Committee Transcript 1997-Feb-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Consideration of Bill 103, An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto / Projet de loi 103, Loi visant à remplacer les sept administrations municipales existantes de la communauté urbaine de Toronto en constituant une nouvelle municipalité appelée la cité de Toronto.

The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government hearings on Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act.

SIMON MILES

The Chair: Would Simon Miles please come forward. Good morning, sir. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make a presentation.

Mr Simon Miles: My name is Simon Miles. I am a resident of the city of Toronto and I make my living as a public policy consultant, working internationally. I believe you have a copy of my remarks. I will not be reading them verbatim but I do subscribe to everything that's said there.

Relative to my background that's pertinent to Bill 103, I cut my teeth on urban governance when working for the Bureau of Municipal Research in Toronto, a privately funded research organization at the time. Later, I helped establish and then ran the Toronto-based secretariat of the International Association for Metropolitan Research and Development. In addition, and I suppose it's called a mega-book today, I produced a mega-book, Metropolitan Problems: International Perspectives, the lessons of which have been left with me for the rest of my life.

In the few minutes available I'd like to touch on four areas of concern.

First, the process of deciding on the future of the governance of this region. As a citizen in Canada, I believe in democracy. Indeed, I take it for granted. If I cannot believe in democracy, I believe I cannot see myself as a citizen, and that would be very disturbing. Yet that is exactly how I do feel. I've worked all over the world in many countries where they do not enjoy democracy and of course I find it very surprising that I have to worry about that here.

I feel this way because people are concerned about the overwhelming amount of information coming at them, and we're only getting a small piece of the information, of the total package, that we and our legislators in this room and others need to make informed decisions. There's the artificial urgency, the insincere commitment, and there is no evidence to support the government's contentions that a megacity would be better for us. Worst of all, the proposal is to remove the one layer of government that does listen to the citizens.

The solution? Put off the reading of Bill 103 indefinitely, postpone the next local elections, give us your evidence that what you are proposing would indeed be better for us in every respect and enable citizens to participate in decision-making.

Second, controlling the growth of the urban region. Why are people so concerned about the continuing outward growth of the urban region? A very obvious question. Ralf Dahrendorf observed in his seminal book, Life Chances, that people seek to improve their lives not only by opening up more options but also by strengthening the quality of their associations, or what he called their ligatures, with people, places and things. Thus, quite clearly, it is easier to identify with an urban place if it has some definite, distinctive bounds.

Similarly, if we are to enjoy the countryside, then we have to know that the city does indeed end. The bigger the urban area, the smaller the chance of finding that opportunity to relate to nature in peace and quiet.

Metro was established largely to control urban growth, and for a while, in partnership with the province, through controlling the supply of water pipes and sewers, it did a reasonably good job. The city really stopped at Steeles. Then the province loosened the controls and we needed the GTA, and it hasn't worked very well since. We are losing our distinctive recreational areas, and much of our agricultural land is tied up in the hands of speculators.

Beyond the need to control the outward growth is the need to give shape and a sense of place to places within the urban region. Within today's Metro we have seen the slow but successful emergence of subcentres in Scarborough and North York to give some, albeit inadequate, balance to downtown as a commercial centre. In my view, this is very healthy. It's been a product of creative competition between these municipalities, aided and abetted by Metro. If we amalgamate the municipalities within Metro, I think this job will go unfinished.

0910

There is a lesson here in New York's amalgamation of 1898. With this amalgamation, downtown became the place of consequence. It was hard for the other centres to maintain a profile, and as a result you've got in the urban area of 16 million very few countermagnets to downtown.

The solution: eliminate Metro; give the Greater Toronto Services Board some effective coordinating powers; keep and strengthen the current six municipalities or, I would prefer, encourage people in East York and York to join with Toronto, but let them make that decision.

Outside Metro, within the GTSB service area, re-create strong, single-tier, local government; have the constituent municipalities within the GTSB service area elect from their ranks their representatives to the GTSB; and finance the GTSB through assessments on, and ratified by, constituent municipalities.

At the neighbourhood or local level, we need space-sensitive planning. We've got this now. It works. Let's not let it go.

My third issue is financing the services. Bill 103 is supposed to save the taxpayer money. I believe Wendell Cox has demonstrated quite clearly that this is not going to be so. More to the point, Bill 103 and related proposed legislation may do little to resolve our local finance problems, and indeed the downloading, as you've heard time and again, seems to make our current problems worse.

Our current problems, those that have been with us a long time, relate to the shortcomings of the property tax, and you'll see on page 5 that I list all of those concerns: the over-reliance on the property tax; the uneven distribution of commercial and industrial property; the continuing contribution to urban sprawl; the inequities in assessment; and the damage to the character of areas like Rosedale. I don't live in Rosedale but I am concerned that it's going to disappear. As a taxpayer, I believe the solution is to pursue a system of public finance that reflects the principles of being equitable, sustainable in tough times, economic, non-destructive of our other values and transparently honest.

There are two options. First, forget about this business of achieving revenue neutrality. It's a very short-term goal and it ignores the intermunicipal differences. Look to a country like the Netherlands -- there are several countries that operate the system I'm describing -- and try a revenue-sharing approach, slightly different from what we've heard from some of your colleagues, Mr Gilchrist, but worth exploring. Essentially, it relies mainly on income taxes, corporate and individual, and with the same amount as now or slightly less being raised from commercial and industrial properties but much less from residential properties. When you work it out, this should solve all of the problems associated with the property tax. My paper goes into that a bit more.

This sharing would be on a province-wide basis. The annual meetings to decide on the sharing would involve provincial and municipal representatives and be very public to ensure accountability to the taxpayer. All property should be assessed on current use value, as opposed to market value, which would then obviate this concern of the speculative value element being built in.

By putting little reliance on residential property tax, it would be possible to update assessments everywhere without having nearly such a tax impact on the owners of currently underassessed property. Don't forget, one would be taxing those same owners but on their ability to pay through income taxes, and indeed the province could advertise that it would be seeking its promised tax cut through reductions to the residential property tax.

The Chair: Mr Miles, I have to let you know that we're coming to the end of your allotted time. Could you wrap up?

Mr Miles: On the matter of transparent honesty, then, I have one request of the minister: Could he please make it crystal-clear that the reserve funds held by the seven municipalities subject to Bill 103 will remain with those municipalities or any resultant combination thereof? I understand that the comparable proposed legislation pertaining to the amalgamation of Kingston is much more transparent and makes it very clear to Kingston's taxpayers that they will indeed retain control of the reserve funds. Since some taxpayers in Metro Toronto are very interested in making sure that those $1.3 billion reserve funds stay with them, we'd like to have that assurance.

Since I cannot address my fourth item, on citizen participation in local government decision-making, I just hope that you will indeed find time to read that last part of the paper. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Miles, for coming forward to make your presentation.

ONTARIO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Would Paul Oliver please come forward. Good morning, Mr Oliver. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes this morning for a presentation. If there's some time left at the end of your presentation, I'll ask the Liberal caucus to ask some questions.

Mr Paul Oliver: Good morning. My name is Paul Oliver. I'm president of the Ontario Restaurant Association. The ORA welcomes the opportunity to participate in these consultations and to comment on this issue as it immensely effects many of our members located in Metro Toronto.

Today I am appearing on behalf of the ORA and more specifically on behalf of the Toronto region of the Ontario Restaurant Association. On behalf of the association, I want to indicate our strong support for Bill 103 and the amalgamation of Metro Toronto into one unified city.

The ORA believes that this is a positive step towards creating a more conducive and manageable economic and business environment in Metro Toronto. By amalgamating the six cities of Metro Toronto into one unified city, we will begin to reflect what consumers already recognize, that Metro Toronto is already one unified city.

The restaurant and tourism industry, being very customer sensitive, deals with thousands of customers every day. What we have seen within our industry is that customers do not respect nor recognize artificial political boundaries. They will patronize and travel to any establishment that delivers the service and products they desire. Unfortunately, the current political system in Metro Toronto is not designed to reflect this reality. In fact, for many small business operators, including many small restaurant operators, the current political structure is a major inhibitor to doing business as it creates a massively unfair and unequal regulatory and business environment.

What many people do not realize is that a small business in Scarborough does compete with a business in Toronto and that a business in Toronto does compete with a business in North York, and in many cases competitors may be as close as across the street from each other.

However, under the current municipal political structure in Metro Toronto, these very operators that are competing aggressively and directly against each other may have radically different rules under which they are attempting to operate. Many of these rules dictate their very profitability, their very viability and, in many cases, the very existence of these establishments; rules which say that in the city of Toronto you cannot have a dance floor in a restaurant or that you cannot have more than two pool tables, regardless of your size, or different hydro rates or different municipal tax rates determine whether you're located on the east side or west side of Victoria Park; most recently, rules which allow smoking after 9 pm on one corner or allow smoking in a separately enclosed room on another corner or allow smoking at any time of the day on a third corner or permit no smoking at all on the fourth corner. But this is the reality and unfairness that currently confronts small business operators who are competing directly with each other.

Generally small business operators can see their competitor from their front window. Often the competitor they are facing has different rules and, as a result, can provide different services to the customers which they both are competing for. From the customer's perspective, they do not care whether they eat on the west side or the east side of Victoria Park; they will go where they are getting the service and the product they expect.

Unfortunately, due to the dysfunctional political boundaries drawn throughout Metro Toronto, many small business operators cannot compete directly because their hands have been tied by their local councils.

It's unfortunate that many politicians who currently govern the various municipalities of Metro Toronto have failed to recognize that their municipalities are not islands unto themselves and that they must coordinate public policy, they must have uniformity of rules and standards and that the reality is that the customer will travel and the customer does not recognize these artificial political boundaries; it's time the political system did the same.

As of today, we now have six different smoking bylaws in the six different municipalities of Metro Toronto, but we only have one customer base. Think of how damaging it was when North York recently introduced their smoking bylaw on January 1, 1997, when on the west side of Victoria Park operators were forced to prohibit smoking and not serve their customers, while on the east side of Victoria Park operators could still permit and provide smoking to their customers.

0920

Think if you were an operator, you had invested your life savings, you had mortgaged your home, you were trying to support your family and were struggling to run a restaurant or a small business and some municipal politician came along and said, "We are going to tie your left hand behind your back, but we are not going to tie the hand of your competitor directly across the street."

To the Ontario Restaurant Association and to small business operators across Metro Toronto, these are the types of rules and regulations that do not make much sense. These are the types of issues and irregularities which a megacity must begin to address, and will.

The megacity will also begin to resolve the dysfunctional nature of the licensing of restaurants and other businesses in Metro Toronto. To the ORA, it does not seem exactly reasonable that you would have the licensing of restaurants and nightclubs at the Metro level but the inspection of them at the city level with no sharing of relevant information.

Why would a restaurant in Toronto need a Metro Toronto licence when that licence is not used for any direct or indirect enforcement? The powers of enforcement have been separated from the powers of licensing, and it is simply not working. Is it not time we brought these powers back together? The megacity will do this.

While supportive of the megacity legislation, the ORA does not believe that Bill 103 goes far enough. We believe that Bill 103 should and must create a mechanism which will start to harmonize bylaws throughout Metro Toronto. The bylaws which I mentioned earlier are merely the tip of the iceberg of the barriers facing business operating in Metro today. We believe that a formal process, including fixed time frames, must be built into Bill 103, which would force the new council to set up a process which will begin to harmonize these inequities. Without this initiative being incorporated into Bill 103, the very problems that this legislation is attempting to solve will continue to be entrenched and embedded in the new political system.

In conclusion, I want to reconfirm the Ontario Restaurant Association's support for amalgamating the six municipalities of Metro Toronto into one unified city. We would, however, premise that this support pertains directly to the political reorganization of Metro Toronto.

We do, however, have a number of concerns regarding other restructuring initiatives which the government is currently undertaking, and when that legislation comes before committee we look forward to coming back and discussing in more detail those concerns, including those relating to property tax reform. However, since Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, only focuses on the political apparatus of amalgamation, we thought it best to discuss the issues in the legislation and not what was peripheral.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You have plenty of time for questions.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Despite all these encumbrances -- and I do agree with you that there are some very complex issues you have to face in terms of jurisdictions as a small business person in Toronto -- I think your organization should be applauded, because it has certainly been recognized that Toronto probably surpasses even New York in terms of the quality and the excellence of its restaurants. I think it's in part due to the small business people, who have been very cognizant of the needs of their clients, and organizations like yourself. It's certainly something to be proud of as residents of Metro, that you've accomplished that over the years. Sometimes we forget the good things in Metro.

As you know, what the government has been talking about in the last couple of weeks -- I know I heard the parliamentary assistant, Mr Hardeman, on morning radio the other day. He was trying to reassure people that local neighbourhood or community identity would be retained by the establishment of these community councils, which are not in the legislation but they're part of the background piece.

One of the things I thought was quite interesting in terms of your concern about different bylaws in different jurisdictions is that he referred to the fact that these community councils would be allowed to pass bylaws pertaining to different communities that would mirror the existing communities that now exist or cities that now exist and that these bylaws might also relate to even the assessing of rates of taxation, in terms of whether they would have different levels of service delivery, in essence establishing different particular bylaws for recognized areas. I wonder if you'd like to comment on that.

Mr Oliver: As an organization, we wouldn't support blanket bylaws that are different from area to area. The issue we referenced relative to licensing of restaurants, and this is part of the problem we have in Metro Toronto, is that other municipalities throughout Ontario have the power, under one of the previous pieces of legislation, to put a special condition on a restaurant licence or do site-specific licensing to say that you must close by a certain time or you must not have your patio open and things like that.

In Metro Toronto, if there's a problem with too much noise in the Danforth area -- and I reference a direct example. Residents were concerned about the noise coming from nightclubs or restaurants in the Danforth area. The only response the city of Toronto had was to then bring in blanket legislation and say that you must limit dance floors, DJ booths and pool tables to 6% of the entire square footage, even though the problem was very limited to a small area of a block-and-a-half radius, probably three establishments in toto. We then ended up with this massive bylaw which makes things like the CN Tower's nightclub illegal in the city of Toronto.

The problem is that the tools aren't there to do that. By bringing the licensing back together with the enforcement, we hopefully will alleviate the need for these blanket bylaws and will be able to do site-specific where there are specific problems.

Mr Colle: I know a spokesman for the police department was just sort of rubbing his hands in glee saying, "I can't wait for amalgamation, because what that will enable us to do is to have this one blanket parking bylaw right across Metro." As you know, Mr Oliver, there's a real variety of parking needs everywhere from Cabbagetown to the St Clair-Dufferin area to Scarborough in terms of the type of parking people do. How do you respond to that anticipation by the police department in terms of these blanket bylaws in terms of parking?

Mr Oliver: One of the things we hear a lot is complaints from tourists that they don't know what the parking rules are in certain areas. I would actually support, our organization, standardized rules across Metro so that when you arrive in Metro you know what the rules are and they don't change from block to block or from street to street.

When tourists come to Toronto or they go to another major city, they know what the rules are when they arrive and they don't get this patchwork of smoking bylaws or parking bylaws; they have one standard rule. I think that is something that should be sought and hopefully will come out of this legislation.

Mr Colle: In North York they have a bylaw that you can't park on the streets at night. The police department is saying, "Have the uniform bylaw right across Metro of no parking at night." How can that be possible?

Mr Oliver: The reference I made to harmonizing, bringing the standard rules across, in particular in the commercial areas, I think it can be done and can be done effectively. But for the customer, the point I go back to, be it an international customer or a customer who lives downtown or a customer who lives in North York, they need to know what the rules are when they go out to different establishments. They don't need to be guessing, "I'm going from Toronto to North York, so that means I can park on the street or I can't," or "I can smoke there, but I can't smoke here."

For the customer, I would hazard to guess that probably 50% or 60% of people don't know what the north boundary is of the city of Toronto. If you were to ask me what it was, I probably would have a very difficult time describing this variable, moving target all around the city of Toronto. The customer simply doesn't know that.

When North York's bylaw went into effect on smoking, one of the biggest questions we had was: "What area does it cover? I'm not sure if I'm on the border, on this side of the street or on that side of the street. When I see my competitor smoking over there, does that mean I can have smoking here?" That's for the operator. For the customer, it's a complete nightmare because they have no idea, in a lot of cases, whether they're in Scarborough or North York or Toronto, because these barriers just sort of float along streets and they're not drawn along commercial groupings or along any inherent geographical boundary, in many cases; it's simply drawn on the west side or the east side of a street.

Mr Colle: Just getting back to this parking example --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Excuse me, Chair, how long is this? Everybody gets 10 minutes?

The Chair: No, Mr Bisson, several groups get 15 minutes. That was what the committee agreed upon.

Mr Bisson: I thought we said at the beginning it was 10 minutes.

The Chair: No, I didn't. The question time that remains goes to one caucus. I think that's a copy of the subcommittee report for you there.

Mr Colle: In terms of this parking situation, which is one of the acute problems I think small business faces throughout Metro, especially in the intensified downtown areas, how can you not recognize that there is a difference in terms of the impact on establishments? Let's take College and Clinton. The parking conditions are unique there. How can you have the same bylaw for College and Clinton, in terms of parking, as you can for Victoria Park and Lawrence?

0930

Mr Oliver: I think you can designate specific types of streets: main arteries versus secondary streets. I think a lot of municipalities do that. Even within the city of Toronto, you can go from street to street and have different rules, but it's clear that you don't park on the main arteries, in some cases, you don't park on Sundays in the downtown core, different things like that. But there's no reason to have those types of principles applied differently in Scarborough or in Toronto or North York. If you know it's a main artery then you don't park there, but if it is a secondary one there's parking, or if there's metering in those areas.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Oliver, for coming forward to make your presentation today.

CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION, ONTARIO DIVISION

The Chair: Would Paul Pagnuelo please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr Paul Pagnuelo: Good morning, Mr Chairman and committee members. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation welcomes the opportunity to comment on Bill 103, which would amalgamate Toronto's six municipalities and regional government into a new megacity government of 2.3 million people.

"On the surface, collapsing a number of smaller municipalities into one big, efficient governmental region seems like a cost-saving slam dunk. After all, do you really need five separate water departments, five separate garbage departments, five separate building inspection departments etc?

"However, there is another side. That can be seen most readily in the fact that municipalities proposing to eliminate cost and duplication by amalgamation invariably have within their own borders many competing suppliers of goods and services that the taxpayers want in their role as consumers. For example, it is hard to find a region that doesn't have several automobile dealerships or many providers of automobile repair and service. Wouldn't consumers be better served if those duplicated facilities were provided by a single provider? In fact, why do we need to have more than one automobile company, more than one garage and more than one gasoline provider?

"We have to have alternatives, because without competition the quality of the product deteriorates, and the consumer, while perhaps initially saving the cost of duplication and overlap of facilities, ultimately gets a very bad product. That was certainly the case in East Germany with the production of the car driven only by those who had no alternative, the Trabant.

"If amalgamation doesn't serve the interests of consumers as buyers of autos and other goods and services, why do we expect that it will serve their interests as consumers of government services?"

Those are not our words but the words of Michael Walker, not the Michael Walker who is the councillor for the city of Toronto, but the Michael Walker who is executive director of the Fraser Institute.

Up front, I want to acknowledge that the federation has generally been quite supportive of the efforts of this government to correct the very serious problems the province was faced with when you took over office, problems which developed over a long period and which unfortunately, by their very nature, cannot be resolved as quickly and as easily as we all might like.

As a national taxpayer organization our mandate includes promoting fiscal and democratic reforms. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is anxious to see efficiencies achieved in our local government structures, better value for money, higher-quality service delivery at lower cost. I know the objective is shared by this government. One might question, therefore, why we have completely opposite views on how it should be achieved.

There are times when you can only shake your head in disbelief at what some politicians say and the conclusions they reach. Take for example the recent reported comments of one Metro Toronto councillor who is described as being a wholehearted supporter of amalgamation: "I've read every book, every essay, talked to every journalist, every scholar in the field of municipal research, and there's no doubt in my mind that not only is [amalgamation] the good choice, it's the only viable option we have."

The councillor is either stretching the truth like an elastic band, or else he's one of those big-time, tax-spending politicians who just can't wait to lighten the weight of your wallet by creating more bureaucracy and cranking up the cheque-writing machine at the new city hall. If he really was an advocate of efficient government, he obviously hasn't read what the Fraser Institute or experts like Andrew Sancton and Wendell Cox have to say about amalgamation.

Our review of their research concludes that amalgamation will produce the exact opposite effect of what everyone wants: It's going to produce higher costs, and that means higher taxes.

The perceived savings, by eliminating six city halls and their separate bureaucracies, are far less than the higher costs which would be associated with a megacity government. The empirical evidence worldwide is that higher, not lower, unit costs are associated with larger governments.

If the claim was believable that the citizens of Metro Toronto would not only be better served by a megacity but that it would produce real cost savings in the hundreds of millions of dollars, then by extension, why not do away with municipalities altogether? Let's just turn the delivery and funding of all our local services over to Big Sister here at Queen's Park, or for that matter, while we're at it, let's also eliminate all our provincial governments and we can just have Jean Chrétien and the Liberals service all our government needs, federal, provincial and municipal, out of Ottawa.

The proposition of course is ridiculous, and so too is the claim that amalgamation, on its own, will produce real net savings.

The reality is that government amalgamation works against the best interests of taxpayers. Superregional governments not only dilute democratic control of local government by citizens, they also increase the power of special interests. The only economies of scale they provide are to public sector unions whose power increases exponentially as the size of government increases. Large labour contracts, which impose inefficient work rules and discourage customer-oriented service, will result in lower quality and excessively high unit costs for public services, and that's going to result in higher taxes.

Eliminating the competitive aspect of lower-tier municipal governments means reducing the potential for innovation. As governments become larger, gone are the benchmarks to draw contrasts between effective and ineffective, efficient and inefficient governments.

I am sure that the government is quite well aware of what the expert opinion is on large governments and amalgamation. I doubt that the arguments I've advanced against amalgamation are unfamiliar to you, and I find it difficult to believe that the government is so willing to dismiss them out of hand, particularly when there is no credible evidence to support its position that amalgamation on its own will save taxpayers money.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you of what the Premier told us in a pre-election survey that his party's position was on the issue of municipal governance and the elimination of regional-county governments versus local, lower-tier governments.

Why then is the government in such a rush to consolidate municipalities across Ontario when it is obvious that doing so will not create governments that are more efficient? And why is it so unwilling to respect the views of the public on such a fundamental issue as how they should be governed, while at the same time holding itself out as a champion of direct democracy?

We can only conclude that amalgamation is being driven solely by the need to even out, across large regional areas, the impact of social service downloads.

While we support the government's decision to control and reduce education costs by relieving school boards of their taxing authority, the uploading of education costs from residential property taxes has left the government in a difficult fiscal position. The reality is that there is simply no way you could add to your fiscal challenge by uploading $5.4 billion from property taxes and keep your election promises of a balanced budget and a 30% personal income tax cut.

This government can live up to its election promises and avoid the need for downloading most social services by trading its remaining 15% personal income tax cut for an equivalent reduction in residential property taxes. If the province were to upload the $5.4 billion in education costs from the residential tax bill and download only hard services, community public health and ambulance services and cancel all municipal grant programs, property taxes would drop by about $3.2 billion, which is slightly more than the estimated cost of the last half of the promised income tax cut.

The federation believes that this would be a win-win situation for both the province and taxpayers.

By delivering the remaining half of the tax cut through property tax reductions, middle class taxpayers and those on fixed incomes would get far greater tax relief. Not only will the government have delivered on its promised tax cut, it will also have removed the major irritant of education from residential property taxes.

0940

The proposal would result in true disentanglement and would create far better accountability by avoiding the need for shared funding partnerships. It would also eliminate the chaos and high transition costs associated with amalgamation. More important, it would allow the province to pursue the strategic alternative of creating high-performance, customer-oriented local governments that, through competitive tendering practices, will produce higher-quality service delivery at lower unit costs.

Bigger and more remote government, large bureaucracies and central planning contravene the principles of the CSR. If the government proceeds with forcing municipal amalgamations across Ontario, it may as well kiss its relationship with voters in core constituencies goodbye. I can tell you, from the feedback we're getting, you are alienating your natural support base. Quite frankly, it's time for a reality check.

I respectfully suggest that the government give serious consideration to our proposal, a proposal that will meet your election promises and that will result in far more efficient government, government that is smaller, government that is competitive, government that is accountable and government that is responsive. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Bisson, you have a little more than three minutes.

Mr Bisson: I want to thank you very much. I never thought I'd see the day where I'd find myself a little on the same side of the fence as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I've been in situations where I've always understood that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation were strong allies of the Tories and standing squarely behind them. It's interesting to see -- you're not saying, I think, that you're about to run away from them, but you have some deep concern about what they're doing.

I agree with your assertion: The problem with what we're doing with 103 is that we will more than likely be creating large bureaucracies that tend to be fairly inefficient in the end. I have to ask you this political question, as you alluded to your questionnaire; you said you had sent a questionnaire out to the Premier and other Tory candidates in the last election and canvassed them on whether they would or would not move in the direction of creating a larger city. You just skimmed over that, but I wonder if you can share with the committee and others what those responses were from the Premier and others.

Mr Pagnuelo: I've got the original here, so we may as well read right from it. I think it's very important because of a lot of conclusions that people drew from the response.

We asked two questions specifically in terms of municipal government. The reason we asked a lot of these questions was because we've been very involved with local municipal ratepayer groups over the years, very aware of the concerns people had, with the possibilities of amalgamations in the past. We asked two specific questions to the Premier.

The first one was, "If elected, your party would eliminate regional and county governments and would transfer their responsibilities in funding to local municipalities and/or to the provincial government." The choice was "agree," "disagree" or "undecided." The Premier answered "undecided," but added, as you can see right here, "looking at favourably."

The second question we asked was, "If elected, your party would eliminate local municipalities and would transfer their responsibilities to regional and/or county governments." The answer quite clearly was "disagree." There was nothing added to that.

In our mind, we could only read this one way. We read it in conjunction with what came out of the Trimmer report. This was clearly a message that if, in terms of municipal governance, there was going to be any disbanding of any level of government, it would be at the county-regional level and strong local governments would remain.

Mr Bisson: Do you feel they've broken their promise to the electorate and broken their word to you?

Mr Pagnuelo: What we're seeing now is in complete contrast to what this said, because really, what we're doing de facto is creating a large regional government. You can call it a city, but it's a large regional government.

Mr Bisson: You also made allusions to the CSR. In the Common Sense Revolution, there is direct reference to making smaller government, making sure we don't create larger bureaucracies. Do you think the direction they're going in 103 is completely opposite? Is it another broken promise?

Mr Pagnuelo: It is, because they're going to be creating a bureaucracy that will be so large that it's going to become unmanageable. I'm a free marketer, and you and I will probably disagree on that, but we look at competition, the importance of competition. We look at the importance of competition in business, but that importance also exists in government. If you have a city with 2.3 million people, you're not going to be able to contrast that government with any other municipal government to see if it is being as efficient as it could be.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Pagnuelo, for coming forward to make your presentation today.

PETER DEWDNEY

The Chair: Would Peter Dewdney please come forward. Good morning, sir, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Peter Dewdney: Good morning, Mr Chair and committee members. I'm a little nervous here, but I'll try. Please bear with me. This isn't written in the brief, but I want to preface this a little. I still feel uncomfortable with what I've written and what I'm presenting. There is so much information and so many things happening that I keep on revising, day to day, what I want to say. Part of what I'm saying here today is an emotional response to what I have experienced as an Ontario taxpayer and as a Toronto citizen over the last several weeks, if not months, and I hope you bear with it.

My name is Peter Dewdney. I live at 1 Fifth Street on Ward's Island in the city of Toronto. I work as the general manager of Windmill Line Housing Co-op located in the St Lawrence Market area. I am here today because I have grave concerns with the direction this government is taking with respect to the proposed amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto into a single municipality, including the downloading of social welfare and social housing costs on to the municipal property tax base.

Central to my concern is the loss of democracy we are currently experiencing and the loss of responsible government we would experience under a giant municipal government. You've repeatedly dismissed the objections of local politicians as self-serving. You seem not to understand that these are our politicians and to denigrate them is to denigrate us, the citizens who voted for them. You do not believe that politicians are honourable. To denigrate them is in fact to denigrate yourselves.

Realizing that for the first time in my life I am living under a regime that demonstrates such disrespect for democracy has made these last few weeks really frightening for me, and I say that sincerely. I've been frightened at the kinds of rhetoric that have come out of this government. You plead that you are doing what you were elected to do. It's become eminently clear that you did not propose this amalgamation and you certainly did not ever propose downloading the costs of social services and social housing on to the municipal taxpayer; of course you didn't, because if you had you wouldn't have been elected.

For me and the people I know, Toronto is a place where we cherish our communities as healthy places to raise our children, to grow up in, to be educated, to earn a living in and to retire in. It has been said that the measure of a successful democracy is how it treats its minorities. In recent history, communities within Toronto -- and I speak of them now as minorities in a sense -- have had many councils that have succeeded in providing good government because they have responded to the needs of the communities.

In my experience, this is the only level of government with a reasonably good track record. By "this level of government," I don't mean just Toronto, because I think other municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto have been successful as well. The citizens of Toronto have real power that attends a healthy democracy. In a megacity model, councillors representing areas 20 miles away from the downtown core and who represent a large proportion of commuter interests are not going to be sensitive to the need for preserving neighbourhoods south of Eglinton Avenue when it comes to planning bylaws governing heights and densities, building of expressways into the downtown, abandoning of existing environmental projects and health-related bylaws, expanding the Island Airport into an international jetport etc.

0950

It's interesting to note that Scarborough, for instance, has developed significant problems with respect to the growth of crime. Unfortunately, Scarborough, at least in my opinion, was developed for people with automobiles, and that left the major streets to the occupancy of plazas and the backyard fences of residences. Criminals can come and go in total anonymity in Scarborough because there is no neighbourhood stewardship of the streets. As a result, you see a large amount of drug dealing out there and other kinds of crime that make women feel unsafe to walk on the streets at night, for instance.

Scarborough, as it comes to identify solutions to its unique problems, may require planning bylaws quite distinct from the rest of Metro. It may need additional tax money for possible redevelopment. It would probably want to define and carry out its own solutions with its own budget because its residents and civic politicians will continue to be the ones most knowledgeable about Scarborough. A megacity will certainly not be able to respond to Scarborough's evolution into a healthier community.

Etobicoke, North York, York and East York also require unique legislative capabilities to meet their unique needs.

Your proposed local councils miss the point. Such committees will not have the power, as I understand it anyway, to persuade a mega-council of the benefits of preserving healthy communities, communities that most councillors will have a good chance of never experiencing in their lifetimes. I don't mean that they aren't living in good communities but that they will not be able to experience the communities that may come under threat from time to time within a megacity. Is it possible that you have bought into your own propaganda that our cities are somehow similar to an overloaded electrical panel?

Bigger government is more remote from humanitarian values. In recent years voters have become increasingly cynical of governments that have behaved in ways that are at odds with their campaign promises. We have been finding ourselves in the position of having to wait four or five years to throw a government out because they have seriously misread what it is that we the voters value. The people of Ontario have come to cynically believe that politicians are either unable or unwilling to respond to their needs. It was on such a wave of frustration and anger, in fact, that your own party was elected.

Having regard to the way in which the Trudeau government and then the Mulroney government were thrown out of office, it would seem that the bigger the government the more likely they are to misread the values of their constituents. A Metro-wide government is likely to repeat the same pattern.

Yes, there is a strong and legitimate concern about the deficit. These are legitimate concerns and addressing them is important, but this acknowledgement in no way validates the direction of Bill 103 or, for that matter, Bill 104, as they both reduce the democratic and responsible power of the citizen. Metro council has already given us spectacular examples of steamrolling neighbourhoods and community values.

Your reversal of education and social welfare and housing costs removes the ability of a municipality such as Toronto to pay for the extra programs it needs to pay for inner-city and immigrant education needs. It removes our ability to make real choices. The downloading of social housing costs without any capital replacement reserves places an enormous liability on the municipality. As a further point on that, any fluctuation in interest rates can make an enormous impact on the tax demands from the housing portfolio point of view. A 1% or 2% interest rate hike can have implications for the municipality of up to $1 billion within a single year. How can it absorb those kinds of increases and how can the taxpayer absorb those kinds of increases without forcing the burden back on the people who most likely cannot meet the costs of their own housing in the first place?

This government's foray into cutbacks has been met with approval by many people. What is troubling, though, is that many of the supporters I have talked to have been quite mean-spirited, almost gleeful about the fact that victims of cutbacks were to blame for the fact that their political masters once thought their jobs were usefully created. I have heard others blame a single mother in their community for taking welfare even though she had a boyfriend, and they were proud for blowing the whistle, but as it turned out, there was no scam. She wasn't dependent; this was a boyfriend, not a permanent man in her life, and there was no scam. She was hurt by the fact that people in her own community were trying to do this to her and now she feels alienated from her community.

Your own statements and actions have encouraged this mentality. In recent discussions I've had with some of your supporters within Metro there has been denial and then puzzled surprise when they realize that there may be significant increases in their taxes, that their waited-for provincial tax relief is probably going to come out of their own pocket and then some. You have probably begun to hear from some of these people.

There is an overwhelming and depressing obliviousness to humanitarian values by this government, values that have been embraced by the political leadership of this province since the Rebellion of 1837, including the governments of Leslie Frost, John Robarts, Bill Davis, Larry Grossman, David Peterson and Bob Rae. I think that's it.

We are more than a tangle of wires in an electrical panel. We are not greedy taxpayers looking for relief. We are people who have elected governments from whom we expect reasonable and humanitarian leadership and responsible democratic government, and we would be happy to engage in processes that lead to addressing our common community needs, including the need to lower the deficit.

You say you are looking for real proposals to amend this legislation but that amalgamation will proceed. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this means you will not change your position substantively, although the problems with Bill 103 are substantive ones.

My recommendation is that this government reverse direction and look for ways in which we can revitalize democratic processes for the people living in Metropolitan Toronto. Its citizens are bright enough to solve the problems. It's our tax money and we are certainly motivated to save it where we can without jeopardizing our values. Please uphold our values and fight for them.

If you continue to insist on eliminating a level of government, it would be best to eliminate the government of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'll go to Mr Gilchrist for a quick comment or question.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mr Dewdney. I have just a couple of quick points arising from your presentation. Since 1988, all citizens of Metro Toronto have in fact been voting Torontonians. You've addressed some points from your perspective as a Toronto Islander. What changes if Victoria Park disappears as an internal boundary, in terms of your community? The city of Toronto voted for the Spadina Expressway. There was no local support in terms of the city governments to stop that initiative. It was people who stopped that, people in the community.

The powers of the community council: It is absolutely within the purview of the new council to give them the final say on all zoning matters that affect individual communities, to the point that you would have greater local authority than you've ever had in your history. Of course, with only seven or eight councillors, that's smaller than the current 17 in the city of Toronto, only half the number of people you'd have to convince of the merits of your case.

The final point I'd throw out is that this bill doesn't make Metro Toronto one person more populous or one square foot larger, and in fact we already have an integrated city delivering 72% of the services. This simply moves the last 28% of services to a coordinated level as well.

Mr Dewdney: I don't think the remaining 28% are simply services in the same way that the other 72% are services. You're talking about hard services on one hand, but you're talking about planning matters on the other, the services that most matter to the communities and to the residents of those communities.

When you talk about the Spadina Expressway and how the city of Toronto didn't stop it, yes, it was people that killed Spadina Expressway, but it was people essentially in the path of the expressway in the city of Toronto who were able to kill it. Put that into a bigger context and it's going to be a much harder job to stop it. The arithmetic is very simple and dramatic. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to understand that one.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Dewdney, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

DAVID DOMET

The Chair: Would David Domet please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr David Domet: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you to the committee for providing me with this opportunity to appear today.

The bill which this committee is examining is of great importance to the people of this city, indeed this province.

I am the chairman of an Etobicoke city hall committee, I also chair the Assembly Hall restoration project task force, and I am on the board of directors of the Lakeshore Arts Committee and the Lakeshore Ratepayers' and Residents' Association. I am a former board member of the Lakeshore area multiservice project. I coach baseball with Queensway Minor Baseball Association, and I've been active in a number of community projects, including the arts, with the sacred music society and the Etobicoke Symphony Orchestra. I guess you could describe me as a community-minded person and therefore qualified to appear before this committee with respect to this bill and the future of Etobicoke and Toronto.

Regretfully, I have no props or hats, I won't be singing today, I won't be crying any tears for the cameras, nor will I tear up a copy of the bill. But I will provide this committee with numerous reasons to support this bill for one Toronto calmly, rationally and without any hyperbole or hysterics, which are becoming a bit extreme and, frankly, silly.

As mentioned earlier, I hail from the city of Etobicoke. You've all heard of Etobicoke, the city that spends, according to my sources at city hall, over a quarter of a million dollars to find they don't have the will to fire an unaccountable bureaucrat for allegedly spending expense money inappropriately, according to an independent audit. But then, why should he be fired? The council provided no guidance for years to any of the senior staff about limits or what were and what were not appropriate expenditures. In fact, the real reason, in my opinion, that councillors refused to take action is because many of them took part in the party at the trough, the trough filled with my money and the money of other taxpayers in Etobicoke.

Now what do we have but more money for a plebiscite that will be at best unscientific and at worst inaccurate.

1000

You don't have to take my word for it. The good burghers of the various councils are free to consult with Angus Reid and others as to the truth of my statement. The biased question, with the word "mega," is an insult to the democratic process and an indication, in my opinion, of everything that is wrong with these cities, with these councils and why they have to go.

In fact, just two days ago, the city of Toronto sent 90 ballots to deceased persons, and in East York 100 ballots were found in a garbage can. In Scarborough the letter from the mayor exhorts the citizens to vote No, and in North York the interactive telephone vote allegedly explains how to vote No, but not Yes. Democracy? Hardly. How any rational, logical, level-headed citizen can trust this system of voting is laughable. How can the result be taken seriously? After all, the ballots are being counted by an organization that only wants the vote to go one way. Where are the scrutineers for those who support amalgamation?

Please note that although Etobicoke council has found money to waste in this plebiscite and the Deaves investigation, it can't find less than a quarter of that amount to keep wading pools open next summer.

Where is the accountability local cities are supposedly famous for?

In the city of York, well, we all know the scoundrels -- the scandals, and scoundrels I guess, on their council. And Toronto: What the city of Toronto council does not seem to realize is that the multitude of frankly dumb decisions, from banning the Salvation Army and the Barenaked Ladies to boycotting burger chains and planting trees in the middle of the road as well as in Central America, has an effect on the rest of Metro. As a citizen of Metropolitan Toronto I find it embarrassing and I'm tired of it. I'm tired of all the small-town, parochial, élitist attitudes of most of these municipal politicians and past politicians, and experts from areas privileged by unfairly low property taxes.

Those of us who support amalgamation love our communities just as much. We care about the future of Toronto just as much. We are just as proud to live in the world's most livable city and we have every right to appear here and state it.

It may come as a surprise to some, but in the three lakeshore communities we care just as much about the cleanliness of the Don River. It's just that we have the Humber River, Mimico Creek, Etobicoke Creek as well as our lakefront to concern ourselves with. That is why in our community we have an organization known as the Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront.

Is Metro any better than the six municipalities? Hardly. Last year I sat on a committee to plan events for the opening of the Waterfront Trail. As David Crombie was entering Etobicoke from Mississauga, we planned a number of activities including raising Etobicoke's new flag. But how could we have been so foolish? The event was taking place in Marie Curtis Park, a Metro Park, and believe it or not, Metro bureaucrats refused to allow us to fly Etobicoke's flag.

While we are on the subject of Metro, we have in my community, on the grounds of the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, a beautiful new park that is partly Metro parks, partly Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and partly the city of Etobicoke. Have the opponents of amalgamation ever come by to see how the grass is cut? Metro workers literally stop and create a line in the grass because, "Over there, well, that's Etobicoke."

Duplication, waste and inefficiency. The mayors of the six cities have acknowledged this themselves. A miracle occurred last December, if you'll pardon the expression: The mayors finally agreed there is duplication. They acknowledged that if we just kill Metro, then we can sell services to each other and end duplication.

Well, why stop there? You're still left with six governments and six councils. We have one TTC, one water provider. Why seven parks departments and planning departments and roads departments? Of course, roads are another problem; you know, different snowplows for different roads because of jurisdiction. If we have one police service and one ambulance service, why seven fire departments? There's only one taxpayer.

In 1953, the first step in amalgamation of Toronto took place with the formation of the Metro level of government. Today 72% of all municipal services are already delivered by Metro. How can we, as taxpayers, justify the amount spent by the six local municipalities in increased cost and inefficiency for the remaining 28%?

Everyone likes to recall how often Metro has been studied by international experts, but these days are in the past, and those who applaud them are living in the past. No one is studying us now.

From my introduction you know I'm active in my community. If I genuinely believed Bill 103 would do anything to endanger the quality of life in my community or this city, I would be fighting its passage. But on the contrary I believe that amalgamation is the culmination of a vision dating back generations and that it will lead to stronger community identity, greater political accountability and eventually less cost and lower taxes for ratepayers.

I am proud to say that I live in the original New Toronto. It is sandwiched between Mimico and Long Branch. You see, 30 years ago we were amalgamated into Etobicoke, but we didn't disappear. In fact, we have kept our identity in spite of Etobicoke. Etobicoke is not a community, nor is Scarborough or North York. They are governing structures. But Swansea, West Hill, The Beach, Parkdale, Islington and Agincourt and so on are communities. None of these communities or neighbourhoods disappeared 30 years ago, and they won't with Bill 103.

According to people I have spoken with about the debate 30 years ago, the biggest concern was the community disappearing. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now. Our cities are made up of communities and neighbourhoods -- people. Changing the governing structure will not change where it is I come from or what community projects I choose to be involved with. People will work on local parades or festivals, they will still participate in Neighbourhood Watch and police-community liaison committees, and they will continue to serve on countless municipal boards and committees because they care, not because it happens to be Etobicoke, Scarborough or North York.

What of accountable politicians who can be reached by phone or seen in the local market? I really doubt that this will change. All across Metro now we have accessible and inaccessible municipal politicians. Those who are not accessible will have to face the voter as always. A good councillor will do what is necessary to serve his or her constituents.

Connected with accountability, I would like to speak from some experience in managing a municipal election campaign. In 1994 I managed a campaign for a Metro council candidate. Unfortunately we were not successful, but what continues to stay in my memory is the apathy and the confusion of the average voter as to the difference between the two councillors and what they were responsible for.

We all know that voter turnout for municipal elections is extremely low, but I suggest that if many examine the figures, you'll find that compared to those who vote for a city councillor, even fewer will vote for their Metro councillor. This is not accountability and this is not good democracy. The role of the two levels of municipal governance no longer serves the people of Toronto, and it seems to me it has become the other way around.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Domet. We're coming to the end of your time. Could you wrap up?

Mr Domet: Okay. Thank you. I would like to just go to property assessments for a moment if I could, Mr Chairman. I believe they need to be changed and uniform across the GTA. We have seen time and time again that Metro municipalities have refused to update to a fairer system of taxes. The city of Toronto has kept residential property taxes artificially low for 40 years, and they have been able to do this through a large commercial base. It's also been at the expense of apartment tenants who pay a higher level of property tax in their rent than some home-owners.

Some people have said: "Slow down and get it right. Study amalgamation more." Great believers in democracy, I guess. But slow down? Why? For more study and more commissions, more waste of time and resources for a report that will state the inevitable, that amalgamating seven governments into one not only makes fiscal sense but common sense?

This committee has before it legislation that will take this city to the next logical stage in its development. Be bold. Support this bill for amalgamation. Take the step that will put Toronto on the path for a new era of growth, a new era of prosperity, and through this prosperity new hope for our rivers and streams, our children and seniors, our commercial and industrial base, our entertainment centres and the livability of Toronto. Thank you for permitting me to make this presentation.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Domet, for coming forward and making your presentation.

1010

NORM KELLY

The Chair: Norm Kelly is next. Good morning, Mr Kelly. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Norm Kelly: I'm going to apologize beforehand. I've been out almost every evening holding meetings on these topics and my throat is beginning to display visible wear and tear. But that notwithstanding, I'll give it my best shot this morning.

The first thing I want to say is that I am not here to defend or promote megacity, and that's because no megacity is being proposed. The boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto will not be enlarged. The population will not increase. Government and its bureaucracy will be getting smaller, leaner and lighter. So megacity is obviously a misnomer and the accurate term, I would suggest, and the one I use in my public meetings is unified city. I sit before you as a staunch supporter of the government's proposal to create a unified city out of Metro's seven jurisdictions.

I think there are three critical challenges that face the people of Metropolitan Toronto. They are: tight money, a middle-aged infrastructure, and the sudden appearance of international competition that has resulted from the introduction of free trade.

The tight money of course is a product of senior levels of governments trying to cope with their indebtedness and cutting back on their programs to the city in whole or in part.

The middle-aged character of the city of Toronto has left its roads, its bridges, its subway systems and the sewer and waste pipes under our roads, frankly and very dramatically, in a state of unrepair. Our chief general manager of the Toronto transit system and our commissioner of transportation have informed the planning and transportation committee of Metropolitan Toronto, of which I'm a member, that to bring this aging infrastructure into a state of good repair is going to cost at least $50 million a year.

With respect to economic competition, we all know through our history classes that the city of Toronto grew and thrived behind high tariff barriers that were first introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald and his national policy back in the 1870s. Those tariff barriers, if they haven't vanished, are rapidly being pulled down brick by brick as this government and preceding governments at the national level are trying to create free trading zones, not only in North America but most recently in Asia as well. As it happens, not if it happens, the cold, cruel winds of economic change are going to be sweeping through this city and we are going to have to make sure we're capable of withstanding them.

I imagine it's going to take at least another $50 million a year to invest in a new superstructure. It was embarrassing, the debate we had at Metro over the construction of the Sheppard subway, that on-again, off-again, decision-making process that embarrassed us all, and all we got out of it was a subway from Yonge Street to Fairview Mall. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to take that subway from Fairview into Scarborough Town Centre. We also have to take it to the two focal points around which business is growing in the new age, and that's our universities and our airports. I think we need new infrastructure, rapid transit very quickly sent out to York University and out to our airport.

When you add those challenges together, of tight money, middle-aged city and international free trade and the competition that results from it, I would guess that this city needs an additional $150 million to $200 million per year to deliver the services that are required in those three areas and to protect and enhance the quality of life for the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

My question to you and my question to everyone at the meetings I go to is: Where do you get the money? If you need $150 million to improve the infrastructure, build new infrastructure and maintain the delivery of services at the Metropolitan level, and by that I mean policing, transportation, services to seniors, the disadvantaged, children, where do you get the money? You don't get it from senior governments because they're part of the problem. You don't get it from taxpayers because they won't pay, or you might get residential taxpayers to pay but the commercial taxpayers will simply pack up and leave.

Where is the only source of money? And I'll tell you, the money is there. It hit me during the Sheppard debate, as I was suffering through the embarrassment of voting for it and against it on an on-again, off-again basis, that we had the money to build the Sheppard subway, and not only that but half a dozen lines as well. The money is there. The taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto in their gross tax expenditures give governments enough money to do all the things that we have to do to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The trouble is, it's locked up in the redundancies of the six local governments.

Generally, when we speak about redundancy or duplication of service, we're talking about the duplication of service between the two tiers. I would argue, based on my experience, that there isn't very much duplication between the two tiers. Some of the departments may carry the same names but they're not performing the same service. The real duplication, ladies and gentlemen, is vertically among six local governments delivering through their administrative services exactly the same service.

Mel Lastman can stand in front of you and he can say, "North York's a tight ship." Frank Faubert can stand in front of you and say, "Scarborough's a tight ship." Every mayor can legitimately come before this committee and say, "We run an efficient, tight ship." Ladies and gentlemen, they're absolutely right. The waste, though, comes when you look at them collectively. That's where the redundancy is. They're all doing the same thing.

The six local governments of Metropolitan Toronto have a budget of $1.5 billion. If we can fold those six governments in, marry them with the Metropolitan government, if we can obtain a 10% saving as a result, there's your $150 million, or maybe even more, $200 million.

A number of people have argued that this is a cost-saving, tax-reducing exercise. My reading and my experience would suggest otherwise. I do not think that the ultimate outcome of amalgamation and this exercise will save taxes for the residents and the businesses of Metropolitan Toronto. This is an exercise in the reallocation of funds within the Metropolitan complex.

The demand for services, with all due respect to my local colleagues, is not at the local level; it's at the regional level. The demand for policing, the demand for transportation, the demand for services for seniors, for the disadvantaged, for children, that's where the demand is. If the fire is over here and the water is down there, you've got to bring the water to the fire. You've got to unlock the money that's tied up in the redundancies of the six local governments and you must reallocate it and put it to service for the people of Metropolitan Toronto at the regional level.

The Chair: Mr Kelly, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. You're coming towards the end of your allotted time.

Mr Kelly: A lot of people are surprised at amalgamation. "Where the heck did this idea come from? It's just whacked us from the side." We have been amalgamated since 1953. Amalgamation has been a constant experience in the political life of this city and we have experienced incremental amalgamation since 1953. We are 75% amalgamated. I tell people in my riding that I sit on the amalgamated government of Metropolitan Toronto.

1020

I hear critics saying: "Where are the studies? Where are the studies that prove this is the right thing to do? Where are they?" You know, the typical Canadian bureaucratic response to change, "Where are the studies?" Well, ladies and gentlemen, we don't have to study amalgamation anywhere else around the world. We don't have to look anywhere for inspiration or guidance. We have lived amalgamation for 44 years and we've lived it successfully.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. Mr Kelly, thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation today.

Mr Kelly: That's it? Any questions?

The Chair: You have no time available. Sorry. Would Adrian Heaps come forward, please. No? Milton Berger?

MILTON BERGER

The Chair: Good morning, Mr Berger. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Milton Berger: Thank you, Mr Chairman and the members of the committee, for giving me this opportunity to come and address the committee on this very important issue. I would like to start off by saying that I'm surprised this government is bringing in this legislation because I know that is not the Conservative way. Conservatives believe in preserving existing institutions and not destroying them. My understanding of Progressive Conservatism is that you keep existing structures as the foundation and build on them. However, if this proposal is approved, you will be destroying instead of preserving institutions which have been in existence for many, many years.

I've heard arguments from the government that the reason this is being done is to streamline and reduce duplication. The only duplication that I know of, and I'll disagree with the previous person who addressed you here, exists at the Metro level of government. I have been in both governments, and Mr Shea will affirm that, not only for one term but for two terms of one government alone. But I've been in both and I know where the duplication is.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I wonder why he's smiling.

Mr Berger: Yes.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I like duplicates.

Mr Berger: Well, I'll get on to that. Our council, that is, the city of North York, made a resolution way back to eliminate the duplication which exists in Metro government, but somehow nobody seems to want to listen. Therefore, if you really want to reduce duplication, eliminate the Metro government. That's the only way because it's the only place where duplication exists within the cities of Metropolitan Toronto.

As a matter of fact, we had a committee called COMLAC, Committee of Metro Local Area Councils. Unfortunately, I see John Hastings is not here. He was there at that committee and he knows. The members all agreed that the extra baggage is Metro government. I'm sure the elimination of the Metro government would be acceptable to 99% of the residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

Local councils have been sensitive to the financial burden of the taxpayers. Metro has not been so successful. I can only speak for the council I'm a member of and, as the city of North York, we have been frugal. We have not increased taxes for the past five years. You can't say that about Metro -- 21% increases. I have never received any complaints from my constituents that the city's portion of their taxes is too high. The complaints I receive are not about the city's portion but the rest of the taxes on their bill.

What is bothering me is, this government, instead of recognizing the city's good management, is recommending punishing them by eliminating them. I hear comments such as, "Why should we have six fire departments when one will do?" Well, picture it. What are you going to do? Close down the fire stations and create a safety problem? I'm sure you're not going to do that. So what are you going to do? You keep those stations and have a fire chief of one big city. Are you going to create six district chiefs? We have them now in the police force, so instead of six you become seven. Where's the reduction in saying, "We've kept one, but we have six"? You can have seven.

Two speakers previously mentioned, "Well, Metro is already doing 72% of the job. Why do we need the seven municipalities? We can put another 28% in the same place." The 72% they are doing is not even the government. All they do is, once a year they look over the budget. They have commissions and boards, the TTC, the police commission, the conservation authority, that do whatever. The budget is presented once a year and the government of Metro approves it. Do you need a government for that? So don't tell me, "Just give it to them." You don't need the Metro government at all because all those things that are existing now, that 72% could be saved, local municipalities could maintain and look after them. All they have to do is approve budgets.

When you hear people saying there's too much government, and that's what I hear them saying, "There is too much government. Get rid of them," what they mean is too many bureaucrats. They're not talking about politicians. Too many politicians is a terrific selling product since the public in general do not respect politicians -- all politicians, not only municipal but provincial and federal as well, unfortunately. It's a good selling tool and I don't blame the government for coming out and saying: "Get rid of politicians. There's too many of them."

The question is, how many are too many? In North Bay, for example, there's one councillor for 5,300 people, whereas in North York there's a councillor for approximately 40,000 people. So what is too many? If you truly believe that you have to eliminate politicians, and that's what you keep on preaching, then reduce some of the politicians. There are the 32 right there in Metro whom you can eliminate and nobody will miss them. That would solve your problem by the thing you're proposing, to eliminate politicians. That's where the duplication exists.

If you believe that eliminating cities in order to reduce politicians will save money, do you really know what the savings would be? I know in North York the cost to taxpayers for maintaining their councillors per population is $2.84 annually. Is that the savings you're telling the public when they say, "Get rid of politicians"? Because $2.84 is the cost to maintain a councillor in North York for the citizens of North York.

We have heard comments that the councillors only care about themselves and about their positions; that's what they worry about and that's why they come and oppose amalgamation. Some do, some care only for themselves, but they rarely get re-elected.

We have heard that communities don't change and nothing will disappear. Nothing happened in Swansea and Mimico. Those are the examples I keep on hearing. What municipalities are we talking about? They were little villages of 15 or 20 blocks with a fountain or two ponds in the centre. They were not cities. They were not viable cities like North York, Scarborough or the city of Toronto. Even then, how many people really know Swansea? Maybe the ones who were there in the 1950s, but if you ask any of your children, your grandchildren or whatever: "Swansea? Swansea who?" It disappeared; it did not exist. So don't tell me -- maybe Shea knows. He lives there, but --

Mr Shea: You were getting my attention there.

Mr Berger: But really, how many know about it? So don't mix them up and say people don't care. They do.

The cities of North York, Toronto, Scarborough that we're talking about here are real cities, not villages and not little places. You can't compare them to Swansea which is just a few blocks with a pond. It would have gone bankrupt and would have been eliminated anyway. You don't hear about eliminating Pittsburgh, Philadelphia or Munich to make it economically viable. Everyone's talking about economics. Everybody has become an economist suddenly? Economists who've got degrees don't know anything about economics, but now we've got all these amateurs, all economists, and they embrace big city and everybody's coming running down here and doing business, improving business. Who are you fooling?

The argument you hear is that they have a good product. I'm saying improved economics only happens if you have a good product. It can be on top of a mountain or a little cottage or a little shack, they'll come and come and come and ask to do business with you. If you haven't got the product -- it has nothing to do with the cities, big, small, whatever, and the argument telling me you have to amalgamate so that the economics would be improved, that's a lot of -- I don't want to say what it is.

Why make changes and spend money unnecessarily just for the sake of change? None of the arguments for change hold water. Therefore, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I'm asking you to recommend to the minister to drop this and abandon this legislation, which I don't think is the right one. It's not reasonable. It has no merit of any kind. Thank you.

1030

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Colle or Mr Sergio, you have a minute for questions.

Mr Colle: I just want to comment. You maligned Mimico, and the Speaker has come down here to respond to that.

Mr Berger: That's okay. They live there; they know it. Maybe they thought, "Fine," but average people don't know. Mimico has gone and Swansea has gone. It's maybe an address and you tell your friends, "You know where I live? It's in that little square," but it's not known as really a real place. You can't compare it with North York or Scarborough or Etobicoke.

Mr Colle: I'll leave it to your former colleague here.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, I'd like to welcome Councillor Berger and also Councillor Severino from the city of North York.

Just quickly, because we have less than one minute here, previous speakers also have recommended that we don't need any more studies, we've had enough studies, whatever. No previous study has recommended what this government is recommending now. No study. The Crombie, the Golden, the Trimmer, every other study did not recommend the elimination of both municipal and Metro governments. Do you think you can make an informed decision when the province has failed to give you the facts on their proposal: no figures, no information, no statistics?

Mr Berger: This is exactly where I think I ended, Mr Sergio. That's why I ended saying there's no reason to do anything, because the proposal is not there telling us that we need change. It hasn't been sold to anybody that change is required or needed.

As a matter of fact, I heard a previous speaker telling you that since 1953, they have been amalgamated. In 1953, we were amalgamated; it was a confederation. We needed each other. Metro as we know it today, all the cities, there were no trunk sewers, there were no roads, there were no subways, no transportation. We came and built them together as a federation. That's done.

Mr Sergio: Do you think amalgamation will save you money?

Mr Berger: Save you money? It will cost you money.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Berger, for coming forward this morning.

RICH WHATE

The Chair: Would Rich Whate please come forward. Good morning, Mr Whate. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Rich Whate: Good morning. I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak. I work with the Toronto Environmental Alliance and am speaking today as an environmentalist and concerned citizen of Toronto. I studied in university for a science degree to continue what I felt was an admirable 25-year legacy of environmental protection in Ontario. Now my career has changed from continuing that achievement of environmental protection to fighting this government to keep what's left.

In the past year, the Ontario government has severely "reformed" or slashed environmental regulations in our province. Now it appears Bill 103 will also wreak havoc on municipal and community environmental bylaws and programs. My concern is this: Who is going to work to protect our environment?

Over the past year, I have seen this government trash environmental regulation in Ontario. Their Responsive Environmental Protection document this fall, for example, justified reforming 80 environmental regulations in the name of "creating jobs and increasing economic vitality in our province." What reforming actually translates to is gutting half of the 80 policies. Regulations monitoring pesticide licensing, pulp and paper effluent standards and air quality are just some that have been weakened and replaced with voluntary industry practices.

I could easily continue speaking to the provincial issue, but I'm here to focus on municipal concerns. As I'm sure you can appreciate, our environment does not respect political or regional boundaries, so separating issues is often impossible. In my work with the Toronto Environmental Alliance, I have come to appreciate, and in fact depend on, two things that are only possible through local government. They are (1) the power and concern of municipal governments in passing environmental bylaws, and (2) the dedication and creativity of locally supported community groups to act and influence environmental initiatives.

Firstly, as a municipal context, the city of Toronto banned incineration and passed anti-idling legislation. East York has banned pesticide use on their parkland. These bylaws are examples of distinct municipal efforts within the larger community of Metro, but they didn't come about easily. They required negotiations and political pressures which only occurred by having local groups, such as the Toronto Environmental Alliance, and citizens work with their councillors. I've seen at first hand that working with local councillors is a lengthy process. It can be successful, but with a massive mega-constituency that they're proposing, this cooperation with councillors and citizens becomes difficult, if not impossible.

Secondly, as a community context, the Toronto Transit User Group, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, the Bikes Mean Business conference, and countless local recycling initiatives are citizen-driven initiatives that have come through support from individual municipalities. These are examples of individuals who were supported to do very specific and very effective environmental projects in their neighbourhoods. Again, representation from municipal government becomes a concern if these programs are to continue.

So let me emphasize the impact that Bill 103, to me, will have on these initiatives, municipal bylaws and community programs that have been working to protect our environment. Amalgamating will tighten the purse-strings of a mega-Toronto, and a cash-strapped Toronto will be forced to seek lowest-common-denominator environmental policies. Although we all share the same environment, we function and relate differently within it. These varied interests, and I mean the interests of the different municipalities, will not be given attention, or due attention. Lone municipal policies like incineration bans in the city of Toronto or pesticide policies in East York will be lost because a huge cash-strapped government cannot listen to individuals and will bow to the greater concerns of the other municipalities.

The loss of these programs, in combination with the provincial deregulation I spoke of, means the death of environmental considerations for all of us. And if this has all been done in the name of job creation and economic vitality, as the government proposed in their Responsive Environmental Protection document, well, congratulations, because as someone working on behalf of all of us for our environment, I've sure got a job to do. To that end, with some levity but with all seriousness, I'd like to finish my submission, for the record, with an invoice to Mr Harris and his cabinet for my services for the next 25 years.

"To: The Ontario government

"From: An Ontario citizen

"For doing the work of the province, municipalities and industry to monitor and regulate pollution control and improve the health of our environment in Ontario."

Bill 103 will destroy municipal environmental initiatives. It's the final nail in the Ontario environment's coffin. If your government is not going to reduce pollution and environmental exploitation through regulation, and we all know putting it in the voluntary hands of industry is a recipe for disaster, then I guess you expect ordinary citizens like myself and all of us here to take responsibility for environmental protection in Ontario. Well, as I said before, that's a big job and we expect to be paid for it.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): From time to time, I've been able to sit in on the committee and listen to presentations. Again, there have been people from sectors of our community that have brought insights into this whole issue and debate that are quite fascinating.

You make reference and you poke a little fun, somewhat satirically, at the job creation effectiveness of sort of deregulating environmental -- well, not deregulating environmental protection; taking the protection out of the environment. You're right. These guys talked about that as a job creation program, throwing our environment to the wind and will of a corporate world that could give a tinker's dam at the end of the day. Is there anything about the environmental attack that in your mind is truly significant when it comes to creation of jobs?

Mr Whate: I'm not sure I understand.

Mr Kormos: Is there anything about the deregulation of environmental protection that creates work, real work?

1040

Mr Whate: It definitely creates work for myself and those of us who are struggling to uphold or enforce some of the changes that are coming about. I work on a local level -- that's our mandate at TEA -- but increasingly we're working harder and harder on the provincial level to try to keep some of those regulations from existing.

Jobwise, what I foresee indirectly, like the Ministry of Environment massive job cuts, is what they propose to be more environmental jobs for the industry to create environmental departments, which I think is grossly misleading. I don't think that's proven to ever be the case.

What I've seen increasingly in the past two years is more and more people like myself struggling for what little funds are left and doing more and more work. So I would say that there's nothing about job creation in terms of numbers, but perhaps job creation in terms of pure work that's there for us.

Mr Kormos: I don't see that as common sense; I just see it as plain stupid.

Mr Whate: I would agree.

Mr Kormos: That was just an interjection on my part. You clearly, like hundreds and thousands of others -- and people have been coming here talking about community. I suppose the one good thing about this government's attack on community is that it has forced people to think about community in a way that maybe a whole lot of us haven't for a decade or two or three. People are coming here speaking very eloquently and beautifully, incredible insights into what community is, as I say, in a way that maybe, because of the way our lives and our economy have forced people to look for work desperately, we haven't been able or we haven't been inclined to focus on community. What is driving the government in forcing megacity on these communities here in this area, in your view?

Mr Whate: What's driving it is opening Ontario for business, which is a quote that Premier Harris has used in the past. I think the driving force behind amalgamation is that ultimately what will happen or seem to happen in cash-strapped Toronto is that as municipalities get loaded on, they will have to consider scrapping more and more services. An amalgamation ultimately I think would put the cities in a position to have to decide whether or not to sell off these services and privatize. A megacity having one fire department instead of seven definitely makes selling off the fire department easier. I'm not saying that the fire department's what they'll attack, but I think hidden behind most of the rhetoric and the Common Sense Revolution of the Harris government is the privatization agenda. I think privatization and environmental concerns often conflict and have never proven to go hand in hand. So I think they're setting us up for that.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. Mr Whate, we've come to the end of your allotted time but I want to thank you for coming forward.

Mr Kormos: Are you sure I had all three minutes?

The Chair: You sure did. A little bit beyond, actually, Mr Kormos. I want to thank you for coming forward to make your presentation to the committee this morning.

RANJIT SINGH CHAHAL

The Chair: Would Ranjit Singh Chahal please come forward. Good morning, sir, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Ranjit Singh Chahal: I was sick actually with the flu and food poisoning the last three or four days so I have got a sore throat, but I'll try to do my best.

I'm here to present my ideas for the megacity, supercity, whatever you say. I say the city of Toronto rather than just a collection of six municipalities. I was delighted when the government of Ontario announced that this innovative idea would be put in action for the betterment of the city of Toronto and its people.

Toronto has been called the best international city in the world in which to work and raise a family. It's safe, prosperous. But today, the great metropolitan regions of the world must move forward just to be able to maintain their international capabilities. The six different cities are fighting against each other when it comes to attracting the Olympics or world fairs etc.

Recent studies have concluded that Toronto is not growing as fast as cities that compete against us for jobs today; for example, as I said earlier, North York applying for the Olympic Games alone and the city of Toronto applying for something else, and none getting anywhere. The new city of Toronto will grow and create new jobs, since all the regions as one will pull forces together rather than just competing against each other.

Six cities don't work together. For example, last year the city of North York advertised that if you don't live in North York -- this is an example I read in the Globe as well as in the Star -- and your car breaks down in North York and it catches fire, if the fire brigade is called in, then the owner of the car has to pay. That is silly. A person living in Etobicoke, a resident of the city of Etobicoke and working in Scarborough, has to drive through North York, and if the car breaks down, you know what can happen. This again looks like a silly idea. In the new city, the one city, the resident and the businessman and the commuter would be living in one city. Six different cities doesn't make sense.

It is too bad that Mike Harris didn't include even Mississauga or beyond. I lived in Kingston for many years. I lived in -- it's called a township, the township of this, the township of that -- Kingston township. I was never in the city yet the address was the city of Kingston.

A unified Toronto will have more clout internationally and will have a better chance of attracting investment to the area and boosting the local economy. This is good news for small businesses. When the local economy is strong and its people have jobs, they spend money in their communities and their businesses, and that would be thriving for the new city of Toronto. For small business licensing, a person has to deal with one organization only and can start business anywhere in the big city, not to go to six different places.

In 1966, for example, the provincial government reduced the number of municipalities from 13 to six by creating the city of Toronto and the five other boroughs like North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, York and East York. Although the towns and villages of Forest Hill, Swansea, Mimico, Weston etc have gone as municipalities, they are very much alive today as vibrant, distinct communities. A new city of Toronto will have the same strong communities as in the past, with influence over local decisions. Some people opposing this, like the mayors, I think are fighting for their own jobs rather than saving the money.

Mr Sergio: Mel is behind you.

Mr Chahal: Oh, sorry, Mr Lastman. I saw your picture on the TV.

Mr Sergio: Are you going to take that back now?

Mr Chahal: No, I won't take it back. He can be the mayor of the big city. Maybe he would be a bigger man.

In the new city of Toronto the number of politicians will be reduced from 106 to 44, plus one mayor rather than six mayors. This will cut costs drastically. No need to run six city halls any more. The net saving is about $200 million in each of the first three years, then it will increase to $300 million per year. The artificial and invisible barriers between current municipalities will be removed while communities and neighbourhoods will be strengthened. Access to local councillors will be the same as before. Local representation will be enhanced.

One government will mean a simpler, more accountable and less confusing system of local government. Rather than having one parking rule in Etobicoke, another in Scarborough, another in North York, it will be one parking rule.

1050

Local communities within Toronto will remain distinct. Communities are neighbourhoods which are made by people, not municipal boundaries.

One level of government will save money. It will reduce duplication and overlap. Services will be delivered in the most cost-effective ways.

A new, unified city of Toronto will have more international clout and it will promote the area as a whole. Rather than six different cities competing against themselves, we will be competing against the other big cities like Toronto, attracting big events, attracting big businesses, and that would be good for the people of Toronto and eventually for the province of Ontario.

In conclusion, I would stress that this is a great idea and should be put in action as soon as possible for the sake of Toronto and its people. Thank you very much for paying attention to me.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Thank you very much. Any questions? No? Okay. Thank you very much for appearing before us.

WILLIAM DEVINE

The Vice-Chair: I'd call on Mr Devine. Good morning, Mr Devine. Welcome to the standing committee.

Mr William Devine: Good morning. I'm sorry I don't have anything prepared to distribute to you. I just had time to scratch this out last night and it's indecipherable to anyone but myself, and I even wonder about myself.

To proceed, my name is William Devine. First let me thank the committee for this opportunity to address the amalgamation proposals of Bill 103 which would amalgamate Metro Toronto's five cities and one borough into one Metro-wide unit.

Second, as to whatever credentials I may possess, I've been a resident of North York for the past 15 years. Prior to that, I lived in Toronto since the mid-1950s, having moved here at that time from Hamilton, Ontario. I'm currently retired. I'm also a long-time trade unionist and activist, most recently as a member of the Canadian Auto Workers union. Until recently, I was a delegate to the Metro Toronto labour council where I served on that body's municipal committee for a number of years. However, here I would like to stress that on this occasion I have no mandate to speak on behalf of any organization or anyone other than myself. What follows is a personal presentation on behalf of myself only.

My submission will oppose Bill 103 and its proposals for amalgamation. The sweep of the amalgamation proposals makes it difficult to determine where to start in opposing them, but let us start with the three appointed trustees and the appointed transition team.

Having three non-elected trustees breathing down the necks of elected local councils over anything related to expenditures of $10,000 or more is offensive on two counts. First, it suggests that the elected councils are not to be trusted, and that if not supervised by non-elected persons, these councils may very well resort to perverse skulduggery. To suggest such is to personally insult both the elected councils and the electors who elected them. Second, and even more importantly, to have non-elected trustees oversee the duly elected councils is a profound insult to democracy. When three non-elected trustees can tell the rest of us through our elected local councils what we can or cannot do, there is something seriously amiss.

What has been said about the non-elected trustees can also be said of the non-elected transition team, but the non-democratic nature of non-elected trustees and the transition team is on a par with the provincial government's whole approach to amalgamation as embodied in Bill 103.

Very shortly, referenda/plebiscites will be held in Metro's six units on the issue of amalgamation, yet the provincial government insists that it will pay no heed to these expressions of the popular will. Make no mistake: There is a clear popular will on this issue. The huge rallies that have been held opposing amalgamation, last Saturday's march, untold letters to the editor, to name just a few manifestations, make it clear there is a popular will opposed to amalgamation. For the provincial government to insist it will pay no attention to this popular will is a denial of democracy. It also defies common sense.

What further defies common sense is how a Metro council reduced to some 44 members, each representing an average of 50,000 constituents, can be more democratic than the current local councils whose current number of members represents a much smaller number of constituents. Surely the essence of democracy is that elected politicians be fully responsible and accountable to those who elect them and that such politicians be as accessible as possible to the electors.

Under Bill 103's amalgamation proposals, such accessibility would be severely curtailed and with it the responsibility and accountability of the politicians despite any given politician's best intentions. Parenthetically it should be noted that the ability of ordinary citizens to run for local election would also be seriously curtailed. To finance an election campaign covering some 50,000 constituents would be beyond the reach of most. We could very well be in danger of creating a situation in which a wealthy élite would hold sway over the great majority. Has the provincial government considered this possibility, and if so, does it concur with such an eventuality? Bill 103 suggests that it does.

Of course, one can argue that provincial ridings cover more than 50,000 constituents, and federal ridings even more, so why not municipal boundaries? But this would be false reasoning. Our system of government is a three-tiered one: municipal, provincial and federal. As we go upward, we enlarge riding boundaries and reduce the number of those elected. This is supportable because we also differentiate the scope and nature of responsibilities. In this context, municipal governments are in a very real sense the closest to the people. In so many ways we start here, or if municipal governments become less accessible, less responsive, less accountable, we end here. Do we wish to start or do we wish to end?

Indeed, at a time when so much expertise argues that cities are now a key focus for enhanced economic growth, enhanced citizenship and enhanced national prosperity and wellbeing, does it not make common sense to enhance the role of grass-roots local government rather than curtail it?

Of course, it may be argued that the provincial government was also elected and has its duty to fulfil its mandate, but can anyone seriously argue that the mandate of the current provincial government includes the right to ride roughshod over the expressed will of the people? Such a suggestion has nothing in common with common sense.

Can we conclude, then, that nothing should ever change? No, of course not, but change is best accomplished when there is a consensus for change and when change improves rather than detracts. In any change, form is not the first essential, content is, and when it comes to local government the content must be: The more local, the better. Form should accommodate this.

Where should we go from here? I believe the provincial government should take account of the popular will and pause in its amalgamation proposals. If the provincial government is convinced of the merits of its amalgamation proposals, it should substantiate these in much more detail, including its claim of financial savings, which is such a controversial matter. It should then disseminate its arguments widely and invite and accommodate the widest possible public input, allowing enough time for all for a full and considered debate. It should pledge in advance to take account of that debate. Then, in a calm and measured manner, we could all of us determine the road ahead.

1100

In anticipation of that debate, or even without it, may I offer a final thought? At present, municipalities are creatures of the province with no constitutional status of their own. But if municipalities are a key component of our future, then municipalities should have a constitutional status to enable an effective say in our future. This seems to me to be correct on its own merit, but the need for such a constitutional status is thrown into sharp relief by the provincial government's Bill 103, which would enforce amalgamation regardless of what the citizens of the affected municipalities think. And this is not to mention -- although mention must be made of it -- the province's equally arbitrary intention to download excessive financial responsibilities on to the municipalities with or without their consent.

Reconsider amalgamation. Pay heed to the people. Thank you for hearing me out.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Devine. Mr Parker, you have only a minute for questions.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): You mentioned constitutional status for municipalities. That interests me. Can you give me more detail on that?

Mr Devine: It think it should focus on two main areas. First is the financial capabilities of municipalities to fulfil the role for which their local councils are elected, and that financial capability should not depend on the whim of a senior government; it should be entrenched somehow in legislation that would guarantee municipalities that financial capability.

Second is the question of democracy. With Bill 103, we simply are told we will have no say in the matter regardless of what we do. A constitutional status should be such as to prevent, again, any whims of senior governments from impinging on the rights of municipalities. Municipalities have grown and have changed since the days when the Constitution was written, those horse-and-buggy days. It's a much more sophisticated society in which we live, and municipalities do, I think we'd all agree, have a great role to play and thus should be assured of being able to play that role by having a constitutional status.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Devine. We've run out of time. We appreciate your coming.

MEL LASTMAN

The Vice-Chair: I now call on Mayor Lastman. Good morning, Mayor Lastman, and welcome to the standing committee. As you know, you have 30 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Mel Lastman: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I appreciate having this time to make my submission.

On the megacity proposal, you know where I stand. I don't like amalgamation and I don't like the downloading. You may say that the two aren't linked, but in the public's mind they are. As far as I'm concerned, you should put an end to both of them.

I'm here for the citizens of the city of North York. We want to preserve everything we've worked so hard for: great facilities, great programs, great financial health.

When North York and other municipalities vote no to the megacity, I hope you will go along with the referendum results. I will. But if you don't, please consider the following points.

If you are determined to proceed with this, if you force North York into a megacity even though most of us don't want it, give us a chance to completely analyse the figures. I'm a businessman. Let's see a business plan. You wouldn't buy a pig in a poke. Please don't expect our taxpayers to.

We hear that taxes won't go up because of Bill 103. Then please write it into the bill. Show us a guarantee. Set the mill rate for 1998 now and show us that taxes will on average remain stable and equal across Metropolitan Toronto. Also, don't allow any services to be cut until the new council has had the opportunity to review them, and not before the 1999 budget.

The new council will take office in January 1998. Council members won't have enough time to get a handle on all that's involved. We're not talking one 1998 municipal budget, but six municipal budgets and Metro's, including the complex TTC, police and social services. There won't be enough time to merge, digest and analyse the volumes of information and set the 1998 budget and deal with a new assessment system. It should be up to the new council to say which services stay or go, once they understand the history of these services and why they exist.

Use North York's snow clearing as an example. Before 1984 we had awful problems with snowplows blocking driveways with a three-foot to four-foot mountain of snow after people had just finished shovelling their driveway. I was getting hundreds of calls after every snowfall. People would shovel out their driveways and along would come our snowplow and plug up their driveways with three to four feet of snow, and by the time they tried to clear it, it would freeze; they just couldn't get their car in, couldn't get their car out, and they had spent all that money to clean the snow away from their driveway. It moved me to get our staff to invent a solution that is now the envy of every other city. In the city of North York, we invented the system. We clear every road, every sidewalk, and we never plug a driveway with snow.

You should set some ground rules that will assure the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto that amalgamation won't push taxes up or hurt current services, that the megacity won't destroy their quality of life or create financial hardship. Adding welfare, subsidized housing, TTC, Wheel-Trans and GO Transit, libraries, public health, ambulance, group homes, medication for seniors, nursing homes and assessment costs to the property tax bill will hit our property taxpayers really hard. The closest we can figure is ultimately an automatic 19.4% tax increase when the dust settles. It will add $624 a year to each Metro taxpayer.

Housing alone will be an extremely difficult burden. The existing subsidized housing stock is rundown. It has been financially neglected. There are no capital reserves for repairs to any of the 98,000 subsidized units in Metropolitan Toronto. We figure we would have to spend over $100 million every year in new capital costs to repair and maintain these buildings. Not only will we have to repair them, we will have to subsidize them a full 100% while our welfare share will go from 20% to 50%, and we almost went broke at 20% two years ago.

How is the property tax base supposed to carry all these extra costs without raising taxes or cutting services? Municipalities only have one source of revenue, the regressive property tax. Look at what sources the province has: income tax, sales tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gasoline and fuel tax, hotel tax, entertainment tax, land transfer tax, corporation tax, employer health tax, mining profits tax, lottery profits, fines and penalties, casinos, liquor profits, driver and vehicle licence permits, and there's more. I could go on if you want me to.

The dumping of these extra costs on municipalities will increase property taxes for those who can least afford it: our seniors, the infirm, people on fixed incomes, the working poor and families who are just managing to get by. Everyone who lives in Metropolitan Toronto gets a tax hit.

The provincial government has been saying that Metropolitan Toronto is not growing as fast as rival American cities, that jobs are not being created as quickly, business and industries are leaving, and amalgamation is the only solution. But these problems came about because each successive government, three different governments in the past decade, ignored the real problem: the inequities between the 905 and the 416 areas in the GTA.

Whether Conservative, NDP or Liberals, all have turned their back on Metropolitan Toronto and have treated Metropolitan Toronto shabbily. You've all had a chance to correct this and nobody has done anything about it. You've got to give us a level playing field or the bleeding in Metropolitan Toronto will not stop and the advertising and the promotion will not stop. You know, "The city above Toronto" and "Our taxes are 40% less"? That is continually going on and that's why people are leaving, that's why companies are leaving Metropolitan Toronto.

1110

The province has been giving more in subsidies to areas outside of Metropolitan Toronto than they give to us: In education we get nothing, they get 30%; in health we get 40%, they get 75%; in ambulance services we get 55%, they get 100%. This enables them to say -- it's not that they're good managers. They're getting all these grants from you. We're not saying give it to us, because we know you can't afford it. We're saying don't give it to them either. They're grown up now. Why do you keep giving it to them? We keep yelling, please stop. Stop it already. We can't stand it any more.

Now the burden on Metropolitan Toronto is set to increase. The areas outside Metropolitan Toronto don't have big welfare rolls, they don't have large amounts of subsidized housing or they don't have the Toronto transit system to operate. Metropolitan Toronto is where people come for welfare and housing.

The possible loss of services is of concern to all North York citizens. In a megacity of 2.3 million people, I have heard that everyone will get the same service and probably at the lowest level. I've never been through an amalgamation so I don't know, but that's from the things I've read and the things I've heard.

North York has unique services that no one else has, the best services of any city in the world, and that's not an exaggeration: twice-weekly garbage pickup, the snow removal I was talking about. We also make arrangements to do private driveways and walkways for seniors at reasonable prices, because we feel it's very dangerous for people over 55 who are out of shape to get out there and shovel snow. We make arrangements with the senior citizens: We match them up with a student at a low rate and the student goes out and shovels their driveway and the senior pays them; they do their private driveways and their private walkways. It's worked so well, this program, that we've extended it all year, not for snow in the summertime but to do leaves and odd jobs around the house. It's great for the students -- they make an extra few dollars -- and it's great for the seniors.

Our playground equipment: I didn't know there were no standards for playground equipment. I was reading a book -- it's not the only book I've ever read -- and I read where 10,000 kids in Canada are being injured every year using playground equipment. I called our parks commissioner into my office and I said, "What's going on here?" He said, "Leave it with me," and he came back a few days later and he said, "There are no standards." I was stupid too. We were putting concrete floors instead of putting soft floors around the playground equipment so if a kid falls he doesn't break his head, and rough edges -- we've already gotten rid of half of our playgrounds in North York, replaced them with safe playgrounds, and we're doing the other half this year. We've set world standards for playground equipment. They even gave me an award for it.

We are the only ones with these elephant vacuum cleaners. If you don't live in North York, you've probably never seen them. They go around and pick up litter all over the place. We want a clean city because people take pride in living in a clean city. They take pride in their homes, they take pride in their communities. These elephant vacuum cleaners work seven months a year. We are the only city, to my knowledge, with them.

There is free skating and free swimming in North York, and we have 16 water parks built or under way. These are more fun than swimming pools. The kids love them. I take my grandchildren to one in North York. There are four right now and the other 12 are under way. They are phenomenal. The kids go under palm trees and the water comes from the bottom, they get on horses and they shoot water at each other, and they just have a ball. It's better than a swimming pool. You get bored after a little while in a swimming pool, but not in these water parks. I don't know of anybody else who has them anywhere in Metropolitan Toronto.

Paper recycling: keeping the market honest. Take a look at what took place. Metro was getting $16 a tonne and they were doing it for all of us. North York said: "We don't want any part of this. You have a maximum of $16 a tonne and we are not going to be part of it." The people who were doing the recycling came in to see me and offered us, North York, $45 a tonne if we joined and they would pay all the other municipalities in Metro Toronto the $16 a tonne. I said, "Leave it with me," and I started to check around. To make a long story short, because I only have 30 minutes, we worked it up to $295 a tonne. We let the Metro municipalities know and they threatened to pull out even though they had signed a contract, and they got up to $240 a tonne. Today they are getting not $16 a tonne but their bottom price is $40 a tonne. North York is getting $140 a tonne because that's our bottom price. But that just shows you that it keeps the market honest by not having one government, one group, doing all the negotiating. You can put one against the other and come up with better deals.

In a megacity, would our citizens receive an inferior level of service? I don't know. We don't want uniformity if it means we have to lower our standards.

It's almost inevitable that the megacity will bring party politics to the municipal level. I don't see how community interests will be looked after under Bill 103. There is no mention of community councils or how they would work. Could their decisions be overturned by the megacity by a simple majority? I don't know.

If a megacity isn't guaranteed to save any money, why do it? I can't imagine getting rid of all the city halls in a megacity. Will everyone have to go to downtown Toronto for building permits for minor additions, for committee-of-adjustment matters, for marriage licences? If they have to stand in line for six hours, they're liable to change their mind. Planning applications: Can you imagine, for a small little addition, that you have to stand in line for six or seven hours? How are we going to get rid of all these city halls? Are you going to force people from Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke to have to go down to Toronto for a little thing, if they want to get a dog licence or a park permit to play baseball or to register a child for swimming lessons or to play hockey? Imagine the lineups if everyone has to go to one place or even two. Will people have to travel great distances to see their councillor, pay their taxes or attend a public hearing or community meeting?

Look at the transition costs of a megacity: severance pay, merging computer operations etc. This could cost $150 million. Can we afford to pay this when the province is cutting municipal grants and increasing our costs? Having 2.3 million people would make our megacity larger than six Canadian provinces, larger than all four maritime provinces combined. This would be almost the same size as the province of Alberta.

The city of North York is an efficient city. I believe we are Canada's most efficient. We operate like a business. North York should be the model you look at if you're going to proceed with this. This will be five years that we have had no tax increase, and we have improved our services at the same time. North York collects the taxes, but we only get 15.5% of every dollar.

Our size has enabled us to react quickly to changes to the economy. We began cutting, through attrition, in 1989 and reduced staff by 309 people with no golden handshakes and no layoffs. We saw the problem coming. I took it to council and I recommended 14 different things that should be done. North York council adopted it and we've never, ever laid people off in North York. We've done it the proper way. Let me tell you, I took the same thing to Metropolitan Toronto. They called me an obstructionist and all other kinds of things. They refused to even look at it. The motion was placed and the motion was put, but they didn't act on it. They acted on it after raising taxes by over 16% two years later.

We trimmed expenditures in North York by $89 million and we don't borrow. We are virtually debt-free. We have almost $200 million in the bank for all contingencies. These are things we have worked hard for in North York. Our North York taxpayers don't want to lose this in a megacity.

1120

I'm not trying to save my job. I want to save our communities and the community spirit that is so vibrant in the city of North York.

Witness the phenomenal success in the 17-year history of our North York Winter Carnival. Last weekend we had 50 community groups and 1,000 volunteers working together to stage this event for over 125,000 visitors. For three days on seven stages, we provided continuous family activities and top-name entertainment free of charge. Many who attended our winter carnival are children who wouldn't otherwise get to see performers like Sandra Beech, Sharon, Lois and Bram, Underhill and Martini, and Sailor Moon, because their families could never afford the admission price. As a city, we and our corporate partners can give these kids the thrill for free. Events like this put the heart into our community. I don't want to see North York's heart break when special events like this become endangered.

If you are determined to have a megacity, I hope you will implement the following suggestions:

Individual municipalities and hydro commissions must retire all debts prior to amalgamation. Why should the people of North York be punished for having an efficient city by absorbing the debts of the less efficient? Our hydro has no debt.

Set a common, stable hydro rate. If our six utilities amalgamated immediately, North York Hydro customers' rates would go up by 5% by amalgamating while Toronto Hydro customers' rates would go down by 8% because Toronto is one of the highest in the province.

Establish a benchmark standard of services for the megacity. Before embarking on amalgamation, spell out the level of service our city can expect.

The province should pay 100% of the megacity transition costs so as not to force property tax increases. We didn't request this transition, you did, and all our reserves should not go to pay for this. If you are going to go ahead with this, let us save the municipal cash reserves, like the almost $200 million North York has in the bank, for the taxpayers who paid it initially.

As I said earlier, set the mill rate now for the 1998 budget year, because the new council won't be able to meet the impossibly tight time frame.

Finally, if you are intent on proceeding with this merger on the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, I hope you won't extend the time by an extra year as has been suggested. Employee morale is low. Staff is suffering from the uncertainty. They are in turmoil not knowing what their futures hold. They are out looking for jobs. As staff leave, many programs may suffer. Dragging this out is not fair to anyone, not to our employees, but especially not to our taxpayers. Just as you know where I stand, they've got to know where they stand.

We must give our taxpayers the services they are paying for. I'm in favour of change, but you don't eliminate the level of government that is closest to the people.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Lastman. Each caucus will have three minutes in which to ask questions.

Mr Colle: Thank you very much, Mayor Lastman. One example you brought to mind is the concern people have that they may be forced to go to some central location, like downtown, to get basic services. But it seems this government isn't quite clear on what they're going to do with the city halls; in order to provide services, they're probably going to leave the city halls open. How are they going to save money if they're going to leave the centres open to provide basic services? The city halls remain. Where are the money savings?

Mr Lastman: I have no idea. I can't figure it out. Yes, they'll save on six mayors, they'll save on six department heads, but they'll have to have deputy department heads and people stationed all over the place like the police have and everybody else has. Take a look at ambulance. They operate through Metro. Their cost of administration versus front-line service is 19.4%. Our cost of firefighters, which we look after locally, is 6% administration.

Mr Colle: You've mentioned fire services. They always say, "We're going to have just one fire department," but on the other hand, what will probably happen is that they'll have one mega-chief and six district chiefs, as they do with ambulance and other services. Where are the cost savings there?

Mr Lastman: I have no idea. I can't figure it out any more. North York has improved its services so much over the years that we just don't want to lose these services. We don't know how you're going to save any money, I really don't, because we have been reducing staff over the last six years. As they retire, as they leave for another job, we just haven't been replacing them. We have been saving an awful lot of money for the taxpayers.

Mr Sergio: Mayor Lastman, we have had no information with respect to this proposal, Bill 103. It came as a bomb from the government. The Crombie report did not suggest this, the Trimmer report did not suggest this, no report even came close to suggesting --

Mr Lastman: I didn't either.

Mr Sergio: And you didn't either. Do you think the government should put aside this law for now, put it in abeyance, go to the people, go to the local municipalities and get the best out of it instead of walking into something about which we have no idea how it's going to work?

Mr Lastman: The plan the four mayors came up with I felt was the right one. You don't get rid of the government that's closest to the people. What we suggested was to take the five regional governments and merge them into one. They were supposed to have limited things to do. They were set up to look after things that cross municipal boundaries, but they got into everything and there is duplication, no doubt about it, and the duplication has to go. We've been yelling about that for years, but they are just duplicating everything we're doing.

Mr Sergio: Do you think we should have a binding referendum?

Mr Lastman: I would like it to be a binding referendum, definitely. I will live by it, and I hope the government will.

The Vice-Chair: We move on to the NDP caucus.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Thank you for your presentation, Mayor Lastman. I've been worried that I might have to go all the way up to North York to get service, but after your presentation today, it doesn't sound so bad up there. I think you gave some very good reasons about why getting rid of local government is a problem. The kinds of services you're able to offer -- you're talking about the real, local, day-to-day, nitty-gritty stuff like snow removal and parking and all that stuff.

My question is related to the referendum. This government has said it is not going to listen to the results. What do you think of that?

Mr Lastman: I think it's wrong. I think they should. I think a lot of people are going to take offence. They're going to be offended that if they don't listen to the results -- I think the highest percentage will probably come from North York because that's where most of the people can vote.

Let's say we have a snowstorm; there's no problem in North York. You have 10 days to vote; you can vote 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Everybody has their own PIN. You can't duplicate it and you can only vote once. I tried to vote twice; it didn't work. The voice instructs you exactly how to vote. You push your PIN. If you push "Yes," my voice comes on and says, "Are you sure?" No, no, it doesn't. I'm only kidding. I couldn't help that.

1130

Ms Churley: The government keeps trying to discredit the whole process. They're saying: "Oh, the mayors are going to count it themselves and it's not a credible process." They're accusing you, in a way almost, of fixing the vote.

Mr Lastman: In North York, there's no way that can happen. They have their own PIN and there's no way we know who voted and how. We send them out the PIN. We have the names from the provincial list of assessment and Bell telephone has the PIN. The agreement is that they will not give us the PIN numbers and we will not give them the assessment roll, so nobody will ever know who voted and how they voted. It's an excellent system. It's just phenomenal. People don't have to leave the house. If they wake up at 2 o'clock in the morning and have nothing to do, it takes less than two minutes to vote and you have 10 days to vote.

Ms Churley: Do you think all hell is going to break loose if this government doesn't listen to a No result?

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, we have to move on. Your time is up on that question.

Mr Lastman: I think it will be awful. I really do.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move to the government caucus.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Thank you very much, Mr Lastman. I come from Caledon-Orangeville and we've even heard of you up there.

Mr Lastman: Have you?

Mr Tilson: We have indeed. You're obviously one of our most colourful and well-known mayors of southern Ontario and obviously the voters love you.

Mr Lastman: Well, thank you.

Mr Tilson: The difficulty is, when you become so well known everybody writes down things that you've said over the years.

Mr Lastman: I know. I've seen so many --

Mr Tilson: That may cause you some trouble. The difficulty I have is that someone's written down for me some of the things you've said about this topic, in direct contradiction to what you've said in the last decade. I'd like to read some of those quotations and then have you tell us why your mind has changed.

For example, "I have done a lot of soul-searching lately and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous for us to have six fire departments, six work departments and six of everything else in Metro. We look like idiots, not amalgamating. Why have we done all these work departments and health departments, all this overlapping? Why do we need all these treasury departments and building departments? The work could all be done out of one big office. It has become painfully clear that our current system of a two-tiered system in Metro Toronto is not working."

It goes on and on. I won't quote it. I'm sure you remember saying it. My question to you is, why have you changed your mind?

Mr Lastman: Mr Tilson, it wasn't in the last decade. It was a little longer than that. It was 1984.

Mr Tilson: There are some 1995 statements. Do you want me to read some of those?

Mr Lastman: Let me answer your first question. I don't want to forget. In 1984 things were different. We had a different Metro chairman. We had things operating in Metropolitan Toronto; they were going smoothly and well. The meetings didn't go on for three days. We didn't have the services we have today in North York. At that time everybody had the same services.

Mr Tilson: But some of these quotes are 1995.

Mr Lastman: No, no, no.

Mr Tilson: Sure they are: "I would like to see a change in Metro -- "

Mr Lastman: Let me finish my answer, though.

Mr Tilson: Well, except that you're saying things in 1984 but you're also saying things even a couple of years ago.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Lastman: Go ahead. What did I say in 1995?

Mr Tilson: Okay. "I would like to see a redesign of Metro council. There's been so much duplication with the local municipalities. There is so much duplication. Downsizing Metro has not been strong enough," and on it goes.

Mr Lastman: I said the same thing here. I said here today that the duplication at Metro is ridiculous. Metro was not set up to do the things they're doing. Here we have planning departments in every municipality. Metro does not do the planning. They only check to verify if the North York plan, for example, meets the Metro plan. They had 99 planners at one point there, which was ridiculous. All they needed was about five or 10.

They went out and duplicated everything the municipalities were doing. I tried to stop this for years. I was yelling and screaming but the province would never listen and we couldn't do anything about it locally. We are a product of the province.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Lastman, we've exceeded our time. Thank you very much.

DANFORTH BY THE VALLEY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Reg McLean, the Danforth by the Valley BIA. Welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Reg McLean: I want to begin by thanking the provincial government and the members of this committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak here today.

As the chair of Danforth by the Valley Business Improvement Area, I represent about 250 businesses located in the Broadview-Danforth area of the city of Toronto. For those of you not familiar with business improvement areas, or BlAs as they are more commonly known, they are specific geographic areas of any city in the province which through mutual agreement of the majority of businesses request to be designated as a BIA, which is then approved by the province.

BlAs are completely funded by their members through a special tax levy collected by the municipality. This levy is then distributed back to the BIA's board of management who all work on a volunteer basis to use the collective funds to make physical improvements to the neighbourhood and to plan promotional activities such as parades, street sales and festivals.

I believe, as do the majority of our members, that the current government's megacity proposal will be harmful to all our businesses and to the city of Toronto as a whole. We believe there will be no savings to the city either in the short term or the long tern. We believe that maintaining accessibility to our elected officials is paramount to the success of the city, and that without this accessibility and its inherent accountability, the internationally recognized success enjoyed by Toronto cannot help but deteriorate.

Whenever I have to call Ontario Hydro, Consumers' Gas or any other large bureaucracy to ask for help, it is almost impossible for me to get in touch with someone willing to discuss my problem, let alone solve it. For them, whatever I say or do will have no effect on their future employment so they just don't care. However, when I call on one of our elected officials with the same problem, I often find that I get satisfactory results because they must compete for their jobs every few years. We prefer to live and do business in a city with more elected officials and fewer bureaucrats.

Further, we believe that the disruption created by such a changeover will be catastrophic at a time when many businesses are just beginning to recover from the recession. We believe that city services will erode to the lowest local level, while staff wages and user fees will escalate to the highest local level. We feel that the megacity proposal, although originally intended to improve the operation of the city, was too hastily conceived, and as these hearings clearly indicate, without enough input from outside sources.

We implore you to listen to the concerns of all the people of the province and not just a select few. If the same percentage of my members were questioning one of my board's planned activities as concerned citizens are questioning this proposal, I would be concerned whether I was making the right decision. At the very least I would postpone my decision and re-evaluate the proposal. There is no crisis here in Toronto. There is no need to rush this decision. I don't know who it was who once said, "A person who walks slowly in the right direction will reach their destination faster than someone who runs quickly in the wrong direction," but I feel this government is doing just that: running quickly in the wrong direction.

If you care about the city of Toronto and all its citizens, your actions don't show it. I care about this city. That is why I'm here today. I was born in Toronto 42 years ago. I have lived all my life in the GTA, including 10 years in North York and a year in East York. I gladly volunteer my time to do what I can to improve my little area of the city. Many of the other individuals and groups speaking out against this proposal are doing so not because they dislike this government, but because they care about the future of this city.

Please listen to us. Despite what its critics may say, Toronto works as a city. This proposal, if passed, will not improve the city. Please let's all work together to do what is right for our children and our children's children.

1140

Ms Churley: Thank you very much. It is just a coincidence, isn't it, that I get to question you and you represent a BIA in my riding which you may have all heard had a big fire yesterday. I trust that things are picking up again today?

Mr McLean: Hopefully, yes.

Ms Churley: Good. In your presentation I found the last point very interesting, that there are a lot of perhaps even Tories -- I know some Tories in our riding, in your area in fact, small business people, who generally support what this government is doing but are very alarmed about this proposal to create a megacity. I think your message to the government, "Please listen to us," is very important because I believe they've been taking the position that it's just a bunch of yahoos, almost, who have objections to this, but sensible business people of course will prefer the megacity. So I think that's a very good point.

Having been a city councillor, I know that the example you gave, the local accessibility to your city councillor, in our case in Riverdale the Metro councillor as well, is a very important one. I know that I spent a lot of time when I was a local city councillor going to regular BIA meetings, helping sort out specific local problems, dealing with problems with the budget and on and on. It was a very close working relationship. I think that's a good example of how the local councillor can work well with the community. Can you elaborate on what you fear will happen in terms of the local business people working with the bureaucracy?

Mr McLean: As I mentioned in my little talk, when we have problems, as we currently are with Ontario Hydro digging up the roads, and Consumers Gas dug up the roads last summer, they don't always seem to work in the most efficient manner. They have trucks parked unnecessarily on the street, they block areas that don't necessarily need to be blocked and it creates a lot of problems for small businesses, for print shops, restaurants. A customer drives along the street and cannot park nearby. They're forced to drive further along the street and nine times out of 10 they won't walk back to that restaurant or print shop; they'll go to the one that's closest to wherever they parked their car.

We've gone to these companies while construction is under way, or tried to go to them, to say, "Listen, can you please do this or do that," to which we get very little response. They just don't seem to care. They have an arrogant attitude: "What's your problem? We've got work to do." Yet once we go to either our Metro councillor or our city councillor, or our MPP, yourself, we seem to get action on it because someone seems to really care.

My summation from that is that if you have to be re-elected and you have to go to the people to say, "Will you support me?" you need to support the people in the in-between time. We often find we will get support from elected officials that we won't get from bureaucrats. A lot of small businesses are truly concerned that if we have to deal with bureaucrats in the future, because our elected officials represent such a large geographic area with so many people, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to get in touch with these people. Even if we get in touch with them, how much time will they have for us?

We would rather deal with an elected official who will act on our concerns rather than a bureaucrat who doesn't really care because nothing is on the line for that person. Whether they act on our request or not, they'll still have their job, they will still have their jobs four years from now.

Ms Churley: I want to ask you about taxes as well, because I know from my time in politics in the area that's a growing concern. The government is moving ahead with what it calls AVA, which is really MVA. Are you concerned as a small businessperson in the area not only about MVA coming in, but as well, do you believe the government when it says with the downloading and the amalgamation -- put it this way: Have you seen any evidence yet that your taxes really are going to go down or do you think they're going to go up?

Mr McLean: We're very worried that taxes will go up. That's a big concern for a lot of the businesses, because if you drive along the Danforth, although it appears to be successful and the restaurants are busy on weekends and throughout the summertime, I know a lot of them are touch and go and are just getting by. Many businesses are in that same situation. The restaurants are the busiest but there are lots of other businesses along the Danforth, even lawyers, who are just getting by on a day-to-day basis.

One of their big concerns also is the offloading of expenses. They're worried that their property taxes are going to go up, and they have indicated to me that this is a concern for them because if you're in a business today where you're just getting by, and indications from the Toronto board of trade survey and other predictions from politicians and other people are that taxes may go up, how much longer can you stay in business if you're making $30,000 a year now? You figure: "I may as well just throw in the towel and get a job. I can make just as much money from a job." That business closes and it's a concern for everybody. The whole area is worried about a deterioration if there are too many vacancies on the street.

Ms Churley: It's my understanding that the association of BIAs across -- is it Metro? -- is opposing this. What's it called again?

Mr McLean: It's TABIA for short. The Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas has already written a letter to the provincial government; Alex Ling, chairperson of Bloor West Village BIA, who has been chair of that BIA for 25 years and chair of the TABIA association, which is the umbrella group that represents all BIAs in the city. All the BIAs have the same concern. Other BIAs in the city are Bloor-Yorkville, Forest Hill Village. We had a meeting in the fall when this idea was first proposed, and it was suggested that Alex Ling, our chair, write a letter to the government expressing our concerns.

Ms Churley: Did any of you ever at any point try to meet with Mr Leach or any of the officials or government members to discuss this?

Mr McLean: I have not and I don't think Alex Ling or any of the members of TABIA has.

Ms Churley: Do you think you're being listened to, as small business people in the city of Toronto?

Mr McLean: We're hoping, through this committee hearing and then through writing to our MPPs, that we will be heard. That's our concern, because we feel this legislation does represent the concerns of some people in the city, that they wish this kind of a proposal to go through -- we're not saying we're the only voice in the city -- but I think the government should take the time to listen to all the people in the province, not just some people. It seems like a select few are being listened to. But we represent other voices in the city, and we feel that we should be listened to also and our concerns should be accommodated at least in any legislation that's passed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McLean, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

YORK CITIZENS FOR LOCAL DEMOCRACY

The Chair: Would John Maclennan please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Maclennan, and welcome to the committee.

Mr John Maclennan: It's still morning, I think, isn't it?

The Chair: Yes, you're right. I'm ahead of myself. Sometimes it just feels like afternoon, I guess.

Mr Maclennan: I'm sure it's been a long day, and maybe it'll get longer.

The Chair: Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes today to make a presentation. Could the entire group introduce themselves at the beginning of the presentation.

Mr Maclennan: My name is John Maclennan. I'm the co-chair of York Citizens for Local Democracy. To my right is John Mihevc, who's going to speak, along with Gord Garland, who is the co-chair. Actually he's from York Fights Back, which came together during the Days of Action. Maybe you remember that; I don't know. I'm going to ask Gord to start, then go to John.

Mr Gord Garland: To begin with, I'm a businessman in the city of York. I've been a resident in the city of York for 20 years. I'm a member of York Fights Back, which is a coalition of community, labour, education and social justice groups and individuals. I'm also co-chair of the York Citizens for Local Democracy-York Fights Back weekly meetings. I was the policy analyst with David Crombie's Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront for three years. I've been a regional economist and housing analyst with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

What I'd like to do is to just briefly provide you with an overview of our presentation. I'll set the general context and then allow John to focus in on some of the city of York implications, and then our other speaker will focus in on Fairbank Park as an example of local democracy in action. Then what I'll do is conclude by drawing some links between this piece of legislation and Bill 104 and the downloading of provincial responsibilities on to the new megacity.

In terms of general context, the provincial Who Does What panel basically had two objectives: One was to look at the issue of governance; the other was to look at the issue of property tax changes. In what has come out thus far, the focus has been almost exclusively on the issue of governance. To begin with, Anne Golden and her task force looked at these issues, then Libby Burnham reviewed Anne Golden, then Crombie's Who Does What panel reviewed Libby Burnham and Anne Golden as well as 25 years of reports.

In the end, Crombie couldn't come up with a decision. He recommended two radically different approaches: One was a four-city model and the other was a megacity. In essence, the Conservative government in power today flipped a coin and decided, "Let's go with the megacity." It was not on the basis of any definitive review, it was not on the basis of any public consultation. In fact, if you look at Golden, Burnham and Crombie, they are appointees who did not have to consult with anyone. Note that with the proposed implementation of the new megacity, the other changes in the GTA outside of Metro Toronto are not even being considered for implementation. Perhaps that is a reflection of the politics of governance.

1150

The other side of the coin was massive property tax changes, and here we're not just referring to actual value assessment, we're referring to massive shifts from commercial and industrial property tax to residential property tax. I think it's instructive to take a look at the development of some of the decisions that were made by the Who Does What panel with respect to property tax.

The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto recommended elimination of the 15% mill rate differential between commercial and industrial and residential properties and the establishment of a single mill rate. Currently the mill rate for residential must be 85% of commercial and industrial. If you look at the final recommendations of Crombie and the Who Does What panel, they mirror what was being said as a general recommendation by the board of trade.

If you look at what the board of trade recommended with respect to the business occupancy tax, it recommended abolition of the business occupancy tax. Currently this adds an additional 30% to 40% to commercial and industrial property taxes and ranges from 25% to 75% of C&I taxes depending on the type of business. Financial institutions, the billion-dollar club, the banks and the insurance companies pay 75% in terms of business occupancy tax. The Who Does What panel recommended the elimination of the business occupancy tax through a process of intermunicipal competition. When it comes right down to it, in terms of property taxes and what has been the focus of the media, it's all been on governance, but these massive property tax changes are also coming.

Looking at the interrelationship of the issue of governance and the issue of property taxes, I believe it's important to quote from the board of trade's submission. Here they're quoting from a report done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, a US bank, and while the reference is specific to education, I think it is equally applicable to service delivery by upper tiers of government where you have very large wards and essentially unresponsive politicians. I quote from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago:

"Those reform efforts that constrain school funding from local sources while increasing funding from state sources have either lowered overall expenditure levels or slowed the growth in education expenditures because schools are forced to compete with other state-wide institutions for funding status."

Here we have a pretty clear statement of what upper levels of government, unresponsive levels of government, can do. They can constrain spending.

Having dealt with that general context, I'd like to just turn it over to John for some of the city of York implications of the megacity, this city that's supposed to have about 2.3 million population, larger than six provinces.

Mr Maclennan: I just want to share with you that we had a meeting last night and we are really concerned about some of the aspects. One of the problems we faced in York is, I think, some difficulties of how to move ahead. There's a debate taking place within York about merging with the city of Toronto. We haven't taken a position on that, although we agree with the idea that it should be decided by the city of York and the city of Toronto and the democratic processes that are in place to do that. We don't think we should be forced into a merger with the city where we'd have no identity and have less popular representation by elected representatives.

One of the things that maybe is a problem is the paternalistic approach. I think it was found, maybe on the weekend, in one of the articles in the newspaper by Mr Gilchrist, this approach that we'd be better off with our taxes and also our services, recreation and that. That's fine, that may be true, but we in the city of York, along with the city of Toronto, should be able to decide that, not the provincial government or their representatives in the city of Toronto, particularly someone from Scarborough. We take exception to that aspect of it.

I want to just pass it on to John, because we have an example of where local government works, and we just want to make a point and reiterate it here at this point in time. Thank you.

Mr John Mihevc: Good morning. I'd like to thank you for allowing the York Citizens for Local Democracy to speak to this committee on Bill 103. My name is John Mihevc, and I have lived in the city of York for almost all of my life. I grew up in the neighbourhood in the area of Dufferin and Eglinton. One of my fondest childhood memories is of the many summers I spent going swimming at Fairbank Park swimming pool and participating in the Fairbank Park's summer recreation program. I did not have an opportunity to go to expensive summer camps, and Fairbank Park offered an important green space for me and the children of the area.

About eight years ago, plans were announced to turn the park over to developers and build condominiums. This was also presented to the residents of York as a done deal. However, an interesting thing happened along the way; it was called local democracy. Citizens' groups formed to stop the project from going through, a project that would destroy a vital and rare piece of green space in that area. After several years of struggle and by using the democratic process, these groups were successful in stopping the development and in throwing out of office the councillors who were attempting to ram through the legislation.

Mr Maclennan: Some of them were Tories.

Mr Mihevc: I think there are two important lessons to be learned from this; the first is that if the city of York had been part of a megacity, there would be no Fairbank Park today. This is because the concerns of the residents in the neighbourhood of Fairbank Park would have been completely swallowed up and ignored by a megacity council. It is because of York's size that we were able to raise awareness on the issue and to hold our democratically elected officials accountable.

Smaller cities work better because they are more responsive and accountable to the concerns of local residents. Smaller cities work better because they are more responsive to their citizens. Because of the size of York, every councillor visited the Fairbank Park site and was made aware of the issues. Could you imagine that happening on a mega-council of 44 members? Control for planning must be kept at a local level, where local concerns will be respected.

The second lesson pertains more to the present situation. The York Citizens for Local Democracy was formed over a month ago by concerned citizens in the city of York because of what we regard as a profoundly undemocratic piece of legislation. As is the case of Fairbank Park, a plan is being hatched which will affect the residents, and they are not being consulted. The York Citizens for Local Democracy is growing rapidly into a citizens' movement, much like the countless other groups that are springing up throughout the city. As in the experience of Fairbank Park, we know that we will continue to grow and to demand that our voices be heard well after the referendum.

We bring one basic demand to this government, and that is to respect democracy; that means to respect the voices of the citizens of York and of the other municipalities. The way these voices will be heard is through the referendum. We ask one simple thing, and that is to respect the outcome of the referendum. Respect the vote. If the citizens of York and the other municipalities vote for amalgamation, then so be it. But if they vote No, then this message has to be respected. That's called democracy, and you ignore it at your own peril. I can assure you that the York Citizens for Local Democracy will continue to fight to ensure that democracy is respected.

Mr Garland: Just let me conclude with a few comments. To begin with, the city of York is an ethnically and racially diverse community. It has a large anglo population but an equally large Italian population, Portuguese, Hispanic and, in terms of racial diversity, black citizens as well as white citizens as well as all coloured citizens. We manage to work as a community because we treat each other as equals. That is the fundamental basis of democracy. Our wards are small wards, 10,000 electors versus the 50,000 electors the megacity wards would have. With these small wards, you can afford the time to communicate to the different ethnic and linguistic groups in their own language. You can build community consensus over time. This is what government is for: It is for the people.

We do not understand what the rush is with this megacity proposal. It appears to be an issue of administrative convenience trampling democracy. As the example of Fairbank Park demonstrated, in the rush to develop Fairbank Park, only through the actions of citizens was the mask torn off that and was it revealed that the developer was working in collusion with two of the local aldermen as well as a Metro alderman, and only through citizen action were those people put in jail and removed from office.

Democracy is a great leveller. All citizens are created equal. It is rule by the free vote of citizens. It is rule by law. When I look at Bill 103, I do not see rule by the free vote of citizens in determining their future, and I do not see rule by law. The Conservative government was elected by 28% of Ontario's eligible voters. You have no mandate from us to do any of this.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We've exceeded the allotted time, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward and making your presentation today.

Mr Maclennan: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

The Chair: We're recessed until 3:30 this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1203 to 1532.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

The Chair: Good afternoon. Would Stephen Kaiser of the Urban Development Institute please come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Stephen Kaiser: Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Kaiser and I am president of the Urban Development Institute. With me is Mr Orvin Zendel, chair of our organization and a principal in a North York-based company, Interblocks Ltd/Royal Indevco Properties. Mr Zendel's firm develops land, provides project management and development consulting services to large and small real estate corporations, property owners and government clients both within and beyond Metropolitan Toronto. I would like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity of providing our thoughts on Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, from the perspective of the land development industry, both residential, industrial and commercial.

Let me say from the outset that we support the government's direction and believe this legislation will result in a new, simplified governance structure for Toronto which will be capable of meeting the many challenges ahead. Saving money, removing barriers to growth, and investment and creating jobs are cornerstones of this government's agenda, and we believe they are fully embraced in Bill 103.

Before I discuss the benefits of amalgamation, however, I would like to describe briefly the role of the Urban Development Institute and the nature of its representation for the benefit of this committee.

For 40 years, the Urban Development Institute, or UDI, has acted as the voice of the land development, building and property management industry in Ontario. The institute is a non-profit organization supported by its members, which include firms and individuals who own sizeable holdings of raw land, apartment units and commercial and industrial space.

Our membership is engaged in all aspects of the planning and development of communities and the construction of residential, industrial and commercial projects. UDI also serves as a forum for knowledge, experience and research on land use planning and development.

Today our members include land developers, land use and environmental planners, investors, financial institutions, engineers, lawyers, economists, surveyors, landscape architects, marketing and research firms and architects. Together they have successfully provided all forms of housing and job creating industry to the entire GTA region and take great pride in the communities they have built within Metro Toronto. Together they constitute the collective forces guiding the creation and improvement of Ontario's built environment.

Metropolitan Toronto was established in 1954 in response to a clear need for coordination of services and for a forum for its constituent municipalities to develop together. Initially, the challenge was to provide for major infrastructure or hard services such as roads, sewers and watermains, to support growth, and to plan development. However, as Metro matured, it assumed responsibility for transit, social services, police, licensing, waste disposal and ambulance care, to ensure that the costs and benefits of providing these services were shared by the entire community.

Today the responsibilities of the current Metro government are such that its budget is nearly three times larger than the combined budgets of the six area municipalities. In fact, as you know, over 70% of the property tax bill in Metro supports services that are already amalgamated. In this context, amalgamation or unification of Metro's seven government structures, as represented in Bill 103, is the final step in this evolutionary process. History is simply repeating itself.

I would now like to outline the reasons why we think amalgamation makes sense.

The new city of Toronto will provide an opportunity to reduce duplication and overlap, minimize administrative overhead and achieve greater economies of scale. Although the estimates associated with these savings can be debated at length, a clear opportunity to realize on them exists.

As an industry whose continued success depends on an efficient government framework, we strongly believe that improvements to the current structure and the delivery of planning services are necessary. In a study completed for the GTA task force by the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, it was determined that there were 35 separate planning departments with 1,300 staff members and budgets in excess of $100 million serving Metro Toronto and the four surrounding regions. Of that, seven planning departments, with a total staff of approximately 500 and a budget of almost $50 million, serve Metro alone.

Amalgamation will result in a more cost-effective coordination and delivery of planning services to Canada's largest residential and business population. The new city of Toronto will provide a one-window, single-tier and consistent approach to the delivery of planning and land use approvals.

All seven municipalities currently develop and apply their own official plan, zoning bylaws, site plans, consent and minor variance policies, and all offer different and widely varying interpretations of Ontario's building and fire codes.

In addition, under today's system, a Metro approval is required for most land use applications that have already been approved at the local level. While this may sound simple, it isn't. The directly elected nature of Metro's council has acted in many cases as an impediment to locally driven initiatives due to parochial tendencies.

Redevelopment and intensification is an extremely difficult exercise in Metro because the approvals process is confused and distorted by two levels of directly elected politicians with often differing views on the same project. With a unified Toronto, the days of confusing and differing interpretations of planning policy and multilayered approvals will largely be eliminated.

The new city of Toronto will enhance the ability of the Metro area to speak with a single voice to the international business community and, in doing so, will stand a better chance of attracting investment and strengthening the local and GTA economy. While municipal boundaries are for the most part artificial, they do create very real obstacles to a coordinated program of economic development. Local councils in Metro continue to compete with one another because there is no incentive to cooperate for the greater good. The Metro area has enormous international potential; governance reform creates the opportunity to sell the region more effectively and more efficiently.

1540

The new city of Toronto will ensure that Metro is marketed with a single voice and thereby better positioned to compete with urban regions in other jurisdictions throughout North America and the world, another reason we believe that the new city of Toronto is the next natural step in the evolution of the Metro area and vital to achieving the vision of an integrated, well-balanced and coordinated GTA. It is an integral part of the success and proper functioning of the new Greater Toronto Services Board. In fact, the decision to create the new city of Toronto must go hand in hand with a decision to establish a GTA-wide coordinating body, or the ability of Metro to effectively participate in decision-making at the GTA level will be minimized.

According to the board of trade, Metro still possesses over half the assessment base of the GTA and nearly two thirds of the commercial assessment and is clearly the fiscal anchor of the GTA. The new city of Toronto structure will preserve this economic vitality and livability which is so essential to the future success and health of the entire greater Toronto area.

The new city of Toronto will create an opportunity for improved accountability and reduced taxes by placing the responsibility for all municipal functions with a single city council. Market forces can be brought to bear on the delivery of local services through alternate methods, which have often been resisted by the area municipalities.

Amalgamation establishes a single environment where public and private providers can for the first time compete equally. In so doing, the efficiency of providing the services should increase and the costs decline. It is not important who provides the service, only that a competitive environment exists. Snowplowing, sidewalk maintenance, garbage collection, tax billing, all of which are currently provided and duplicated six times at the local level, can now be more effectively integrated and, if appropriate, contracted out at a unified Metro level.

As evidenced by our comments, UDI is fully supportive of the bill, its direction and the model for the new city's governance. We would, however, like to offer some cautionary comments.

We are concerned about the development and use of community councils and neighbourhood committees as contemplated under the new act. While the details have yet to be clarified, it is our understanding that community councils would consist of seven or eight wards, with each ward being represented by its elected councillor. These community councils would receive input from neighbourhood committees, which would be comprised of non-elected community representatives.

On policy decisions such as official plans and their amendments, the new city of Toronto municipal council would be the approval authority but would receive recommendations from community councils that are crafted largely by the neighbourhood committees. On site-specific development applications such as zoning bylaw amendments, minor variances, consents, site plans, it is intended that the community councils act as the approval authority but would again receive direct input and advice from these neighbourhood committees.

The strength and the ability of these neighbourhood committees to directly and powerfully influence community council decisions and recommendations is a disturbing prospect for the land development industry. No one participant in the approvals process, whether it be a resident, a special interest group or a proponent, should be elevated to the decision-making level and thereby unduly influence the actions of the others.

The creation of these non-elected and largely unaccountable neighbourhood committees should be clearly and tightly defined or the efficiencies of a single-tier, one-window approvals process inherent in the unified city will be lost. This concept could set a dangerous precedent and we believe it needs a great deal of additional discussion and review.

In addition, while this bill is clearly not about disentanglement or assessment reform, we are concerned about the extent of downloading that will be placed on the new city and its long-term impacts.

As a result of the recent shift of responsibilities proposed during mega-week, it is clear that property tax will play a larger role in the funding of urban services than it ever did before. If the vision and objectives of this new unified city are to be realized, it is vital that the burden of supporting these new-found responsibilities is fairly and equitably shared by all those who benefit.

To sum up our remarks, we believe unification will create an opportunity to reduce duplication and overlap, minimize administrative overhead and achieve greater economies of scale. Unification will create a one-window, single-tiered and consistent approach to the delivery of the planning and land use approvals process.

Unification will create an opportunity for improved accountability and reduced taxes by placing the responsibility for all municipal functions within a single city council.

Unification will enhance the ability of the Metro area to speak with a single voice to the international business and investment community. Unification is the next natural step in advancing the model and vision of an integrated, well-balanced and coordinated GTA. It will preserve the economic vitality and livability of the central core which is essential to the future success and health of the entire greater Toronto area.

The timing, circumstances and dynamics for the new city of Toronto are right. The economic, social, fiscal and functional reality is that Metro Toronto in many respects is already an amalgamated city and it's time that the governance structure catches up.

Our membership has been fully canvassed, and we support Bill 103 and commend your government for taking this bold and necessary step. We look forward to working closely with you and your transition team to ensure the creation of a powerful, focused and healthy urban region -- the new city of Toronto.

Thank you. We'd be happy to try and answer any questions.

The Chair: Unfortunately that will have to happen at another place and time because you've used your allotted time fully. I want to thank you for coming forward on behalf of the committee.

GREATER TORONTO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Would David Hirsh and Tom Stricker please come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome to the committee.

Mr David Hirsh: My name is David Hirsh. I am president of the Brandy Lane Corp. We are a residential home building company in the greater Toronto area. We build freehold and condominium homes primarily to the first-time buyer market in communities throughout the GTA.

I'm here today in my capacity as president of the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association. It's a volunteer position and I hold it with great pride. Joining me today is our immediate past president of the GTHBA and chair of our megacity task force, Tom Stricker.

Before we get into the megacity, I want to tell you a bit about our association. The Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association is the voice of the residential construction industry in the greater Toronto area. We represent the residential home builder, whether they build single-family homes, town homes or condominiums. We also represent the infill and custom home builder as well as the professional renovation contractor.

Our membership includes the suppliers to the industry: the brick manufacturers, the window and door manufacturers. We also represent the subcontractors, be it bricklayers, carpenters, drywallers or trimmers, and we represent the many service and professional firms, as well as financial institutions associated with our industry. All told, we have more than 850 member companies maintaining businesses, residences and operations throughout the greater Toronto area.

In 1996 our members sold more than 20,000 new homes. This represents almost 60,000 person-years of employment. That's the equivalent of 60,000 full-time jobs for one year. Our industry has tremendous economic impact and as such we have a tremendous stake in the legislation at hand here today.

1550

Our members have been building Metro Toronto and the rest of the GTA, community by community, since the association was established more than 75 years ago in 1921.

To put today's legislation into perspective, I can tell you that our founding association was divided into five Toronto districts representing members as far north as Eglinton Avenue. My, my, times have changed.

Okay, let's talk Bill 103. We are here today to say that we support Bill 103. We support unification. We support the megacity.

Tom made a speech recently where he noted that our governments have more regulations on nail guns than they do on handguns. Looking at the government structure as it exists today, our industry is subject to seven official plans and seven different planning and approvals processes, not to mention countless zoning bylaws, all of them different. Think of the inefficiencies that creates as our members consider developing or building in one municipality versus another. It's our own version of "who does what." Who allows what, under what conditions? Who charges for something and who doesn't? Who changed the rules because a homeowner didn't like what the builder had accomplished within the existing rules?

The current framework has become a bonanza for the various consultants who make a living shepherding paper through the process. The process has become an end in itself rather than a means to an end. We believe the megacity will substantially reduce the duplication and red tape in the process, thereby unleashing the full potential of our industry to create jobs and wealth as we develop and redevelop the city.

We have one major caveat in our support of Bill 103 surrounding the proposed neighbourhood committees and community councils.

The backgrounder to the legislation suggests that the neighbourhood committees could provide advice and guidance to community councils on local planning matters. The community councils could also monitor service delivery in their neighbourhood; make recommendations on community needs, issues and priorities and local matters which have been delegated by council, including distributing funding for recreational, cultural or social needs.

We have no problem with these items. Citizen input is vital to the process and we welcome it. However, giving the proposed neighbourhood committees any planning-related powers is redundant and totally inconsistent with the goals of unification.

Under the new Planning Act there is ample opportunity for citizens to provide advice and guidance on local planning matters. Input on the character of neighbourhoods should be given when broad-based consultations are held at the public meeting stage of the official plan development process, not on an application-by-application basis.

Let's not perpetuate the problems inherent in the current system by adding what has the potential to become another layer of government. The goal should be consistency in building and planning standards and processes. At the very least, we would expect uniformity in the building permit approval process and levels of inspection and enforcement.

It's no doubt an understatement to say that you've heard a lot of negative criticism about the megacity. I'm sure we're not the only people to have noticed that most of the people who are complaining about the megacity are confused with who does what. Bill 103 is not about assessment reform. Bill 103 is not about who pays for welfare. Bill 103 is about the structure of government within the boundaries of Metro as it exists today. Whether the government proceeds with Bill 103 or not, assessment reform is coming and it's long overdue, as is disentanglement. But the point I want to make is that the megacity will not cost taxpayers money, it will only save money.

In concluding, we want to emphasize that when it comes to competing in the global economy, it's very important that the city speak as one voice. The megacity legislation will replace the current fragmented system with a clearly focused economic and political structure, well positioned to move forward into the next century.

Thank you for your time. Tom and I will be delighted to answer any questions you may have.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Hirsh, Mr Stricker. I appreciate your coming before us here to make a presentation. Let me just say at the outset that I think the successes you've had, particularly in this last year, in terms of the dramatic increase in new house sales coupled with the increase in used or existing homes in Metro are exactly the sort of economic indicators that allow us to approach the disentanglement exercise with a lot more optimism than some of our critics.

You mentioned in your presentation the ability to reduce the costs of dealing with government. You may be aware there are 184,000 different bylaws, and of course the interpretations that the various planning departments put on the works you do varies from city to city. Have you ever quantified what it costs in terms of delays and what you have to go through in dealing with municipal governments in terms of what that adds to the cost of a home?

Mr Hirsh: I can't say that the association has quantified the number. I can tell you, as a home builder, it adds significant costs to my process in carrying land and in bringing projects to market. It's very onerous on us as builders.

Mr Gilchrist: You didn't mention anywhere in your discussion any concerns with the timing of what we're doing. Is it your perception that the issue of municipal reform is in fact a new concept, or would you have a different perspective? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but our critics are saying that this is rushed. Despite the fact that Metro was created 44 years ago and it's had a number of intermediary steps of amalgamation since then, is this something new? Should we be delaying?

Mr Hirsh: No. It's time to amalgamate. It's time to bring a unified voice for Toronto, no question.

Mr Gilchrist: As you're probably aware, the same day that we introduced this bill we made it very clear that we will be bringing forward a bill that produces a Greater Toronto Services Board. In fact a very respected former civil servant, Mr Milt Farrell, is meeting with all of the GTA councils as we speak, and his work has to be done by March 31. To what extent do you see that body further integrating the planning issues in particular, because that's what affects your industry the most? What powers should it have to ensure that there aren't barriers at Steeles and at the Rouge park to development for your industry?

Mr Tom Stricker: Presently even in Metro we have some of those barriers when it comes to road widenings: The city of Toronto may not want one, Metro does want one, some of the citizens do, some don't. Those barriers exist within Metro right now.

In respect to the greater services board, transportation is a key, sewage, water, all those services have to be integrated, as well as recreation in my opinion. There are arenas outside of the area that are overused, arenas within Metro that are underused, and it goes right through the school system as well.

Mr Gilchrist: I think Mr Parker had a question.

Mr Parker: Just briefly. Thank you, Mr Hirsh. A lot of people have appeared in front of us and they've said: "What's the need for change? We were good enough for Fortune magazine as we are. Everything's just fine. Why don't you just leave things alone? What's the big rush to make all these changes?" To your mind, what would be the cost? What would be the consequence if we left things as they are?

Mr Hirsh: The consequence is that the costs, as we have to bear them as builders of this city, will continue to mount as more and more regulations and more and more zoning bylaws by seven different municipalities come into effect.

Mr Parker: You see potential for improvement if we amalgamate. In the case of your industry and in the case of the people who live here, how will they feel that benefit?

Mr Stricker: We see certain areas that are underutilized: York has a lot of areas, the Black Creek area, in the planning and development natures; in Scarborough you have the GM plant site; many areas along Eglinton Avenue that are underutilized. The unicity will help bring those areas, we believe, into a better workable performance. Those are the advantages. I think you'll see some neighbourhoods improved and you'll see other ones improve that are already fine. So overall, I believe the politics will settle it all out. The citizens will have a say on how their neighbourhoods are developed and the improvements will be there.

Mr Parker: Within Metro recently, one of the problems has been the loss of industry to the 905 area. Do you see amalgamation of the Metro municipalities as a means of helping to address that?

Mr Hirsh: I think we see clearly that a one-voice Toronto will serve to attract industry into the city. So I think definitely amalgamation will help that.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Gentlemen, what advice do you have for this committee in terms of the implementation of the new unified city? Many critics have pointed out that there are just going to be costs; there are no positive savings benefits. Could you provide us with some specific insight as to how you would see a new unified city coming about so that we do not end up necessarily replicating the behaviour of the old Metro government?

Mr Stricker: A trick question. I guess when we view it, we're viewing it from the building permit and planning application. I'm not sitting here as a citizen. It will be streamlined. It will be simplified. There should be more bang for the buck as the consistency is applied. Right now you have -- I don't like to say this -- different fiefdoms, if you want to call them that, or different areas that have pet procedures on how you do things. They're costly and they're not necessary, but they do them because they do them. I think over time that will be straightened out. That won't happen immediately. That will happen over probably a five-year period and a lot of this will be reorganized and restructured. The citizens just have to see that it's done sensibly.

1600

Mr Hastings: Are you confident, as you are in your statement, that there are savings in a new unified city? Many of the critics have used Mr Wendell Cox as the ultimate guru in city reorganization, particularly from the American perspective, and he has produced a report for the city of Toronto whose findings I somewhat question in terms of there hardly being any savings. He says if you are going to make attempts at savings, it has to be done on a contracted-out basis for many services. Your comments?

Mr Hirsh: Clearly, we're looking at this legislation from an industry point of view. As an industry, as builders and developers in the GTA, we will definitely experience cost savings. If you simply do some arithmetic on the number of positions, the number of councils, the number of layers in the existing system, there will be cost savings, absolutely.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward this morning to make your presentation.

SUSAN DRINKWALTER

The Chair: Would Susan Drinkwalter please come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Susan Drinkwalter: Ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for having me here today. My name is Susan Drinkwalter. I don't represent an association and I don't represent any special interest group. I'm just an ordinary citizen. I live in the city of York, I own a business in the city of Etobicoke, and I call Toronto my home.

I'm in favour of Bill 103, and I'm one of the silent majority that's probably being heard through this process. I grew up in the Annex in my early years, and when a teenager, my family moved to the High Park area. Then I began raising my own family in Swansea and Bloor West Village. These are the communities I grew up in within our GTA city. These are the neighbourhoods that I and all of us call our homes, and that's what we identify with.

Back in 1966 the provincial government of the day reduced the number of municipalities from 13 down to six. Neighbourhoods that we referred to back then, and also today, as Forest Hill, Long Branch, New Toronto, Swansea, Mimico, Weston and Leaside no longer had their own government, but did they really disappear? No, they didn't. Do people who live in those communities today still refer to them as Forest Hill and Leaside and Mimico and New Toronto? Yes, they do, because that's what they identify with.

Did life change when we went from 13 down to six municipalities? No. Why? Because we live in communities, we live in neighbourhoods, and it's the people who make it what it is. It's not the political structure. It's not the organizational structure.

Since our neighbourhoods will not change with this one Toronto or the megacity, what will change? In my mind, one major thing: It will cost less to run the city, and we will be able to provide services and equal benefits to all its citizens. The advantages as I see them are this:

(1) It's my understanding that the elected politicians will drop from 106 down to 44. I see this as a very good thing. I think we have far too many politicians to begin with, and I don't think there are many people who would think otherwise. Not only will we save in terms of their salaries, but we will also save in terms of their staff, in terms of their office space, their equipment and other overhead costs. Name a business today, mine included, that isn't trying to achieve that goal. Our elected representatives should be no different from us as business people and as citizens of this province. It will also mean that our citizens can make one telephone call and will not have to figure out who they have to call.

(2) One level of government will mean less duplication and overlap. Do we need six fire departments? No. Do we need six library systems? No. Do we need six garbage departments? No. Do we need six school boards? No. We do not need all this duplication.

(3) With a unified city, I believe we will have much more accountability. There will be no more passing the buck between the municipal systems.

(4) A unified city will provide cost savings. In the information I've read in the newspapers, it's my understanding that we're going to save in excess of $100 million in 1998 alone and much more beyond that. I think this is a very good thing and a very necessary thing.

(5) A unified city will end all the self-interests of the current system. They can then work together and provide a unified front. This would let us be in a much better position to bid for things like the Olympics or world fairs and other international events.

(6) As a business owner, I welcome these changes. Do we really need the nearly 200,000 bylaws currently in place? I don't believe we do.

(7) Also as a business owner, I want to know that I'm being treated the same way as other business owners in Toronto, in East York, in Scarborough and North York. Why should my taxes and my services be different and maybe put me at a disadvantage in a competitive situation?

As a mother of three children, I want them to grow up in a safe community, a community that is strong and is vibrant. I want to see Bill 103 pass because I would like to see a good plan for a unified city that will provide more community input and deal with the needs of and provide services for our communities and for our neighbourhoods.

In conclusion, this great city of Toronto, which I have called home my whole life, is one of the best cities in the world. I would like us to finish the job that was started in 1966 and move Toronto to even more greatness as we move into the next century. Thank you.

Mr Colle: I guess you would agree with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who says one of the reasons he supports the megacity is because we'd have a better chance at getting international events like the Olympics. I don't know if you're aware of the fact that Sydney, Australia, that just acquired the Olympics for the year 2000, is made up of 40 municipalities, none over 300,000 in size. They still got the Olympics. Also, Atlanta is not a unified city; they got the Olympics. Do you think that should be reason enough to push for a city when you don't need a megacity to get the Olympics, if that's what you want?

Ms Drinkwalter: I'm not so sure that those are the sole reasons Atlanta or other cities got the Olympics. I'm saying that if we don't work together as people in a more united front, which we are not doing now, that provides less opportunity for us to get those particular types of events in our city.

Talk to any citizen of this city and they don't know if they're supposed to call their city person or their Metro person. Street lights are changed by one department, street cleaning is done by another department, depending on what street you happen to live on. I think there is far too much duplication of services and that's where the emphasis should be. Yes, it would be great to have Olympics, but on the other hand, I'm more concerned about the day-to-day happenings for myself and for my family.

Mr Colle: I think you misunderstood the question. I said Atlanta --

Ms Drinkwalter: I didn't misunderstand the question.

Mr Colle: Atlanta is not a unified megacity and it got the Olympics. Sydney is a divided city.

Ms Drinkwalter: That's not the only thing that makes a decision in terms of getting the Olympics. They don't look at whether you're a unified city to make that decision. They look at all aspects. If you have one city that is going to work together in concert and not have this in-fighting between the different levels of government, you're in a better position to get those types of things.

I also know that when we're going after things like trade associations to come to this city, we need to be able to provide the best city possible. I believe we have far too much waste, far too much duplication, and we could be better spending the money elsewhere to attract more businesses, to attract more jobs and to attract more people to spend money in this city.

1610

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Thank you for your presentation. You call yourself an ordinary citizen and say you're looking for more accountability and more community input, yet the two previous speakers are against this community involvement. I'll read from their presentation: "However, giving the neighbourhood communities any planning-related powers is redundant and totally inconsistent with the goals of unification." So you're left out of it, right?

Ms Drinkwalter: First of all, they represent special interest groups. They obviously have a particular bent they're trying to present to this organization. I'm saying that as a mother, as a business owner, I would like to feel more connected to my community.

Mr Grandmaître: But don't you think the private sector represents special interests as well?

Ms Drinkwalter: I wouldn't totally disagree with that, but I also feel we need to take more control over our communities.

Mr Grandmaître: How would you like to participate in the process as an ordinary citizen?

Ms Drinkwalter: My understanding is that there will be more community committees put together.

Mr Grandmaître: But they're saying they're redundant.

Ms Drinkwalter: That's their opinion, and they're entitled to their opinion.

Mr Grandmaître: So you don't agree with it.

Ms Drinkwalter: I'm saying I would like to see more people involved in their communities and that's how I would like to participate. Rather than getting one opportunity once every four years to cast my vote for 103 politicians, I'd rather have fewer politicians and allow the people of the community, who have their own special requirements and needs, to represent themselves more fully than they do now.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Drinkwalter, for coming forward today and making your presentation.

ELIZABETH MACCALLUM

The Chair: Would Elizabeth MacCallum please come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Elizabeth MacCallum: Thank you for letting me speak today about Bill 103 and thank you also for extending the hearings to allow more people to participate in this important aspect of the democratic process. It is crucial not only that concerned citizens be allowed to speak, but that what we say be listened to and not be folded away unread in a binder.

My name is Elizabeth MacCallum. I grew up in Toronto and have spent most of my life here. However, what makes me appreciate Toronto the most is having lived in other cities around the world.

The city of Toronto and Metro Toronto are by no means perfect, but there is so much that is good here that any changes should be made after careful, well-measured studies and observations, not by a cobbled-together bill substantiated by a hasty, unconvincing study which doesn't even prove that there will be real savings. Already power is taken away from our elected officials before the bill is even passed, with the provincially appointed trustees who now control spending.

Perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs assumed that citizens of Toronto don't care about municipal and civic government because of low voter turnout during elections. This is indeed a problem that causes concern. Nevertheless, when troubles come to city residents they are quick to contact their ward councillors to complain and to ask for help. It is the most direct aspect of democracy we have.

Parking problems, traffic jams, traffic dangers to children, new inappropriate enterprises damaging neighbourhood functioning, the need for more green space, even the need for more trees on a street -- all these issues are brought to our local councillors, who ignore citizen requests at their peril. With the enlarged organization proposed by Bill 103 and with responsibility of officials to the provincial government rather than to residents, there will be no one who needs to heed local requests.

In the last year and a half since the devastating cuts to welfare payments, I have worked closely with refugees who are forced to try and live on welfare payments alone. Only a government detached, unresponsive and indeed ignorant of the reality of poverty could have imposed such destructive hardship. This is the same government which is trying to assure us that Bill 103's massive amalgamation will make a more efficient civic structure. It is hard to believe.

What the downloading of social services will do to the cities of Toronto and Etobicoke and Scarborough and other areas with large numbers of immigrants and poor is easy to divine. It will cause Toronto to bleed to death. Already, cutbacks in education, which certainly include the devastation of adult education, make it much harder for immigrants to regroup their strengths and skills to fulfil their potential and their goal of being contributing citizens.

More social service costs resulting from Bill 103 will force such high taxes that the already precarious businesses, particularly the small ones serving local needs, will be forced to move away entirely or will simply close down, thus adding even more to the welfare rolls.

Over the last few years, I have been meeting with groups of people, joined under the name Together, instigated by concern about the September 1995 welfare cuts. In our far-ranging discussions with a wide group of participants from different parts of Toronto and different walks of life, we talked about what we could do to help, even if we could not convince the government to implement a creative, constructive welfare service. It became increasingly clear how much people value neighbourhood life and how much people are willing to work to restore neighbourhoods as they were before, when we had more local businesses, shops and services. People want to know their neighbours and be able to help each other. Bill 103's proposals are completely contrary to these fundamental beliefs in a city composed of vibrant, unique neighbourhoods.

Bigger does not mean better, as I am sure countless speakers have already said to this committee. Bigger does not mean cheaper. Toronto does work and should not be destroyed.

One of the most worrying aspects of Bill 103 is the cavalier way in which the provincial government is virtually dismissing governments we have chosen by election. Democracy is as fragile as a healthy city and is tampered with only at great risk. If the provincial government can whisk away all those duly elected officials in city governments, what other aspects of due process of democracy can you whisk away? What precedents are you setting for any governments following in your footsteps, which may engage in equally rash actions against you?

When I lived for several years in London, before Mrs Thatcher took total control of the city and instigated the demise of local government, it was a great place to live because despite its size it functioned as a collection of villages, each with its own heart. Toronto neighbourhoods and wards are as close as we come to those villages and they safeguard the different ways of life found throughout Metro.

When I lived in Peking in the 1970s, one of the few expressions of local autonomy was the creation of little huts built on the boulevards as safe houses after the disastrous earthquakes of 1976. Rather than being stuck in apartments under the close surveillance of state-implemented neighbourhood committees which were not responsible to the local citizens, many people moved into these little mud cabins, decorated with geraniums and crocheted curtains, and stayed there for years. When they were forced to destroy them as part of a cleanup campaign before the Americans arrived after normalization, the anger was palpable. In fact, as I was photographing the process, a man, frustrated beyond endurance, threw a concrete block all the way across the street at me.

People care about their neighbourhoods everywhere in the world. In Canada, we are supposed to have due democratic process to protect our neighbourhoods, our cities and our rights. We are not supposed to be driven to throwing bricks. But if any of you have been to the innumerable "No Megacity" meetings held daily throughout the area affected by Bill 103, you will have realized that people are angry and determined and demand the respect due to citizens in a democracy.

Do not be overwhelmed by the need to save face and force through Bill 103. Take the high road. Reconsider what you are doing. You can only gain admiration and respect and save a healthy city which contributes to the wellbeing of all Ontario.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Ms MacCallum, I have to tell you that I've been very heartened by the many individual presentations we've had wishing to maintain local autonomy and the fear they have of losing it. You're one of many.

On page 3 you said, "Bigger does not mean better." I want to quote Mr Harris, who is present here today, and I'm happy he's here listening to the various testimonies of the different people. He said in Fergus, Ontario, in 1994: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride?" That's what he said then. "I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities." In 1994, he agreed with you. Things have changed a lot since then.

Ms MacCallum: And in a recent vote in Fergus and Elora they voted against amalgamation.

1620

Mr Marchese: You've heard a number of other people commenting on this whole issue of savings and you hear MPPs talk about that. One of them just talked disdainfully of this Wendell Cox presentation and his research. As far as I know, he's not a Liberal-minded person or a socialist, that I'm aware of. I think he's Conservative-leaning. He is not the only person who's researched this matter. He says, "Smaller governments are more accountable, smaller governments are more responsive, smaller local governments are more attuned to communities and neighbourhoods, and larger governments are more susceptible to special interests," and by that he means people with wealth who are able to influence those politicians.

He and other professors who have researched this in Canada and the US and the world have noted that when you amalgamate, the costs are bigger. Who are you tempted to believe, those who have gut feelings that somehow there are going to be savings, like the home builders and the Urban Development Institute, or do you believe people who have researched this matter and have come to the conclusion that there are no savings?

Ms MacCallum: Clearly, people who have researched the matter have a better understanding. I know that the Halifax-Dartmouth amalgamation has not saved money. Furthermore, there's more than savings involved in the changes.

Mr Marchese: I'm concerned about many things, but I suspect this government will want to save face and in the end they will make some changes to this bill. They will probably diminish the powers of the trustees because many people have been horrified by the powers they have. Would that satisfy you, if they simply make changes to that bill, or does the whole bill bother you?

Ms MacCallum: That wouldn't be sufficient to make the bill worth saving. There are too many aspects of it that are not respectful of democracy and are too autocratic. If you've ever lived in a country that is not democratic, you see what can happen very quickly.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms MacCallum, for coming forward to make your presentation today.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

The Chair: Would Judy Darcy please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. Before you begin, could everyone at the table please introduce themselves?

Ms Judy Darcy: I'm Judy Darcy, national president, Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Mr Brian Cochrane: Brian Cochrane, president of Local 94, North York Civic Employees Union.

Mr Rob Rolfe: I'm Rob Rolfe. I'm the acting vice-president of Local 771, North York Public Library Employees Union.

Ms Darcy: We, the Central Advisory Committee of CUPE locals, are very pleased to be here today on behalf of municipal workers in Metro Toronto, and we welcome this opportunity to be able to present our views. We represent the front-line workers who deliver valuable services to the communities that make up Metro Toronto. What we have to say about Bill 103 could easily take hours; we have 15 minutes, so I'll give you the Coles Notes version.

We believe Bill 103 is a prescription to privatize public services; we believe that Bill 103 is a prescription to wipe out thousands of valuable public service jobs; and we believe that Bill 103 is also a prescription for taking power away from the people and the politicians who have been democratically elected by them at the local level and placing power in the hands of unelected provincial government appointees.

We represent, as I said, front-line workers, 30,000 of them, who work directly for municipalities in Metro Toronto, 65% of the entire municipal workforce. Fifty-five per cent of those members are employed directly by city or borough governments as well as regional government, and the remainder work for other local boards that will also be affected by this bill, like library workers, boards of health and so on.

Our members are child care workers, we are ambulance attendants, we repair roads, we inspect buildings, we repair hydro lines, we collect garbage, we care for senior citizens in Metro's homes for the aged, we care for the homeless in shelters, we provide services to business, we provide services to homeowners, we provide services to the poor, we are library workers, we are water and sewage treatment plant workers, public health workers, and we work in dozens of other occupations.

I'm pleased that Premier Mike Harris is here today. I can't believe I actually said that, Premier, but maybe we'll turn you right around today. I hope that's the case. But I am pleased that the Premier is here today because we are also the people who Premier Harris said will be the ones expected to make sacrifices in the new Metro Toronto.

We are proud of the services our members provide to the people of these communities. We work hard. We pay taxes like everybody else. We raise our children in these communities. We rely on public services. We also know that our communities value the services we provide.

The first issue I want to talk about is privatization, because this government has made no secret of its desire to both downsize government and reduce spending on public services. It claims that the megacity will improve public services while saving money for taxpayers when nothing could be further from the truth. The forced amalgamation of Metro municipalities, coupled with massive downloading of costs for welfare, long-term care, social housing, ambulance, water, child care and so on, together with a lot of other areas, on to the municipal budget will force taxpayers to pay more while we believe it will also open up public services to takeovers from corporate contractors.

How will Metro taxpayers and residents of Metro pay for the added cost of downloading services? The estimates run from $379 million to over $500 million, and that's without getting into the $600-million estimated lost revenue from business occupancy taxes. Will they pay through higher taxes? Will they pay through user fees? Will they pay through lower quality and less accessible services? We have no doubt that it will be through all of the above.

The amalgamation of Metro municipalities will not produce the savings to offset this downloading. Indeed, the cost to taxpayers will be a whole lot higher. Many other people before us have spoken about those costs. The transition costs are estimated at $220 million. In the case of Halifax, amalgamation costs were double what was expected and property taxes have gone up for most residents. The same scenario in Metro Toronto would produce transition costs approaching half a billion dollars as well as hefty property tax increases, not to mention user fees.

Yet the provincial government insists over and over again that savings will be achieved. Why the apparent contradiction? We would put to you that it is because the government is not telling the truth about where the real savings are going to come from.

I want to refer to the KPMG study, commissioned by the government and paid for by the government, which appears to be the basis of its estimates. This KPMG study claims that consolidation of services and political offices will account for approximately one third of the savings and two thirds of the savings will come from what are referred to as so-called efficiency enhancements.

Concretely, a major strategy that KPMG proposes in the study for achieving these efficiencies is contracting out public services to the private sector or forcing municipal employees to engage in a process referred to as competitive bidding in an attempt to save their jobs. When we couple this with the knowledge that the government is considering, has considered, removing successor rights and also legislating overrides for collective agreement provisions that deal with protections for employees in the event of privatization, we are deeply concerned about what the future will hold. And it's not just public employees who should be concerned.

Did this government ask the people of Metro Toronto whether they want public services privatized? Did this government ask the people of Metro if they want homes for the aged turned into profit-making corporations at the expense of dignity and self-respect for our seniors? Did the government ask the people of Metro Toronto if they want to see their water treatment or sewage treatment plants sold off to the private sector? Do the people of Metro Toronto even know that the KPMG report recommends reducing the number of ambulance stations from 36 to three? We don't think so. Do the people of Metro Toronto want to see these human services sold off to people like the giant Laidlaw corporation, which is already in the wings anxiously awaiting the opportunity to be able to make further profits by adding Metro's emergency vehicle fleet to its ever-growing ambulance fleet? Laidlaw are the people who are best known for hauling garbage.

1630

This is exactly what is at stake with the megacity, and this government does not want to listen to the will of the people on these issues. The people of Metro Toronto, through their elected local politicians, have made choices, including choices to maintain public control over most of their public services, but we believe the takeover of those services by the private sector is the goal of this government and is part of the hidden agenda of this bill.

Many people have already spoken about the issue of the powers that are proposed for the board of trustees and the transition team, which we believe are extremely dangerous to all residents of Metro who value their public services.

Bill 103 will not save municipalities millions of dollars, but it may well make millionaires of some of the friends of this government. We know that in the long run privatization of public service delivery often means more costly services as private contractors attempt to increase profits. We know it means lower-quality services when contractors cut corners to improve their bottom line. We know it means reduced accessibility to services and less accountability to the public. We know it means more user fees, less public input and it means that our local government becomes more dependent on the private sector and also less resourceful and less flexible as far as how they provide services.

The public sector can deliver cost-efficient, quality services and avoid the problems associated with privatization. We would just put out a couple of examples to you. In East York recently, there was a pilot project to contract out garbage collection to the private sector. At the conclusion of that pilot project, a decision has been made to bring that work back in-house because it can be done every bit as efficiently. If we look also at North York, there we have twice-weekly garbage collection which costs each resident a mere $5 more a year compared to once-a-week collection in other Metro municipalities.

CUPE members, municipal employees, despite what the Premier may want to say about them, have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to work with municipal employers in order to bring about greater efficiency and greater productivity. In several CUPE municipal collective agreements negotiated in Metro Toronto this past year, there have been joint committees established between CUPE members and employers precisely to work together to seek out efficiencies and productivity. We have shown our commitment. We fear this government's commitment is not to the improvement of services but to eliminating them or privatizing them.

For those who are unaware of what is at stake if this bill and the rest of the Tory agenda that goes along with it goes ahead and for those who cannot imagine communities without good, affordable and accessible public services, we say, "Think Detroit, think inner-city New York, think Chicago, think Los Angeles; that's where our cities are headed."

The Premier says there will be less government as a result of Bill 103. He also said on January 21, and he said it unfortunately with a certain boasting tone in his voice, that yes, some CUPE members will lose their jobs. The KPMG report states that 4,500 jobs will be eliminated. If you will excuse the pun, we believe this estimate is a very conservative one and that the government has wildly underestimated the figures. But we ask: What will happen to those unemployed when they lose their jobs? What impact will that job loss have on the local economy?

We also say that we make absolutely no apology for fighting to protect our members' jobs. We make no apology for wanting good, decent-paying jobs for public sector workers, and we say also that those jobs benefit our community and our local economy as well as the people who hold those jobs. If anyone should apologize, we believe it's this government that should apologize for the outrageous statements it has made about public sector workers and also apologize to the citizens of Metro Toronto, who will be robbed of valuable services if this goes through.

KPMG stated in its report that the 10% reduction in the workforce will be accomplished through attrition. That is simply not possible without taking a major toll on services. In the last three years, Local 79 of CUPE, representing workers at the city of Toronto and the municipality of Metro Toronto, has already seen a decrease of 1,000 positions, largely through attrition, buyouts, and early retirement packages. North York has recently seen a reduction of 300 positions. City governments throughout Metro have been streamlining their services for the last several years and there is very little room left for voluntary exits. Further cuts in the workforce will certainly result not just in layoffs but also in a major reduction of services.

A recent poll on the megacity showed that the majority of citizens -- not CUPE members -- in Metro Toronto do not want public sector workers to suffer as a result of amalgamation. They do not want the government to eliminate thousands of municipal employees' jobs or cut their wages and benefits. They do not want to see $14-an-hour jobs replaced with minimum-wage jobs and see public employees forced into a bidding war with each other, saying, "I'll work for $12 an hour." "I'll work for $10." "I'll work for $8" -- "Sold to the lowest bidder." This government may be looking for blood from public employees, but the public is not.

This government is threatening public sector workers in ways that are not supported by the public. This government is paving the way for privatization of services that the people want kept in public hands.

The Chair: Ms Darcy, just to remind you, you're into your final minutes.

Ms Darcy: I'm wrapping up. Let me just conclude with two things; one is a quote that may seem familiar on the government side of the House, and that quote is, "Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province, rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does."

If those words do not come as a surprise on the Conservative side of the room, it's because they come from a document called Your Ontario, Your Choice, a government document of last fall that also quotes the Premier widely. We say it is time that Premier Harris started to walk his talk.

We are very pleased to have been able to have this opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of CUPE members, on behalf of public employees, who will not sit by and see public services in this community reduced, see jobs eliminated or see democratic rights trampled.

This government's agenda is simply not going to sail through without the continued opposition not just of public employees but, as you have heard on many occasions before you, hundreds and thousands of citizens throughout this community.

On behalf of the 30,000 working women and men who will be directly affected by this proposed legislation, and also on behalf of our 180,000 members in the province of Ontario and 460,000 members from across the country who are also watching these events very closely, we thank you for the opportunity to address you today, and we say that we're very proud to join with the citizens of Metro Toronto in standing up for public services, in standing up for decent jobs, in standing up for democracy and in standing up for the future of our community.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making a presentation today. We've come to the end of the time, I'm sorry.

Ms Darcy: The Premier doesn't have any questions?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I've got lots of questions.

The Chair: He may, but he may have to ask them at another time.

Ms Darcy: Fifteen minutes isn't a lot of time for 30,000 people.

Mr Colle: I move we allow 10 minutes for the Premier to talk.

The Chair: I heard a no. I'm sorry. Thank you very much for coming forward today.

1640

SWANSEA AREA RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Would representatives from the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Roberts. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes today to make your presentation.

Mr William Roberts: We want to thank you for allowing us to speak today. For those who may not be aware, the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association predated the existence of Swansea and has continued to exist after Swansea was amalgamated with Forest Hill in Toronto.

I want say at the beginning that we do not support the proposal as it's presently worded. We find a sufficient lack of specificity in regard to the neighbourhood committees to guarantee that neighbourhoods will thrive, not just survive.

A place name does not a healthy neighbourhood make. That a name may continue to be associated with an area does not mean the area is healthy. Neighbourhoods can be encouraged or discouraged and some will survive no matter what, just as some plants will survive no matter how little attention a gardener gives the garden.

We could find no references to community or ward committees, unless they are subsumed within the category of neighbourhood committees. The only references to neighbourhood committees we could find were that they were not local boards, that city council shall establish neighbourhood committees and that a transition team will hold public consultation on them. The doctrine "delegata potestas non potest non delegari" applies here. These committees will only be advisory, without any real legal power to enhance and nurture neighbourhoods.

We could of course simply attack the proposal. Instead, we wish to explain the weakness in the legislation and suggest possible solutions which are designed to carry out the intent of ensuring neighbourhood enhancement.

Wards: We recommend smaller wards not to exceed approximately 30,000 residents or three wards per electoral district. The move towards a macropolitical unit needs to be balanced at the ward level. Wards should not be so large that they are too large to reflect the local character of an area. The proposed ward size of 50,000 residents would encompass five or more neighbourhoods, while a ward of 30,000 residents would encompass somewhere between two and three neighbourhoods. The proposed ward committees, which are not legislated, do not provide a sufficiently strong counterbalance to the centrist drive that would be reflected in a 45-member council and its central bureaucracy.

But 44 councillors is a large council. The addition of approximately 22 further councillors would not change this, but balances off the new large municipality. You will still have halved the number of politicians and more than half the support staff.

Given the smaller ward size, there should be no need for executive assistants. City councillors will not be able to avoid residents by hiding behind a shield of executive assistants.

If certain functions are legislated into the hands of area/district boards/councils, our term for neighbourhood committees made up of elected councillors, then it is our belief that the council will still be effective.

Wards should reflect distinct geographic and economic areas and should not be arbitrarily related to electoral districts.

It should be remembered that when the dominion/provincial ridings were created, in many cases boundaries followed existing municipal boundaries and thereby cut through cultural and economic areas. In some cases, the dominion/provincial riding boundary within the existing municipalities cut through existing neighbourhoods such as Parkdale and the Junction in the west end of the city. By honouring the new dominion/provincial riding boundaries, you will not reflect or bring together existing neighbourhoods. This creates an obstacle and, if compounded with large wards, a distinct threat to the existence of healthy neighbourhoods.

By requiring there to be two wards based on the electoral boundaries, the inequities will be ossified into the legislation.

Smaller wards increase accountability of councillors by reducing the need for support staff and the cost of getting elected. We do not have to explain to those of you who have run for office that the costs of getting elected and the dependency on political parties, unions, fund-raisers etc increase as the number of voters increases.

The issue is not the number of politicians per se but the amount paid to them and their assistants. Reducing the number of politicians does not necessarily result in significant savings and in some cases actually increases the cost where the salaries of the remaining politicians are increased to reflect the increased workload and additional assistants are added to their staffs.

Most recently, with the direct election to Metro the number of politicians at the city level dropped from 22 city councillors, including indirectly elected Metro councillors, and one mayor to 16 city councillors and one mayor, plus eight Metro councillors. In addition, the local politicians, on the basis that they were now responsible for more persons, had executive assistants added to their staff. Before the 1988 changes, such assistants were assigned only to members of the executive and the mayor because of their extra duties. It was assumed that city councillors would be able to directly deal with their constituents and the problems within their wards. After 1988, the total salaries increased. In effect, the electorate now pays for persons they cannot directly turf out, and the politicians have become more remote. Executive assistants can at times be nothing but human voice mail designed to keep the public from the elected politician.

In tying wards to electoral districts, will not wards have to be changed when the electoral districts change in 10 years? It is not desirable that the total number councillors should be tied into external changes relating to provincial or dominion policy rather than the need to provide local accountable government.

Wards should be combined into district/area boards/councils which may or may not always relate to existing municipalities. The legislation should not leave this issue to be dealt with by the transition team. A minimum/maximum number of councillors should be set out, depending on the duties given to these boards and councils.

I'm going to skip some of the issues that I talk about here and move on.

It is recommended that area/district board/councils be set up with a minimum of 120,000 to a maximum of 500,000 residents, with specific duties given to these area or district boards or councils. The minimum size will be dependent on duties assigned.

From the day Swansea was amalgamated with the city of Toronto and the village of Forest Hill, there were pressures on the village to conform to the larger view. These were resisted. In our experience one of the critical issues in helping to give a sense of community to the Swansea area was having zoning bylaws reflect the character of built form. This has been a constant point of dispute from time to time, with the drive from some city departments to have a centralized bylaw into a one-size-fits-all, easier to administer for the bureaucrats bylaw.

Ensuring that cultural, recreational and meeting space was available to the area; fighting to keep the Swansea Memorial Library -- as I say, I'm skipping this because of the time frames here.

Based on our experience we strongly recommend that the powers we have found necessary to enhance neighbourhoods be set out in the legislation. The minimum duties which should be assigned in the legislation to the area/district boards/councils should be as follows, in order to ensure healthy neighbourhoods as has been promised:

Zoning and building: enforcement and planning and local official plans to reflect local neighbourhood issues;

Parks and recreation: to allow communities to decide what services they and need;

Libraries;

Local roads: parking regulations can significantly impact on local businesses and neighbourhoods and should reflect local requirements.

The new city of Toronto need not have a final say on such matters if the province so decides; however, should the province wish to give control to the city council, the decisions of area/district boards/councils should only be overruled by a two-thirds vote of all city councillors. The precedence for requiring a higher standard to overrule planning bodies existed in the previous planning legislation, where planning boards could be overridden by a two-thirds vote of council.

Certain duties assigned to councils under the Planning Act should be assigned under the legislation to the area/district boards/councils; for example, the holding of zoning and official plan hearings and committee of adjustment decisions with a level of finality that gives credibility to the process. If the area/district boards and councils can be overruled easily by a bare majority of the city council, then you will still have councillors far removed from the area making decisions affecting an area which they have little or no knowledge of.

Also, under the Planning Act only councils have certain responsibilities, and unless the power to deal with these is legislated to area/district boards and councils, they will not be legally able to hold official hearings. The new city council will have to hold deliberations for the whole of the city in regard to planning and zoning. If the neighbourhood committees presently referred to in the legislation hold such hearings, they will be recommendations only, with no finality, and as a result will be viewed as sham public processes.

By allowing a two-thirds override vote, you could achieve the balance to ensure that if an area or district board gets too far out of balance with the overall goals, then council can intervene, while providing certainty at the area/district board/council level.

Hiring and firing of staff should be the responsibility of area/district boards/councils and the legislation should reflect this. Overall budget and staffing could be a responsibility of city council.

To explain to you, in the 1970s, the city of Toronto planning board had their own staff. When these were removed from the planning board, at one point when there was a dispute between the planning board and the city of Toronto, the staff withdrew themselves on the basis that there was a conflict of interest, and they had to follow their employer's dictates. I can easily see the same thing happening when an area/board or council of politicians makes a recommendation, asks the planners to produce a report and they say, "Sorry, the council says we can't," and walks away from the room.

There are examples today of staff reporting to boards, whether they are community centre boards or other boards, where the budget is set by the main body but the staff can be hired and fired by the board. If the board hires and fires the staff, they can't walk away, even if the budget is set by the larger body.

We oppose the creation of a mega head of council. The costs and the rest of it will simply create a superpolitician.

Basically the problems right now date back to attempts to improve the 1953 model. It began with the amalgamation of the municipalities into larger units, but it actually got to the point when there was a decision to have a direct election, which at that time was going to improve voter involvement. It didn't. It increased the confusion. Swansea actually opposed that. We felt that all it would do is duplicate services, increase the pay for politicians and the first thing the politician would do was build a mega-monument to themselves. We were told we were wrong. It turned out we were right.

With all due respect to those who see the magicked as the new Jerusalem and a miracle on earth, we can only suggest that unfortunately to date it seems that the proponents have yet to receive a revelation not dissimilar to that Saul received on the road to Damascus. Please remember, the path to hell was paved with good intentions.

While what exists now has serious problems -- the lack of specificity in the proposed legislation; the failure to delineate the duties under the Planning Act for the neighbourhood committees -- the failure to indicate how neighbourhoods will be allowed to thrive not just survive makes the path laid out to date a living hell on earth for communities and neighbourhoods that will be left to struggle on their own against the doctrinaire forces of the "big picture" and "one size fits all," who have no use for the middle class, families or other impediments to the "greater good."

1650

It should be noted that those who support the magicked often cite how there will be one set of rules and that the small businesses and small homeowners will no longer have influence with city council. If the persons who inhabit neighbourhoods will no longer have a say in how their areas operate in the face of the need of the greater good, then why should they struggle and not simply move away, as has happened in so many American cities? Toronto's small homeowners and storekeepers choose to stay and fight, not flee, but with no effective tools, why would anyone stay?

This is not the first time the small land owners have been attacked as an impediment to the greater good. One only has to think of the 1920s and 1930s in Russia where Stalin attacked the small farmers as a special interest group blocking the greater and stronger collective that would make Mother Russia a world power. We all know how bankrupt the great collectives became when the government mandated rather than the community grew and created.

While some may view ratepayer and residents' associations as only another special interest group, they have a long history in Toronto and the British Commonwealth. Ward councils appointed by local councillors will not have the same effect but will turn such organizations into political organizations resembling more closely the Tammany Hall form of government than that which has grown up in Ontario and fostered a strong sense of community. We ask you to carefully review the draft legislation, given its failure to clearly set out the duties and obligations of what is to replace the present system.

What follows is a summary, and after that there's a brief curriculum vitae relating to me and at the very back -- I'll just point this out quickly to you. One of the books I have was published in 1898 and it shows the 1897 budget of the city of Toronto. Roughly 74% went to fire, police and schools; 2% went to the politicians. What exactly is new with the budgetary things now? That was a single monetary council operating at a time when you didn't have all the services. A hundred years later, we're still dealing with the same problems. That, basically, is the submission.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Roberts, I'm very interested in the argument about the number of people a councillor can serve. When I was a member of Mississauga city council I had 51,000 and I served at the same time as a member of Peel regional council. I wonder whether you have any strong evidence about the problem with that, because frankly it was not a problem for any of us. We obviously gave excellent representation because those councils were always re-elected.

Mr Roberts: I could make three quick comments on that. One is, when Swansea was a village we had about eight local councillors, a deputy reeve and reeve who were all part-time, didn't get large salaries, and it worked quite well. We didn't have a big bureaucracy because the politicians performed the functions some of the bureaucrats performed.

In Toronto, as the wards got bigger, what we've noticed over the last six years is the politicians are more remote. What you've got to understand in an area like Toronto is, the neighbourhoods grew up on their own. They're not homogeneous, they're not new, they have unique problems relating. You can look at the difference between south Etobicoke and north Etobicoke. What works in north Etobicoke won't necessarily work in south Etobicoke; what works in Parkdale will not necessarily work in Swansea and vice versa.

What we have found with the larger wards is it's easier for those councillors to get re-elected because the mere cost to remove a politician, as is found in the American studies -- the more expensive it becomes to remove the politician, the easier it is for the politician who is in place and has his political machinery in place to remain in place. It's much harder for grass-roots movements to come out of an area and defeat that politician simply because one small area will not necessarily be able to mobilize the votes to take out a larger area.

The larger the wards got, the more remote the politicians got, in our experience in Toronto, and since you're applying this in the Toronto area, I've got to go from my experience in Toronto, not the experience in Mississauga.

Mrs Marland: The experience in Mississauga is based on an amalgamation 22 years ago of 13 different boroughs and towns. It's been well demonstrated I think that there are exactly what you said. There are local interests within all of those communities and those local interests have been very well addressed.

Mr Roberts: I have actually represented a couple of ratepayer groups in that area and I wouldn't necessarily agree that is their viewpoint. What they really believed was they could get some things done but they couldn't really resist the major forces.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Roberts, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

JACK DIAMOND

The Chair: Would Jack Diamond please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Diamond. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes to make a presentation. If there is some time left over at the end, I'll ask the Liberal caucus to ask questions.

Mr Jack Diamond: Thank you. I don't have a written statement to hand out. The subject is a vast one and I won't be dealing with all of it. It can't be done in the time and quite honestly I don't think the time assigned to the consideration of this bill is sufficient either, just as I don't have enough time to deal with it all.

I want to deal with a few items. Let me deal with the first one and that's the question of the principle, in my view, that wealth distribution functions should not be placed on the property tax. That's the first principle. Quite clearly, wealth distribution functions in terms of progressive income tax ought to be dealt with by governments that have a much wider scope and scale, such as the provincial and federal governments. Putting welfare, which is a wealth distribution function, on real estate will have three negative effects.

First of all, it creates unpredictability which will exacerbate the economic swings. I speak here not simply as an architect and a planner but as an owner of commercial property in the downtown. Second, it is obviously, by every calculation made, too great a load for the municipalities to bear. They can't borrow, a consequence which I'll deal with. Third, I think it's going to create distortions in the property market.

I am one of those who very much favours the whole notion of an even assessment for taxation across the GTA and across the province, but that even assessment, the reform to even assessment, will be more than wiped out by the fact that Metro will have a far greater load to bear than many municipalities, so these distortions will be exacerbated by swings. During a recession, welfare costs go up, therefore real estate taxes will go up. That's a crazy way to run a railroad. That isn't the way in which real estate ought to be dealing with those kinds of income redistribution problems.

Second, and I said I would deal with it, as municipalities cannot borrow, they can do one of two things: They can raise taxes or cut services. Whether you do one or the other or a combination of the two, businesses and residents will move out. We have a serious problem if we tamper with the engine of Toronto, GTA, the provincial and even the Canadian economy.

Let me tell you something interesting that we found out because I'm a former commissioner of the GTA Task Force report with the Golden commission. We looked at what the business advantages are of Toronto. When we looked at and talked to the locater companies in Chicago and in Geneva, they said to us: "You've got good access to markets. You've got a good workforce. You've got good transportation. You're better than most in telecommunications. But 12 of the cities that have more than four million in North American have those. You have a quality of life that is your business advantage."

We all know what those are -- health and education -- but let me tell you what some of the more compelling ones are: security and our entertainment sector. If we have good residential neighbourhoods -- and those are under threat -- and we lose our security, I can tell you that Toronto, which is after New York the most important financial centre in North America, will be at a business disadvantage. So this question of downloading on to the municipalities, I don't think the effects are well enough understood that we challenge and put at risk one of the most important geese that lays the golden eggs for this province. That's the first point.

The second point is that obviously I don't believe Bill 103 has disentangled. All it's done is to shift the proportions of who bears what. It's not clear where the responsibilities lie. It hasn't been clear about shifting it so that people understand exactly who pays and who does what, so that's just as confused and I think inappropriate in scale, as I've said, in terms of downloading welfare.

1700

The bill is intended obviously for cost-efficiencies and effectiveness. It absolutely ignores what we found to be one of the significant issues about cost savings, and that's in the shape and form of the development of the area. That is the question of density, of infrastructure costs, of the long-term benefits of seeing to it we have a reasonable compactness and an effective utilization of our strategic investments. One billion a year will be the extra cost if we don't do it properly.

The kind of penny ante stuff that has been looked at by saving a few fire chiefs, which every expert has said that above a million people you don't have economies of scale, will be absolutely distorted by the continuing loss of control in terms of urban form. I think if we want to look at real cost savings, we need to look at this again.

There is a second and final point I want to make that is, to me, much bigger than all of this. I think one of the distinguishing features of Canadian society is our social equity. It's a very exceptional balance that's been struck. I came to this country as an immigrant, and I think it is a magnificent one. This country has social equity. That balance is a delicate one. Not many countries in the world have struck it.

If we take too much money out of the public sector, if we distort those levels of private and public interests that we have, and it's an amazing balance between private interests and public interests, if they only go to private interests, we lose that balance and I think we lose the distinguishing and one of the most extraordinary achievements of Canadian society.

I've kept it brief. I'd be happy to answer questions.

It seems to me, in conclusion, I really urge a reconsideration of withdrawal of Bill 103, because the stakes are simply too high for us to risk on a possibility that it may or may not work. Let's have a time to reconsider Crombie, Golden and Bill 103, all of them, among reasonable people, with the intention of making this society work decently. I think we need to take the time. Withdraw the bill and let's get to it. We can do it in six months, I'm sure.

Mr Colle: Given Mr Diamond's hard work with the Golden commission, I'm going to give an opportunity to the Premier to perhaps respond to your important comments and maybe ask you some questions. I'll give up my time to the Premier.

The Chair: If anyone on the government caucus wants to ask questions, that's totally up to them.

Hon Mr Harris: I'll ask one. I appreciate your comments on welfare but 103 has nothing to do with welfare. But it is an issue that I think is important and I agree with you on the importance for job creation and the economic advantage of our social programs. I think the excellence and affordability of health care, of quality of life beyond just health care, and welfare, as you talked about it --

Mr Diamond: Is our business advantage.

Hon Mr Harris: -- is a tremendous attraction to business, and I think we share a goal of trying to strengthen and enhance that. I just want to assure you of that.

A lot of your comments had to do with that part of it, which is Who Does What, which deals with the whole province. I understand there are some who disagree with whether we can accomplish that the way we're going. We do have six months or a year, close to a year, to work on that with municipalities and our municipal partners.

To deal with whether it will be one city with 40 or 50 neighbourhood community inputs or four cities -- I think as the Golden commissioners who were on talked about -- it didn't reference but I think it was clear you were looking at units that would lead to about four cities. That's an issue that if it's not decided in time for elections this fall goes to the year 2000. It could be caught up in another provincial election. Many say it's 10 years away that there's a window to deal with it. I think Golden was very explicit that if you don't deal with it now, it may never get done. So I am concerned about that aspect of it.

I wonder if I could ask you about what I think was a very important recommendation of Golden, and that is the relationship of Metro, whether it's one city or four cities, with the GTA and the efficiencies that need to be gained there in more seamless service deliveries, whether you have any advice or comments, because that is to be negotiated and worked out and is key at the same time as we move ahead with Metro.

Mr Diamond: The reason I dealt with these other issues is that it's my view, and as you know, Premier, I put this forward on the GTA report, that these elements cannot be dealt with in isolation. It's a highly integrated question. Land use planning, governance and taxation, if they're seen separately -- it's easy to solve one without the other, but the fact is, the reality is that they're all integrated, and we haven't been dealing with them on an integrated basis. That's why I think it's not wise to have Bill 103 go forward before the other questions are resolved. They have to be put together.

The problems with amalgamation are many, and they are, in my view, that they don't deal as a priority with the question of the GTA and its relationships. That should be the priority, not the amalgamation. The amalgamation of Metro is a non-problem. It has not resolved the question of the large urban area. In fact what the cynical might say is that all that is happening is to create an entity large enough to accept an inappropriate burden of welfare. It's nothing to do with cost savings or inefficiencies.

Hon Mr Harris: But we're asking North Bay to take welfare with 50,000, and Callander --

Mr Diamond: I understand that, but they have a different --

Hon Mr Harris: That has nothing to do with --

The Chair: Excuse me, gentlemen.

Mr Diamond: I understand that. If I can just finish.

The Chair: Mr Diamond, can you finish up? We've just gone beyond the time.

Mr Diamond: I know I have limited time, but I have to answer the Premier's question, if I might.

The issue of local access is crucial in terms of small government. We need a federation of municipalities. We also need competition between small entities. The answer ought to be how small is the unit of government we can make, not how big. I think you would agree with that. That would be a consistent position for a Conservative government to take. Instead of amalgamating the municipalities into one large component of 53,000 citizens for one council representative versus 23,000 now, and in your riding of North Bay 5,000 -- it's interesting to make those comparisons -- we need local representation, government as small as possible. And the local governments, in my view, ought to be able set the mill rate with an even assessment so they can demonstrate how efficient they are.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Mr Diamond, but we've gone beyond your allotted time. I want to thank you for coming forward and making a presentation.

Mr Diamond: There's more.

The Chair: Would James Binnie please come forward. Not here.

BRENT HAWKES

The Chair: Brent Hawkes. Good afternoon, Mr Hawkes. Welcome to the committee.

Rev Brent Hawkes: I've been practising with my congregation the last few Sundays, trying to preach a 10-minute sermon so I can get all this in, so I should be able to do my best.

Interjection: Is that shorter or longer?

Mr Hawkes: Shorter than usual. I also appreciate the opportunity to appear before the members of the Legislature and not have to yell from the galleries to catch their attention. I appreciate this opportunity.

I want to begin by declaring that I have not been coached by John Sewell and I have never been a chauffeur for any politician, but I had been a candidate for the NDP in the last provincial election. Some folks are blaming me for this legislation, that if I'd worked harder and won, they might not have had it, but I don't take any blame for this.

What we do have to recognize is the worldwide support for the quality of life here in the city of Toronto, that everything can be improved and should be improved; improve, yes, dismantle, no. I concede that sometimes perceptions and reality are not the same things, but I want to share with you some of the perceptions, some of the feelings of my congregation and I believe many people in the city of Toronto.

It feels like -- and again this may not be reality, but it's the perception -- a big, insensitive machine is rolling along, squashing everything in sight it doesn't approve of. It feels like the studies are being ignored because they don't say what you wanted them to say. It feels like your mind is made up and these hearings are but a necessary evil you have to put up with. It feels like you've gone against the various studies and at the last minute thrown in a recommendation on amalgamation out of the blue and caught people by surprise. It feels like financial savings have become a god in an idolater's way that everything else can be sacrificed to. It feels like you're risking the future of our cities on a gamble that's not even a smart bet. Will this destroy the health of downtown Toronto or not?

Toronto is a great city, and it's a great city of various minority groups. Local government has many advantages. It helps us to get along with each other, because we feel welcomed, we feel empowered and we feel a part of the city of Toronto as we know it. At the city level, on the whole, people feel their voices are heard, that someone will listen to them when a crisis arises. This happens at the local government level; it does not happen as well at Metro or provincial and federal levels.

The move to remove the local level of government -- the higher the number of constituents a politician represents makes it less accessible for individual citizens and organizations and the fewer times we see our elected politicians and the fewer times we hear from our elected politicians. When people lose access, they feel that no one listens, that no one cares, and when they feel they have no say, they feel frustrated and tensions rise. None of us wants the kind of tensions that we see in many American cities.

1710

It was the city of Toronto that was the first government to give employment protection to gay and lesbian employees. It took Metro another 20 years to hear the concern and respond, and it took the province 14 more years to take action. It was the city of Toronto that spent money to have a study done about the relationship between the police and the gay and lesbian community when violence was increasing after the bath raids in 1981. Neither Metro nor the province would act, and as a result of the city's action, the recommendations that came out of the study have greatly improved the relationships between the police and the gay and lesbian community. In fact, I think now we're one of the model cities in North America for that kind of relationship. It is the mayor of the city of Toronto who shows up at our community activities and major events, not the chair of Metro council and not the Premier of the province.

I could also give examples with respect to the funding of the arts, the funding of AIDS support, the support for cultural diversity, which I feel are greater at the local level. These are just a few examples of how local government has been more responsive government.

You've heard many other examples from people who do a much better job than I'm doing at presenting the case against forced amalgamation.

I want to ask how we can get out of this mess, because I feel like we're in a mess. There are sides drawn and that it's difficult to get out of the mess. How can government really hear and respond to the citizens' concerns while saving face and while pushing for the kinds of reforms that government members want to see? How can we get out of the mess?

I'm sometimes accused of being naïve, but I think there is a way out of this mess. As a pastor of a large congregation, there have been occasions when I have proposed something and pushed it and then realized I needed to back off, to admit that I acted in haste even with the best of intentions. I then had to set up a process for true consultation in order to achieve a better result and to get more buy-in. Whenever I've had to back off in this way, I have always been greeted with support and even admiration by the folks who have seen that kind of shift.

I would never counsel a mutiny among the backbenchers, especially since the Premier was almost still here to hear that, but partisan, competitive and even vicious party politics are turning most people off. They're tired of seeing allegiance to party leadership take precedence over listening to people, over doing what's right and being seen to do what's right.

I ask the Conservative members of this committee to consider the situation before you as an opportunity to gain the support and even admiration of the citizens by deciding it's time to back off. It's time to say that even out of the best of intentions, you're moving too fast; to recommend to your government that it take the time to consult and see if there is a better way to proceed. It's not worth the gamble to dismantle what's recognized as world class.

I don't believe I'm alone in saying that the quality of downtown Toronto is directly connected to the issue of accessibility, the visibility of our local politicians and the responsiveness that local government gives.

Sixteen years ago today, this very day, February 19, I was four days into a 25-day fast, drinking only water, asking for an investigation of the relationship between the police and the lesbian and gay community. We were having more demonstrations and there was more violence. We went to Metro, we went to the province and we went to the police commission and said, "Do something about this situation." None of them responded -- none of them.

It was only the city of Toronto -- and I believe it was not just because local politicians knew me, some of them, but more importantly they knew the situation. They knew that things were bad out there on the streets. They knew that something had to be done and they took action.

A Toronto newspaper suggested that they let me starve. In that case, for me, local government made a big difference, but I also believe that it made a better city and a better life in this city for all of its citizens. It responded when nobody else would respond. Here you have a "community leader" who's asking you not to take away from me one of the vehicles that I have to try and improve the life of this city for all of its citizens and make it more difficult, as a community leader, to get harmony and reconciliation in the city. This may be a dramatic example, but it's an example of the hundreds and hundreds of ways that local government hears better because it's closer to people.

We have much work to do, certainly, to make our cities a better place for all its citizens and we have much work to do to ensure that our financial resources are spent wisely, but it's especially in times when we're shuffling those resources around between various levels of government that we need local government that listens best.

I thought it was supposed to be a Conservative value to conserve the best. That's what I hear from Conservatives, that one of their values is conserving the best. I also thought it was being said again and again that Toronto is the best, so why are we not conserving the best, improving it, but not dismantling it?

I would ask you to try to find a better way to really hear the fears that are being expressed. They're not being whipped up. These are legitimate fears from the citizens, to please step back, to try to hear our fears, to try to do what's right and to try to do it the right way. Please do not gamble on the future health of our cities. Please do not force amalgamation on us. Thank you.

Mr Marchese: Pastor Hawkes, welcome here. I just want to make reference to something the Canadian Union of Public Employees unearthed. It was in one of the documents and M. Harris was quoted as saying, "Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province, rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does." I'm assuming that all the deputants we've had here, over 180, 200, who are opposing this bill feel passionately about what's happening.

The Toronto Star in one of its editorials says this of people like you, "The critics care not so much to inform but foment dissent, stir up anger, confuse, befuddle" -- which means the same thing -- "scaremonger and defeat Bill 103 by whatever means necessary." How do you react to things like that?

Mr Hawkes: I think it's very easy to dismiss people who try to present an alternative point of view to categorize them in that way and dismiss the viewpoint. I would ask you not to pay as much attention to who is saying it but to the arguments that are being presented again and again and the fears that people have about their future and the future of their cities.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hawkes, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

Is Harry Broersma here? James McAughey? We'll recess until 5:30. I don't think Chris Barnes is here either. We'll recess just until 5:30.

The committee recessed from 1718 to 1729.

HARRY BROERSMA

The Chair: I understand Mr Broersma is here. Mr Broersma, would you take a chair. Welcome to the committee, sir. You have 10 minutes tonight to make a presentation.

Mr Harry Broersma: I believe one Toronto is a good thing. In the interests of brevity I will address the following five reasons why I so believe.

Reason one: I like the idea of fewer politicians. When I told my friends and neighbours that I was going to speak today, I asked them for their comments as well. Basically their comments could be distilled into one central theme: "I will support anything that will get rid of 100 politicians." I realize with some dismay that the one-Toronto plan will not get rid of quite that many. However, the trend is in the right direction.

Reason two: The world thinks I live in Toronto. I live in Leaside, a community that is geographically part of the borough of East York. On a daily basis my wife and I receive in the order of four to six pieces of addressed mail. This mail is all addressed to 45 Donegall Drive, Toronto, not East York. The only mail we receive addressed to East York originates from the municipality itself, either tax or hydro bills. It is clear that the outside world thinks of us living in Toronto, not East York.

East York is not a community. It's a geographic area. Leaside, a community in East York, has more in common with the Davisville area, west of Bayview and part of Toronto, than it has with the rest of East York across the Don Valley and the Don Valley Parkway.

When Forbes voted Toronto one of the best cities to live in, what part do we think they were referring to?

Reason three: One Toronto will provide savings by removing duplication of services. I accept the estimates provided by KPMG about the potential savings that will accrue through consolidation. I expect and hope that their numbers are actually pessimistic. Business and industry have been going through consolidation and downsizing for most of the nineties. KPMG's estimates show savings in the order of 5%. Industry has been increasing efficiency in the order of 25% to 30%. Isn't it about time municipalities joined the 1990s?

There is a lot of discussion about whether or not bigger is better or whether consolidation brings efficiencies. Examples are quoted by both sides, drawn from business and even citing the experience of Detroit, which lost its downtown as part of the move to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s. That occurred in many North American cities, even Toronto. I believe this was the time when communities like Willowdale were created. I can't quite fathom the connection, and I think as an argument it is intellectually dishonest. The beauty of being able to draw upon so many examples is that there are plenty for each side to pick their favourites to prove their respective cases.

I'll only note that Asea Brown Bovery, a Swiss company and accepted by many to be one of the world's best-run corporations, has in excess of 1,000 subsidiaries. It manages quite well with an executive group of 12 people. Are those against the one Toronto of the belief that we don't have the talent available to make it happen?

It doesn't take rocket science to show that amalgamation or consolidation done right reaps benefits. Similarly, incorrectly done, everyone loses. Perhaps more effort should be given to looking at ways to make sure we do it properly.

Reason four: The current system doesn't work. I'll use the example of taxes. Since 1988, when we moved to East York, our taxes have increased 44%; that is, the East York tax component has increased 44%. To give credit where it's due, they have remained the same for the last three years. However, my Metro taxes for that same time frame increased 68%. We underwent an assessment increase of just over 8% during this same period due to renovations, but still, I think the picture is there.

During this same time frame we've seen the price of a VCR drop from $1,000 to $250, and $600 will get you a 27-inch stereo television, whereas in 1988 it got you a relatively plain 21-incher.

Reason five: I do not believe we are well served by our municipal governments. The mayor and council of East York are using public funds, my money, to campaign against one Toronto. Where do they get the gall to use public funds to campaign for their jobs? Similarly, East York Hydro Commission is printing and distributing, at public expense, a diatribe against Toronto consolidation and a Hydro consolidation. Somehow their arithmetic shows that this will increase costs.

You wonder where management such as this is found. They wouldn't last a fiscal quarter in the real world. Their arguments have been shallow and emotional. This unprofessional behaviour has been instrumental in putting me in the one-Toronto camp. Interestingly it also puts me in the position of funding both the "for" and the "against" side.

To sum up, the establishment always votes against change. If they had vision, they would have instituted the change themselves. Louis XIV did not think that his beheading would advance the state of France, and similarly, I doubt that the Romanovs believed that being dethroned and subsequently assassinated would help Mother Russia. But, sorry, I will not eat cake.

I am not afraid of change. I am not so conceited as to think that I have all the answers, but neither should the mayors be. I look to change as an opportunity, and wish they would also, to turn Toronto into a great city.

Those are my comments.

Mr Hastings: Mr Broersma, thank you for a very concise presentation. My key question related to your presentation would be around politicians. You point out that you like fewer politicians, yet the constant theme that's been reiterated here by a number of groups and organizations and individuals over the last few days is that as you get bigger, all politicians axiomatically become more remote, that they're not available, they're not accessible. Would you tend to agree with that generalization on the basis of, "The larger the representation, the larger the organization, politicians become more inaccessible," or is it a factor of behaviour of each politician?

Mr Broersma: It's probably a factor of behaviour. I don't think it needs to be the case. It becomes a management issue. Obviously running departments or what have you, you need to have good management in place, and I think with good management in place, then there's no reason why they should become remote from the situation.

Mr Hastings: In other words, how you utilize your time.

Mr Broersma: Exactly. That's right. Obviously it's also in part the job certainly of the provincial-level local constituencies, but in the city the part of local community groups to ensure their councillors are aware of what the issues are.

Mr Hastings: My other question relates to an earlier submission made by an executive director of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund on February 12. She maintains that if there are businessmen in this government -- they were both in quotations -- they really don't understand how complex organizations function and therefore they wouldn't really know how to interact and put together and consolidate. She said this, and I'd like your comments on it: "Based on my understanding of the recent package of bills and proposed bills that this government has dropped on us in the last few months, I can only conclude that there are some fundamental principles of good governance in a large organization that this government obviously does not understand."

By the way, this deputant also has an MBA from the University of Toronto. She made the case that we have no business case, that we really are groping in the dark. What is your impression, and based on her comments, would you agree with her conclusions of how we are approaching these vital items of change?

Mr Broersma: I would not agree. I think she's oversimplifying. I think this is a major step for Toronto or the greater Toronto area. There are things in life every day that are uncertain, but for some things you may not know the numbers but you know that they are self-evident. I think that's in many cases how business moves ahead and that's how business is able to go through consolidations. In the amount of time that a company announces it's going to take over or attempt to take over or merge with another, even though they go through reviews, there is certainly not enough time to cover off each and every step of the process. But there are many things that feel in the gut that you're moving in the right direction, and obviously these things cannot all be sorted out beforehand.

Mr Parker: I just want to point out that although your experience with taxes in East York has been favourable, that hasn't been the story over the past 10 years for all East York taxpayers. From 1984 to 1994 there was an 80% increase in local taxes in East York. The assessment over that time increased by less than 1%, but there was a major shift over that period from the commercial-industrial sector to the residential sector, so many East York residential taxpayers suffered severely over that period because of the loss of commercial taxes and increase in costs. Fortunately you missed part of that.

You live in Leaside, so do I, in the same community. Leaside was a town once upon a time, until 1967. It was amalgamated into East York at that time. We've heard a lot about the concept of community in these hearings, and I want you to tell us about the sense community in Leaside and whether it survived the shock of amalgamation in 1967.

Mr Broersma: We only moved to Leaside in the late 1980s. I don't know what Leaside was before amalgamation, but certainly we moved to Leaside; we did not move to East York. It was very much what we saw in Leaside that we wanted, and today I think Leaside has to a very large degree what we look for in a community in which to live.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Broersma. I'm sorry I can't allow you to expound too much on that because we've just exceeded your allotted time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward this evening to make your presentation.

1740

JAMES MCAUGHEY

The Chair: Would James McAughey please come forward. Welcome, sir, to the committee.

Mr James McAughey: I'd first like to thank the committee for allowing me to come here and speak on this issue. I'm a third-year co-op student at the University of Waterloo, and despite my being away from Toronto for the past few months, I've followed this debate very closely because I think it concerns all of us, especially my family.

My family has a long tradition and record of community service and involvement in Toronto, Weston, and particularly Etobicoke. I'm proud to say my great-grandfather was the master stonemason for the main tower of Casa Loma, a job he used to support a growing family during the Depression. My grandmother has told me many times that, growing up, she was used to travellers and poor people coming to the door, asking for a meal and getting one. It was common back then. It was just accepted.

This example of community service was followed by my grandparents. My grandfather was available to help anyone in the neighbourhood in house repairs or little handyman projects. He spent many afternoons in the local church fixing the plumbing and repairing windows. My grandmother has also contributed in the same sense. She helped out in bake sales and other local community events.

The tradition of community spirit is now a standard in my family that must be lived up to, and of course many families in Toronto and the municipalities have the same tradition. The feelings and examples of community spirit are what makes this city, province and country so great.

These acts that contribute so much to each neighbourhood, to give each one an individual identity and flavour, are done for no other reason than that Torontonians believe that these acts benefit the neighbourhood, city and their neighbours. People help one another for the sake of helping a fellow person. People are friendly to their neighbours for the sake of friendship. People contribute to the community so they can be part of a close-knit community, feel safe and have a sense of belonging.

These actions are not a result of, or linked in any way with, the number of politicians they elect. Culture is not linked with, connected to or dependent upon politicians. A culture does not get stronger the more politicians you elect. Believing this, that our community characteristics are in fact dependent on politicians, means that we must elect more of them to make our identity stronger. I, as well as most other people I know, reject that notion.

I take great offence and insult to the argument that this bill's reduction in the number of municipal councillors will in any way have a negative effect on Toronto's character or community spirit. My family's contributions to this city and their neighbourhood were made on their belief that they were doing the right thing and that the community was benefiting as a result. I believe this to be true of the rest of Toronto's population.

I do not know of a person who has done a charitable action, a good deed or contributed to the community as a result of the number of politicians elected. If this were true, why do such places as Willowdale or Agincourt, just to name a couple, remain identifiable and distinct places to live? Somehow these communities and neighbourhoods have retained their identities without electing more politicians, with fewer. I encourage opponents of Bill 103 to go to Leaside, Weston or Swansea and see if having fewer politicians from amalgamation in 1966 has caused a decay or weakening of community spirit.

Some of the loudest opponents of Bill 103 have been the mayors of the six municipalities, who argue that their communities' identities will be destroyed and eroded, that the new council, 44 councillors and one mayor, will be undemocratic, unresponsive and that people in the municipalities will be undergoverned.

If this is what they truly believe, then I ask the members of the committee why they, in December 1996, proposed a council, which I guess they believed would be democratic, responsive and the right number of politicians, of 48 councillors and six mayors. Notice how they keep the same number of mayors but they give up a few councillors' jobs.

Who are these nine extra superpoliticians who will be the thin line between democracy and anarchy here in the united Toronto? The mayors have been conveniently forgetting this when speaking about Bill 103, that the representation by councillors of the people of Toronto in Bill 103 is close to what they themselves recommended.

By having one level of government, the people of Toronto can be better represented. If residents have a problem with roads or garbage collection, they will know who to go to instead of going through a process of which politician, which bureaucracy to contact.

If there's a pothole on a street, who are they supposed to call? If the sidewalk needs cleaning, who do they call? I don't know of too many people who find the task of finding which local government to call and going through the bureaucracy -- who really wants to do that? Having one level of government solves this problem.

Last winter when the mayors were coming up with their alternative, they admitted that between them, $200 million could be saved through new-found administrative efficiencies. Why didn't they want to find these efficiencies until legislation was brought forward that would eliminate their jobs? Did they not have the incentive to find savings until then? Did they not know how the municipality worked? Could they not cooperate with one another unless forced? If they didn't bring forward these new efficiencies, when were they going to? These are questions I have not heard adequate answers to. It raises concerns for me and other people I know. Are the politicians out there unwilling or unable to find savings for the taxpayer?

Right now there are six voices speaking for 2.3 million people, six voices that often conflict and argue with one another. Amid these six voices and their arguing, the interests of those 2.3 million people are lost. Looking at the performance in cooperation of the mayors trying to fight the megacity, it's no wonder why we need one voice to represent the people at Queen's Park, Ottawa and internationally.

Why should Scarborough and Toronto fight one another to attract new businesses to the area? Turf wars between municipalities help no one. Toronto's population base is not growing. Our businesses are trying to compete globally while new infrastructure technology will be needed. This will put more pressure on a shrinking financial base. By consolidating the six municipalities, a more stable base will be there to help businesses compete with a solid financial foundation.

During the election, a constant theme came out of the Common Sense Revolution: less government and fewer politicians. I did not hear anyone complain about that, of any political stripe. This bill lives up to that theme. People have been calling for a referendum because it's not spelled out in the Common Sense Revolution that a megacity would be created. I guess they reject that the theme of less government and fewer politicians was there or that following the themes of an election is good enough.

I'd like to ask proponents of a referendum, when was the last time a referendum was held on a provincial bill? I cannot think of one. Having a referendum on this issue because it is not explicitly stated in an election platform sets a dangerous precedent. Governments will lose the ability to make decisions during a mandate as new issues arise or new facts become available. Governments must have the ability to do that to govern.

To summarize my position on Bill 103, this lives up to one of the major themes of the Common Sense Revolution. By having less government and fewer politicians, citizens of Toronto will be better represented by having an easier system of government to understand and access, one level of government that speaks with a loud and clear voice to business and governments.

Finally, our communities and neighbourhoods thrive because of the vibrant people who make them up, not because of politicians and artificial boundaries they impose.

Mr Colle: Why do you think a referendum is so dangerous?

Mr McAughey: I think the precedent will be set. Just the way elections are -- the Common Sense Revolution was very explicit and set out very easy plans so people could know what to do. After two or three years, looking over the last few years, that mandate, the things they set out, are over. Having a referendum just because we didn't say explicitly -- any time a new issue comes up you're setting the precedent that we must have a referendum. I think that inhibits the ability of a government to make decisions and act in the best interests and using their mandate to govern.

Mr Colle: But isn't part of the platform the Conservatives ran on -- aren't they introducing a bill to make referenda more easily available to the citizens of Ontario? Are you in principle against referendum altogether or just in this case?

Mr McAughey: My personal view is that referendum should only be held on moral issues. I could not in good conscience allow, in this case, 130 people to set moral standards on this issue, which I believe is an issue of governance. I believe the government must be allowed to do that, to govern.

1750

Mr Colle: Moral issues: Give me an example of the kind of thing.

Mr McAughey: Capital punishment would definitely be one. Maybe distinct society, because people do find that a key definition of being Canadian. Those I would support. If a constitutional amendment were put forward for a distinct society, I would support a referendum on that issue.

Mr Colle: But in the case of local issues, you don't think it's appropriate.

Mr McAughey: From a provincial point of view, no, I don't see a precedent there. I don't think a precedent should be there. I repeat, the government should be allowed to govern, whether it be Conservative, Liberal or NDP. They do have that right.

Mr Colle: You referred to the Common Sense Revolution quite a bit. In the Common Sense Revolution -- I don't know it phrase by phrase -- there is a reference to referendum, more direct democracy. In essence, that part of the Common Sense Revolution you don't buy.

Mr McAughey: I was talking more about the major themes. Being a student, I don't have all that much time to leaf through all the propaganda or whatever from all parties. The major themes were less government, fewer politicians, less taxes. That's what I and most of the people I know voted upon.

The Vice-Chair: We've exceeded our time. Thank you very much, Mr McAughey, for coming here this evening.

CHRIS BARNES

The Vice-Chair: I call upon Chris Barnes, please. Good evening, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Chris Barnes: I highly doubt I'll need 10 minutes. My name is Chris Barnes, and it's my pleasure to address this committee. I'd like to say, first off, that I am in favour of Bill 103 to amalgamate the seven municipalities into one city.

I'd like to first give you my own personal perspective. I'm a relatively new property owner. I currently live in the city of Etobicoke. I have to say, of all the cities fighting amalgamation, I think Etobicoke has the least right and certainly provides the greatest excuse for getting rid of seven municipal governments.

As a taxpayer, it's a little frustrating to find out that not only are my dollars being spent in strip bars to the tune of 80 grand, but to say you then spent an additional 80 grand to investigate the fraud and then decide to pay the guy a severance package of an additional 80 grand for the rest of his life -- Brian Mulroney probably only wishes he had it so good. I'd like to thank Etobicoke city council for taking municipal politics to a whole new level of sleaze.

Personally, I don't care much about who provides what services for me. All I know is that I pay a pretty hefty tax bill and I don't think I get that much in return. In fact, I've never voted in a municipal election. Perhaps I will now. All I hope is that whoever does get elected to the new Toronto council, I hope that they behave in a more credible manner than those who represent us there today.

I don't care much for the ideological battles regarding the amalgamation and the bill, left versus right -- less of that nonsense. But as a taxpaying citizen, any time you reduce the number of politicians, that's a good thing. I think only the federal Liberals think the opposite.

As usual, those who oppose amalgamation the most are the ones who stand to lose the most. I suppose, in a year or so, there'll be a few ex-politicians who will have to give up their public offices and find some real work in the private sector.

Those who oppose the bill are mainly people who profit by the current system. If I were in their position, I probably would oppose it too. As a new member of Ontario's working class and someone who will be paying a long time for the financial mess created by my parents' generation, I won't accept the status quo. I firmly agree that the system is broken. It should be fixed and it should be fixed expediently. This means forget the royal commissions, the demands for more committees, yada, yada, yada. Just get it done. If we lose a few politicians along the way, you won't see me crying.

Those opposed to amalgamation also bring the argument that neighbourhoods and communities are going to disappear. I disagree. I'm pretty sure that on the day this legislation becomes official and the dust has settled, I'm going to drive home from work and it will still be there at 2285 Lakeshore Boulevard, the snow will be plowed, the garbage will be collected, and the tax man will still be coming.

Before I leave I have a couple of questions, a couple of issues I would like to clear up. I don't know if you have to answer them right away or wait until I finish. I just want to make sure I have clear in my own head that we are losing seven local governments and are replacing them with a single unified body; that we are reducing the number of politicians from 106 to 44, my favourite; that this will streamline Toronto and make running the city more efficient; that public services will still be maintained; and finally, that this plan will indeed save money.

I would like to issue one word of caution to the provincial government. I am arguing for amalgamation in good faith and I expect positive results. I also expect my municipal taxes to remain stable. There's a lot of support for the many initiatives you are undertaking. Please don't let us down and don't make a liar out of me.

In closing, I'd like to add to some words of encouragement. Even though these proceedings have seemingly been dominated by the opposition, even though it appears a referendum has been fixed against the government and the no campaign is wasting countless dollars on their plight, you can always take solace in one thing: The citizens for democracy, or whatever they're calling themselves, have seemingly placed their faith in Toronto's ex-mayor John Sewell. Perhaps we should remind the public that he got thrown out of office some 20 years ago for being a lousy politician then. I guess 20 years later not much has changed. Thank you very much.

Mr Marchese: Mr Barnes, out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

Mr Barnes: I'm an investor relations consultant.

Mr Marchese: Are you involved in your local community in Etobicoke?

Mr Barnes: I've participated in events. I've been out to stuff.

Mr Marchese: What kind of events?

Mr Barnes: We have local events down on the waterfront. I live on the waterfront.

Mr Marchese: Do you know what happens in the community in terms of problems that people might be having or --

Mr Barnes: The area I live in is going through quite a bit of change. It's where the motel strip is, which I understand is soon to be demolished. There is quite a mix of poorer people, I would say, in the area. It's not the best area to live, but things seem to be calm.

Mr Marchese: You said you don't really care much who provides services because you don't get very much anyway. Do you like the idea that we pay taxes for our health care system and for our social services and for our education system or do you think --

Mr Barnes: You're opening a whole new can of worms. Personally, I am in favour of a two-tier health care system.

Mr Marchese: So you don't much care about whether poor people have enough money to get enough from hospitals.

Mr Barnes: Under the current programs we have in place, our poor people are looked after. As far as I'm aware, poor people here in Ontario still receive more money from welfare and that kind of thing than the rest of --

Mr Marchese: So they're doing okay. You say those who oppose it stand to lose a lot. The people who have come here to oppose it -- in addition to some politicians whom you hold in disdain, there have been a number of ordinary people. I don't know if you've had a chance to listen to --

Mr Barnes: I think I'm pretty much an ordinary guy.

Mr Marchese: Yes, but the other people who have come are ordinary guys too, ordinary people who don't have jobs to lose but are very worried about what's going to happen to their communities. Do you dismiss them as just being disciples of M. Sewell?

Mr Barnes: I don't think our communities are going anywhere. Mimico, which borders where I live, is still going to exist.

Mr Marchese: I realize you're going to drive back to your home and it's still going to be there unless a bomb comes down. There's a tax bomb coming down. You're going to get hit very soon, by the way; you should take cover. I know you don't like taxes, and you should take cover.

I'm a bit offended by your offending a lot of people who have come in front of this committee. It isn't just Mr Sewell, by the way, who disagrees with what's happening.

Mr Barnes: I think some of the people who have come before this committee haven't had any problem offending members of the government.

Mr Marchese: You don't like it when some people offend members of the government.

Mr Barnes: All I'm saying is it's nice to give a little bit back.

Mr Marchese: So you don't like politicians, for some reason?

Mr Barnes: No, I like responsible politicians.

Mr Marchese: So these 44 people who are going to be elected in this amalgamated city are going to be responsible and you hope that this government will make that happen.

Mr Barnes: I certainly do.

Mr Marchese: What gives you faith that somehow these 44 people are going to be any more responsible than the present ones you're getting rid of?

Mr Barnes: With the number of seats being reduced from 106 to 44, we'll have a larger number of politicians running and I expect the quality of the politician to be higher, especially when there's more at stake. I'd also like to say that I'm pretty pleased with the way the government's turned things around in this province.

Mr Marchese: This government here?

Mr Barnes: Yes, this government here.

Mr Marchese: You like what they're doing?

Mr Barnes: I certainly do.

Mr Marchese: I could tell.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Barnes. I'm sorry we have to close this off. We've reached the end of our time. We'll stand recessed until 7 pm.

The committee recessed from 1804 to 1903.

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call us to order. Yes?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I believe there would be unanimous consent -- I spoke to both other parties -- to put a sub form in, myself for Mr Maves.

The Vice-Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

Mr Bisson: Madam Chair, there is if you allow me to sub in at this point.

The Vice-Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjection: Sure we have unanimous consent.

The Vice-Chair: All right. Thank you.

Mr Baird: Thank you. I appreciate it.

ANNEX RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I would like to call upon our first presenter this evening, the Annex Residents' Association, represented by John Kerr. Mr Kerr, would you come forward?

Mr John Kerr: Where would you like me?

The Vice-Chair: Right there. Good evening, Mr Kerr, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Kerr: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Kerr. I'm the chair of the Annex Residents' Association of Toronto. We are probably the oldest residents' association in Toronto, dating from the 1920s. Our boundaries are Avenue Road on the east to Bathurst Street on the west, from Bloor Street on the south to the CPR tracks on the north. Our residents number somewhere around 16,000 or 17,000 people.

In the first week of February, our association polled our paid-up membership, asking them whether they supported megacity, opposed megacity or were undecided. The results are that 254 households, of varying numbers, opposed megacity, 19 households supported megacity and 60 were by that date undecided.

Tonight I'd like to try and explain several reasons why the downtown core in particular is so strongly opposed to megacity. First, everyone I know, even the few people who support megacity, are appalled at the arrogance of this government. I'm afraid that a government today must not only be convinced of its own rightness, but it must convince a substantial proportion of the population that what it plans to do is an intelligent move. This is the first case I know of where a government has introduced legislation before it has developed a plan. I have seen no studies recommending this step. The most recent studies, as you well know, the Golden and the Crombie reports, recommended something rather different. Where is the study that supports this approach?

What we see in the legislation is a broad sketch of a municipal structure and the appointment of a transition team to look after the details. But it's the details that bother most of us. Putting it simply, we don't know how it's going to work. But the government says: "Trust us. It will be just fine." The trouble is that the group empowered to set up the details doesn't have to talk to anybody or listen to anybody, nor will they have time to do that if they wanted to. What's the hurry? The justifications for this timetable that I have heard merely beg the question.

This government produced megacity like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat: It was not what anybody expected. Nor do I think most people feel the government has a mandate to do it. In last Saturday's Globe & Mail Mr Gilchrist said that as early as May 1994 the Common Sense Revolution pledged this government to reduce the number of politicians and to reduce duplication at the municipal level as well as at the provincial level. I am sorry; the vast majority of citizens I know did not interpret that as a mandate to amalgamate all of Metro, particularly when the promised savings are, to put it gently, problematic.

Nobody in the government has tried to sell this idea; they just barged ahead saying, "You can have your referendum, but we won't pay any attention to the result." No wonder people are a little upset. The fact is that most people today feel they ought to have a say in what their government does. Most particularly, they feel they ought to have a say in how they are to be governed. This government has denied them this say, and in the creation of the transition team it has continued that process of exclusion.

The second area that has caused concern, particularly in the downtown core I think, is accessibility to our municipal government, what people today are calling "accountability." If we more than halve the number of elected representatives, it means we will probably have less than half the access to an elected representative we now have. When we have a problem or a concern, half the time, relative to now, we will have to go to a civil servant for an answer, and that civil servant will be found in a huge, and I do mean huge, municipal government.

We are afraid because a large bureaucracy is simply not as responsive as a small one; nor is a volunteer association such as mine, which seems to be part of the plan somehow, as hard as we may try to be representative of our community, accountable to anyone. The cost of a ward councillor or two and his staff is very small potatoes in a huge municipal budget. Who said we should have 44 councillors? What study recommended that number? Where is the logic? Why 44? Why not 66 or 88? It makes just as much sense.

1910

The third area of concern involves the downloading that appears to many people to be the real reason driving megacity. Most of my neighbours see this downloading of social services as a many-headed monster. It will endanger the level of social services available. Combined with the AVA or MVA it will raise taxes and depress property values for property owners, raise rents for tenants and it could very well drive our small businesses out of our neighbourhoods. We find these dangers unacceptable.

The province's promise of a safety fund is not reassuring. What happens when that is gone? Again, what study suggested that social services should be paid for out of municipal real estate taxes? Where is the logic?

What suggestions can I offer? First, I suggest that this really important business of listening to people that is going on here tonight ought to be the beginning of the process and not the end. The government should drop the bill and start it over. It should develop a plan based on careful study and then bring forward legislation.

If that won't work, then I strongly endorse the suggestion made by Richard Gilbert in last Saturday's Globe and Mail, and before that at our neighbourhood forum, that the present councils be continued in office for one year and that an interim council be elected next November to do the work presently entrusted to the transition team. This would restore a large measure of democracy to the entire process, and I think it would slow the frenetic pace to something a little more reasonable.

Finally, if the government must pay for social services from real estate taxes, let that be a stable, province-wide real estate tax, supported in recessionary times by income tax, and please do not bankrupt our small businesses. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I think you've effectively used up the time available. Thank you for coming here this evening.

MIKE CANZI

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Mike Canzi. Good evening, Mr Canzi, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Mike Canzi: I'd like to begin by thanking the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue. There are two issues relevant to Bill 103 that I'd like to address during my presentation. First and foremost are the differences in the political culture of urban and suburban areas and the reasons why the two are incompatible together. Second, I would like to address the notion that amalgamation will result in more efficient and less expensive government.

I've worked in market research for five years, and from personal experience from doing thousands of interviews of people across the GTA, I can assure you there is a very definite difference between political culture downtown and in the outlying areas. But you don't need to have worked in market research to be able to see that for yourself. It's evident in the voting patterns within Metro specifically. For example, we'll see that in the city of Toronto fewer than one third of the MPPs are members of the governing party, whereas in Etobicoke four of four, in other words 100%, of the local MPPs are members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I'm not suggesting that attitudes change at the Humber River or that they change when you cross Eglinton or St Clair Avenue, but on average there are different political cultures in the inner-city and in the outer suburban areas. To illustrate those differences, I'd like to focus on transportation and differing attitudes towards transportation.

The Metro transportation department does a survey every five years called Transportation Tomorrow -- at least that's my understanding, it comes up every five years -- and in 1991 the data in their report showed that households in Scarborough are more than twice as likely as households in Toronto to own or have access to an automobile. This difference is reflected in how Scarborough council votes and in how Toronto council votes.

For example, the city of Toronto has a cycling advisory committee and Scarborough doesn't. The city of Toronto has a relatively extensive network of on-street bike lanes; to the best of my knowledge, Scarborough has none. Another example, again on the topic of transportation but slightly different, grew out of the Bay Street urban clearway. What I'd like to do is read a couple of quotes from this book. It's the proceedings of a conference on bicycle issues held in Montreal in 1992. I'd like to read from the article written by Daniel Egan. He works for the planning department for the city of Toronto and this is his view of the history of implementing the urban clearway on Bay Street:

"The Metropolitan government...did not embrace the clearway concept. The Metro transportation department and many Metro councillors called the clearway proposal `too extreme.' They predicted that it would divert traffic to other streets, resulting in downtown congestion, and would likely fail.... The metropolitan board of trade, representing business interests, expressed concern that it would reduce capacity for cars by two full lanes, while creating priority lanes for transit.... One of the strengths of the clearway proposal was that Bay Street was under city of Toronto jurisdiction. Over Metro's objections, Toronto city council approved the public works commissioner's report to implement the clearway...."

As to whether or not that was a positive outcome, further down in the article Egan writes that bicycle volume increased on Bay Street 173%; transit ridership increased 25%; transit vehicle travel time was reduced by 12%; the motor vehicle accident rate was reduced and motor vehicle travel time was reduced. It sounds like a positive outcome of a project that would not have been implemented if Toronto wasn't a separate entity at that point.

I trust that most of the committee members would agree that citizens should have that choice. They should have a choice to live in a city that reflects their values. I've spoken to countless people from Scarborough who love Scarborough. They've chosen to live there because of the way it is. I choose to live in Toronto because of the way Toronto is. I think that competition, having choices, is a healthy thing. I think it's out of that that innovation springs and not having this monolithic, single government for everybody.

There's one other issue I'd like to address, and that is the reasons why amalgamation may not necessarily lead to less expensive and more efficient government. First of all, I don't buy the contention that there's a lot of duplication that needs to be weeded out. Three of the larger municipal employers would be police, transit and community services, or welfare, all three of which are already delivered at the Metro level. There's only one administration in each case. There aren't a lot of jobs that could be cut, I would guess.

1920

If, heaven forbid, we wind up with the megacity, we will have the same number of welfare cases the day after, so we'll need the same number of welfare case workers. We'll have the same crime rate, so we'll need the same number of police officers. I can't see that retrenchment, that getting rid of workers, is much of an option. For the employees who remain, I suspect they will be more highly paid than the ones we have now, and I base this just on my own observation, which is that the boards of directors of large corporations tend to be better paid than the boards of directors of small corporations, and the megacity would be a very large corporation.

I'd like to continue in a similar vein with an anecdote, a friend's experience with the bureaucracy at a large institution in the province of Ontario. This anecdote is just an anecdote; there are other anecdotes that would show the opposite, but this shows big bureaucracy as cumbersome and inefficient.

My friend was granted a small loan on an emergency basis by this institution, and within a month was able to write a cheque for the full amount and did so in front of an appropriate bureaucrat. Weeks passed and the cheque wasn't cashed, so my friend began a regular cycle of events, which was calling bureaucrats, telling them about the situation and getting the same response every time, which was, "I'll look into the matter and I`ll phone you back." My friend never got a call back. The cheque was ultimately cashed, but to me this is indicative of how big bureaucracy can be. It's every bit as plausible, from my point of view, that big bureaucracy will cost us more money rather than save us money.

I understand that the members of the committee were less than enthusiastic about the idea of taking these hearings on the road to the various cities --

Mr Bisson: Government members were less than enthusiastic about it.

Mr Canzi: I understand that the government members of the committee were less than enthusiastic --

Mr Baird: Don't be spoon-fed.

The Vice-Chair: Continue.

Mr Canzi: Right -- and that the concern was travel time. You were concerned about the time you'd have to spend getting from here or from wherever you are to these various cities, so I'm sure you would understand how unenthusiastic and how alienated the voters in Etobicoke-Rexdale would feel, for example, if they had to travel all the way down to Wellington and John to take in a council meeting. I'm sure you can understand how inconvenient and how alienated the voters in High Park-Swansea or Rosedale would be if they had to go all the way up to Mel Lastman Square to apply for a building permit. I think that creating one municipal government for such a large city is going to inconvenience everybody.

The Vice-Chair: I have to ask you to make your concluding remarks. We've just about run out of time.

Mr Canzi: Okay. In closing and on a lighter note, this is directed just to members of the government party: If you truly believe the best way to reduce the cost of government is to merge together neighbouring jurisdictions, why haven't you initiated proceedings to merge the province of Ontario with the province of Quebec? If your logic is right, this would reduce duplication of services on a grand scale and save us tons of money.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here this evening.

NEIL GUTHRIE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Neil Guthrie. Good evening, Mr Guthrie, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Neil Guthrie: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here as a concerned private citizen, and I'm prompted by my experience of two cities other than Toronto. First of all, I lived in Ottawa, which as you know is a city with a number of municipalities and an overarching regional government. This means that there's a city hall practically every 100 yards, and I left Ottawa with a tremendous sense of being overgoverned. On the other hand, I lived in England, and my conclusion there was that London is far too big a city to have a single government and that it was right to devolve power away from the Greater London Council to local governments and to take government closer to its citizens.

Metropolitan Toronto, I think, falls somewhere between these two poles in terms of size, and my conclusion therefore is that one level of government in the Metropolitan Toronto area should be eliminated.

Philosophically, I subscribe to the principle of subsidiarity, in other words the idea that government services should be delivered by the level of government closest to the people who are actually receiving them. In practical terms, planning and efficiency would seem to dictate consolidation at the Metro level, and I think this can be achieved without a loss of either democratic accountability or local identity. My remarks, therefore, will be focused on these three areas: first of all, duplication of services and efficiency; second, accountability; and third, identity.

In terms of duplication, I took a look this morning through the blue pages of the telephone book and I noted that Metro is responsible for some aspects at least of the following: parks, planning, roads, waste, water, housing, arts and culture plus supporting administration. The cities are responsible for parks, planning, roads, waste, water, housing, arts and culture plus administration as well. There is clearly overlap, clearly room for greater efficiency by consolidating services at a single level.

As a practical example, I'd like to look just briefly at the regulation of rollerblading. A couple of years ago municipal government decided that rollerblading should be regulated. One level of government decided that someone on rollerblades is a vehicle; another level of government at the municipal decided that a rollerblader is a pedestrian. The result of this is that the legality of the activity depends on whose road you are travelling along: If it's a Metro road, you have to be on the road itself; if it's a city road, on the sidewalk. Or it may be vice versa; I'm not sure which. The citizen has no idea, probably the police constable on the beat has no idea which road it is and therefore enforcement becomes impossible. This is, I admit, a somewhat trivial example, but it's indicative of the impracticalities, even the absurdities that arise from having two layers of government operating in essentially the same sphere of activity.

Second, with respect to accountability, for the same reason the citizen doesn't know whether he or she can rollerblade on the sidewalk or on the road, the citizen doesn't know who is responsible for government services in general. This leads to confusion, and as a result there are opportunities for buck-passing and/or duplication of effort. This results, in my view, in a loss of accountability democratically because responsibility is hard to determine, and when it is determined, it may be divided. One elected municipal representative would mean the buck would have to stop somewhere, and it would probably stop sooner.

Finally, with respect to local identity, in my view it's mistaken to suggest that amalgamation will mean a loss of community identity because identity doesn't come from government structures or bureaucracies, many of which are fairly recent and artificially created in any event, without deep roots in the communities at stake. Local identity comes from individuals, neighbourhoods, ratepayer groups like Mr Kerr's and from communities, and these of course will all survive municipal reorganization. One has only to look at municipalities that were amalgamated in Toronto in the past that have kept a strong sense of local identity: Leaside, North Toronto, Yorkville, Forest Hill, Swansea. But there are also many communities that have strong identities without ever having had formal government structures to underpin them; for example, the republic of Rathnelly, Little Italy, Rosedale, the Greek community along the Danforth or indeed the Annex.

In conclusion, in my view amalgamation represents an opportunity for greater efficiency, less overlap, less government, less bureaucracy, but also greater democratic accountability and no loss of local identity. The government's plan is perhaps not perfect, but reorganization of the municipal level of government is long overdue and represents a positive opportunity for the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

1930

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much for your presentation. I believe you were in the room for the previous presenter. I want to go back to the comment that a lot of the services are being provided by the upper-tier government now, so there will not be a great deal of savings in the amalgamation. Could you give me some comments on why you think those services are at the upper tier, why it was decided in the last number of years that policing should be an upper-tier service to cover a broader area?

Mr Guthrie: With something like policing, the problem of having, for example, a Forest Hill police force, as there was in the old days, was that once you reached the boundary of Forest Hill, the cops had to stop their vehicles and call the next-door force. That's clearly inefficient. The decision, I presume, was that the Metro government could deal with that sort of problem more efficiently. To the extent that there are remaining areas of overlap, I think it would make sense to continue the process.

Mr Hardeman: So it's fair to say that you would agree that doing the same with the fire service as was done with the police service in the past would be --

Mr Guthrie: Absolutely.

Mr Hardeman: On the same basis, looking at services that one would suggest should not be on the broader basis, where no savings could be achieved, could you give me in your opinion what type of services they would be?

Mr Guthrie: I'm not sure I'm really qualified to answer the question. I suppose it's entirely possible to make some arrangement whereby more locally based services could be provided that way. I don't think you have to do everything in one great swoop.

Mr Hardeman: Another presenter, in fact quite a number of presenters, commented about Toronto being picked by Fortune magazine as the greatest city in the world to live. One of the presenters earlier this afternoon asked, what was that referring to, to Toronto proper or to Metro Toronto?

Mr Guthrie: My reaction to that is to assume that when people say where they live, they say Toronto, even though it might actually be East York or the city of York because, frankly, no one from Fortune is going to have heard of East York in the first place, and second, because people do think in terms of a larger unit. I assume Fortune meant the whole package rather than some tiny portion of it. That just makes sense.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for joining us this evening.

COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon the mayor's Committee on the Status of Women, represented by Pam McConnell. Good evening, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Pam McConnell: My name is Councillor Pam McConnell. I'm the chair of the Committee on the Status of Women for the city of Toronto. On my left is my co-chair, Margaret Jackson. Behind us -- we didn't have place at the table -- is an important member of my committee, Lisa Cupoli. Jacintha Johnson is on my right. Also with us are staff who have helped facilitate our committee for quite a long time, Margaret Bryce and Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, behind me.

Thank you for hearing our deputation today. As you know, I'm sure, the Committee on the Status of Women is a volunteer committee which advises the city of Toronto council on issues affecting women. The committee holds regular public meetings and we actively seek support and input from women about how municipal services are delivered. We would also seek the involvement of women when we advise on policy. Our submission today arises from the public consultations we have had from women.

The Committee on the Status of Women in the city of Toronto believes that the provisions of Bill 103 will have a detrimental effect on our women. Because of this concern, our committee joined with a number of women's organizations, such as the Older Women's Network and Women Plan Toronto, to develop a statement of the effects of this bill on women and on women's issues.

A week ago, you may have heard that 300 women came together at the city hall at the city of Toronto to sign that declaration. Speakers included Nancy Pocock, Margaret Campbell, Adrienne Clarkson, Linda Torney, Joan Grant Cummins, June Callwood, Kay McPherson, Ursula Franklin, Sarah Latha-Elliot, Eugenia Pearson, Catherine Olsen, and many other women of distinction from our city. Gale Garnett hosted the event, and women such as Moira Dunphy entertained us. Women political representatives from all levels and, I might add, all political stripes added their signatures to the declaration. To date, more than 800 women have signed this declaration, which will be presented to the House, that petition, by several of your women MPPs.

Margaret, perhaps you could read the declaration for the committee, please.

Ms Margaret Jackson: Women's declaration against amalgamation and for local democracy:

"We, the undersigned women from all of Metro Toronto, demand that the Ontario government:

"(1) cease all proceedings on Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, and recall its trustees;

"(2) Withdraw all proposals to download costs of welfare, health and assisted housing:

"Because women work to create services that benefit our community, such as child care, recreation centres, settlement houses, health and safety programs and good public education;

"Because we believe our communities are better when people care for those in need regardless of their place of origin; and that all residents of Ontario should share this responsibility of care;

"Because women as a group are more dependent on community and social services, it is women who will suffer most from their loss;

"Because the added financial burden on municipalities will jeopardize existing and future services which women need: housing for low-income people; long-term care for the elderly; child care; public health services; environmental sustainability projects; projects to prevent violence; safe, affordable, convenient and dependable transit; employment equity programs; public education for the diverse needs of our community; urban design and planning policies which make our communities safer and more liveable;

"Because local community institutions foster the participation and leadership of women in government;

"Because women fought for the right to vote and make decisions about our lives;

"Because there is no equality when others make important decisions for us.

"We therefore urge all women to:

"(1) Oppose this amalgamation;

"(2) Sign this declaration;

"(3) Vote no in local referendums."

Ms McConnell: We have many of those signatures here.

The bill proposes to amalgamate the six cities and borough into one city. When the administrations are merged, there will be an understandable and justifiable pressure to provide the same sort of service across the metropolitan area.

These are some of our financial impact concerns:

We are concerned that the current level of community and health services, which are important to our women, will be cut in order to maintain other services such as garbage collection and fire protection. We believe that if this occurs, it will have a devastating impact on women employees who provide the community and health services and on the recipients of these very services.

Women use many services: child care so that we can work when we are young, free neighbourhood recreation programs, free public libraries, and free public health services; and when we are older, we get help in our homes and with our shopping, allowing us to remain independent. We do not want to save money by eliminating these services.

The government is also planning to give local governments the responsibility for funding some of these very expensive services. If the cost of these services is added to the property tax, there will be additional pressure to reduce services to save money.

We hear that the reason for this massive change is that it will save money. We would also like to save money but we do not like false economies and short-term gains which bring long-term pain.

1940

Our right to make our own decisions: We oppose the vesting of power in the hands of the appointed trustees and transitional teams. In 1994 the people of Toronto voted for the members of their local councils partly on the basis of their support for social issues and community programs. In 1995 we voted for our provincial representatives. Now we are being told that this second election gave a valid mandate but the first one did not. We are being told that it is all right for the elected provincial government to supersede the authority of our elected municipal governments and appoint people who are not accountable to the electors to make decisions instead of them.

The programs we want: The women in the city of Toronto have worked very hard to get a number of innovative programs which respond to our particular needs. We worked with city council to implement a pay equity program for child care centres to increase the salaries paid to employees. Most of the staff we are referring to are women. Second, a number of women's groups receive grants to provide services to women and to increase the participation of women in the democratic process. Third, the people of Toronto support the development of theatre, music and other arts organizations with several million dollars in grants. Fourth, more than 60% of the seniors in the city of Toronto are women, and ours is the only municipality with a committee to advocate for seniors and to advise on issues which affect our older people.

The other municipalities have committees which deal with safety issues but none has the broad range of programs offered in the city of Toronto. Our Breaking the Cycle of Violence grants program, with an annual budget of nearly $500,000, has made public safety and women's safety a central part of the operating systems of other programs.

Agencies such as Sistering in the west end, which deals with homeless and socially isolated women, or 519 Church Street, a community centre downtown, which is developing a victim assistance program for lesbians and gay men, are making a important contribution to reducing conflict and crime in our city. Will there be a will to replicate and expand this grant program in such a new megacity?

The city of Toronto also has a number of programs to improve services and access to services for people with disabilities and for multicultural access. That's why the ramping of sidewalks and improved access to buildings and services have become important programs again in our city. Will this be expanded to this new city?

The alternative housing subcommittee advises on policy and advocates for services for the homeless and for people who have difficulty finding housing. We worked with it to establish a survival fund of $5.75 million. It helps agencies respond to your provincial cuts in services and income support by developing or enhancing programs which provide food or shelter for people affected by your cuts. Will this be expanded to our new city?

Residents of Toronto, and indeed from other areas, are excited by the progress we have made towards cleaning up the Don River. Citizens have organized the creation of the Chester Springs Marsh and the building of a stairway from the Queen Street bridge, and more and more people have access to the Don Valley and the beautiful cycling and walking trails. This was developed with the advice and involvement of our residents.

As you can see, our small local government has responded to the needs of our women and our men and has cooperated with residents' organizations and with community agencies.

With regard to the homes for the aged, 10 homes for the aged are operated by Metro Toronto. With more than 2,500 residents and 3,000 staff, it is the largest long-term care system in Canada. Most of the staff and most of the residents are women. Many of the staff are members of a racial minority group.

Metro provides 20% of the budget for the homes for the aged. In 1996 some members of Metro council attempted to contract out the management of one or more of those Metro homes for the aged. These councillors felt they could reduce or eliminate Metro's contribution to the budget. We are concerned that the board of trustees may wish to reduce the budget for homes for the aged and that the transition team may wish to privatize those homes. The Committee on the Status of Women is opposed to the lowering of standards and services provided in homes for the aged and we are just as opposed to the privatization of that long-term care.

A voice for women: Women have been the leaders in developing and providing services in our neighbourhoods. Women have used these local institutions to gain experience with the democratic process and with lobbying local governments on issues of importance to us.

The government of Ontario would like to increase the size of the council of the city of Toronto from 17 members to 44 members. It will be considerably harder for our community groups to lobby a larger council and achieve favourable decisions on issues of importance to our women.

Historically, many women who have been active in federal and provincial politics in Canada began their electoral careers in local government, women such as Dianne Cunningham, Marilyn Mushinski, Lyn McLeod, Elinor Caplan, Marilyn Churley and Sheila Copps. Women are able to succeed at local levels with less money, fewer high-powered connections and less strain on their families. We are concerned that political success in the massive new city will require the approval of a political party and enormous expenditure of funds, which women do not have. This will effectively shut out women from elected office.

Our most important point always is equity, and the city of Toronto has a history of promoting equity and fairness. The Committee on the Status of Women is concerned that many programs will be lost in the new structure. Some of these are programs to change attitudes and combat violence against racial minorities and gay-bashing; programs to improve the self-esteem of young people who are gay and lesbian; programs to reduce domestic violence and elder abuse; free self-defence courses; pay equity and employment programs; human rights training; and programs to improve access to our city services.

These are all programs which help to create the civil society we have in Toronto. We want these programs to continue. In fact we want those programs to improve. We want Toronto to continue to be the best city in the world. To continue to be the best means that we must have a governance infrastructure which accommodates and encourages citizen participation and accountability to the electorate. We must have a decision-making process which involves the people whose lives are affected by these decisions. We must have requirements in our legislation that they be consulted on the levels of municipal service delivery, including equity and accessibility.

We want Toronto to be the best city in the world for many years to come, and we will not settle for the lowest and the worst.

I think you've heard lots of words today. I'm sure you know that one picture is worth a thousand words. We have a picture we would like to show you that we think embeds the work of our committee and our thoughts on this matter.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here this evening. You have exhausted the time available.

1950

CANADIAN PENSIONERS CONCERNED, ONTARIO DIVISION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on the Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Mae Harman. Good evening, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Mae Harman: Thank you for the opportunity to present this evening. My name is Mae Harman, and I'm president of the Ontario division of Canadian Pensioners Concerned. We are a national voluntary organization of seniors who advocate on issues of concern to seniors and all generations, including things like pensions, health care, transportation and housing. We are determined to work to preserve the good community and a social safety net for all.

For 12 years I lived in a border city and was very glad when I was able to retire and return to Toronto, which is the city I love. When we went over the border it was with a certain amount of nervousness. We made sure the car doors were locked, kept to the main streets and went directly to our planned destination or passed through the city as quickly as possible for the suburbs, where most of the people and the shops had flown from the inner-city ghetto.

Back and forth on the train to Toronto I met many Americans who talked with great enthusiasm about their visits to Toronto: clean and safe and full of wondrous cultural events, entertainment and interesting ethnic food which could be enjoyed by their whole family. We certainly don't want Toronto to become a burnt-out relic of its history, its tree-lined streets and attractive homes, its comfortableness and colour, its life and liveliness, as many of the large American cities have become: burnt-out ghettos.

Big is not always better. There has been no careful analysis of what the megacity would offer that would be better for the people, more effective, more efficient, more cost-effective. Why is the Ontario government so intent on changing its greatest asset into a monster? What is the big hurry? Why is it disregarding the advice of David Crombie and others who were appointed to study the question?

While we've all been engaged in this shouting match, there has been no attempt to involve the people in a calm discussion of what we could do to make our communities serve the people better and coordinate our efforts in a more efficient and effective manner. Instead the government has said: "Go ahead and have your referenda and your hearings, but we will not listen. We have our agenda and we will proceed with it no matter what you think." No wonder the community protest has been noisy.

Some of our services are already coordinated on the Metro level and more could be phased in gradually, following a carefully thought-out plan and involving the elected representatives of the people in the various communities. A megacity will make it much more difficult for the ordinary citizen to access his representative and get a hearing.

Candidates for councillor will have to have the support of a great deal of money and be indebted to these money contributors, and also have political affiliations, which will influence his or her behaviour. Instead of civic-minded candidates, we will have our affairs run by political machines reminiscent of old Chicago and New York. The megacity and its mayor will wield a great deal of power, perhaps more than the Premier of the province.

Faced with the downloading of so many services on to the municipalities, taxes will rise in order to provide services, and the costs of administration and accounting will also rise. This will force many residents and businesses to move out. At the same time, user fees will increase for many of the services now provided. Any income tax rebate, except for the very rich, will be eaten up by increased taxes and costs.

Seniors who find their fixed income spiralling ever downwards are especially worried about the threat of increased assessments and taxes; the loss of services which municipalities will no longer be able to provide; increased user fees; privatization of old-age homes; lack of subsidized housing; lack of transportation; inadequate home care; the curtailment of services from community agencies which previously received municipal grants; the loss of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Aging, free sidewalk snowplowing, property tax grants, public library programs etc. It's a bleak outlook.

As I came out the other morning and saw the Toronto works department sprinkling salt on my outer sidewalk I thought, "Well, this is the last year."

The disabled will also suffer as disability is more narrowly defined and they are moved over from family benefits to something called Ontario Works, whatever that is. I talked with a young woman in a wheelchair today who says she's now lost her family benefits worker -- she's not sure whether she'll get her cheque this month -- and she's been told that she will be reclassified as employable. She's already lost her home care worker, so she has to clean her apartment from her wheelchair.

Olivia Chow in her presentation to these hearings described well how the quality of life of a senior woman in subsidized housing will deteriorate as equipment like elevators and refrigerators go out of service and there's no money to repair or replace.

One of the greatest concerns seniors have is for long-term care. For the last 10 to 12 years, consumers, volunteers, health care providers, professional groups and academics have worked with the different governments on reform of long-term care. The objective was to make it possible for people to remain longer in their own homes by bringing care to them.

Long-term care was seen as one part of a seamless continuum of care from home to hospital to institution. Some of us thought that home and community care, responsive and responsible to the local community, was at last within our grasp as we began planning multiservice agencies in our communities.

The Harris government trashed these and replaced them with six community care access centres for Metropolitan Toronto. The access centres are under the long-term-care division of the provincial Ministry of Health. They're set up within the boundaries of the present municipalities, which are now to pass into the great beyond.

The CCAC boards have been appointed and are working on their bylaws, hiring CEOs and acquiring headquarters. Now the municipalities are to assume responsibility for long-term care and 50% of the cost. What is going to happen to the money that was to be saved by downsizing hospitals and transferred to long-term care? How will long-term care now be part of a continuum of services when it is the responsibility of the municipalities and other services for health are provincial? How can property taxpayers possibly absorb the cost of home care in the face of the closing of hospitals, the shortening of length of stay as people are sent home sicker and quicker than ever before, and a growing senior population?

We are worried that the CCACs may also be trashed just as they are getting organized and home care will be in complete turmoil. There are many complaints now as to the adequacy of its coverage and we cannot afford to embark on yet another experiment in delivery.

It is the duty of government to serve all of the electorate, providing standards, rules, services and protections for all the people, according to their wishes. It is not the role of government to make decisions without consultation and without carefully thought-out plans of action which are in the best interests of all the people.

What machine is driving this big rush to make such drastic changes to our governance? If you have a detailed, thought-out plan, why is it such a secret? What evidence do you have that your megacity will save money and provide efficient services?

Studies of other jurisdictions point to high implementation costs, increased costs of bureaucracy and increased taxes. In Halifax-Dartmouth, what started out as a $7-million amalgamation plan has now topped the $30-million mark. Larger government means larger systems, more staff, slower response time and less regard to the needs of citizens. We don't want your megacity.

You have heard all this many times before, passionately and eloquently, especially by the committee which just preceded me. You must know that many people are very angry about what you're setting out to do and how you're going about it, and you must know that many people are very frightened. One can only pray that your government will use some real common sense.

2000

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I really appreciate your presentation. I think we've determined what's driving the big rush, and that is the government is determined to offload on to municipalities an enormous amount of cost, including the ones you talked about here in terms of long-term care, social assistance and social housing for seniors. That's our conclusion. We saw sort of the other shoe drop shortly after the megacity was announced. Then the other hammer hit of downloading.

Does your organization share that view, that this is perhaps what's driving this, an urge to download on to the property taxpayers many of the services you talk about in your proposal?

Ms Harman: Yes, we see this as a way of supposedly saving money to provide for an income tax drop.

Mr Phillips: What's the feeling of seniors about, as you put it in here -- the income tax cut scheme will benefit the rich, but for seniors it will be eaten up with increased taxes, property taxes, service costs and user fees.

Ms Harman: There are few rich seniors and very many of us, if we're not below the poverty line, are very close to the poverty line and we're getting closer.

Mr Phillips: I can appreciate it. I'm glad you commented on the group before. I personally am totally convinced that we have created the best urban environment in North America because the city of Toronto councils over the years have been, in my opinion, very progressive. I've always said that. I'm also convinced personally that if we eliminate the city of Toronto and have one mega-council, many of the programs this group talked about, these sorts of programs, if we had had one mega-council, would not have existed, and I think over time they will dry up. That's my view. Does the pensioners' group share that concern?

Ms Harman: We do indeed.

Mr Phillips: What would you think would be the impact on seniors if we moved to the megacity and you had to deal with a council of 44 individuals and fight to get on that agenda? What about creative programs that you've seen in the past for seniors? Would you see them slowly disappearing?

Ms Harman: Yes.

Mr Phillips: Are seniors you represent significantly concerned about that?

Ms Harman: We are. I know my local councillor. I met him coming out of the liquor store the other day.

Mr Phillips: Don't mention names.

Ms Harman: He was very helpful to my neighbours and all of us in terms of cutting down some plans for housing that were occurring in our neighbourhood, and we know we can go to him if we want help.

Mr Phillips: I think the problem we run into here is that for those who haven't really experienced how this Metro area works, they simply assume, "They just put it all together, one big council, and it will keep functioning like it has in the past."

Ms Harman: Our friend with the bicycle information a while ago indicates that each community has its own special interests and culture, as he called it, and I think we would lose all that if we moved into one big thing.

Mr Phillips: Have you seen any evidence there are cost savings by amalgamating?

Ms Harman: No.

Mr Phillips: We've asked the government for all the studies. I do not believe there is one study that recommends what they're doing. I don't think they can find one. They instructed Peat Marwick to come up with the answer Peat Marwick came up with it, but I don't think there's been one study anywhere, any time in the history that recommends the amalgamation, including, I might add, Al Leach, Derwyn Shea and Morley Kells. They all signed a report saying: "Don't amalgamate. Beware of false savings of amalgamations."

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Phillips, we've run out of time. Thank you very much, Ms Harman, for appearing here tonight.

JOHN ADAMS

The Vice-Chair: Could I have John Adams, please. Good evening, Mr Adams, and welcome to the committee.

Mr John Adams: I'm actually going to try and put a bit of a framework around this and provide some new information to the committee. Also, I'm going to use a little audio-visual support, so at one point we are going to turn to the TV monitor.

John Sewell, a person who knows me well, once wrote an article in a local newspaper describing John Adams as a fiscal conservative from the Annex. He meant it as a criticism; I took it as a compliment and put it in my election brochure last time around. I approach this submission also as a former budget chief of the city of Toronto. I'm like the specialist you've hired from the mergers and acquisitions department of your favourite financial services organization to do the due diligence review.

Is this a good deal for the municipal taxpayers? Is this a good deal for citizens? There are the two dimensions. Government can be more businesslike, but government is about more than business; it's about democracy as well. This is my attempt to develop a due diligence review of what is a mega-corporate merger.

In my first job out of school I was a reporter with the Globe and Mail, and when you open the Globe tomorrow morning and you turn to the editorial page, which I know you do from time to time, at the top of the masthead there's a quote from Junius, and it says, "The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." This is in part about democracy and it's in part about what's best for the taxpayers.

I want to show you what I consider to be a shocking news clip from the CBC last week. It's about 25 or 30 seconds, and thanks to the modern miracle of the legislative broadcasting service we can see it on the video monitor, if they get my verbal cue. This is from CBC television news, at a public meeting last week.

Audio-visual presentation.

Mr Adams: I want to tell you something. I think it was a low blow for Councillor Tom Jakobek in a public meeting to refer to Premier Harris as a dictator for four years. I know Mike Harris and I don't believe he thinks he is a dictator for the next four years. When you have allies on this cause such as Tom Jakobek walking around town saying it's a four-year dictatorship under the Harris government, you don't need adversaries.

You're going to be hearing from Councillor Jakobek tomorrow morning.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): We've got some allies walking around saying the same thing.

Mr Adams: It's my 10 minutes.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. Order.

Mr Adams: I'll point out that the last time I was in this very room was 1993. David, we were making common cause in trying to persuade the NDP government which had introduced a government bill to impose market value assessment on every property taxpayer across Metro to give it sober second thought. They listened to the public and that bill didn't get third reading. All right, David? So we did make common cause on that one.

2010

The other thing I want to say is that I believe, in terms of democracy, that Leslie Frost got it right in 1953. There are some lessons that a Conservative administration can learn from what was done right in 1953 by Premier Frost; that is, the election was held in 1953 to invent the brand-new thing, two-tier regional and local government, never been tried before on planet Earth. He got it right, and it was not appointed trustees and it was not an appointed transition team; all those important startup decisions were made by the newly elected councillors. That's my second point on the democracy front.

The other thing is turning to the money. You'll remember this brochure. The speaker found a prima facie case that Mr Leach was in contempt of the Legislature because four words were missing: "subject to legislative approval." Well, there's something else that's wrong with this brochure, and I want to put the lie to the numbers here tonight.

This is a pie chart that says "72% of Metro services are already consolidated." In the handouts you've seen tonight, and I just finished my research today, that's an absolute misrepresentation of the facts. You've forgotten that this is the night the lights went out at Queen's Park. You forgot about the largest and most important local service: the local hydro-electric utilities. It's $1.9 billion based upon the 1995 fiscal statements.

They aren't included in the bureaucrats' financial information report, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but I have to tell you this on this handout: The so-called 72% Metro consolidated services versus only 28% at the local level, when you add in the biggest single function of local government, the supply of electrical power for your lights, industries, businesses, shops and computers, the numbers change to 54% on the Metro side and 46%.

That's a lot closer to a wash than the downloading scenario the government has proposed with the transfer of welfare and social services and public housing to the municipalities. If you want to question it, if you want to look, these are the annual reports, audited, for the six local electrical utilities: York, East York, Scarborough, North York, Toronto, Etobicoke.

I can go over that. It adds up and you left it out of the equation and you're misleading people. It's not accurate. Let's come clean. Let's get it straight. I am the due diligence review. I am kicking the tires of the product that is being offered for sale here, and I've got to tell you, this vehicle's got flat tires.

The other thing I want to say is that I think it's a mega-mistake to the taxpayers, that a larger organization will lose economies of scale, not deliver them, and that there will be an added administrative burden to the taxpayers of one megacity.

I'll agree with Mike Harris before he was Premier when he was reported in the Fergus News Express saying, "Harris was asked if he's in favour of amalgamation and he responded: `There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities.'" I agree with Mike Harris's comment there, and Toronto is one of those larger communities.

Mr Bisson: That was then, this is now.

Mr Adams: That was September 28, 1994. You've heard about that one.

Mr Turnbull: Who said that?

Mr Adams: A fellow named Mike Harris.

I was delighted to see that Premier Harris came to this committee this afternoon and took part in the listening process. That's really important, and I think there's some more listening going on across Metropolitan Toronto tonight at a series of meetings, some of them organized by the PC party, some of them organized by others. It's really important. I hope people will listen carefully.

I hope you have learned something new, and I hope you will get it right. By the way, for those MPPs who are from out of town, I know you have a second residence here in town so you're eligible to vote and so I encourage you to take part in the legal referendum under the legislation you gave royal assent to in December 1996.

I'd be delighted to respond to any questions.

Mr Bisson: I agree with you on the comment you made at the beginning, that this government is more about business, but it's about a democracy and delivering services. Although we might be on different sides of the political spectrum, I think we can agree on that.

I guess I've got to ask you the political question. I take it your party affiliation goes without explanation. How do you feel as a long-time Tory seeing this kind of stuff going on that's quite contrary to what supposedly you believe in as a party?

Mr Adams: You're absolutely right. Not only have I had a political job working for the Minister of Community and Social Services here at the Park, 1977 to 1981, but I was an unsuccessful Tory candidate in the 1981 provincial election in the NDP stronghold of Scarborough West, and I have been a municipal councillor in the city of Toronto for the last five years.

I come before you to say that I was six years old in 1953, so I didn't know that at the time. I had to learn about Leslie Frost and what he did in inventing two-tier metropolitan government, and I think he got it right. I hope I've caused some people to ask some questions and open their minds tonight.

Mr Bisson: But to answer the question, how do you feel as a long-time Tory seeing this kind of stuff going on by your own party?

Mr Adams: I think my button here says it all.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Adams.

Mr Adams: Oh, and be nice, clear your ice. It's particularly slippery out there.

BRIJ BALI

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Brij Bali, please. Good evening, Mr Bali. Welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Brij Bali: Madam Chairperson, dear esteemed committee members, thank you very much for this opportunity to express my personal views on the proposed amalgamation leading to a megacity.

I should begin by adding that a few months ago, when the whole process leading to the proposed megacity was coming up, my son, who's in grade 9 in East York, did a project on it and I helped him a lot in doing some research. That's kind of opened up my eyes in terms of what really was going on and why things were happening the way they were being proposed.

My name is Brij Bali. I'm a resident of the borough of East York and I hold a bachelor of commerce and an MBA degree. Presently I'm an information technology student at the Information Technology Institute in Toronto. So you can say I'm employed as a student.

There have been various studies on this subject. My views and my son's views are categorized as follows.

We're looking at three major categories. One is city management. There is the practical state of city management and administration that needs to be addressed. Our goal is to ensure that efficient services are provided to our community. The duplication of roles and extensive bureaucracy that result from the present system can only be addressed based on a singular management methodology. Members of the community need to conform to one set of guidelines and not have to be treated differently if they step from one municipality to another, whether for personal or business reasons. I have personal experience, having been in business a few years ago.

The question is basically put as: Are we better off in general by having many administrations or are we better off by having an aggregate body to administer us? Are we better off having pieces in different parts of our geography or are we better to put them together? The answer will obviously reflect the realities of today and the future, with the past being our yardstick.

A unified system of deliverance has fewer rules or bylaws. It can address the specific needs of our communities. It avoids overlapping of responsibilities and enables us to have one voice in Canada and globally, basically giving us a strategic advantage in positioning ourselves to address the next century. I have seen Toronto losing a lot of opportunities and I am very sad for that. I believe Toronto has all the potential to address itself to all these global challenges.

The second item is synergy. This word will help me to define this marriage. Individually, as municipalities, we were homogeneous in our day-to-day functions. By establishing this matrimonial relationship, we are pooling together our resources and investing our attention towards gaining synergy. That's why we establish matrimonial relationships among ourselves. It is obvious that maintaining us in the status quo will serve to alienate us from addressing and achieving together the benefits of synergy. Rejecting to improvise and stabilize and stimulate our present system will in my opinion serve to disillusion our vision of being the best of the best.

The third part is transparency. Different systems evolve around different cultures. Do we want to see this? Our own homes have distinct cultures. Our businesses have their own cultures. There is little sense in having different municipality cultures within a five-mile radius. We want to attract investment into Ontario, and Toronto will be the guiding light of Ontario. If we want to create Ontario into a wealth machine, we want to develop this unified base.

All this enables us to have realistic benchmarks to develop the city based on transparent and common parameters. Today we have a helicopter view of our six individual cities. In order to create efficiency and transparency, we need to get down into this forest and ensure that all the trees are taken care of. Our unified city will ensure that we address our priorities in a coherent manner.

That's my short presentation. Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to my presentation.

2020

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just wanted to go back to what a lot of presenters have been bringing forward to the committee: their concern about local identities as they relate to regional identities. It seems that when a lot of presenters, when they come forward, one overlays the other. In fact the things they appreciate about their local municipality and their local government are driven by the regional or the Metro-type services. Do you see any reason why they should be different, why you need both levels of services? If you were going to have the two levels of services, which are important to be at a more local level and which ones should be Metro-wide?

Mr Bali: To me, two levels of services is where the confusion starts, where the duplication starts and essentially where we need to create some synergy and some effort into aligning ourselves in a focused manner.

I have been in business. I've run my own business at one time and I have seen myself crossing over from one municipality to another doing business across Metro Toronto. It disappoints me a little bit to hear complaints in every direction, and myself facing some of those constraints. However, to me, one system across the entire Metro range is ideal and I think the time has come to get married together.

Forget this debate. I'm tired of looking at television and listening to the East York council debating very trivial issues that can be handled by independent committees or volunteer committees at the community level. We do agree that communities are distinct and can handle their own affairs. On the basis of a unified city, we can definitely look forward to our own individual, independent volunteer committees addressing those priorities.

Mr Hardeman: The other issue that comes up regularly is that presently the different cities have different levels of services and there's a lot of concern expressed that because you would put it in a unified city it would automatically tend to take the services to a different level; that the new people elected would not be prone to providing the level of service that is presently being provided in individual municipalities. Do you see any reason why we would work on the assumption that if you were electing representatives to a unicity, they would not be the representatives who presently serve on the local councils? Would you see a reason why the present mayor of Toronto could not be elected as the mayor of the new supercity?

Mr Bali: I don't see any reason. I think the process itself will be very transparent and there will be enough campaigning to take care of that. We'll choose the best of the best.

In terms of services that are existent today, I am very much of the opinion that services could be provided from a unified base and provided better. I don't see much sense in having carnivals going on in different parts of Metropolitan Toronto, as if one part of Metro is competing with the other part. Is it better to go to North York rather than to East York for a carnival? It's not a question of having more resources in North York and not having enough in East York, in a borough, or in Etobicoke, but I believe that at a unified level we can standardize the services to meet the needs of different communities, because it is the communities that bring up these events. Let us base these events and these services on the needs of the particular communities, based on their cultures, based on their background and their particular status in the community.

Mr Hardeman: Last but not least, I was involved in another area. They did a study in the downtown area of a city and they interviewed the people on the street and asked them about local government. It turns out that better than 80% of the people asked on the street did not know they had a two-tier system of local government. Would you assume that would be any different in Toronto or any of the cities in Toronto?

Mr Bali: Can you repeat the question, the last part, please?

Mr Hardeman: In a survey they did on the street over an extensive period of time, better than 80% of the people did not know they had two levels of local government. Maybe this would be the wrong time to do it -- obviously this issue is on everyone's minds presently -- but prior to this, would you say that would be different in Toronto? Do you think people in Toronto and the other cities of Metro have a different view of local government and are more involved with it than they are in other major centres?

Mr Bali: I think definitely yes. Definitely there will be more awareness of the commonality and the uniformity of services that are being provided. There'll be one provider and I think that provider will be the recognized agency. I think the confusion today stems from the fact that there are too many providers and one doesn't know whether it's two providers or it's five providers.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bali, for appearing here this evening. We've run out of time.

JAMES ALCOCK

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on James Alcock, please. Good evening, Mr Alcock. Welcome to the standing committee. Could I ask you to introduce yourselves?

Mr James Alcock: I'm James Alcock and this is my colleague Bruce Bryer. Good evening and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before this committee.

My name is James Alcock and I'm a transportation planning consultant with a degree in urban planning from the University of Toronto. I live in the eastern Beaches, in the vicinity of Victoria Park Avenue and Kingston Road. I'm not connected to any political party or group; I'm just a private citizen who's expressing an opinion on this crucial issue. Mr Bryer is my colleague in transportation.

I highly endorse Bill 103, as amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto is a very necessary step in the evolution of this city. It was first proposed in 1953 and was pushed by the then city of Toronto. However, opposition from the other municipalities stopped it. The efforts of Frederick G. Gardiner, Metro's first chairman, brought about a compromise, which is the Metro federation that we have today. It worked well throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and even partial amalgamation took place in 1966 when seven of Metro's then 13 boroughs were merged. They have since survived as distinct neighbourhoods such as Leaside, Forest Hill and Weston. Visionary planning with Metro-wide policies existed at that time.

However, in 1969, a group called the urban reformers came to power and that's when things started to go drastically wrong with the system. Planning and politics became parochial and small-minded. This situation has escalated in the last 20 years to the disastrous point we are at now.

If a person lives on the east side of Victoria Park Avenue, right by where I live, in Scarborough, on a municipal boundary line, and a fire or ambulance station exists on the west side, as it does, in Toronto, then a person living on the east side cannot be served by those stations because they exist in another municipality. A potentially dangerous situation is created due to the existence of a boundary line. Visionary planning going as far back as 1915 has given way to parochialism and backyard planning.

The 1966 Metro plan coordinating the entire Metro area services was dropped in favour of a Metro plan which is a patchwork of six separate plans each with different policies laid out by politicians. This has resulted in different levels of services and favouritism. Seven planning departments have created this problem while one could coordinate services and complete systems across the entire Metro area.

Taxation is not balanced, with one area paying more than another for the same services; Scarborough and North York currently paying more than Toronto.

The worst result of the existing system is the bickering parochial politics. Downtown Toronto politicians are punishing suburban people who need to get downtown to their jobs.

2030

Metro has been moving towards amalgamation steadily since 1953. In addition to seven of Metro's original boroughs being amalgamated already, police, sewage, major roads, transit and major parks are also amalgamated. In fact, almost three quarters of existing services to Metro residents are amalgamated on a Metro-wide basis.

Overlapping and duplication costs money, and it is a waste that people have already expressed a desire to be rid of. Why do we need seven planning departments or seven parks departments or six fire departments or Metro roads and local roads, Metro parks and local parks? If we have one police force, why can't we have one fire department, eliminating that Victoria Park Avenue situation I mentioned earlier?

Taking this final step to complete amalgamation would save millions of dollars each year, money that could be put to better uses such as social services, road repairs and keeping taxes down. Splitting everything up back into independent cities is certainly not an option, as it would cost far more. Neighbourhood councils, which will be part of this, will ensure that the city core does not deteriorate, like US cities, because the residents will have a say in keeping the core vibrant.

Urban reformers, who have dominated this city since 1969, are some of the people fighting Bill 103 because they see it as the death knell of their own power in the city as the new council will most likely not be dominated by one group. These reformers have brought party politics into local government, which was not there before. We now have a situation where many councillors toe the party lines on issues which are not necessarily in the best interests of the city. This can be seen in planning policies and the breakup of the Metro plan into a patchwork of conflicting policies. These people have created a kind of fortress Toronto out of the city of Toronto council, which is anti-suburban. The city-suburb split has fragmented Metro, and the needs of the city have fallen through the cracks. Only amalgamation will fix this problem.

Spending has got out of control. Grants to interest groups which prop up certain politicians have become rampant. Meanwhile police and road budgets have been cut, some falling below levels of safety. The new amalgamated council will be able to control spending and see to it that moneys are properly distributed to every necessary service on a standardized level and that the needs of the city come first.

An example of wasted grants is the current funding by the city of a one-sided campaign against amalgamation in order to save jobs; also the upcoming referenda on this issue. These referenda are not even being done properly, with no enumeration. In my case, for example, I would have been left out if I had not checked and discovered that the city of Toronto still had me down at my old address. No enumeration is going to produce biased and inaccurate results that I really feel should be ignored.

The opposition's claim that amalgamation will destroy neighbourhoods is profoundly untrue. Neighbourhoods are made by people and not political boundary lines. The Beaches and Forest Hill will survive no matter where the political boundaries are. People identify with these areas as distinct neighbourhoods. The Beaches has been part of the city of Toronto for over 60 years and its character is distinct as ever. Scarborough and North York will still exist in the new Toronto.

Bill 103 is a necessary political reform for efficiency. The downloading of services to Metro is another entirely different issue, which should not be confused with it. In fact, the province is in turn taking over education costs, so the amalgamated city will not be responsible for putting together the existing seven school boards, one less cost to the new city.

One area that has severely suffered -- and this is my expertise -- with the existing system is the Metro road system. Funding has been cut to fall below levels of necessary repairs, creating dangerous conditions. Downtown politicians wish to dismantle the F.G. Gardiner Expressway because they don't like it, with total disregard of the through traffic which needs it. The existing political system has created dead-end roads ending at boundary lines, such as the Allen and Leslie Street at Eglinton Avenue and the Gardiner Expressway east at Leslie Street. The situation has cost Metro approximately $2 billion in potential development, including a chance to host the Olympic Games.

It is estimated that 100,000 commuters will travel between downtown and the suburbs daily by the year 2000, yet Metro politicians continue to plan bicycle trails and ignore the plight of our road system. The sensible balance of roads and transit planning has been thrown out. Cars and trucks are not going to go away. Goods cannot be delivered by bicycle or transit, and jobs are leaving the city and heading to the 905 region.

The present undemocratic situation, where vocal interest groups rule over the silent majority, will finally be swept away. I look forward to the new amalgamated city of Toronto, which will be a world-class city with standardized services, fair taxation across the board, efficient transportation and everyone having a chance to participate in government with neighbourhood councils.

The new city will need to be tied together by an efficient outer-ring road system. The ring system currently has a gap in it, a missing link located in eastern Metro. After amalgamation, this will have to be completed.

A plan to do this has existed since December 1922, and we are in the process of updating it. I urge the construction of a Bluffs boulevard, originally conceived by Norman D. Wilson, a traffic consultant with the city of Toronto and with Metro. This is endorsed by Sam Cass, retired commissioner of Metro roads, and D. Crawford Smyth, retired commissioner of the TTC. The roadway, conceived in 1922 -- we were looking at the plans this morning -- was endorsed by Fred Gardiner in 1954. It would connect the east end of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway with Highway 401 in Pickering, along the bottom of the Scarborough Bluffs. It can easily be done, since there is no land to acquire and some of the roadbed landfill is already in place. The detailed plans, currently owned by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, can be updated and provide a beautiful new eastern waterfront with parks and beaches which tourists would really enjoy. It would remove through traffic from Beaches neighbourhoods by providing a bypass, making eastern residential areas peaceful once again.

Mr Bisson: Would you include bike trails?

Mr Alcock: I would include bike trails, and I would include an LRT as well.

Please pass Bill 103 to help Toronto to enter the challenges of the 21st century and bring the deteriorating, fragmented city of political parochialism to an end. Bill 103 is Toronto's only salvation. Thank you and good luck.

Mr Phillips: I was interested in your brief, but for one reason, some of your conclusions seemed inconsistent with your logic. You have a concern about the Metro police budget and the Metro road budget. I think those are your two big concerns. Both of those are handled by Metro council already.

Mr Alcock: That's correct.

Mr Phillips: A majority on Metro council are not city of Toronto representatives. You've indicated your concern about the Allen Expressway. As you know, that was terminated not by the city of Toronto but by the provincial government. I'm just wondering how you reached your conclusions about supporting Bill 103 when much of your evidence supports not proceeding with Bill 103.

Mr Alcock: I've done quite a bit of research at the Metro archives, and plus I've been concerned about this issue for quite some time. You talk about the Allen Expressway. Actually, it was a lot of the city-of-Toronto people further south who have managed to prevent this highway. I know it was the provincial government that originally stopped it, but it was the city politicians further in the city who have prevented any possibility of extending it farther south, who have prevented the possibility of going farther south into the city. Plus the roads budget -- I've just seen the figures -- has been cut so far back they can't even do some necessary repairs.

Mr Phillips: But my point is that is a Metro responsibility, and you're advocating putting more responsibility to Metro.

Mr Alcock: I'm advocating that we unify the whole thing.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, I have to interrupt. We've exceeded our time available. Thank you very much.

2040

LABOUR COUNCIL OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND YORK REGION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Linda Torney, Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and York Region. Good evening, Ms Torney, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Linda Torney: I am the president of the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and York Region. Our council represents about 180,000 organized workers in Toronto and in York region in a number of unions: construction, private and public sector unions.

Our labour council does not support the proposed merger of the municipalities in Metro Toronto. We realize these hearings are for comment on Bill 103. However, we believe that the various announcements made during so-called mega-week are interrelated. If given a chance, we will be here to make a deputation on Bill 104 and other pieces of legislation that may be introduced talking about these issues. I will attempt to confine my comments here to Bill 103, but this may be difficult since I believe all of these pieces of legislation are driven by a corporate ideology that government and its employees are inherently bad and our major goal must be to get rid of them. We disagree with that premise.

Government is supposed to act for the common good, in the interests of all of its people. Whether this provincial government likes it or not, government is not a business and shouldn't behave like one. Businesses, after all, are not democratic institutions; governments should be, although the speed and lack of concern for the wishes of the citizens of Metro Toronto makes one wonder if this particular government hasn't lost sight of that fact.

What we find frustrating with this government is its unwillingness to be up front with its political and policy agendas. Bill 103 is more that just creating a megacity. Mega-week clearly demonstrated that there is another agenda at work, and we suspect this entire exercise is designed to position existing public municipal services for mass privatization to the for-profit sector. If this is the intent, then we are giving this government advance warning that you can expect the labour movement in this city to fight this every inch of the way.

If we sound suspicious of the provincial government's motives in Bill 103, consider that we have not yet heard one valid reason why this merger should take place, and there is certainly no good reason why it should happen with such obscene haste. We know that the stated reason is this fall's municipal elections, but there is nothing magical about the election timing. As Mayor Barbara Hall has stated, these elections can be postponed for six months. If changes in municipal structure of any sort are to be contemplated, surely there is nothing to be lost in exploring the options fully and providing adequate time for the public to become informed and debate the issues. Major change is always achieved with greater stability when maximum consensus is achieved along with it.

Mr Leach's statement, as reprinted in the Toronto Star, quotes him as saying that no one was really happy with the way things were. This is not true. The results of a poll also quoted in the daily press showed that more than 75% of Metro residents were satisfied with their municipal government. This is hardly an indication that no one is happy. In fact, any concerns raised by anyone related to municipal structures have to do with services which are regional in scope, and the Metro merger does nothing to address the problems of the greater Toronto area. Everyone, including the government's own task force, recommends that local levels of government remain in place. It has been found again and again that this is the level closest to the people and should remain so. My own rough calculation shows that the proposed new structure has each councillor responsible for a minimum of 50,000 people. I understand that in Mr Harris's own home town, the figure is closer to one in 5,000. This is hardly equal representation.

Mr Leach goes on to cite concern over slow economic recovery, concern that Toronto is not growing as fast as cities with whom we compete and that jobs are not created as quickly. Let's take these one by one.

Slow economic recovery: This region has been devastated by the economic policies of other levels of government, beginning with the federal free trade agreements and high interest rate policies of the 1990s. Slow economic recovery is not the fault of municipal governments, and we fail to see how a merger will speed that recovery up, unless of course the hidden agenda is the removal of all restrictions on planning and development.

If this is the agenda, then it is not acceptable to the citizens of Metro Toronto who, regardless of their political stripe, have fought long and hard to ensure that land development is balanced with protection of neighbourhoods and environmental concerns. The balance that has largely been achieved in Metro does not mean no development, it means good development, the kind which has created the livable city of which we are proud. The livable city is, in fact, a major plank in our economic development platform, one of the stated reasons businesses locate in Metro and certainly responsible for our strong tourism industry. The livable city has been achieved by local politicians working together with the local population, including both business and community interests.

Growth of Toronto: This statement is unclear. If by "growth" Mr Leach means "population," and if the comparison is with the 905 area code and beyond, there are a couple of factors which need to be pointed out. First, Metro is essentially a built-up region. It is therefore only natural that population will grow faster in suburban areas. Second, current planning concepts practised in Metro try to avoid suburban sprawl, which is now recognized to be costly in the long term. Instead, infill development is utilized, creating another factor towards a livable city.

Jobs are not created as quickly: Whether this is true or not, we fail to see how a merger, which by the government's own estimates will cost 4,500 jobs over four years, is the answer to the problem. Mr Leach says those jobs will go by attrition, which misses the whole point of job creation. In a healthy economy, jobs which are vacated by retirement or relocation are filled by those who are seeking jobs. The flawed thinking which wipes these jobs off the balance sheet simply because no actual layoff was effected may be the reason we have such a high youth unemployment rate.

Cost factors: Every now and then, I see that the government is claiming that this will save money. For whom? Taking the downloading proposals into account, I understand the net increase for Metro Toronto is now over the $500-million mark and probably still rising. This has to be paid for by local taxes or by cuts in vital public services, neither of which residents of Metro Toronto can afford.

It isn't the residents who save money. Is it the municipality? Everything I have read about amalgamation costs indicates they will be staggering. According to what I have read in the press, Metro and the municipalities have about 166,000 bylaws which will have to be merged, just as one item to be considered. I'm told by experts in this field that the academic literature on amalgamation is unanimous: Costs always go up. When pushed on this issue, even the government's own consultants admitted that in fact the amalgamation could produce a negative result.

I want to urge committee members to put aside partisan differences and review the comments made by Alexa McDonough to the committee last week. Ms McDonough outlined the serious problems which the Halifax regional municipality has had to address in the post-merger environment. What I took from Ms McDonough's presentation is that there are no financial savings from large amalgamations.

So who saves? If this is to do with funding the tax break, as many suspect, then only a few of the wealthy will benefit. The rest of us will spend far more than our provincial tax cut in paying through the nose for our municipal services and increased property taxes.

Mr Chairperson, I want to address the issue of amending Bill 103. I mentioned earlier one of the many frustrations with Mr Harris's government is its unwillingness to be completely up front with its political and policy agendas. We suspect that the minister, on behalf of this government, will introduce some amendments to the bill in an attempt to save face. Amendments will create the illusion that this government has listened to the public, the experts and our municipal representatives. The labour movement has learned from experience that this government does not listen and always remains committed to its rigid ideological beliefs. We are doubtful that amendments to Bill 103, such as cost sharing of welfare across the 416-905 codes, will either resolve or diminish the fundamental flaws of the megacity concept.

The proposed megacity will not work for the 416 municipalities. The citizens know this, the municipal experts know this and the labour movement knows this, and we suspect that even the provincial government knows this.

Now is the time for Premier Harris and his government to put aside the rigid ideology and start to govern with thought, care and consideration to all perspectives on this vital issue.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr Bisson: Linda, thank you very much for the presentation. What boggles the mind in all of this is that I remember being in government listening to the then third party, the Conservatives, always come to committees such as we have here, whenever the government came forward with a proposal, and call for cost analyses and all the numbers and figures to back up whatever it was the government was doing, and we would provide that to the extent possible. What's frustrating in this one is that I would have believed in opposition they were sincere and they would follow through with that kind of practice in government, but when it comes to this whole process of megacity, I have yet to see any documentation to support the government's claim. All of the reports I've seen and all of the committee studies that have been done up to now on the whole question of amalgamation have actually pointed, as you pointed out, in the other direction, quite frankly against amalgamation.

2050

The question I ask you is simply this: Do you think there is actually any documentation out there that would support this government's position, or is it just that they don't want to produce it because it's not available?

Ms Torney: I don't think there's any that supports it. I think one of the reasons we have not seen any solid evidence about this merger being good is that it's not a very well-thought-out merger proposal. Let's assume for a moment that there is a service someplace that is better delivered than it is right now. We even have an example of that in the history of Metro in the amalgamation of the police forces, which didn't require the merger of six municipalities in order to merge police forces.

If there were true cost savings and efficiencies to be gained in the delivery of services, then I think one would explore those services one by one with full debate and see whether there's a better delivery mechanism for that service. Surely what is really at stake here is the quality of services that can be delivered in a municipal environment, and that should be the number one concern.

Mr Bisson: The other thing is, and you touched on it in two parts: At the beginning you talked about government not being a business; that it delivers a service. It's there as a democracy to provide services to the people within its area. But then a little bit later you got into -- you didn't particularly say that, but basically the comment is: "The minister says and the Premier says and members of the government say that nobody is happy with the status quo. The status quo doesn't work. Toronto is awful. It's terrible. We've got to do something about it."

I just wonder how you square that off against Toronto successfully, time after time, being recognized as one of the best cities in the world to live in, not only by Forbes magazine, but by other publications I've seen in the past. How do you square that off against the status quo argument? If other people across the world recognize that Toronto is a great place to live, Toronto being the six cities within Metropolitan Toronto, certainly to God, something's been going on right in this city. Is that whole argument, in your view, just political rhetoric?

Ms Torney: I think it is. We are very proud of our city. It's structured in a certain way because we believe that's the way it should be structured. It's not perfect, nothing is, but if anything, it may need some fine-tuning. It's not broke, so don't fix it.

Mr Bisson: The other part is the big business versus small business. As a labour council, you can probably bring a pretty different perspective to this than the government members would be willing to hear, and that is the whole question that big business is more efficient. You have members of your affiliate locals who represent workers in huge companies. In your experience as a labour council president in your years of negotiating with various companies, is it necessarily bigger businesses, huge businesses that are more efficient, or is it normally the smaller businesses that tend to be more efficient?

Ms Torney: I think often it's the smaller businesses, but I also think, when you compare business to public sector, it's not an appropriate comparison because business, off the top, must turn a profit; it's the nature of the beast. If you add a profit motive or profit level into the delivery of public services, you have already created a situation in which you must cut costs or jack up your revenue somehow in order to meet and build in that profit. We have examples, because I really believe that this agenda is about mass privatization of public services. I think that's where this is heading.

Mr Bisson: That's the last question I have to ask you. I agree with you. They're not doing Bill 103 only on the basis of wanting to privatize. There are a whole bunch of other things that have taken place. You've had Bill 7, you've had Bill 26, you have this bill, Bill 103, and Bill 104. You've got all the downloading going on, you've got other successive pieces of legislation coming after, and it certainly paints the picture that, you're right, this government doesn't believe in public services and whatever is left when they have done destroying most of what's left will be delivered by the private sector. What I ask is, what does this mean in human terms to the people who make up the working class of this city?

Ms Torney: It means a great deal of job loss, for starters. Those are for those people who are in those services that are privatized and then downsized, because that's invariably what will happen when you add a profit motive to it.

It also will probably mean user fees for the people who are the receivers of those services. Undoubtedly, that's what it's going to mean. So whether you're working class working in the sector or whether you're using it, you're going to pay more and lose more.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

STELLA SAVAGE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Stella Savage from the West Scarborough Community Legal Services. Good evening and welcome to the standing committee.

Mrs Stella Savage: Thank you. I would like to congratulate all the committee members. When I was given this time slot, I expressed concern that I might be speaking to a lot of rather sleepy people; I'm most impressed by the alertness and interest I have observed as I was listening.

I speak as an individual and I speak with two voices tonight, as a resident of East York and as a staff lawyer at a community legal clinic in Scarborough. I want to address my concerns from both these perspectives. I will be brief. I think I was mistakenly considered to be speaking for a group, but I'm an individual.

First, as a resident and a citizen, I feel that my democratic rights have been denied. Mr Harris's election platform contained no plan for amalgamation. I certainly could never have voted to support appointed officials overseeing any municipality. I have no problem in accepting that major changes were and are required to reduce costs and streamline service delivery and to bring some uniformity to property tax assessment across Metro. The best way may be to combine the current six municipalities into one mega-unit, but let's not jump into such major changes in a hurry.

What is the main purpose of Bill 103? Is it to reduce the cost of local government? Hardly. Where amalgamation has already taken place in other parts of Canada and in other countries, costs have consistently increased to a smaller or greater extent. So cost-effectiveness can't be the driving force.

Is it to improve the quality of life in Metro? If this is the case, then maybe it will be worth extra dollars, but in cities around the world where amalgamation has been effected, the opposite has been the case. I refer among others to New York, Detroit and London, England. Costs have gone up. Services have been reduced: dirty streets, fewer recreation facilities, increased crime, unkempt parks, in fact places unattractive to either business or tourists.

Is it to increase employment or decrease it? Cost saving involves layoffs. Who has seniority in six different municipalities? What will the hourlyrate be for comparable remaining employees: the highest or the lowest rate in any category? Who pays the severance for all the surplus employees? We know who will pay the welfare when the UI benefits run out. Are unions relevant? Is the megacity a ploy to weaken public sector unions? I suspect it might be.

As a citizen, I want time to find the answers to the above questions. I believe all citizens are entitled to an informed opinion and to participate in debate before amalgamation becomes a fact. Why does amalgamation have to be rushed? If it's worth doing, then let's slow down and do it properly. If that means delaying municipal elections, let's delay them.

The time frame for passage of Bill 103 is so tight it will already be almost impossible for new municipal boundaries to be in place in time for November elections. This raises to my mind the biggest question of all. Why is the province trying so hard to rush through Bill 103? What is the government covering up? What is it hiding from me? What is the government afraid that I will find out? Maybe this committee can answer that question. I fear that Bill 103 has been introduced at this particular time to act as a smokescreen to steer attention away from the effects of downloading, which is being introduced concurrently.

As a lawyer in a community legal clinic serving low-income people in Scarborough, I see amalgamation as putting the services most needed by this group of people at risk of being out of their reach. I see libraries, swimming pools, other recreational facilities having fees attached, removing them from the reach of those who need them most.

2100

We already know that downloading is not revenue-neutral. I will highlight just two of the many areas of my particular concerns.

Social assistance: Contrary to the recommendations of the Crombie task force and every previous report, social assistance has been shifted to municipalities. The potential for reduction in benefits is horrendous. Cash-strapped municipalities will vie with each other to provide the least amount to those in need so as not to encourage an influx of indigent persons from neighbouring areas. How many taxpayers will push for higher property taxes to pay for welfare? It is my opinion that the major changes proposed by Bill 103 will be used to deflect provincial responsibility for the inevitable tax hikes and service reductions.

My second area of concern is social housing. The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is responsible for thousands of units. It's generally acknowledged, I think, that an amount somewhere in the neighbourhood of $220 million is immediately required to raise these housing units to an acceptable standard. That money will of course have to come from property taxes. How many people will willingly pay higher taxes? Renters pay taxes too. I suspect the number who will pay willingly is not very great.

The result will be disintegration and probably a reduction in numbers of social housing units, more people chasing fewer units at the same time as landlords in the private sector will be allowed to increase their rents as taxes increase, if the misnamed Tenant Protection Act passes as proposed.

Social assistance and social housing are very closely connected. Only in subsidized housing can a single welfare recipient find affordable accommodation. A shelter allowance of $325 does not get you very much in Toronto; $511 shelter allowance a month for a family of two is equally restrictive. These are the people that I feel will suffer most with increased market rents.

These are some of the problems that I fear are being buried from the public by this government rushing amalgamation at this time. I hope my fears are wrong and I thank you for listening to me.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Thank you, Mrs Savage, for being here this late in the session this evening and for expressing your concerns. You are associated with a community legal clinic, you are a lawyer, and when I listen to your concerns, I think also on the legal side of things. I think you'll agree that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force have, as an amalgamated police force, done a fairly good job in the performance of their duties Metro-wide over the past several years now. Is that a concept with which you would agree?

Mrs Savage: In some areas, yes.

Mr Flaherty: I don't think you'd suggest that we go back to local police forces, given the nature of urban municipalities on a broad scale these days and the type of challenges that are faced by police forces.

Mrs Savage: I haven't said that I'm opposed to amalgamation. I'm saying I don't know enough about it. I feel I'm being rushed into something I'm not ready for.

Mr Flaherty: I think also you're moving away from the criminal aspect of things, from crime in our communities. Even in the property aspects of our communities, we have one registry office, for example, to deal with the various areas of the former municipalities that now form the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto -- I'm sure as a lawyer you're familiar with that, both in registry and in land titles -- and we don't want to back to the inefficiencies of having people having to travel all over the metropolitan area to search a title to a property. I think of those two, immediately, as examples with which you would be familiar as a lawyer.

Are you concerned, then, that we move forward in an orderly way to maximize those efficiencies, as has been done with the police and the registry systems, which are two systems that come to mind?

Mrs Savage: I'm concerned that too much is being done at once without its being possible as an individual to understand everything. I think the effects of downloading and the effects of amalgamation are clouding each other and that's what concerns me.

Mr Flaherty: I appreciate your concerns. We are having five weeks of hearings, three days a week on Bill 103, and of course this is an opportunity, as you have done, to have concerns expressed, as you have eloquently expressed them. I thank you for that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here this evening. We're adjourned until 9:05 tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 2107.