.

Mr O'Connor: I know even, for example, the community --

The Chair: I'm sorry, we have one more questioner. I'm going to have to move on.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. It's most interesting in some of the other things that you're doing. I wondered if either the police services board or indeed the municipal council, the treasurer, had looked at the cost of policing with the idea that the area that's proposed to come in to the town of Midland, if you tax that at the same rate for police services that you do the present town, would that pay for the additional services required by an expanded force? Are you clear on what I'm saying?

Mr Hembruff: Yes.

Mr Eddy: I wondered if that would take care of it at the same rate.

Mr Hembruff: I don't know the answer to that, but our mayor is sitting back here and I'm sure he's up next and that would be a good question.

Mr Eddy: I just wondered if it will result in an increase in the police tax rate in the present town. I know it will in the area coming in, of course, because it will be providing police services there.

Mr Hembruff: I don't believe it will, but I'm sure he can answer that for you.

Mr Eddy: Thank you.

Mr Reed: By the same token, if there's a name or two that you could let us know as somebody we could touch up for a little bit of money down at Queen's Park, we'd be only too happy to hear.

Mr Eddy: We'll certainly put your request in.

The Chair: So noted. Gentlemen, thank you both very much for coming before the committee and talking to us about the police services here in Midland.


The Chair: If I might then call upon the mayor of the town of Midland, Mr Edward Symons.

Mr Edward Symons: Good afternoon, sir.

The Chair: Welcome to the committee. If you'd be good enough to introduce your colleague.

Mr Symons: I'm Ted Symons, mayor of the town of Midland, and my colleague is Fred Flood. Fred is our chief administrative officer.

I had come today sort of prepared to make a few general comments concerning the process and where we in Midland, at least, feel that we fit into that. If there are any questions that may come up during it, I would invite certainly those, or I guess following the conclusions.

Initially, we in Midland see this process, the County of Simcoe Act, 1993, as the end of a process that has lasted for several years. It is going to require change, and change in local thinking, in local municipalities, and that obviously doesn't come easily. On the other hand, the development of our country is young and if we can't learn from our mistakes as well as our successes in the past, then I think at least in learning from those we should be prepared to implement change where change is thought to be beneficial in the long run.

I think most of the controversy with respect to Bill 51 is centred around the boundaries and the boundary changes that it would implement, and many of my comments are directed in that end.

But to just look at the growth of urban municipalities generally for a moment, Midland's current circumstances are typical of many small municipalities throughout the province. Growth is inevitable, and as the local economy grows, it fuels residential growth. I think we generally feel that kind of growth is healthy and essentially its our economic way of life. The benefit of the growth is not limited to the local urban municipality in which it's generated. The benefits are felt by the surrounding rural municipalities, and I think in general terms our local economies are interdependent.

When the geographic townships of Ontario were laid out, of course, Midland didn't exist. It was settled through natural forces around about 1871. It was incorporated a few years thereafter as a village and then as a town. But it had to be carved out of the geographic townships as they were initially laid out and its boundaries have been adjusted several times. I think in all reality it's likely to grow even further in the normal course of things and its boundaries should not be etched in stone or thought about that way.

On the other hand, there are balancing interests. Recent years have produced a common phenomenon in development patterns where urban municipalities have pushed their own boundaries and rural municipalities that have become just as sophisticated in recent years have tended to foster development on the fringes of the urban municipalities, partly to take advantage of the economic opportunity for assessment and partly just to satisfy demand and the natural market forces that all municipalities have to deal with.

Typically, on the urban side of the line the development has been serviced and on the rural side of the line it has not been serviced. The long-term needs for servicing, particularly as our environmental consciousness grows, becomes easily predictable. The rural municipalities generally have not had the will or the facilities to provide for services and it ultimately falls to the responsibility of the neighbouring urban municipalities to provide those services.


Quite apart from this study that we're looking at today, there are two significant engines for change and development of urban municipalities at work today. One is the growth and settlement policies that are presently being applied by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to official plans, primarily but certainly with respect to urban growth, and the other is the Sewell commission, which has now delivered its report on new planning in Ontario.

Both recognize that this old, relatively uncontrolled pattern of development has to change. They also recognize that urban municipalities should not be permitted to sprawl for the sake of sprawling or grow for the sake of growth, that services are too expensive to maintain, and to have better utilization of land within urban municipalities before further encroachment on a neighbouring rural municipality certainly is part of that direction.

Development which reasonably requires servicing today is going to occur on services. It isn't going to occur initially on unserviced land.

It's also recognized, I think, or coming to be recognized, that if there's going to be any kind of fairness between the urban and rural boundaries, there needs to be a buffer zone between the urban development and the rural development so that we don't tend to pile up on one another the way we have in the past. I think that's been characteristic of past growth and perhaps inevitable, given the lack of controls that might have existed.

If we're going to institute a better approach, then obviously we have to set the stage. Where fringe development has occurred that is unserviced fringe development on the edge of urban municipalities, then I suggest that it makes sense that the boundaries of the urban municipalities are going to have to move out to take in that development plus a fringe area or buffer zone beyond that to avoid a similar recurrence.

I think planning on a county basis is very important to the whole process if the interests of the competing municipalities or the urban and rural municipalities, primarily, are going to be balanced off and, again, if these kinds of things are to be avoided in the future.

I think Midland generally supports the need for change in the planning attitudes and a strong approach to sustainable development in the preservation of our natural environment, and in our view this whole process lends itself to those ends.

Now, in Midland's circumstances in particular, it certainly fits the pattern that I've described. We've got unserviced development primarily on our westerly boundary. It sits atop the water aquifer on which the town of Midland and we think probably the town of Penetanguishene rely for their water supply. There are demands for services now to better utilize that particular area, and the assumption of the responsibility for servicing the new area is a burden which will consume, obviously, the revenues that will come out of the new area. But it's a condition that needs to be met and no doubt has been the reason for many boundary applications for change that have occurred in the past.

We're cognizant to the extent that I suppose we can be in looking at it primarily from our own interest of the financial impact on the rural municipalities. For many years these areas have been a source of revenue without a corresponding burden, and obviously the reaction against change is inevitable. However, if we're ever to see the ills of the past overcome, I think the change has to come.

In particular we've talked to our neighbours, the township of Tiny, and we've done our own calculations with respect to the impact on the township of Tiny. Our financial calculations indicate that with the commercial assessment absent, it would impact the average tax bill in Tiny to the extent of $24 per year. The impact is not nearly so great as is feared, in our view.

None the less, compensation for the loss of the assessment, particularly over the short run, has been recognized. We do have an agreement with the township of Tiny now with respect to compensation. That agreement was conditioned upon support from the province to make the compensation package work, primarily because from our point of view, all of the revenue out of the area virtually, initially at least, will be consumed in providing services, particularly as we look down the road to the hard services that are necessary. So obviously we can't do both, but we have met with provincial negotiators and we have agreed upon a support package that makes the whole thing work from our point of view.

For the township of Tay, we have been listening to them and it seems obvious that they're going to, again, lose revenue or revenue source for which there was not a corresponding burden. But at the same time, we've talked to the provincial consultants with respect to a sharing of the excess revenue out of that area with the township of Tay in the short run.

Midland's capacity to deal with the additional servicing responsibilities, whether they be hard or soft services, is being addressed as the long-term plans for the municipality are being developed. So in our view the scheme is becoming workable for Midland. Our concerns have been largely addressed.

In summary, I'd just like to say to you that the change in our attitude towards urban development or community development within our province is essential. The protection of the natural environment is something that we're learning more and more about as time goes. If the engines for change to address those concerns are to have a fair start, then obviously, they have to be kick-started, and I think this process will do that.

The impact of change, particularly in the short run, should be recognized through appropriate transition and compensation, and I believe that's been addressed. In our case, our concerns from within have also been discussed for some time now and we look forward to assuming our new role.

Again, I guess I would say that change is bound to produce a reaction, but this is change that is needed on any kind of objective plane, and the opportunity for change, certainly, that the provincial government now holds in its hands ought not to be missed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Symons. We have a number of questioners and we'll begin with Mr Waters.

Mr Waters: I have a couple of questions. I guess my leadoff question, your worship, is that we have heard from different people who would have us believe that everyone in the county voted against this; nobody wants restructuring. We heard it this morning; we heard it yesterday. I must say that Reeve Keefe said, no, that is not the case. I would like your opinion as to whether or not that is the case.

Mr Symons: I'd suggest the county record certainly shows that the county study was supported by the majority of the municipalities within the county. Most of the reaction against the recommendations I think has come from the rural municipalities. Certainly from our view, Midland has been criticized throughout the whole thing as a municipality that's just looking to take in a tax grab and that sort of thing. That could be the farthest from our minds. We look upon the change as one which is going to create a responsibility for the town and one that we're trying to balance so that it doesn't become a burden to the existing taxpayer and also doesn't result in tax shocks for the new areas.

I would suggest, in a short answer to your question, that the restructuring proposal is generally supported within the county, but all too often it's the silent majority that's never heard. It's only those who launch a particularly vocal attack on a change like this who get most of the ink.

Mr Waters: I have one concern because, as Mr Flood and I both know, we've had one disappointment with MOE in the last while, being a certain cleanup. I am concerned, as we go ahead with this, about the discussions or whatever with MOE regarding the new service area, that being the 93. Are we talking to them in a proactive way at the same time as we're going through this process?


Mr Symons: I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Mr Waters: In other words, the servicing of the 93 area, of the mall strip and the area up in there: Is it looking optimistic, shall we say, from the town's point of view from its discussions at MOE for getting that servicing in as soon after restructuring takes place as possible?

Mr Symons: As far as I know, that's certainly the case. We've invited representatives of MOE to sit in on our servicing plans for the town generally and for sewage treatment expansion and that kind of thing, and the relationship we've experienced over the last two or three years has been very productive.

Mr Waters: And last -- it's more of a statement than anything else -- I'd like to congratulate you and the people from the town, from your council, who have worked so hard, and your staff, at resolving the number of issues with Tiny and with Tay. You've been working proactively at trying to get these issues resolved and indeed personalizing this restructuring to the needs of north Simcoe. I congratulate you on that.

Mr Symons: Thank you very much.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Mayor. The support package that you have negotiated with the ministry, did it change when you changed the boundaries in Tiny township?

Mr Symons: No, it didn't change significantly. It didn't change at all, I suppose, because the arrangement with Tiny for the interim change on the boundary occurred prior to settling the support package. It's only recently that we've been able to speak to the province about that. I guess we didn't think of that boundary transition as being significant because the assessment within that area isn't particularly significant.

Mr McLean: Who's paying Tiny for its loss of assessment?

Mr Symons: The package is split between the town of Midland and the province.

Mr McLean: You're getting money from the province and then you're paying Tiny? Or is the province paying both you and Tiny? How does that package work?

Mr Symons: The mechanics of the payments haven't been discussed, I suppose, but I presume that where Tiny is to be entitled to a lump sum payment up front for the first three years and then thereafter will be making payments that will be spread over a period of about nine years, total, the initial upfront payment, as we understand it, would be paid by the province and then the subsequent paydown will be paid by the town. The split is about 57% Midland and 43% province.

Mr McLean: The boundary line next to Penetanguishene -- that was Brunelle Side Road -- are you aware of any negotiations that took place with regard to that? At first, initially, it was in the town of Penetanguishene and then it was switched back over to Midland.

Mr Symons: I'm aware of a meeting which occurred between the two towns at Midland, yes.

Mr McLean: You're aware of the meeting that took place between the two towns.

Mr Symons: I was there.

Mr McLean: And did Penetang agree to change that boundary line?

Mr Symons: No, I don't think there was any agreement as such; that is, the premise we were working on at the time was that the boundary had been struck and that there wouldn't be any change from that boundary unless the two municipalities were able to agree on the change, and the two municipalities were not able to agree.

Mr McLean: But that was after it was changed from being in Penetanguishene. The line was changed back to take it out of the Penetanguishene jurisdiction and put it into Midland.

Mr Symons: I'm not aware of those circumstances. I don't think so. When the boundaries with respect to that side of the town were struck, they were, to my recollection, as they currently are now. There was some discussion about changing the boundary to move it farther south. Those discussions occurred a couple of times and we never did come to a different agreement, or any agreement at all, that is, to change the boundary from where it is now.

Mr McLean: Not from where it is now, but I'm talking about from where it was when it was changed to where it is now.

Mr Symons: I'm telling you that I don't know that it ever was any different than it is now. I think if you're under that impression, that's certainly not mine and I don't think it ever has been.

Mr McLean: The mayor of Penetanguishene, before you, said that it was in Penetanguishene and then it was changed and they don't know why it was changed, and we can't find anybody who does.

Mr Symons: If that occurred, then it must have occurred in the county committee structure, perhaps prior to the release of the reports that became public. I don't know. But I can tell you certainly Midland's position on that particular issue. It is essentially that we feel the land between where the boundary is now slated to go and where Penetanguishene would like it should not be developed; it should remain as a buffer between the two municipalities.

The only real question -- I'm told that there has been a presentation earlier today in which perhaps a person involved in developing has made a statement, and perhaps they don't necessarily subscribe to that view now. But assuming between the two municipalities the common ground that we appeared to have when we met -- that is, that land should not be developed -- it's just simply a question then of which municipality should have the ultimate control. We felt that because it is a watershed area and it's land which is sloping off towards the south, down into a well collection area which is depended upon as part of Midland's water supply, the watershed should remain in the town of Midland.

We felt that is a principle, an attitude, I would say, towards municipal boundaries now that we felt was the overriding factor. We did agree at the time, or our discussions at least went to the notion, that we were quite prepared to talk about joint planning, no changes without the consent of Penetanguishene and that sort of thing. But because we felt that it had an impact on our water supply, and certainly any future development of that area would, we felt it was important that Midland have the last card to play.

Mr McLean: Just a final question. Are you going to have to expand your fire department? The police are going to be $275,000, a cost which the province is picking up now and which the town of Midland is going to have to pick up. Are you looking at expansion of your fire department in order to cover the extra areas?

Mr Symons: We do have to make some minor adjustment in the fire department to cover the areas. It's not terribly significant, because we've been in the habit of supporting those areas in any event.

The Chair: The parliamentary assistant just wanted to make a comment on the boundary change, and I know Mr Conway had a question on that. We'll go first to the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Hayes: There are accusations or people assuming that someone just stepped in after the report was all done and passed and started arbitrarily making boundary changes. What has actually happened is that the committee went to county council with the report, with recommendations on their boundaries, and they voted on all these. The county council -- and I think the public should be aware of this, and all the members on this committee -- indicated to the ministry and duly voted that they weren't prepared, and they are not, to make changes to the final draft unless the municipalities that are affected came to an agreement. I don't know how much clearer I can make that.


Mr Conway: I apologize -- I was out for part of the Midland presentation -- but I listened carefully to this last exchange around the boundary issue that Mr McLean has raised. Now, we're got the mayor of Midland, who seems to be a very reasonable fellow. We just had the mayor of Penetanguishene, who seemed also to be a reasonable fellow. The mayor of Penetanguishene said -- and I think it's in here as well -- that the boundary was x and then it was x minus a couple of hundred yards or whatever. But it was his impression that it had been moved. We now have heard your view. Then we had Mr Marchand, interestingly, from Penetanguishene enter a submission.

I think I now know what's going on here. I think the town of Penetanguishene seems to be somewhat more inclined to contemplate a certain measure of modest development within this disputed zone, if I can call it that. I get the feeling from the mayor of Midland that it is the view of the town of Midland that this is the buffer zone and that there will be no development, right?

Mr Symons: With the qualification that as time goes on and with the two towns consulting one another, if it were appropriate for development and both sides agreed to it, then I'm not suggesting that the ban on development would be etched in stone. In fact, it could never be, in any event.

Mr Conway: Mr Wilson made a good point about some of the problems in south Simcoe around these boundaries, and you've got cases where you've got the house in one township and the barn in another. The people from Penetang who were just here -- at least, the impression they left with me was that their submission speaks to that. I'll just take a moment, reading from the bottom of page 1 of the town of Penetanguishene's submission:

"We would ask the consideration of legislative amendment to move that boundary approximately 600 feet south to the Brunelle Side Road. This movement would result in the transfer of approximately 200 acres from the new Midland to the new Penetanguishene. It would involve 11 owners, six of whom already receive water supply from the municipal system, and two of whom, notably McLeod and Marchand, account for 190 acres which are parcels which extend into the town of Penetanguishene."

It seems to me, as I understand this situation, and I might be completely misunderstanding it, that if we accept your position and the boundary as it's now proposed, we're going to end up with some people in a split situation, aren't we?

Mr Symons: That may be true, Mr Conway, but, on the other hand, isn't that always the case? There are always going to be situations. I don't think that it's inordinate here.

But I would like to say, as Mr Hayes has indicated, that there has been no flip-flop with respect to that boundary. With all credit to the mayor of Penetanguishene -- his recollection may be different -- I think if the record is checked, it will clearly show that the boundary as adopted by the county study and by the county council has not been changed back and forth from that point. There may have been discussion prior. I was not party to the county discussions, of course, but from the time it became public and from the time the boundary was established there has never been any change of that boundary back except, as Mr Hayes indicates, on agreement between the two municipalities affected, and there just hasn't been any agreement.

Mr Conway: I have a final point, then, just on the Marchand submission, which you may not have seen. I'd be happy to make a copy available, but you probably have an idea of what he's proposing, at least on the basis of what he told us. What would you then have to say to a person like Mr Marchand about his prospects for development, as he's indicated he would like to proceed, if he should, as may be the case, fall within the jurisdiction of the expanded town of Midland?

Mr Symons: In the absence of some more particular knowledge about that -- I've not seen his proposal until today. I'm not sure how long ago it is we met with the town of Penetanguishene on this particular issue. It has not been an issue since then and has been raised strictly in the context of these hearings. But I would say that if Mr Marchand or the town of Penetanguishene is now proposing that this area be developed or contain development, that is totally contrary to the kinds of discussions we had between the two municipalities.

The notion of a buffer, the notion that particularly Penetanguishene at the time did not want to see Midland growing up right on its boundary or, I suppose, we to the other side, was discussed at some length. We were of one mind about that at the time. But I would not like to leave the question, though, without emphasizing again the question of the watershed. In our minds, that was the controlling factor. Those considerations still exist today.

The Chair: Mr Wilson has a question on this issue, and because it is one that has come up and I think is important in that context, we want to go through with that. Then the parliamentary assistant would like to make some clarifications on it as well. I realize we're getting a little long on time.

Mr Jim Wilson: Actually, I had my hand up before this issue got into depth. I have a quick question about the compensation.

The Chair: Could we finish with this and have the parliamentary assistant, just while our minds are around this issue on the boundary?

Mr Hayes: For further clarification, I'm going to refer it to Mr Griggs again, who has worked with this thing right from the beginning. I think the committee should know this.

Mr Griggs: On this whole question about this strange phantom line that keeps on moving, the fact of the matter is that the county study committee looked at restructuring. They looked at a number of options for boundary lines across the county. The final recommendation is the line that was endorsed by county council and is expressed in the bill and is the one that's being discussed here. Of course, the committee is going to look at different options when it's considering restructuring. Their final recommendations went to county council and were endorsed.

Mr Conway: I guess the only point I'd make there, though -- and I appreciate that -- is that it reminds me of electoral redistributions. There are a variety of lines that are proposed and in the end a final decision is made, but if you've ever been involved in one of those happy little experiences, you know that, like a good game of water polo, there's sometimes activity below the water lines not ordinarily seen by the human eye that explains, in part, how it is some of the final lines come to be drawn.

I guess the only other thing I'd like to say is on this question of servicing, which we didn't get to. I don't live around here. This is not going to be any skin off my nose. It might be some money out of my pocket as a provincial taxpayer at some point. What about the potential servicing of some of these areas? Is it the case that some of this might be more easily served by the town of Penetanguishene as opposed to the town of Midland? I don't know the answer to that, but I might like to know at some point.

Mr Symons: Assuming the wastes which the servicing is meant to address run downhill, then it would be more easily serviced on the Midland side.

Mr Jim Wilson: With respect to the boundaries, I just want to reiterate how important it is to get them right. With respect to the staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, I just want to say that my experience with south Simcoe is that if you've got a boundary in the wrong place, which New Tecumseth contends -- and we'll deal with that on Thursday in the form of an amendment -- it is almost impossible to get it changed. In spite of three years of meeting with various ministers now, we can't get it changed.

Secondly, it's all fine and dandy for the government to continue to lean on the county and say: "It was your study; you endorsed it. We wash our hands of it. We're simply here to rubber-stamp it." That's not why I was elected to the Ontario Legislature. This is a provincial bill. People will pick it up in later years and they will know that Mr Wilson, Mr McLean, Mr Hayes and Mr Beer, provincial politicians, had to approve this legislation. I think we were elected to make some decisions with respect to this.

I do want to ask you about the compensation package, your efforts to compensate Tiny. I don't say it in a facetious way, I say in a very serious way: The money you're expecting from the province, how much would that be? What is the total amount of money involved? Do you have that in writing from the province? Because I can again tell you, with the south Simcoe experience, that some of the oral promises are not followed through on.

Mr Symons: The compensation package is designed to compensate for the loss of commercial investment. It provides payment to Tiny for 100% of that assessment over a five-year period, then reducing 20% a year over the next four years to zero. It's a nine-year package. The total is around $1.8 million over that nine-year period. The province is to pay, according to our recent discussions, 43% and Midland 57%. No, we do not have it in writing.


Mr Jim Wilson: You may want to consider getting it in writing before Thursday or certainly before we pass this bill, if we do, at third reading.

Mr Symons: I'll certainly take that under advisement.

Mr Jim Wilson: You'll sleep better.

Mr Symons: It's only been in the last few days that the bargain has been struck, so there really hasn't been a chance.

Mr Jim Wilson: We will try to help you out through the committee process in that endeavour.

The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much. We got into a couple of things in some detail, but I think that was necessary, given some of the testimony we've had. We appreciate your answers.


The Chair: Just for members of the committee, the township of Tay and the new township of Tay are going to present together so that we can ask our questions dealing with both presentations. It was felt that would be a more efficient use of time. I then ask the representatives of the township of Tay and the new township of Tay to come forward. I'm not sure whom I should finger as the leader between the new and the old, but perhaps one of you would --

Mr Jack Hunter: We'll clarify that.

The Chair: Okay. We met Mr Armstrong earlier, but if you would introduce yourselves, then we'll proceed.


The Chair: I may show a little leeway at the 30, but it won't need an hour.

Mr Hunter: Mr Chairman, we may need an hour.

The Chair: Well, go ahead. We have quite a full schedule, so I just thought that with the presentations being made together, that may just assist in working through some of the issues.

Mr Hunter: I'd like, first of all, to introduce those at the table. On my immediate left, your right, is the reeve of Port McNicoll, Pat Armstrong, and next to Pat is our chief administrative officer, who is also the administrator-designate for the new municipality, Mr Ted Walker. On my right, and your left, is councillor David Walker, who is chairman of finance in the current municipality of Tay and a member of the general government and finance committee in the newly restructured municipality as we work towards restructuring.

The Chair: And you are?

Mr Hunter: Jack Hunter, reeve of Tay township.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to present this submission respecting Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe.

Bill 51, if given royal assent, will result in a new municipality being formed which will consist primarily of portions of the existing township of Tay and the existing villages of Victoria Harbour and Port McNicoll. Representatives of the township of Tay will join representatives from the two villages to make a joint submission to the committee on behalf of the new municipality later this afternoon.

This submission will address concerns that the township of Tay has had since the proposed restructuring of Simcoe county was first introduced. It applies in particular to subsection 2(7) of Bill 51. This concern relates specifically to the proposed eastern boundary for the new municipality of the township of Tay.

Since this boundary was first proposed, the township of Tay has opposed it and supported our position with sound and logical reasons meeting all the criteria for establishing boundaries. For this you could refer to pages 14 to 20 of the attached submission, appendix A, which was made to the county of Simcoe study committee on restructuring in June of 1991.

Much of the information I'm going to cover as we go through the rest of this, so if you would like to leave that for now, but we would like you to consider having a look through that in your deliberations, certainly before you make decisions as a committee.

The township of Tay continued to relay these concerns in subsequent submissions to the county of Simcoe and to representatives from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

In March 1992 we met with the elected officials of the proposed township of Severn in an attempt to have them consider the best interests of this community and address the impacts of the proposed boundary. Their sole response at that meeting was, "We would agree to the boundary remaining as is only if the area at the south end of Orillia township did not go to Oro." A letter from the proposed township of Severn attached as appendix B details their response with respect to the same.

Our frustrations with the restructuring process and, more particularly, the lack of response to our concerns regarding this issue were increased further when, on attempting to introduce a motion concerning this boundary at county council, we were advised that the executive committee had decided that all appeals for change to the study would be dealt with by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who was now in possession of the document.

We provided all the information to Mary Newman in the boundary administration department of the ministry and requested a ministry representative to sit down with the two municipalities and look at the area. Frankly, we were ignored. We tried arranging a meeting with the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Cooke. This resulted in further frustration and inaction as on three separate occasions, meetings with the Minister of Municipal Affairs or his deputy and his successor were cancelled by the ministry.

To date, we have not been extended the courtesy of a meeting with the minister. To use the Honourable Dave Cooke's terminology when remarking recently on the health card fraud in reference to previous governments' attitudes, "Frankly, they didn't give a damn," in this case about the people of this area or their elected government. Is this your perception of cooperation? The county said, "Deal with the minister." The minister was saying, "It's a county decision." The people closest to and with the best knowledge of the situation were simply ignored. Surely this cannot be allowed to happen in this day and age.

Accordingly, you, the committee, represent what may well be our last opportunity to have someone listen to our concerns. We respectfully request your consideration of the following:

It is the position of the township of Tay that the eastern boundary for the new municipality of Tay township should be the present eastern boundary of the existing township of Tay for the following environmental, social/community of interest and economic/ planning reasons.

Dealing first of all with the environmental, in order to better recognize the evolving principles of watershed planning and the need for the remediation of the quality of Severn Sound -- and I'm sure you're all aware of the remedial action plan studies that have gone on within the Severn Sound area and through 16 other areas, I guess, on the Great Lakes systems -- the area east of Highway 400/69 that drains to and forms part of Severn Sound should be part of the municipal jurisdiction that contains the shoreline of the sound. You may be interested, gentlemen, that we are the first municipality we know of that has introduced an amendment to its official plan which will go to the last public meeting at the end of September which deals with the waterfront issues and support of the RAP findings in the report.

The ongoing development of the expanded Matchedash Bay wildlife area will have a significant impact on the quality of the waters entering Severn Sound. The remediation of Severn Sound will require that the main sources of nutrients to the sound be within the jurisdiction of the municipalities abutting the sound.

As the two largest sources of water to Severn Sound, both the Severn River outlet at Port Severn and Matchedash Bay should remain within the jurisdiction of the new municipality of Tay township. This municipality must have the jurisdiction to be directly involved in protecting the quality of Severn Sound and the people affected by that water quality.

In the social/community of interest area, the use of Highways 400 and 69 as the new eastern boundaries of the new municipality of Tay township will result in the irreparable splitting of a vibrant community of interest centred in the hamlet of Waubaushene, which extends south to Fesserton, north to Port Severn and east of Matchedash Bay.


The hamlet of Port Severn is a community whose life and economy is intrinsically associated with Georgian Bay. As a Georgian Bay-oriented community, Port Severn has its closest links and associates with other Georgian Bay communities and does not have a Simcoe/Orillia orientation. The children attend school in Fesserton, Waubaushene and Midland, depending on the grades that they're in. The population is served by churches in Port Severn and Waubaushene. Veterans belong to the legion in Waubaushene. Shopping is done mainly in Waubaushene and Midland and they are served in the health service area by physicians associated with the Huronia District Hospital and by the hospital itself in Midland. The Simcoe county health unit in Midland also serves these residents. Their recreational activities are mainly focused in the Georgian Bay community. Library service is provided in a newly located and expanded community library in Waubaushene. Currently a local post office serves the hamlet of Port Severn.

The hamlet of Fesserton and the people who live in it are closely tied with the community of interest centred in Waubaushene. Their children, too, attend school in Fesserton, Waubaushene and Midland. They receive their mail service at the Waubaushene post office and most of their other needs are met by the services outlined previously for the hamlet of Port Severn.

The original site selection and design/build decisions regarding Tay's new Waubaushene fire hall built in 1991 were made to provide excellent fire protection and emergency response services to Highway 400/69, Port Severn through Fesserton and the areas east of the highway. To ensure that the new Waubaushene fire hall continues to service the area as it was designed to, the existing eastern boundary of Tay should remain as the boundary for the new municipality of Tay township. And I could indicate to you here that we've been approached with regard to a fire servicing agreement for that area by one of the municipalities involved in the new Severn township.

Economic and planning: The reconstruction of Highway 400/69 will result in Waubaushene becoming the centre of a major system of interlinking service roads and interchanges. As the first east-west, north-south intersection of the Trans-Canada Highway, the Highway 12/400 intersection and corridor will experience common long-term development pressures which will raise common planning issues.

Only by having both sides of this corridor and all of the transportation intersection in one municipal jurisdiction can any consistent long-term planning approach be developed. With four major interchanges in this six and a half-kilometre stretch and with the interlinking system of service roads, Highway 400/69 does not represent a physical barrier but rather an excellent connecting link and is therefore not suitable for use as a boundary.

The Highway 12/400 intersection is one of the best locations in all of north Simcoe to accommodate new commercial and industrial growth in the long term. The only realistic way to capitalize on these long-term growth opportunities is to have the Highway 400/69 corridor and the Highway 12/400 intersection within one municipal jurisdiction.

The loss of this area represents a 12.08% loss of our residential levy and 33.65% of our commercial and business levy. For more detail regarding the financial impact, you could refer here to appendices C and D attached. However, we would invite you to perhaps look at those particular appendices as they are also attached to the new municipality's presentation along with two other financial impact appendices which would be helpful to you people.

In closing this particular presentation, we thank the committee for the opportunity to present this submission and we respectfully request your consideration of the same in your deliberation concerning Bill 51. Our representatives here today would be pleased to answer any questions you may have with regard to those items presented.

The Chair: Now, did you wish then to make the second presentation so we ask questions on all of it together?

Mr Hunter: We're prepared to do that. If there were some questions from the committee that they felt they may miss because we go on with the presentation, then --

The Chair: I'm in the committee's hands, but the original suggestion was that you might wish to --

Mr McLean: If we only have a half an hour to deal with it, perhaps we should start asking questions now.

The Chair: Well, no. It's just a question of whether they want to make the two presentations. The same four people you see before you are doing the second one. So I simply ask the committee what it would prefer to do.

Mr Conway: This is a very good presentation, and my inclination is to go into the next one, but --

Mr Hunter: That's fine with us because --

The Chair: Okay. Is that agreeable to everyone? Yes.

Mr Hunter: They do tie together and to some extent there are some overlapping factors in them. We want you to know that.

The Chair: Fine. We'll then move to your other hat.

Mr Hunter: Okay. In moving to the other hat, I'm going to ask Councillor Walker to make that presentation, and when we come back to the questioning, he'll deal with the financial questions and I'll deal with the non-financial ones.

The Chair: Fine. Please go ahead, Mr Walker.

Mr David Walker: Thank you, Mr Chairman. There was a reference made in an earlier presentation with respect to the hydro-electric commission that tied into this submission, and I think that it was important that you had the previous two presentations to help you understand fully what we put before you now.

We, representatives of the proposed new municipality of Tay township, appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to present this submission with respect to Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe.

Each of the municipalities, Tay township and the villages of Port McNicoll and Victoria Harbour, which form the new municipality of Tay township originally opposed restructuring in favour of the status quo. It is apparent, however, that restructuring will occur, and the councils and staff of the three municipalities are determined to make the amalgamation as successful as we possibly can to provide our citizens with an efficient, effective municipality which can provide the required services at a reasonable cost. We are, however, faced with a major obstacle in attempting to achieve this goal, that obstacle being the obvious serious financial implications facing the new municipality.

In January 1989, the report of the consultation committee to the Minister of Municipal Affairs entitled County Government in Ontario recognized "the need for an adequate tax base" for local municipalities. While the new municipality of Tay township may in 10 to 15 years, if substantial development occurs, achieve an adequate tax base, we are faced in the intervening period with a tax base that has been seriously eroded by restructuring. When combined with other factors, which will be addressed later in this submission, it places the new municipality in a very precarious financial position, to the detriment of the citizens it will serve.

The financial liabilities were recognized early in the process, and our concerns with respect to the same were included in our submission to the county of Simcoe consultation committee hearings. Refer to pages 7 to 11 of appendix A attached.

In addition to the above, we have relayed these concerns to representatives of Municipal Affairs and have had several meetings to detail and clarify our position. Much to our disappointment and frustration, however, attempts to have a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs have proved unsuccessful. On three separate occasions meetings with the minister were arranged, only to have them later cancelled by the ministry.

We would like to take this opportunity to detail our related concerns to the committee and respectfully request your careful consideration of each and the cumulative effect they have on the new municipality.

Erosion of tax base: Loss of the Tay Point area to the towns of Midland and Penetanguishene and the area east of Highway 69 to the proposed township of Severn will result in a dramatic erosion of our tax base. In addition to the loss of 1,192 households, we will lose $111,374,747 of assessment and, accordingly, $519,899 of levy for municipal purposes.

Loss of other revenue: We will experience loss of other revenue in the amount of $336,254 per year. This figure has been calculated assuming there is no change in the amount of unconditional grants as a result of restructuring, as we have been told by Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff. We have asked to have this fact confirmed to us in writing. To date this confirmation has not been received and we respectfully request the committee to confirm the same.

If in fact our unconditional grants are reduced after restructuring in relation to the areas lost, then our calculations are understated and the revenue loss is significantly greater than the amount we are reporting in this submission. For detail respecting the financial analysis, refer to appendices B and C, which depict the lost of Tay Point east of Highway 69, and accompanying appendices D and E, depicting the loss of Tay Point only, that is if the area east of 69 were left with the new municipality.


Municipal office expansion: In the opening remarks made yesterday, I think there was a reference to a Taj Mahal that we have in Simcoe county. Let me assure you that the joint council and committee working on this particular municipal office expansion have gone to the other extreme.

Neither of the three amalgamating municipalities has a municipal office large enough to house the staff of the new municipality. We're therefore faced with an immediate need to expand the larger of the three facilities, that being the Tay township administration centre. This project will cost approximately $400,000 plus interest charges relating to financing.

This scenario is perhaps unique of municipalities amalgamating in Simcoe county and represents a huge expenditure which should be the responsibility of the ratepayers. In addition to the municipal office, it is also necessary, for related reasons, to expand the Tay township garage. This project will cost approximately $350,000 exclusive of financing charges.

Computer system: Related to the foregoing, the Tay township computer system will require an upgrade due to the increase in users. This project is expected to cost in the neighbourhood of $70,000 and again is directly related to amalgamation.

I might note for the committee's information that according to the formula put forward by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, it is estimated that the transition funding available to the new township of Tay is in the area of $342,000.

Staffing costs: We have completed our staffing requirements for the new municipality. There will be three fewer employees in the new municipality than presently exist in the individual corporations. However, due to assessment erosion and related factors, the payroll of the new municipality expressed as a percentage of municipal levy will increase to 68.26% from the 57.24% which presently exists in the three individual municipalities.

We expect amalgamation will affect all new municipalities throughout the county to some extent and acknowledge that in most circumstances, the transitional funding provided by the province offsets the same to a large extent. We submit, however, considering our unique circumstances as detailed earlier, that the transition funding represents only a minor contribution to the expenses we will incur.

If no further assistance is provided to the new municipality of the township of Tay, this burden will fall on the shoulders of its ratepayers. We'll already be suffering due to the erosion of the tax base as a result of restructuring.

Accordingly, we request consideration pursuant to section 28 of Bill 51, which represented the only method of avoiding extreme financial hardship for the new municipality. As mentioned earlier in this submission, we have been unsuccessful in getting a meeting with the minister and therefore appeal directly to the committee for consideration and/or guidance.

With respect to the social contract legislation recently passed by the government, the Social Contract Act, 1993, Bill 48, and the county of Simcoe Act, 1993, Bill 51, should be reviewed in concert to ensure there are no contradictions between the two pieces of legislation.

Related to the foregoing, clarification is required with respect to the following. Our new municipality will have three fewer employees than do the three municipalities presently. Will this and other savings be recognized by the province and therefore be permitted to form part of the plan the new municipality will submit pursuant to the Social Contract Act? What will be the date by which the new municipalities in Simcoe county must submit their plan or agreement in 1994? We respectfully submit this date should be no sooner than August 1 to allow the new municipalities sufficient time to complete the budget process and incorporate the new pay equity plan.

Notwithstanding the above, we submit that where two or more entire municipalities are amalgamating, provisions of the Social Contract Act, 1993, should not apply. This of course is due to the fact that the amalgamation exercise itself addresses the very nature of the Social Contract Act.

With reference to sections 45 and 52 of the bill, and these speaks to the bylaws, we are unable to understand the purpose of the abovenoted sections of Bill 51 with respect to "the 31st day of December, 1996," and are concerned it may cause significant problems. For example, our interpretation of the intent is such that it will be necessary to repass road-name-change bylaws etc, resulting in an administrative nightmare. We submit that the intent of this section of the bill can be met simply by the existing subsection, (a) in both cases, "The date it is amended or repealed."

In closing, we thank the committee for the opportunity to present this submission and we respectfully request your careful consideration of same in your deliberations concerning Bill 51. Our representatives here today would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, we have both those presentations now on the table and we'll begin the questioning with Mr Waters.

Mr Waters: One comment, just as we get into this: I found it interesting, this morning when we talked to Orillia township about wanting to take that southerly part back, that it didn't mention that there was something going on on the west side of their area, the east side of yours. I find that quite interesting.

But I would ask, have you had any discussions with Matchedash as to whether they would mutually agree to being part of the new Tay township versus going in with Severn?

Mr Hunter: Yes. We have indeed at one point sat down with representatives from both Coldwater and Matchedash on that very matter and discussed with them the sense that it would make for those areas, over to and including the road that goes up to Severn Falls and the Big Chute, to be in the Georgian Bay-oriented community rather than the Orillia-oriented community.

There were concerns that this would be splitting this big township of Matchedash in two, with one part of it going to Orillia and one part of it going the other way. Really, the access routes are one on either side, and it sort of made sense to us and it would have looked after some of the situations within the watershed and the planning and so on, but they did not see that would be a beneficial situation for them, and at that time they were already talking with Orillia and so they wanted to continue to do that and showed a preference towards going to Orillia. That may be because, once again, once you reach Coldwater, for instance the high school students there go to Orillia. Associations are more from that area towards the city of Orillia area in terms of servicing and shopping and hospital etc.

So you've got some already natural dividing lines there, and what this whole change seems to be doing is to disrupt it all for no good reason. You could take the reasons and the meeting of the criteria that are shown in the study for putting that area in Matchedash, Coldwater, Orillia, Severn township and most of them don't make any sense. They don't bear any substance compared to what we tried to get the committees to understand at the county and tried to work towards getting a hearing with the minister for it. This just made a lot more sense.

I won't make further comment. There were some comments after the whole issue was over which lead one to believe that it should never have happened this way.

Mr Waters: Okay, when Mayor Symons alluded to their willingness today to talk with -- or there's a deal with you or the new Tay, the difference between the expenditures and the revenues for the Tay Point area on a declining basis for five years, if Midland and Penetang pay such a compensation, will this satisfy your concerns with the loss of Midland Point?

Mr Walker: The suggestion has been made and we've begun a process of discussions with the town of Midland and the town of Penetanguishene with regard to that Tay Point area. Should compensation be agreed upon, I see that as softening the blow to the ratepayers for a period of time. In the submission I related to you the percentage that salaries and wages represent of our total municipal levy and we need to have something left to buy pencils and paper and tires for the trucks. That particular compensation issue I see as cushioning the effect on the ratepayers for the five years. It's going to have to be borne eventually.


Mr Waters: You're now getting into my concern. In a couple of the things I've seen, and we've talked before about -- my concern has been not just the startup costs of a new township, but in our discussions, none of us have come up with a way of funding this township in the long term. Eventually, you're leading to doom unless some miraculous thing drops out of the sky, I believe. Have there been any discussions --

Mr Walker: I'm sure you've heard a lot of negative comments about restructuring. Restructuring makes some sense. It has been recognized by the members of the joint council that will look after this new municipality next year that in the long term, we do foresee benefits coming along. We see the cooperation of the two urban areas within this new municipality on hard services, enabling us to respond to the concerns expressed in the Sewell commission and so on with regard to development. This, of course, speaks of residential development. We would like to think that there's a potential for some commercial and industrial development as well.

Mr Waters: Pat's grinning over here.

Mr Walker: Yes. We can see some efficiencies produced. Some of the statements made in your fact-finder's report yesterday will be borne out, that we will introduce some efficiencies, so there is a belief, a hope I guess would be a better way of saying it, that these efficiencies will come along in time to help cushion the effect on our ratepayers.

Mr Waters: I know Jack's biting at the bit here to make a comment, so I'll let him and then I'll finish.

Mr Hunter: Just to answer that for you, I've done a little work on this. Taking Jeremy Griggs's numbers presented on behalf of the province and the growth projections of 1.44% for Simcoe county and the conclusion that much of that growth would be in the commuter shed, which is 60 to 100 kilometres north of Toronto, and that sort of ends before you get to Horseshoe Valley Road, none of north Simcoe is really impacted by that growth figure.

But if I take the 1.44% growth figure and apply it to our new municipality -- we estimate using 2.8 persons per household -- a growth in the households of some 428 over a 10-year period, and at the current levy average, that would produce an increase of $98,440 in actual levy. That leaves us, at that point, with $116,000 short, revenue to expense, provided the expenses don't increase. If we take a relative 2%-per-year increase over the 10 years, we're going to be at 45% that we have to gain between now and 10 years from now to offset this. That's all we have to pick up from the taxpayers; it's 45% over that 10 years that's got to be there.

Otherwise, we drop services and we're unable to service. It's really simple, and those aren't stacked figures; those are figures that are minimal. If you want to check with ministry representatives whom we've been dealing with, we've come forward with totally honest and supportable figures in any of the figures we've been dealing with them on. There's no point in doing otherwise.

Mr Waters: That's my concern. With the smaller tax base, yes, if everything works out exactly as predicted you will, in the long term, come out ahead, but how long a term is that? What happens if your grader blows up this winter and you have to plow the roads, or next winter or something like that? I'm concerned about the tax base on which this township has to operate for the next number of years.

Mr Walker: That's exactly what we're saying.

Mr Waters: And you're having a problem. You're saying that all of the grants -- I believe in one of your submissions you had been told verbally that everything would carry on as it has in the past and the transfer payments would be --

Mr Hunter: We've been told that unconditional grants to the new municipality will represent what is now being provided to the three current municipalities. That's what is said. There will be no reduction.

Mr Waters: You would like it in writing, though.

Mr Hunter: We're looking for it in writing. We're still waiting. We've known this. It was presented to us the first time three months ago. Then two months ago, we're still waiting for it in writing. But as a member of the House has said, get it in writing.

Mr Waters: Okay, I'll pass.

Mr Eddy: I want to thank the presenters for a very interesting presentation, and noting the problems they've presented, this is an amazing situation. I'm trying to think of another restructuring where a municipality has been reduced in size and in tax base.

A main principle of restructuring, as has been stated, is to enhance the fiscal capacity of a local municipality, and this has not happened. It's the reverse. I know it's a difficult task to change the map and to restructure local municipalities to bring about maybe what you intend, but this breaks that most important rule of enhancing the fiscal responsibility of a local municipality so that it can meet the needs of the citizenry and the future needs, and it's awfully important. So I note that, and I'm really amazed that it's happened or being proposed.

I wanted to ask the question about compensation. Midland has negotiated a compensation package with Tay and we've been given some particulars about that. Has Severn negotiated a compensation package with Tay township for the area that it's getting? Are you satisfied with your compensation package and how does that work? Could we have some details?

Mr Walker: No compensation has been arrived at. The discussions have just begun. We have thoroughly researched the information, and if I refer you to appendix C of the new Tay township presentation, these numbers have been very carefully researched and prepared by our staff. They have been submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs officials for their review.

They suggested that it be done on an actual cost, rather than budget, which was done in the first place because the financial information returns by then were completed, again reviewed by MMA staff. It's only been about two weeks since Midland and Penetang and the township of Severn have actually had these figures before them, so it's really just begun the process. We have no idea where it's going as yet.

But if you take a look at that appendix C, I would direct your attention -- a brief explanation of it. In this amalgamation we have taken the view that the impact of the village of Port McNicoll and the village of Victoria Harbour on this amalgamation is neutral in that they are coming in their entirety, with their entire tax base and their entire costs. So the figures you have before you relate to the township of Tay before restructuring and after restructuring. To put it very simply and in a short time, the actual revenues remaining are at 65% of the former township of Tay and the actual costs remaining are at 83%.

Mr Conway: Just on that, would the ministry accept this data?

Mr Eddy: This must be used for funding.

Mr Conway: It's very interesting data and I appreciate it.

The Chair: We'll come back to it. Again, that's the appendix C data, which you have.

Mr Walker: Yes.

Mr Eddy: I just had one further point I'd like to add. Would you prefer that the negotiation be completed before the bill is passed, or does that matter?

Mr Walker: In the presentation I made reference to section 28 of the bill, and section 28 of the bill is more important to us than the compensation is.

If we are to realize something out of the restructuring, we have to get over the short-term pain. That's what section 28 is going to have to address. That's what the provincial government is going to have to address for this municipality.

When you have a bag of marbles representing the assessment of the county and you set out with the goal to create 60 municipalities that are better, guess what? One of them's going to lose out, and you now have them before you. You can't strengthen all municipalities without weakening one.


Mr Eddy: I have to respond just for a second. I don't know that that has happened before. I can't think of a case, and I'll research it, where that has happened to a municipality, that it has been weakened on restructuring. I think it's a first, but we'll check it.

The Chair: I just note: Mr McLean, Mr Wilson and the parliamentary assistant.

Mr McLean: I want to talk about the boundary change. The easterly boundary of the township of Tay presently now is at 400/69 Highway. That's what the proposal is.

Mr Hunter: Yes, that's what the proposal is. The study has placed it at 400/69, centre of the road.

Mr McLean: What population are you losing in that area, just roughly?

Mr Walker: We have it in households as opposed to population.

Mr McLean: Anyhow, I wanted to make a clarification because Dan had mentioned with regard to Orillia township being here this morning. It wasn't Orillia township; it was Gary Thiess speaking on behalf of the people of the ward that he represented. So that's why he didn't mention the northern part of the westerly boundary, I would think, because it will be mentioned when they make that presentation by the township. I wanted to make sure that Gary wasn't getting blamed for not saying anything. Yes, have you got the answer?

Mr Walker: These appendixes break it down. We've stated it in terms of households. There are 347 households east of the Highway 69/400 corridor.

Mr McLean: So why was it put in with Severn township? Why was it taken out of Tay? Who drew the line?

Mr Walker: The county committee, and we've been trying to find out. We made this proposal several times and have not received the response or rationale.

Mr McLean: But you didn't agree to it. They said you can't change boundaries unless the municipalities agree to it.

Mr Walker: It was suggested that we talk with the new township of Severn, but when they've been given all these households and all this assessment, particularly the commercial and business assessment, I don't think they're going to agree to give it back. So there's nothing there to cause them to sit down at the table.

Mr McLean: What was the basis, the reasoning? Was there any reasoning why they put that into Severn? Go ahead.

Mr Hunter: If you check the study, the study says that. It was to put Matchedash Bay all in one municipality. It already is; it's already in Tay.

Mr McLean: That's right.

Mr Hunter: It said that Highway 400 formed a natural barrier. Do you know that there's one road that leaves Coldwater and goes to Port Severn? Do you know that there is a double-lane of highway and two service roads that go from Waubaushene to Port Severn? Do you know that it's only 6.2 kilometres from Waubaushene to Port Severn, and 6.2 kilometres from Coldwater doesn't get you near Port Severn?

If you'll turn to your maps that I've provided, there are three circles on one of those maps, and the radius of those circles is 6.2 kilometres. There are four interchanges across Highway 69, which is now being twinned, between Waubaushene and the top end of Port Severn, which is six and half kilometres or under. That's one of the best-serviced areas in terms of crossing the highway that there is on all of Highway 69/400.

Mr McLean: Who from the ministry was dealing with boundary negotiations?

Mr Hunter: I can tell you that Coldwater said about Medonte that where there were two interchanges across the highway within five kilometres it didn't make a good boundary. In the other area, because they wanted it, it made a good boundary.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'm a little confused here too, because I think in the presentation it has been made clear that one of the principles behind restructuring that Mr Eddy mentioned was economic viability. I think that has been violated in the case of Tay. But secondly, and please excuse me, Tay, but it really ticks me off that now the government is allowing a major corridor like 400/69 to be used as a boundary when Municipal Affairs for the past five years has consistently said you can't use roads as boundaries.

That's why, if you look from Cookstown south to Highway 9 with the south Simcoe restructuring in the large brief we have from New Tecumseth, which we'll deal with tomorrow, Municipal Affairs was insistent that 27 couldn't be split, could not be the boundary for the new municipality of New Tecumseth, and that is why the boundary now runs between barns and houses, two lots in west of 27. It's a very strange line there. I have been told by two ministers in this government that the previous government wouldn't change its mind because Municipal Affairs bureaucrats said you cannot use highways, where at all possible, as boundaries.

Now I want to know from Municipal Affairs, bureaucrat or otherwise, why 400/69 is suddenly a good idea, when Highway 27 had to be incorporated in one municipality. It couldn't be split so it went to Bradford-West Gwillimbury. Yet these people are saying they've lost a large part of their assessment because the line now goes down the middle of Highway 400/69. I'd say another principle of restructuring has been blown out of the water with the Tay example.

I want that cleared up, because, I'll tell you, I've sat in minister's boardrooms on three occasions now with the town of New Tecumseth, before and after its restructuring, and very clearly been told that you're not allowed to use highways as borderlines, because they don't want lines running down the middle of highways. So I don't know.

Mr McLean: Why is this one?

Mr Jim Wilson: Why is the exception here then?

Mr Hunter: We brought that exact matter to the committee, by the way.

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you.

Mr Hunter: They said it had been established that highways should not be used as boundaries.

Mr Jim Wilson: Not only established; it's in effect, absolutely.

Mr Hunter: We said it had been established --

Mr Jim Wilson: They're on my side.

Mr Hunter: -- and still they use the highway. By the way, we provide emergency service out of their Waubaushene fire hall for accidents along that highway. When you divide it up, we want to know if they're going to do it on the other side of the highway. We know they can't.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's a good point.

The Chair: The parliamentary assistant has some responses to a number of questions.

Mr McLean: We want some answers from them. Let's get some answers.

Mr Hayes: You'll have lots of time to play politics, Al. It's okay. It's part of the game, eh?

Mr Jim Wilson: We're not playing politics. I take exception to that. We're asking you very straight questions, because your principles seem to be all over the bloody board.

Mr Hayes: If you will stop, we will attempt to get you the clarification, Mr Wilson.

The Chair: Please go ahead.

Mr Hayes: What I will do is refer to Mr Griggs on the boundaries of 400 and 69, that issue, and also the other issue raised with appendix C. Then I have a couple of questions after that.

Mr Griggs: Regarding the use of the highway as a boundary, here's a perfect example of the fact that this study was a local study and the lack of ministry control in the recommendations. Secondly, to compare the 400 highway to the 27 highway I think is a little misleading. Everybody knows that the 400-series highways are major highways --

Mr Jim Wilson: So is 27.

Mr Griggs: -- and could represent a significant boundary between two areas. So, as I said, it's a local study. The study committee made the recommendations, county council endorsed them.

The Chair: And appendix C?

Mr Griggs: Regarding appendix C, with regard to the information on revenue and expenditures, while we can't agree with the totals, we have no idea in terms of the splits between the specific areas that are being shifted to different municipalities. That's for the municipalities to work out. So, for example, in terms of your total fire budget, we have no idea as to what portion of that fire budget relates to a specific area being transferred to another municipality.

Mr Walker: With respect, Mr Chairman, ministry people have been supplied with the allocation methods used for the different items in the budget. There were some six or seven different methods of allocating portions of the budget and the ministry has that information.

Mr Hayes: Thank you for your presentation. It was very thorough. The one issue, I guess, when you talk about losing the $519,899 in taxes from losing part of the Tay Point area, just what services did Tay provide to the people in the Tay Point area for that amount of revenue?

Mr Walker: Tay township has provided administration services, a full planning department, full fire services, full road services, maintenance of loose-top and hard-top roads, summer and winter control, street lighting, library. We have a full planning department to support the residents.


Mr Hayes: Of course you spell out here the amount of dollars it will cost you to, say, build another municipal hall or road department structure or building, but have you also looked into how much money you could get as far as -- I'm not familiar with what type of condition the buildings are in, for example in Port McNicoll and Victoria Harbour, and how much revenue you could get from selling those or leasing those particular buildings.

Mr Walker: Yes, we have. The Township of Tay Hydro-Electric Commission spoke in their submission of leasing the Port McNicoll administration building, and I don't recall the amount that was quoted there but it is not significant. The administration building in Victoria Harbour is of a very unique nature. It's a historical building which was provided by the lumber company to Victoria Harbour as a library. It's a beautiful building. It cannot be alienated from public control. We anticipate the library moving back into that building from the premises that they currently rent for -- correct me if I'm wrong. I think the number's about $2,000 a year.

We do not have buildings that we can sell to raise money towards this addition to an existing building, and we would be very irresponsible should we do something with this building in Victoria Harbour. It's important to the community and it's important to the area both historically and socially. So that again works against us. If we had some nice buildings we could sell and get some capital to put into the building, we would certainly do it.

Mr Hayes: I know that any time when you make changes, naturally there's going to be cost involved, but by amalgamating those three municipalities together, do you not feel that in the long run things would be streamlined and there actually could be savings for the municipalities?

Mr Walker: Yes, I do.

Mr Waters: If I might, Mr Chair --

The Chair: Mr Waters, we have several people who want to continue and if I let you go again I'm going to have to let others. I sense a certain frustration among some members, and we've gone for the hour, according to my clock. I regret, but we do have a number of other presenters.

Mr Conway: This is not on any list then, is it?

The Chair: No. There are a couple of others who are on it. We're going to be here very late, so I just have to exercise the prerogative of the Chair. I want to thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Jim Wilson: They violate every principle they told us about restructuring. I don't mind sitting here all night, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: I appreciate that. There are other witnesses.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Wessenger gave a speech against the resolution I did in the House regarding roads as boundary lines, and I was told it was a cardinal rule that you couldn't use roads as boundary lines.

The Chair: Order, please. I'm in the hands of the committee, but if --

Mr Jim Wilson: It's either a cardinal rule or it isn't. It's either the law of the land or it isn't. I want to know.

The Chair: Mr Wilson, if we are to continue and the committee would like to, it's just that I would then want to make sure that each caucus had an opportunity to speak and not just that there would be one person. So I think if members wish to go on, I'm in the committee's hands, but there are several others who want to speak and in fairness I would have to allow one person from each caucus to ask another question. If that's what people would like to do, then I'm quite happy to do that.

Mr Waters: I can make my point in clause-by-clause.

Mr Conway: I just wanted to make an observation. I was also just assuming, because we combined these two groups --

The Chair: Yes, but we do have some others who --

Mr Conway: If I can make one comment, I think this is a very, very good presentation that really gives me some concern. I'd like to take some time, but I realize that there are pressures of time. But just as somebody who's new to this committee, I'll tell you, this group has made some observations --

The Chair: And I'm sure that we'll be coming back to these issues both tomorrow and on Thursday.

Mr Conway: The trouble I have is that of course they're gone, we're gone, and --

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Chairman, according to the schedule, I thought we had this group till 5 o'clock?

The Chair: No. We began earlier. We've been ahead, but we have several other presenters who had sent their requests to Queen's Park and weren't on the list. That's why we've had an hour with this group, and I just think, in fairness to those who came before and those who come after, we've got to keep to that.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.


The Chair: I then call the Rowntree Beach Association.

Mr Conway: Can I make a request?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Conway: I want an updated list, because I want to know how many more people we have.

The Chair: I can give you the others following the Rowntree Beach Association: Gail Barrie, from the township of Tiny, and Harry Powell.

Please come forward.

Ms Patricia O'Driscoll: I'm Patricia O'Driscoll of Rowntree. I'm by myself.

The Chair: That's great. Alone or with others, you're most welcome.

Ms O'Driscoll: Thank you kindly.

The Chair: We have a copy of your presentation to hand.

Ms O'Driscoll: My apologies first. I was only able to make eight copies, and unfortunately I think you're going to have to share them a bit. I'm sorry.

The Chair: We'll make out.

Ms O'Driscoll: Also, when I was sitting at the back, I noticed an echo. If anybody's having trouble hearing, please let me know and I'll slow down or speak louder or something.

Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Patricia O'Driscoll. During the last 20 years, the Rowntree Beach Association has been an active association. It monitors the affairs of Tiny township council and participates whenever there is an opportunity to become involved in the affairs of the township as they affect taxpayers/voters. Rowntree is an incorporated association of 20 cottage owners along 1,100 feet of the western shore of Tiny's 11th Concession. I speak as the secretary of Rowntree.

Rowntree is also a member association of the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations, an incorporated umbrella association whose members are the various cottage associations around the perimeter of Tiny township. There are 7,500 properties in the shoreline areas of Tiny, comprising some 18,000 cottagers. I speak also as the secretary of the federation.

Today, perhaps I should be dressed in black to signify mourning. Why? Because if Tiny's boundaries are changed as proposed in Bill 51, Tiny faces destruction, whether it be sooner or later. Tiny is the only municipality to be restructured that loses much and gains absolutely nothing. Short-term assessment compensation, as proposed, is a stopgap. If your land goes, nothing can replace it. Everything is lost. We have all heard the truism, "They're not making land any more."

Bill 51 causes Tiny township to lose 85% of its commercial assessment. Provincial civil servants have said that Tiny will not lose all its commercial assessment, "It still has its cottagers." Tiny township cottage owners appreciate the responsibility we have by owning property in Tiny, but we have rights as well. Our right is not to be used as cash cows and milked dry.

I bring two major reasons why Tiny township should not be restructured. The first one: It is contrary to the wishes of more than 9 out of every 10 voters of Tiny township. In a referendum at the 1991 municipal election, 92.4% of Tiny voters said, "No restructuring."


In 1989, the Simcoe county council set up a committee "to study the restructuring of the north half of the county." Strange as it may sound, most of the study committee members were from the south part of the county and the original committee included representatives from the city of Barrie, which is not part of Simcoe county. Before anyone realized what had happened, this study committee was redrawing municipal boundaries. But that is another story.

In the summer of 1990, the member associations of the federation met and determined its position about restructuring. A presentation was made to the then Tiny township council. The federation unanimously opposed restructuring and asked Tiny township council if the two representatives from Tiny to Simcoe county council would vote against restructuring. Council voted five to zero to support the federation's position at county council. Several weeks later, Tiny township council again voted five to zero to take a position of no restructuring on behalf of all its residents.

At the first public meetings of the study committee of Simcoe county council to consider restructuring, the then deputy reeve, Ross Hastings, said that while Tiny township council had unanimously voted to oppose restructuring, there were some things that he did not agree with.

Thereafter, Tiny township sent a mixed signal to the Simcoe county study committee. The then reeve led a fight against restructuring and the then deputy reeve frequently voted for motions that eased restructuring.

In July 1991, when Simcoe county council voted on the 126 recommendations, the then reeve cast 126 votes against all recommendations about restructuring. The then deputy reeve voted 108 times for and 18 times against. Both representatives from Tiny cast their votes against redrawing boundaries for Tiny. But again a mixed signal was sent to their fellow county councillors. The then reeve spoke strongly against redrawing boundaries for Tiny and cast a no vote. The then deputy reeve, before he cast his no vote, spoke to the county councillors and said, "I do not think the reeve speaks for all of the people of Tiny." The vote to redraw Tiny's boundaries passed by only one vote.

Shortly after, the then deputy reeve announced his candidacy for reeve in the upcoming 1991 municipal elections. Headlines in the newspapers carrying that announcement said he was strongly opposed to restructuring. His campaign literature stated, "Hastings says NO restructuring." He won the election. The voters, in a referendum on the same ballot, gave a mandate to the new council: 5,090 voters were opposed to restructuring and 420 voters supported restructuring; 92.4% of the voters were against restructuring.

In January 1992, not long after the November 1991 municipal election and the referendum vote against restructuring had been tabulated, the new reeve, Ross Hastings, and members of council voted, first, to adopt a restructuring position which gave away all the land that the Simcoe county study committee and Simcoe county council wanted to take from Tiny township, and second, adopted a position of a one-ward system with a five-member council.

When council voted to ratify the proposed land grab, council did not follow the mandate it was given to fight restructuring. It was not the position that the referendum told them to take. When questioned, the reeve's frequent answer is, "There is a lot going on and people don't know all the facts."

In the spring of 1993, the township of Mara brought forward a motion to Simcoe county council that, if approved, would have brought an end to the restructuring of the north part of Simcoe county. Many municipalities in north Simcoe were turning against the whole restructuring process: all except those who stood to gain.

Prior to the date of the vote on the motion from the township of Mara, at a meeting of Tiny township council, speakers urged Tiny's two representatives to council to support this motion from Mara. The vote at that meeting of Tiny township council was four to one. Four members of Tiny township voted to support the motion from Mara; they now wanted out of restructuring. The reeve of Tiny, Ross Hastings, listened to the speakers and said he would not support the motion from Mara, he would support restructuring. At Simcoe county council, Tiny's reps cast opposing votes. The reeve of Tiny is also the warden of Simcoe county. As chair of that meeting, he spoke frequently while the vote was being taken, urging Simcoe county council members to support restructuring and vote down the motion put forward by the township of Mara. The motion from Mara was defeated.

This committee should know that as far as the restructuring of Tiny township is concerned, the voices and wishes of Tiny township's taxpayers have not been echoed in the actions of Tiny township's council. The mandate given by the voters has not been carried out. We ask this committee and the members of the Legislature to listen to the voice of 92.4% of the people of Tiny who said "no restructuring." We ask you to do what Tiny's reeve refused to do.

You will note that the reeve has not come before this committee to tell you that all the voters are in favour of restructuring. Why? Because he has gone on a frolic of his own. Why? That is a good question. I cannot give an answer but I am sure that sooner or later it will all come out in the wash.

The taxpayers and voters of Tiny township have had salt poured into the wound by the present Tiny township council. Apparently, Tiny township council has signed agreements with the towns of Midland and Penetanguishene dealing with the proposed restructuring. Has Tiny township council reported to its taxpayers the contents of those agreements at a council meeting, by interviews with the press or by any means? No, Mr Chairman.

In mid-May 1993, Tiny township council sent out a newsletter with the tax bill. The agreements on restructuring between Midland, Penetang and Tiny had been completed. The agreements were not even mentioned, let alone discussed, in that newsletter, which is attached. Council has never reported to the taxpayers on the terms of those agreements.

There is a second reason why we think restructuring should be abandoned for Tiny.

May I ask the Chairman, is all the committee present? Because there were a lot more people here before than there are now.

The Chair: In the course of our hearings, people are often a bit in and out just for certain calls, but please go ahead because all of this is recorded. It's all taken down by Hansard, so that sometimes one is reading the material later when we come to clause-by-clause.

Ms O'Driscoll: Fine. Thank you.

There's a second reason why we think the restructuring of Tiny should not proceed and that is because of an Attorney General's lawsuit against Rowntree.

In June 1990, the Attorney General for Ontario issued a statement of claim against the Rowntree Beach Association and 14 individual defendants. It is a test case to determine ownership of 16 miles of property on the western shore of Tiny township. The Attorney General is the plaintiff; that is, the Attorney General commenced or launched the lawsuit.

The Attorney General claims that all land between the line of the wood and the water's edge from Concession 3 to Concession 18 is unpatented crown land. The Attorney General claims that the line of the wood is shown on an early survey map and is located 100 to 1,300 feet inland from the water's edge.

In June 1991, the Honourable Mr Justice Trainor, the regional senior judge of the Ontario Court (General Division), Toronto, ordered the Attorney General to send a notice to all owners whose property titles could be affected by the results of this lawsuit. Some 2,000 notices were mailed out to shoreline owners.

In the summer of 1991, several attempts were made to bring this information before the Simcoe County Study Committee. The study committee voted that it would receive a written submission but would not allow us to speak to the committee.

In my attempts to get an appointment to bring this matter to their attention, I spoke to several members of the study committee. During these conversations I was told that the study committee had never been informed and had no knowledge of the Attorney General's lawsuit, the government's claim to land on the western shore of Tiny township.


In other words, while the Ministry of Municipal Affairs was involved in discussions about proposed boundary changes abutting Midland and Penetang on the east side of Tiny township, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Attorney General had begun a lawsuit requesting that the court determine the boundary on the western shore of Tiny.

The Simcoe county study committee, I was told, did not know about the legal dispute on the western shore of Tiny township. Rowntree filed written submissions to the study committee and pointed out, first, that the boundary dispute on the western shore was before the court for determination and, second, that the boundary on the east side of the township, abutting Penetang and Midland, should not be changed as long as the final result on the western shore was undetermined.

The study committee's report did not mention the lawsuit before the court. In the summer of 1991, the study committee allowed the vote on restructuring to proceed, a vote to carve large pieces off the eastern boundary of Tiny township so as to deprive Tiny township of 85% of its commercial assessment.

Following the vote, Rowntree wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, David Cooke, on October 16, 1991, and December 14, 1991, suggesting to the minister that the lawsuit concerning the ownership of 16 miles of Tiny's western shore should be determined by the court before any lines were arbitrarily drawn on Tiny's eastern boundary.

Attached are Rowntree's two letters, together with the minister's letter of November 4, 1991, which responds to Rowntree's first letter. In that letter the minister thanked me for advising of "the existence of a lawsuit affecting the Rowntree Beach area." I never received a reply to the second letter. The potential serious consequences of a lawsuit seem to have gone unheeded.

Someone may say: "Oh, the government of Ontario isn't interested in the property and buildings on the western shore of Tiny affected by the line-of-the-wood theory. The crown is only interested in the beaches, and if the crown wins the crown would abandon everything landward of the lot lines."

That was the message given by the Ministry of Natural Resources at two public meetings in January 1992, but that was an attempt at public relations, "Let's keep everyone calm." However, in the Attorney General's lawsuit, the crown, the government, claims in its statement of claim that all land between the water's edge and the line of the wood is unpatented crown land. That claim has never been varied or amended.

Moreover, those statements about "we shall abandon" were set out in a fact sheet handed out by MNR at public meetings. However, those fact sheets were printed on plain white paper, not on MNR letterhead, and were not signed and nothing to identify the author. Moreover, at trial, counsel for the Attorney General stated, "A civil servant cannot bind a minister of the crown."

The trial has now taken place. It began on May 26, 1993. After 20 days of trial, it ended on July 14, 1993. The court has reserved its decision.

If the Attorney General's claim is upheld by the court and the line of the wood is found to be the western boundary of the lots, Tiny will lose land it now owns. It will also lose assessment. The assessment value of thousands of cottage properties will be lost and/or reduced.

During the trial, evidence was given by a witness for the crown that, in his opinion, the line of the wood extends beyond the original 16 miles claimed. Mr Middleton said it extends around the perimeter of the entire township, not just from Concession 3 to Concession 18 as set out in the statement of claim.

The township of Tiny was surveyed in 1821. It has been around for 170 years. What is the big rush to demolish it? I have no answer why the study committee would not await the outcome of the Attorney General's lawsuit before proceeding.

Is the western shore of Tiny township all crown land, as claimed by the Attorney General and MNR or is it private property? I would have thought that the study committee, Simcoe county council and the provincial government and all the civil servants might want to see the size of the pie before deciding how it is carved up.

In my conclusion I will address three things.

Under Bill 51, Tiny township loses nearly all its commercial assessment from the Highway 93 malls on its eastern borders. Under Bill 51, every municipality is either merged with another municipality or loses something on one side and gets something back on the other side. That applies to every municipality except Tiny township. Tiny is the only loser-loser among all affected municipalities. Why?

I attended many meetings of the study committee. I have yet to hear a valid, logical reason for stripping away 85% of Tiny's commercial assessment base. If the government of Ontario only wanted to ensure that the malls on Highway 93 were serviced by sewers, why didn't the government of Ontario put Tiny on notice? Tiny has never been given the opportunity to consider building its own sewage treatment plant. The malls do not have to be given to Midland to be serviced. Tiny's malls haven't caused any pollution problems. Isn't Midland's sewage treatment plant now at its capacity? Hasn't Midland allowed its own Little Lake to become polluted?

The committee may say: "What's the fuss? The malls are only one commercial assessment area in Tiny." There are no other commercial assessment areas in Tiny. The only other commercial assessment in Tiny consists of corner stores and a few businesses in hamlets.

The only excuse I have heard for giving the Highway 93 malls to Midland is that Midland wants them. That is not a logical reason. Is Tiny being stripped of 85% of its commercial assessment in order to please Midland? Why would the government of Ontario allow Tiny to be crippled? Surely the answer cannot be, "Oh, the cottagers will pick up the slack."

Downloading of services and market value assessment are not part of Bill 51, but it is no secret that they are just around the corner. In the near future, owning a cottage in Tiny township may become a millionaire's hobby. When the rush to sell begins, values will drop, assessment will fall and Tiny will be destroyed.

I would like you to know that this whole restructuring plan was not initiated by a groundswell from the taxpayers and voters of Tiny township. It was a scheme hatched and fuelled by people at Simcoe county council and certain personnel in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It has never been on the wish list of the people of Tiny township. The wishes of Tiny township voters and taxpayers have been ignored and trampled upon throughout the whole sad restructuring saga.

My sincere requests to you are that Tiny township be deleted from the provisions of Bill 51, and if restructuring does go forward, I request that the township of Tiny be divided into at least five wards with a mayor and a deputy mayor. Tiny township has the largest number of voters of any municipality in Simcoe county, yet this Tiny township council without consultation in January 1992 voted for a one-ward system with a total of five members, the smallest elected municipal council in Simcoe county.

Under the provisions of Bill 51, a request to change the one-ward system cannot be taken to the Ontario Municipal Board until after the 1994 election. If the OMB does order multiple wards, it would not take effect until the municipal election of November 1997.

If Tiny's cottagers are forced to support five school boards, surely Tiny's cottagers have the right to a ward system. Representation by population is more than a slogan. It means adequate representation by population.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs O'Driscoll. That was a very full brief. Thank you also for the attachments you've provided.

Ms O'Driscoll: I would request that you read my letter of October 16, 1991, to Mr Cooke. You will see how many letters were written trying to awaken people to the fact of the lawsuit and the boundary that has to be determined by the court and is now under reserved judgement.

The Chair: That was in particular --

Ms O'Driscoll: This is not answered.

The Chair: That was in particular the letter of October 16. Fine. Okay.

Ms O'Driscoll: I wrote something like seven or eight letters in 1991, all of which went unheeded.

The Chair: We'll move then to questions. Any questions on the presentation?

Mr Conway: One hardly knows what to say. I mean, it's very interesting. We don't know when the decision in the court case is going to be handed down.


Ms O'Driscoll: No, it was reserved on July 14. The judge faced thousands of documents and 20 days of testimony, so I think he would be some months giving out his judgement. But it is a very serious matter. Our estimate of raw land was something like half a billion dollars of land is affected in this lawsuit and our plea for two years has been, "Please don't draw lines on the east while you have an issue before the courts that has to be determined by the courts." That is the western boundary of the township.

Mr Conway: Does the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- I know from my happy career as a cabinet minister that judges can sometimes make the politician's life remarkably interesting. If a judge were to do something remarkably interesting in this case, has the ministry got any contingency plan?

Mr Griggs: Well, in fact, regarding municipal boundary changes, whether they're under this kind of comprehensive restructuring or individually negotiated boundary changes between municipalities, it's generally the position of the ministry that the ownership of the land has no relation to the municipal jurisdiction over that land. The case before the court has to do with the ownership of this land.

Mr Conway: But I can imagine -- and, again, I don't know any of the issues really, so I'm just speculating here. But, as I say, my own experience with judges is they're a very interesting group of people and thoughtful. But the best-laid plans of policy-makers are sometimes tipped into a cocked hat by judicial pronouncements and I'm just trying to imagine. What are the range of possibilities here?

Ms O'Driscoll: Very limited.

Mr Conway: All right, but what's the best-case scenario from your point of view? What would you most like the judgement to find?

Ms O'Driscoll: First of all, if I may answer it by saying that you're all politicians, you can go to meetings and you can say, "Maybe a little bit of this and maybe a little bit of that and we'd like both sides a little bit, so we'll do something for each." A court of law does not function that way. A court has to determine the issue before it, and the issue before the court is: Is the line of the wood a boundary? The judge has no ability to say, "Gee, I feel the people should have the beaches, but I think the people should have their cottages, so I'm going to sort of do something different." He hasn't that ability. His ability is to decide on the issue, and the issue before the court was simply a boundary issue: Is the line of the wood a boundary of the western boundary of the lots of Tiny township, or is the water's edge the boundary? It's in the process, it has to be determined, the lines on the east are arbitrary.

Mr Conway: Let's say for the sake of argument that the court finds it's the line in the wood. What are the practical implications of that?

Ms O'Driscoll: The practical implications are that the claim was: If the line is the boundary, everything between the line of the wood and the water's edge was -- there is unpatented crown land, that all of the cottages on that land, all the registered plans of division that are on that land at the moment were really there by mistake; it was all a big mistake; the crown has retained that land always and we shouldn't be there.

Mr Conway: But I am a politician and as a practical matter I'd say, "Well, all right."

Ms O'Driscoll: Well, then, I can't tell you the lawsuits that are going to ensue after that, because there are at least 2,000 homes in the front row and where the line is 1,300 feet deep we have four or five rows of cottages and we've all been there on registered plans of subdivision. The government has kept quiet about this claim for 170 years. We've paid taxes. All kinds of things come into it. But the matter before the court is: Is the line the boundary, and if the line is the boundary everything is unpatented crown land and it's not owned privately; it's owned by the government.

Mr Conway: I take it that it's the view of the ministry that's probably not a realistic possibility, that the --

Mr Griggs: Well, again, that's --

Mr Conway: I only remember as an Education minister that the courts were always doing interesting things to me in north Simcoe. Just when I thought I had it all figured out in north Simcoe, I got another judgement from a court that was really interesting. So --

The Chair: The parliamentary assistant has a number of comments on that and other issues. The parliamentary assistant, do you want to just answer that?

Mr Hayes: Do you want to go first?

Mr Griggs: Can I just answer that question first of all?

Mr Hayes: Go ahead.

Mr Griggs: I think we should keep in mind that the court cases regarding property lines and the ownership of property -- the restructuring has to do with municipal boundaries and areas of municipal jurisdiction.

Mr Conway: Yes, but if I'm in the municipality, I'm kind of interested in assessment and financial capacity. I'm just theoretically assuming -- I might be wrong -- that a really interesting finding from the court could have very practical implications around property values, assessments, and if I were on the local council, I'd sure be interested.

Mr Griggs: Again, I can't speak to that.

The Chair: I think the courts will make their decision in due course.

Ms O'Driscoll: The courts will make the decision. All I wanted to bring to your attention was the fact that at every level up for two years, as much as we have tried to bring this to people's attention, it has been ignored. The very serious thing is that you are considering drawing a line and taking land from Tiny and giving it away. That is an arbitrary decision that will be made by politicians, by the Legislature, but the other has to be decided and we're saying it should be decided first.

The Chair: The parliamentary assistant has a few --

Mr Hayes: I can certainly sympathize with you in your concern about the --

Ms O'Driscoll: I'm concerned for Tiny.

Mr Hayes: Okay, your concerned for Tiny, but at the same time, when you're talking about the court case, this restructuring really doesn't affect that.

Ms O'Driscoll: Yes, it does.

Mr Hayes: You're talking about the ownership of properties, and I think we're confusing property boundaries with municipal boundaries. We're talking about restructuring, whether there's a court case on who owns the property or not, you're still talking about the property within the municipality, not the specific ownership of the municipality.

Mr Conway: But isn't the argument though, Pat, theoretically -- suppose they got a decision that changed what people thought was the ownership? I would just think, if I were on the council, that would have a real impact because then lawsuits and values go up, down or sideways.

I represent a fair bit of lower, not-as-valuable property. But did you ever get into these situations where a bunch of cottages find out, for example, that they are built on a reserve -- you know, the 66 foot -- and then their bankers tell them, "Fine, we're not giving you any more mortgage financing"? You get into very real questions about values and assessments and all the rest of it immediately if there's any question around these ownership issues. At least, that's been my experience.

Mr Hayes: I'm not going to get into a long discussion on it. Let's accept that. Those things can happen whether you have restructuring or not, right, and I think that's the point I'm trying to make.

Ms O'Driscoll: If I may answer you, Mr Hayes, this is the largest case in land lot to ever go before the courts in the province. It's true it's a case of ownership, and you are talking about restructuring and boundaries, but I'm taking it from the point of view of taxes, that if we lose 85% of our commercial assessment, the taxpayers of Tiny are going to have to make up that difference. If in the process the land on the western shore is found to be unpatented crown land and all the land values drop, where is the township going to get its taxes from?

Mr Hayes: On page 11 on your conclusion where you talk about, "Tiny has never been given the opportunity to consider building its own sewage treatment plant." Don't you think it would be less expensive if the need was there for Midland to expand the plant rather than a small municipality like Tiny trying to building their own plant?

Ms O'Driscoll: First of all, Mr Hayes, I'm not a financial consultant, so I wouldn't guess the cost. But I do know that there is a move towards individual municipalities getting their own sewage treatment plants. All I was raising was the fact that has Tiny ever been given the opportunity to even cost it out? What is the rationale to give the malls to Midland? If it's to service them, did Tiny get an opportunity to service them before they were taken away from them? You have that opportunity to decide that.

Mr Hayes: How long has that been there?

Ms O'Driscoll: I'm sorry?

Mr Hayes: The malls that you're talking about, how long has that been there?

Ms O'Driscoll: I don't have an exact date.

Mr Hayes: Just roughly.


Ms O'Driscoll: I think they're around 20 years. My understanding -- although I don't like talking of understandings, I'd rather talk of facts -- is that Midland had an opportunity to get those malls years ago and they didn't want them. But now that they are producing tax revenue, I think they would like them.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming before the committee and for your presentation. We appreciate it.

Ms O'Driscoll: Thank you kindly.


The Chair: If I could then call on Ms Gail Barrie, councillor from the township of Tiny. We have copies of the documents which you gave to the clerk.

Ms Gail Barrie: Mr Chairman, I would like to delete the sentence that starts with "to this hearing today," because I very much feel that there are people listening here.

The Chair: I'm sorry, we were just getting our material organized here.

Ms Barrie: When I come to it, I'll point it out to you.

The Chair: Okay, fine.

Ms Barrie: All right? I'm here to speak on restructuring and I'm here as an elected representative of Tiny township. I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for the majority of them.

This submission is presented with respect and appreciation for the opportunity to be heard. It is also submitted as a former member of council for Midland for six years during an annexation attempt to get the same lands that they are now being handed from Tiny. I am a sitting member of Tiny council presently, so I feel I have a good sense of the issue and the situation from both sides.

Could I say at the outset that throughout this effort, Tiny township maintains an extremely unique position in the entire county of Simcoe. We stand to lose and we stand to lose big-time: 85%, as you have heard, of our commercial assessment, 20.7% of our total assessment.

It's with great concern and -- as I say, it was in a bit of haste to get this presentation ready, but they are my personal views on behalf of my electorate on the restructuring of Simcoe county. It was my understanding that input at the committee level here would help to clarify that the restructuring exercise is not entirely in the best interests of its taxpayers, especially those of the township of Tiny.

From the outset, the vast majority of Tiny township have fought long and hard against restructuring. Your committee's mandate is to hear people on this issue, but how many times must they say no before they get listened to? There's a big difference there: hearing and listening.

The process has been flawed since its inception, right from the fact that there's the appearance of it being a done deal before it formally began; right from its inception to the structure of the initial restructuring committee at county level to the transition committee. What I want deleted is "to this committee," because, as I say, I really feel that we have some ears here today. I think there is some listening going on.

To this date, the township of Tiny has received no guarantees from the government that the compensation package, as agreed to between Midland and Tiny, is valid. The reason for that is, Midland supports Tiny's position on compensation only as long as it receives the major funding of this package from the province. We have seen no guarantees that this is forthcoming.

The county, then, on the other hand, and the province have said that we must negotiate with Midland to be heard. It's like being caught in a vice. It's a bit of a catch-22 situation.

As an elected representative of the township who voted no to the compensation package for the above reasons -- that being no guarantees forthcoming -- I would ask that over 90% of our taxpayers be heard, as this appears to be the reason for this hearing. Politicians should not ponder any more why there is such an absence of trust in them from their taxpayers. It is exercises such as restructuring of north Simcoe on a guinea pig level -- and this is the feeling of a lot of the electorate -- that instills such lack of good faith in our elected representatives.

I would respectfully ask that the impact of the south Simcoe restructuring be analysed before we compound mistakes already made. Because dollars have already been spent on the implementation of parts of the study does not mean we should throw good money after bad and in my view is not a valid reason to pursue a path that was flawed from the beginning.

Very respectfully submitted. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming before the committee today and for your submission. We'll begin the questioning with Mr Wilson.

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you, Councillor, for your presentation. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant --

Mr Hayes: He waits till I get up.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's not that bad, Pat. Just for the record, though, if the parliamentary assistant could tell us right now what the province's position is with respect to the compensation package from Midland being offered to Tiny, because Councillor Barrie has made it clear, as have other presenters, that it's certainly the understanding at the local level that Midland can't be serious about the compensation package unless the province is serious about paying for -- I think the figure was 43%, and Midland would have been 57% of the compensation package. So perhaps we could hear that from the government.

Mr McLean: They're not too sure. He'll get around it.

The Chair: Mr Hayes. Did you get all of the question?

Mr Hayes: I think so, yes. It's the same one that was asked earlier, I think.

Mr Jim Wilson: And I'm waiting for an answer, Mr Hayes.

Mr Hayes: And I think it was one that the mayor from Midland, I believe, addressed. There is an agreement with Midland and Tiny township, and there's agreement between the province and Midland. The agreement is that they would pay, I think, 57% -- am I correct? -- Midland, and 43% for the province. If I may, can I ask him to come over.

The Chair: If a representative from the ministry would perhaps --

Mr Hayes: I would just prefer that for the benefit of the members and the people from the municipality, they are able to hear it first hand, rather than my trying to interpret it and maybe say the wrong thing. I don't like to do that.

The Chair: If you'd be good enough just to identify yourself.

Mr Rick Temporale: Rick Temporale. I'm with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We sat down with the town of Midland last week and negotiated the province's share of the package that Midland will pay to Tiny township, as they negotiated earlier on in the year. This happened late last week. We got the confirmation that the town has accepted that proposal as of Monday morning.

Mr Jim Wilson: We did hear from both sides of the agreement, though, that there's nothing in writing at this point. Is that true?

Mr Temporale: With us and Midland? No, there is nothing in writing.

Mr Jim Wilson: When do you expect to actually sign an agreement, or is that procedure in this case?

Mr Temporale: No, that isn't a procedure. The minister will write Midland a letter thanking them for accepting the package and negotiating a package with the province, and the payment schedule will begin as negotiated between Midland and Tiny.

Mr Conway: For the benefit of the committee and the witnesses, would the representative from the ministry just highlight the elements of that package?

Mr Temporale: The highlights of the package have to do with payments to Tiny township in relationship to its lost commercial and industrial assessment based on its 1993 mill rates and its 1992 assessments for 1993 taxation purposes.

Mr Conway: For what period of time?

Mr Temporale: Tiny will receive money from the town of Midland for the next nine years: 100% of that loss for five years, and phased down over the next four.


Mr Waters: When does Tiny get that in writing?

Mr Temporale: Tiny has that in writing. As a matter of fact, their council passed a resolution --


Mr Jim Wilson: They passed a resolution, but what we didn't have was the province's acceptance of that. That is my understanding.

Mr Temporale: The province has always accepted that. It was conditional upon the province and Midland agreeing on the package.

Mr Conway: That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Just to be clear, then, there is a letter that is going to Midland setting out that understanding?

Mr Temporale: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Waters, did you have a question?

Mr Waters: I just have one other question, and it relates to the previous presenter. As a representative of the township, of the council -- and you sat and heard the presentation -- could you comment about, from the township's point of view, the concerns as a council, if you can?

Ms Barrie: I wouldn't at this point because it's before the courts, and I represent the entire township, not just one area.

Mr Waters: Okay.

Mr Conway: You're asking Ms Barrie to comment on which submission?

Mr Waters: The previous one.

The Chair: Mr McLean?

Mr McLean: I've asked my questions. I'm going to let you off easy, Gail.

Ms Barrie: Thank you, Al.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the witness coming. Does the information you've just received about the nine-year compensation package give you some added comfort?

Ms Barrie: Restructuring has never given me any comfort in any way, shape or form.

Mr Conway: So would I be right in saying that you are an implacable foe of any kind of --

Ms Barrie: Let's just say that --

Mr Conway: There's nothing wrong with being implacably opposed to some things.

Ms Barrie: No. I believe I had previously said that I had several positions on it, and let's say that that may be halfway down my list of preferences.

Mr Conway: What do you think, from your point of view -- and you've had the unique experience of serving on both the Midland town council and now at neighbouring Tiny. It's been said, and I think understandably so, by a lot of people that, yes, there's a lot wrong with Bill 51 but there are a lot of problems out there that somebody is going to have to deal with. Assuming that we're just not all going to be ostriches and put our heads in the sand, what does Gail Barrie think might be -- and at this point it may be that between Midland and Tiny there aren't a great number of difficulties. But what, if anything, given what you know about the municipal agendas of both communities, Midland and Tiny, do you think should be done to amend the status quo? Or is the status quo, all things considered, about as good as it's going to get for the next generation?

Ms Barrie: I would like to say at the outset there that two minor good things happened through restructuring. We lost a little bit of the liability for Penetang bay, should it become more polluted, and we've got Waverley into one community instead of four. But if you're asking me what I think an ideal situation would be --

Mr Conway: Not an ideal situation but a reasonable one. Ideals don't interest me.

Ms Barrie: Highway 93. Give me Highway 93 as a boundary. And then I sat here and listened to Jim and others speaking about roads as boundaries, so I'm sort of shot down before --

Mr Conway: No, no, it's what you think. Wilson and Conway and Waters have their own opinions. I'm interested in what you think.

Ms Barrie: Where I'd like to see it be?

Mr Conway: Is the status quo as between, say, Midland and Tiny, from your point of view, having served on both councils, perhaps as good as we can reasonably expect it to get for the next while?

Ms Barrie: I don't believe a need has been shown to go into Tiny. I don't think that need has been shown to a good degree. Ideally, leave us alone. In my own opinion, if it must be done, do it at 93. Don't take all of our commercial assessment.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, again, very much for coming before the committee and for your submission.


The Chair: I would then call our last presenter, Mr Harry Powell, if Mr Powell would be good enough to come forward. We have received a copy, Mr Powell, of your submission. Once you're settled, please go ahead.

Mr Harry H. Powell: My name is Harry Powell. I'm from Tiny township. You might call me a hobby farmer because I'm retired and I grow trees -- oxygen for people to breathe -- horse pastures, things like that, and big gardens.

This submission of mine is sort of a last-minute thing. I'll read it out.

At the November 1991 municipal elections 7,100 Tiny township voters turned out to vote. On an accompanying ballot 5,090 voted against restructuring; that's about 72%. This would indicate a travesty of democratic justice, if one still believes in the myth of true democracy.

The voters of Tiny township were subjected to what amounts to a betrayal of a sacred trust when their reeve and deputy reeve voted in favour of restructuring.

Through the clever manipulation of Simcoe county council voting procedures and the support of certain cronies, mostly from the already restructured south end of Simcoe county, the opponents of restructuring were beaten by a very small majority. In fact, I think that some of these southerners of Simcoe County ought to take a tour of Tiny township and see the beautiful, pristine area we have here: cottages, beautiful water, forests and farm land.

Ross Hastings became warden of Simcoe County in December 1992. When this happened, he was in apparent conflict of interest. He was originally elected by the voters of Tiny township to represent them, not Simcoe county, and had no mandate from them to undertake restructuring. Because of his exalted county position, he appears to have thought it more expedient to attend to county business rather than Tiny township, as evidenced by his appearance at a harness race in Barrie one evening last fall rather than a very important Tiny council meeting where ratepayers wanted answers to some very embarrassing matters.

Mr Frank Hughes attended every Simcoe county council meeting dealing with restructuring, and his voluminous and detailed reporting appeared in the Quill and later the Observer newspapers. He devoted hundreds of hours of his time voluntarily and without remuneration, all in the interest of people's rights and attempts to maintain the status quo. A tip of the hat goes to him in this truly conscientious effort. He is an outstanding citizen of Tiny township and also one who is a bona fide veteran of the Second World War. He's also a lawyer.

Midland, which is expected to make the big grab from Tiny township and other parts, is embarrassingly poor financially. Where is the money to come from to meet its expected fiscal obligations in these days of fiscal poverty? In Midland, there is still a good half-mile stretch of residential area, after all these years, on the south side of Yonge Street up to Highway 93 where the homes are on septic systems -- and they are good homes too -- which drain downhill to Little Lake. That's a part of Little Lake Park. An article and a picture last week in the Free Press showed erosion as a result of a heavy water runoff after a storm flowing into Little Lake. There is also a possibility that sewage from the residences may also be flowing.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Powell, for coming before the committee.

Mr Conway: I guess we'll probably get a chance later in the proceedings to question the warden of Simcoe county -- he's also the reeve of Tiny township -- but was any argument advanced by these municipal representatives from Tiny as to why they changed their positions?

Mr Powell: Which representatives?

Mr Conway: You start your submission by indicating that in the municipal elections of 1991 Mr Hastings and the deputy reeve -- certainly Mr Hastings, according to your presentation -- campaigned, you say, against any kind of restructuring in 1991. Is that correct?

Mr Powell: Not the reeve; he was also for restructuring. He also made a statement that in 10 years' time this will be one huge region. He had a negative approach to the whole thing.

Mr Conway: I'm trying to understand your brief. I take it that you're telling us that Mr Hastings, when he was campaigning for the reeveship in 1991, did so on the basis that he was opposed to restructuring.

Mr Powell: No, he wasn't opposed. He tried to let on that it was. They set up a great big committee to fight restructuring. It was a sham.

Mr Jim Wilson: Maybe I could help out here. In the 1991 election -- and I have the clippings in the car -- Mr Hastings clearly stated that he was opposed to restructuring, in the newspaper clippings I saw.

Mr Powell: Before that -- I forget what month it would be, June 1991 or something -- when Lancia was still reeve, Hastings opposed Lancia at a vote that they had and he lost out by about two or three votes. I have clippings, I have stacks of stuff like that on restructuring. If anybody is interested in Frank Hughes's writings, I've got stacks of stuff.

The Chair: Mr Powell, thank you for coming before the committee this afternoon. We appreciate it.

Members of the committee, this concludes our session in Midland. May I, on behalf of all the members, thank those who came before the committee this afternoon and also those who have been sitting and listening.

We will be meeting tomorrow in Collingwood, at the Royal Canadian Legion Hall, beginning at 9 am. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1733.