Committee Transcript 1997-Feb-27 | 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.

FRANCES NUNZIATA

The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Frances Nunziata, the mayor of the city of York. You have half an hour this morning to make your presentation. If there's some time left over at the end of your presentation, I'm going to divide it equally among the caucuses for some questions and comments. Ms Nunziata, you can begin.

Ms Frances Nunziata: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the council and residents of the city of York. York began as a rural township in 1793 and as such we are the oldest municipality in Metro Toronto and have a population of just over 134,000.

It is unfortunate that over the course of the last few weeks the debate over Bill 103 has been divisive, leaving wounds that will last long after this bill has been passed into law. This is unfortunate but understandable. It is unfortunate because many of us in York and Metro Toronto recognize that the status quo is not acceptable and some form of change is in order. We were, and remain, prepared to sit down and constructively discuss changes to the form and function of our own municipality in a spirit of partnership and cooperation with the province.

I understand the frustration that many have felt with the process surrounding Bill 103. The government has, through its misguided, concurrent proposal to download social service costs to the municipal sector, alienated many of its potential partners while at the same time causing, as the Premier himself said last week, a significant amount of confusion. There are those who believe the significant confusion caused by the entanglement of the two separate issues of amalgamation and downloading to be deliberate. They believe that downloading additional costs to the municipal sector is an attempt to hide the impact of a campaign promise to reduce provincial income tax by 30%. In any event, there can be no doubt that downloading is wrong for Metro and wrong for York.

While some have argued against any type of change, my position has been, remains and will always be that I'll support any change that is in the best interests of the residents of York. To help us know if that is the case, our council is anxious to receive all the information the province has regarding the financial, service and governance implications of the legislation we have before us.

Metro Toronto MPPs, including the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his parliamentary assistant, all campaigned in the last election advocating the recommendations of the Trimmer report. In fact, the minister himself sat with Mrs Trimmer on her task force. Now that the minister and the government are imposing the opposite of what they campaigned for, I am puzzled, as is Mrs Trimmer, why the government has not released the convincing facts and information available that made them change their collective minds. If this information is not available, then one is left with the only logical conclusion: that this is a ploy designed to hide the true impact of a 30% tax cut.

York wants to make a reasonable and fact-based decision about where our best future lies. But our projections show employers like Kodak paying $651,346 more in business taxes because of downloading; an average property on Humewood, close to $1,000 a year; the doughnut shop at Keele and Eglinton which will pay $3,220 more in taxes. The list goes on and on. If you can provide us with some information that shows these figures are wrong, we need to see it.

We are a well-managed municipality. Costs per household for local government have been the lowest in Metro for three of the last four years. Along with a zero tax increase in the past three years, currently York's costs are the third-lowest among the 30 GTA communities, surpassed only by the very smallest municipalities having minimal civic administrations. York also has a tightly integrated network of community services, public school and adult education programs, along with innovative community economic development programs.

In recent years, York has also become a major immigration reception area for Metro Toronto. While this enhances our cultural richness as a city, this influx is not without its challenges. It has impacted our assessment base and put additional pressure on a number of our social services. Yet our small size has allowed us to quickly adapt to changing circumstances by forming strategic alliances with community and business groups to bring about innovative service delivery.

0910

We have the quickest first response to a fire situation anywhere in Metro; the lowest tonnage cost for recycling, garbage and yard waste collection; and we also have the lowest water rates for high-volume users and the lowest hydro rates in Metro. Contrary to statements that York does not have separate storm and sanitary sewers, more than 55% of York has a separate storm and sanitary sewer system. York also has four arenas, three community centres and three outdoor pools. While maintaining a zero tax increase for the last three years, as I mentioned, our service users have indicated a satisfaction rate exceeding 80%. We have embarked on façade and streetscape improvement programs as part of our infrastructure renewal. Again, our small size has allowed us to more easily facilitate closer partnerships within the community.

CEDAC, York's Community Economic Development Action Group, has been able to put in place programs related to marketing and skills development. For example, we have worked closely with employers such as Redpath to develop a specialty foodservice program that provides valuable marketing and education training for companies in York. To a considerable extent, this has been possible because of the close interaction between community organizations, council and city staff, which in turn helps us to foster our strong sense of community spirit, which in my view is part of the very essence of what we should stand for as a local government.

For example, as mayor one of my main priorities is dealing with the issue of crime in my municipality. Because of the close contact between our neighbourhoods and elected councillors, as mayor I can work closely with these neighbourhoods and develop a rapport with police officers in the community to deal with problems related to prostitution and drugs. That is why one of the main concerns of York residents is that the accessibility, awareness and accountability we presently take for granted will be greatly diminished.

A community must rest on the foundation of more than the numbers at the bottom of a balance sheet. Particularly in an era of what sometimes appears to be a singleminded attack by governments across the country on deficits, the close interdependence we find in York is something I personally value a great deal. Would this be undermined in a megacity? Certainly if Bill 103 is passed, along with downloading, it is a risk that I hope this committee agrees is simply not worth taking.

Let me be clear: I realize that in meeting most challenges in life we sometimes must change and that we sometimes run risks in doing so, but the way ahead for York needs to be a little more stable as we travel down this road of change.

Some people have questioned the viability of York. My answer to those individuals is: Let there be no doubt that our municipality would not be viable, regardless of what borders we have or don't have, in a megacity that faces the huge costs of downloaded provincial services. The delicate social fabric we have weaved in York would be ripped apart. As mayor, this renders discussions about amalgamation of any sort a non-starter.

What happens to our communities when a recession hits? How will we be able to help those who cannot help themselves? Do we end up penalizing the Metro Toronto property taxpayer simply by virtue of the fact that they live here rather than in Mississauga or in North Bay? Will we see increased crime, prostitution and the decay of our infrastructure, as we have in many US cities?

In York, we acknowledge the realities of our relatively low tax base. Staff reductions, consolidation of services and restructuring: These and other cost-saving efficiencies have helped us cope with a limited revenue base. But we realize that York also needs to ready itself for the next century and the challenges of a more competitive, global economy. While the status quo, to us, is not an option, at the same time we want the tools to be able to manage change rather than have change manage us, which is precisely what the downloading exercise will mean for York.

I am also troubled by what the province is saying about its own role when it downloads income redistribution programs and health care costs on to municipalities. First, this is inequitable, because property tax is not based on the ability to pay. But if the province believes program delivery of services that are based on income can be handled by municipal government, then why have a government of Ontario? Why not amalgamate with the province of Manitoba?

As a mayor, I can understand different municipalities having different property standards, service delivery etc. But for certain areas, like welfare and health care, as a citizen of this province I believe these should be equally available across Ontario. But the fortunes and demographics of municipalities will end up determining eligibility, not need. This is where most large US cities are today. A city has to be more than just a business, and so does Queen's Park. A checkerboard system of social service delivery across the province is not the kind of Ontario I want to live in. This is the politics of division, and I urge you to reject that vision.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mayor Nunziata, first of all, I appreciate that you've come to lucidly describe your position and why the city of York is efficiently run. What I'd like to do is to find out if you can just add a bit more to what you're giving us here on page 5 when you say, "I am puzzled, as is Mrs Trimmer, why the government has not released the convincing facts and information available that made them change their collective minds." Do you have any more information on that? Are there any statistics you know of that the government has? Have you done any research on this that would make you think there is something they're hiding?

Ms Nunziata: I don't have any information whatsoever, and that's exactly what we've been trying to get from the government: information. The only information I'm able to bring forward is information my staff has provided on the financial impact on the city of York, but I have not received any information at all. We're trying to get that information. That's what makes it so confusing to the public: They're not sure; they don't understand what's happening. It's only fair then as politicians that we provide information so they understand what their future is. I haven't received any information.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Mayor Nunziata, thanks for coming and making a presentation to our committee. As you can see, the hearings have been restricted here to Queen's Park. We had an excellent number of people here, but mainly from the city of Toronto.

Within your own city, how did you reach your people? How did they reach you? How did you get to the 71%? I believe that was the result on the no side. Did they have enough time to get acquainted with the facts? How did you come to this conclusion? How did your people come to this conclusion?

0920

Ms Nunziata: The 71% was a result that the mayors released yesterday on the Environics poll. I'm very pleased that the response has shifted drastically in the city of York. It was 71% for no and 29% for yes; a month or two ago it was more in the 50s, so it has shifted drastically.

The way we're trying to get the information out to our residents is by public meetings that we're holding. We're also sending out literature to try to explain to the residents what this means. The province obviously is not doing that, because there isn't any information other than the commercials we hear on the radio and TV. People are totally confused. What the province has lacked in this whole process is consultation, and it hasn't provided the proper information. We're trying to do what we can with the information we have, but unfortunately we don't have all the information the province has. I'm sure they have information that they refuse to release publicly.

Mr Sergio: Do you feel the residents of York have had enough, let's say, through the efforts you have made and the newspapers, radio and television? Do you think they have learned enough about what the bill contains, or would you like to see some more time?

Ms Nunziata: Definitely more time, because they're very confused. They need more time to absorb the information that has been distributed to them. They've only had three weeks to try to understand and absorb any information that's been sent out to them. Because there seems to be different information being handed out to residents that is contradicting figures out there, they need much more time. That is exactly what I'm getting from my residents in York. Even the people who originally did support the amalgamation are saying: "No, it's happening too fast. Slow down. Let us understand what's happening. You can't rush this bill through just in a few weeks to have it in effect for the November municipal election. Slow down." That's what I'm hearing from my residents. They need more time, because there are a lot of people who don't understand it, and a lot of people are going to be voting no because they don't understand it.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): You mentioned that the status quo is not an option. Frankly, we hear a lot of that. It's quite rare that anyone comes before this committee and says, "We like the status quo." Most people are saying, "We need change." What change do you want?

Ms Nunziata: We definitely need change. The status quo is not working. As you know, with the mayors' proposal we presented, unfortunately we only had 21 days to present that. I'm not happy with the full proposal we brought forward, because I think there was a lot more we could have worked on if given enough time on it.

I'd like to see change. Particularly in York, there could be a lot of services amalgamated. There could be a lot of services amalgamated with other municipalities without eliminating the local municipalities. Given the opportunity, I think the various municipalities can work together and amalgamate some of the services where there is duplication, because I believe there is duplication. If we had more time, we could work as a partner and implement those changes without just eliminating municipalities, as this province is proceeding with.

Mr Parker: You say there are some services that should be amalgamated. What services are amalgamated under Bill 103 that you think should not be amalgamated?

Ms Nunziata: With Bill 103 you're amalgamating all the services.

Mr Parker: Which ones shouldn't be amalgamated?

Ms Nunziata: I don't believe that the local services the politicians are providing now to their constituents should be amalgamated.

Mr Parker: Which ones are those?

Ms Nunziata: The community services, the roads, the parks. I think the bylaws should not be amalgamated, because each municipality has various bylaws, has different bylaws. I don't think the bylaws should be amalgamated at all, because every municipality has different needs.

Mr Parker: When the minister announced Bill 103, he mentioned the concept of community councils, where the new council would be subdivided into clusters of councillors who would be responsible for particular communities and the local concerns of those communities. Where do you see that this fails to address the need to address local concerns that you're suggesting?

Ms Nunziata: I don't think that addresses the concerns of residents in particular in York -- I can speak only on York -- because the representation from the local councillors would be -- in York now we have very small wards. The largest ward in York is 27,000 and the smallest is 10,000, and we have eight councillors. Having a representative for 50,000, I don't think the politicians would be accountable and accessible to the residents in York.

Mr Parker: So you think we should amalgamate all the services except for roads, bylaws and parks and we should keep a large number of local councillors to administer those three items?

Ms Nunziata: No, I didn't say that. I think what you should amalgamate, what I agree with, is the fire department, the ambulance.

Mr Parker: Ambulances are already amalgamated. I'm sorry, I'll give my time to my friends.

Ms Nunziata: No, amalgamate them with the fire department.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Mayor Nunziata, since your thesis is that the status quo isn't acceptable and you want change, don't you really endorse the status quo, from what you're saying? You have said that for the total six, plus the big Metro, amalgamation is out.

Ms Nunziata: I didn't say the big Metro.

Mr Hastings: You want to get rid of Metro, I presume.

Ms Nunziata: Yes.

Mr Hastings: Do you still endorse then every proposal in the mayors' paper back in late November? It would get rid of Metro and take all these services -- building and licensing would be assigned to East York, I believe, and works would be assigned to Etobicoke for the whole Metro road situation. Scarborough would do something else. Do you still endorse that proposal, since you've signed the document?

Ms Nunziata: Yes, I did sign the document. But I must admit, and I am sure all the other mayors admit as well, that it wasn't perfect.

Mr Hastings: We weren't asking for perfection. Do you still endorse that document?

Ms Nunziata: What I am saying is that the mayors' proposal, even though the Metro licensing would have been East York, was not to say that the delivery would be in East York. The office would be situated in East York. That's what the mayors' proposal was. The local municipalities would still be delivering the service. They would just have one area.

0930

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mayor Nunziata, thank you for being here. I apologize for missing the beginning of your presentation. I wanted to just pick up on this discussion we've been having around what the alternatives are to the status quo. Like you, I didn't think the mayors' report was perfect, but compared to Bill 103 it's a lot better than what I see in front of me in Bill 103.

It seems to me that essentially what you and the other mayors were saying through that report is (a) that there was a willingness to make change and (b) that there was a way to find savings in the delivery of services locally within Metropolitan Toronto in a way that also maintained that important link between the citizens and their local government. To me, that seemed to be a very key point. Again, I disagreed with a number of pieces of it, but those essential points, it seems to me, were there.

I'd like to ask you a little bit more about the process, in terms of this change, because you talked about that a little bit as well and the frustration you and many citizens are feeling around the way in which this bill is being done. We've had a situation now in which the government's actions have been found to be inappropriate, first, by the Speaker in terms of the flyer and, secondly, by the courts a couple of days ago. Presumably, if the polls are right, and I believe they are, next week will be the third blow, the third ruling if you will, against the government, through the referendum results.

Do you think that at that point it would be appropriate, it would be incumbent on the government to say: "Okay, we didn't get this one right. We need to stop. We need to withdraw the bill. We need to then engage in a serious process of discussion that looks at what the options might be in terms of the GTA, in terms of local governance within that, and try to come up within a sensible period of time with some alternatives and some solutions that really engage people"? Is that your sense, as the mayor of York, about what it is that people are actually talking about and saying as they are getting ready to say no in the referendum?

Ms Nunziata: Yes, exactly. The residents in York recognize that the referendum vote is non-binding, but I am going to tell you this campaign is unlike any election I have ever experienced. Usually in an election you try to go out to your residents and ask for support. On this particular referendum, on this vote, people are actually coming to me and telling me how they're going to vote. People are so interested in this election and they're afraid of what will happen if they don't vote on this referendum, even though the province will not take the response seriously, which I find very shocking. I find it difficult that this government could ignore 2.4 million people when it's the people who elected them to office in the first place. I've never heard any politician say, "I don't care what the residents say." They have to at least take them seriously and listen to them.

What the residents are saying is: "Please slow down. Let's work together. Let's get all the information and go into the process and if you can prove to me that I will be saving tax dollars" -- they want a reduction in taxes and unless you can provide them a tax reduction, or prove to them that eventually they will benefit financially, why amalgamate? Why take away our local government? Why take away our local politicians who are accessible and accountable to us? Why are you taking that away from us? What will happen is that eventually the residents will be so far removed from their local politicians, their taxes are going to go up. They're very afraid of that.

You're right, Tony. They're asking for the government to please reconsider and give them some time to absorb what's happening and all the information and phase it in. If it doesn't happen in this municipal election, do it in the next municipal election. I realize it's too close to the government's election, but that's a risk you'll have to take, if you're right.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Nunziata, for coming forward and making your presentation this morning.

BRIAN BURCH

The Chair: Would Brian Burch please come forward? Good morning, Mr Burch. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes this morning to make your presentation.

Mr Brian Burch: I'd like to thank the members of the committee for providing me with an opportunity to address you in regard to a very serious issue, which is the destructive piece of legislation known as Bill 103. If I duplicate some of the submissions made by earlier speakers, I trust that the members of the committee will realize that opposition to the bill is based on some very commonsense assumptions. I hope that I will be able to plant some seeds of inspiration that will change the minds of Tory members of the Legislature. I have been advised to try to be polite and respectful to the members of this committee in order to ensure that my views will be given respect. What follows is the best I can do to heed such advice.

There are likely a few people on the committee who are unaware of my background. I am one of the people you might have seen on Wednesdays participating in the interfaith vigil for social justice and compassion, which has been going on in front of the Legislature every Wednesday since November 1995 in an effort to draw attention to the suffering the Tory agenda has caused the people of Ontario. As I am sure the security people have informed you -- and they have come and spoken to me already -- I am also one of the people arrested for trying to plant a symbolic garden in front of Mike Harris's window to bring attention to the growing hunger in Ontario.

I might remind the Legislature that Judge Bentley ruled that such protests were not only to be permitted but encouraged. This reminder is especially important if the members of the Legislature do not wish to listen to more traditional forms of opposition. I am here partly to convince myself that one does not have to step outside the traditional path of citizen participation in order to be heard by the government. If the government of Ontario does not listen to the massive outpouring of opposition to the forced amalgamation of Metro Toronto by withdrawing Bill 103, it will be stating in unequivocal terms that extraparliamentary opposition is the only way for dissenting views to heard. I hope my cynicism is not justified.

Toronto is my home by adoption. I grew up just outside of Sault Ste Marie and, like a lot of people, have found that Toronto is a much more tolerant, compassionate and diverse community than my home town. It has been a place where I have been able to meet with Mayor Barb Hall, Metro councillor Jack Layton or city councillor Pam McConnell whenever it was important to do so. I have worked in Etobicoke and in Scarborough, finding that they are distinct cities with a different approach to issues than that of downtown Toronto.

Our current municipal structure works well and does not need improvement or change. The fact that there are significant reserve funds in the Metro area that the province of Ontario wishes to control indicates that there are no real financial problems in the governance of Metro Toronto. I have not been frustrated by possible confusion over divisions of power and jurisdiction within Metro Toronto, or indeed between the federal and provincial levels of government for that matter. I have always felt that my local elected officials are my local elected officials. I do not want to have my voice in the life of my city diluted by the arbitrary fiat of a government that has been breaking promises and contracts since the day it was elected.

I do not make an artificial distinction between Bill 103 and the other parts of the legislative agenda of the Harris government. My representation provincially has been diluted by reducing the number of legislators. The omnibus bill centralized decision-making in the hands of cabinet ministers in a frightening fashion, reminiscent of the various enabling pieces of legislation in Germany in 1933. From anti-labour legislation to breaking contracts with provincially supported housing cooperatives, the government of Ontario has been systematically removing support for those aspects of civil society that permit me to help control my life, community and environment. Bill 103 is a continuation of an anti-democratic series of actions by legislators who do not seem to believe in the rights of citizens to participate in the decisions that affect their own lives.

There is some strange assumption floating around that having fewer elected politicians will mean less interference in personal lives. This is a false libertarianism embraced by segments within the Tory party. Fewer politicians do not mean less government. It means that what is currently being done by government can more easily be turned over to individuals to personally profit by. It means that the ability of the electorate to have a say in the policies that govern us is weakened. It does not mean less government; it means a for-profit government far out of the hands of the average citizen.

I hold the government of Ontario responsible for the confusion around municipal voting lists and the way that the various plebiscites across Metro Toronto are being held. The voters lists are provided to the various cities and borough of Metro Toronto by the provincial government. It is Al Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the lists. It was his legislation that changed the way municipal plebiscites, referenda and elections are held. Al Leach is ultimately responsible for any confusion around their accuracy, secrecy and validity. I look forward to an announcement by Al Leach stating that he is taking full responsibility for the problems that his portfolio has caused, ensuring that he has publicly and ultimately taken responsibility for what has been going on.

I was angered that the province would appoint an unaccountable body of trustees to interfere in the operations and functions of the governments of Metro Toronto. Even if amalgamation were to be forced upon the city of Toronto and all the cities and the borough that make up Metro Toronto, the removal of the power of an elected and representative body is inexcusable in a democracy. Even if, as announced yesterday, Bill 103 may be amended so that decisions may be appealed to Divisional Court, they still can interfere with the decision-making ability of a democratically elected body that they are not accountable to, and that is unacceptable.

0940

I was not surprised that the courts struck down the appointment of the trustees. It was surprising, however, to read that the Tory government tried to justify its actions on the basis of the remnant of royal prerogative. What arrogance, yet how revealing: 150 years after the rebellion of 1837-38 we have a government trying to act like the Family Compact and oppose responsible government. Bill 103 is a retreat from the ongoing evolutionary development of responsible government, a retreat I cannot support.

It is not just to the Tory MPPs that I am addressing my comments. I urge the opposition members, whether the independent Peter North or the members of the Liberal and NDP caucuses, to use not only every parliamentary means but also extraparliamentary means to block the passage of this bill. We have seen the example of Alvin Curling, whose defiance of the more gentle traditions of the Legislature forced the hearings on the omnibus bill. All members of the Legislature have the responsibility to help preserve democracy and citizen control in Metro Toronto and the other centres faced with forced amalgamation.

Yes, I know there are those who feel that there should be a compromise worked out in the taking away of our democratic traditions. One suggestion raised has been keeping the existing cities but cutting the total number of elected politicians across Metro down to the Tory proposal of 44 councillors. I am reminded of a passage in George Orwell's 1984:

"For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to 20 grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to 20 grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only 24 hours? Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons swallowed it easily, with the stupidity of an animal. The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been 30 grams."

The people of this city are not going to be satisfied with cutting our ration of democracy. We will not gather in the streets to shout, "Thank you, Al Leach, for raising our democracy ration to 44 elected officials." If Bill 103 goes through, in whole or in part, we will work to make sure that the Metro Days of Action look like a Tory convention. To paraphrase our sisters in South Africa, you have struck the middle class and you have struck a rock.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Burch, for your presentation. You've exhausted your allotted time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward this morning.

WILLIAM LARDNER

The Chair: Will William Lardner please come forward. Good morning, Mr Lardner. Welcome to the committee.

Mr William Lardner: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William Lardner. I am part-owner of a construction company based in Thornhill. We do much of our business in the Metropolitan Toronto and GTA areas.

I'm also a resident of Don Mills and in the past I've been a resident of the city of Toronto and the city of Scarborough. I came here in 1952 and I've lived through the earlier amalgamations that resulted in the present municipal structure of our area.

We now need a new, amalgamated Toronto. It's just the next step in an evolving political and administrative structure, and it may not be the last as we look into the future. With each of the earlier amalgamations I've lived through, we heard exactly the same cries of woe that you've just heard and prophecies of impending disaster that we hear from Mr Sewell and all his acolytes. But the sky will not fall. If there is administrative dislocation, it's going to be more than compensated for by the cleaning out of outdated bylaws and regulations that have piled up like so many unused and unread files in a dusty attic.

When the police forces were amalgamated, we heard the same complaints from the police chiefs that we now hear from the fire chiefs. But anybody who remembers the sloppy and ill-disciplined forces run by some of our earlier municipalities -- and they were sloppy -- will agree that we've clearly exchanged inefficiency and poor control for a very well-run and immeasurably better-trained police force than we had in the early 1950s.

Planning and building department controls in Metro are far too cumbersome. Cities vary in interpretations of regulations and controls. They vary their interpretation of simple engineering facts. Frequently, one building in one block will require permits for virtually the same work from both Metro and one of the lesser municipalities. Each will have its totally different way of evaluating the work to be done and totally different rules about the way it's to be done. It's another area where there will be savings not only directly in the staff but also in the elimination of red tape.

There's also a significant difference in efficiency between the municipalities. North York, for example, in my experience is relatively efficient and has its red tape under reasonable control. Smaller municipalities are less well organized, in some cases very badly organized, and very poorly administered in the matter of engineering control. The city of Toronto has good controls, but it's cumbersome and expensive to work with.

I have one suggestion to make to Mr Leach for consideration. I understand that under the current proposals the new community councils may be given the responsibility for recommending engineering standards within their individual community. This I'm afraid could create the same balkanization that we suffer from today. I'd suggest to Mr Leach that engineering standards should be set by the new city and should apply uniformly across the whole of that new city.

My last comment is that the government of Ontario, in my view, has demonstrated a determination to produce more efficient and politically responsible municipal government. For Metro, it's clear that its goal is to ensure Toronto's continuing vitality and international competitiveness. We should have some confidence that Mike Harris will pursue that goal objectively. I for one have no doubt that as adjustments to the initial plans are needed, Harris will have the determination and the guts to make the necessary changes.

Thank you for listening to my submission.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Lardner, in your opinion was it your impression in the last election that the present government ran on a platform that it was going to eliminate duplication and wastage in government at all levels that it had control over?

Mr Lardner: Yes. I voted for this government and that was a major factor in my decision. They identified an area that really needed attention and I think they're addressing it. This is well within their mandate.

Mr Turnbull: There has been a suggestion that somehow the government is moving in a way that it hadn't signalled to the electorate.

Mr Silipo: Joyce Trimmer seems to think so.

Mr Turnbull: Perhaps you could comment a little more in depth as to what you consider the aspects of this debate.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, gentlemen.

Mr Turnbull: Perhaps in view of the talk from across the floor, I will add that I sat on the Trimmer commission and with the exception of the fact that we are going to one single government in Metro, it was quite clear that we are substantially implementing the recommendations of the Trimmer commission, of which I was a member.

Mr Silipo: That's not what your report says.

Mr Turnbull: You're wrong, sir.

The Chair: Order.

0950

Mr Lardner: I really think we've had this debate in one form or another now extending over several years. We've had a number of reports -- the Trimmer report, the Golden report -- and all of them have contributed significantly, I think, to evaluating what needs to be done.

Now, as I see it, we have quite a clear course set. There may be some problems that have to be sorted out as you go along, because you can't look into the future and pin down all the details that have to be got right, but anyone who's been in the business of creating something, whether it's a new political system or a business or whatever, knows that fundamentally your objective has got to be clear and you've got to work all the way towards getting to that objective. You find always that there are factors perhaps that you haven't considered or other factors come up that you couldn't possibly have considered. You have to adjust to those.

The thing is that the objective was very clearly set out, I thought, by Harris and the Tories before they started, and that is more efficient government. I am convinced that they have that objective absolutely as their guide. It's the best interests of Toronto that they have in mind and I have a lot of confidence that that's what they're going to achieve, even if they do have to make some minor changes along the way.

Mr Turnbull: We have indeed expressed the view that we are prepared to amend. Even before the committee process was called we allowed for, first of all, a considerable amount of time in committee and in addition to that, at the Premier's expressed wish, we have also committee of the whole, which will allow for amendments right up to the last moment before third reading is completed.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Perhaps, Mr Lardner, I could just get your comments about another important aspect of what's involved in the premise behind this bill. You note in your presentation outdated bylaws. I don't know if you're aware there are 180,000 bylaws between the seven cities. You're involved in construction. Would you tell us whether that duplication you mention has had an impact on the cost of doing business and, as a corollary to that, whether that's been a disincentive for people to invest in Metro Toronto.

Mr Lardner: First of all, it definitely creates an additional cost. Quite frequently, particularly when we're getting into areas of new technology and so on, it's necessary to spend a great deal of time with people from the different municipalities who are charged with the responsibility of approving plans and so on to bring them up to speed on the new technology. Often there's a great deal of resistance to this sort of change, so you have to spend a lot of time, really, in education.

Then, of course, there's the simple duplication of paperwork. For example, when you have to have approval from both the Metro works department and, say, the city of Toronto works department to put tie-backs under a street, obviously you're getting an extra six or seven copies of this or that distributed, a lot more paper and so on.

The Chair: Mr Lardner, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we've come to the end of your allotted time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward this morning to make your presentation.

KEVIN BRILLINGER

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

Mr Kevin Brillinger: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to address the committee today. Please let me start off by saying I strongly support Bill 103 and the concept of an amalgamated city of Toronto. I want to do my best to convince people that it's in the best interests of all Toronto residents to proceed with the implementation of this bill.

My name is Kevin Brillinger. I'm 40 years old. I work in the franchise industry and eight of our franchise transmission repair businesses are located within Metropolitan Toronto boundaries. I live at 97 Lord Seaton Road. It's in an area known as St Andrews in the York Mills section of Willowdale, which is part of the city of North York and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

That's a real mouthful to describe where I live. I take a great deal of pride in my community, but if someone from outside the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto asks me where I live, I usually say I live in Toronto. If I diligently employ my postal code, mail addressed to my house gets there whether it's says Willowdale, North York or Toronto. I live in Toronto; we all live and work in Toronto. Any way you look at it, denial of that statement is really pretty futile. We take pride in our local communities but we live in Toronto as far as the rest of Ontario, Canada and the world is concerned, and I don't know why Torontonians can't accept that.

I believe communities will thrive and survive in the new city of Toronto when it's established. We can have our cake and eat it too. There are those who would have us believe municipal government is the saviour and only salvation for neighbourhoods and community spirit. I have to disagree with that to the extreme. People create neighbourhoods and communities, not government, not 100 councillors. The people create the communities and the neighbourhoods that we live in.

In my family's situation, my wife is the president of the local ratepayers' association. I participate in the local riding association, I volunteer, I coach hockey in the house league at the select level, I coach baseball. My daughter participates in Sparks; my son participates in Cubs. We have a very strong home and school association in the area in which I live. These are the elements that go into building a neighbourhood, not having two councillors to serve that neighbourhood.

We're fortunate to have an extremely effective and responsive local councillor in our area. I've never had occasion to speak to the Metro councillor in the 10 years I've lived in York Mills. It's nice to know we have two councillors to represent our interests, but is it absolutely necessary? Bill 103 proposes one councillor for every 44,000 people, approximately. I noticed in the paper yesterday that Toronto city councillor Peter Tabuns defended his office overspending based on the fact that he had 46,000 residents to represent in his riding. It seems that 44,000 is pretty much right on the mark for the representation that we should have.

There are five compelling reasons that I support amalgamation. As has been stated time and again, I believe it's a natural evolution. I wasn't yet born in 1953 when there were 13 communities, but it seems like the evolution in 1965 to six communities went okay, and I think in 1997 we're ready to call the city of Toronto what it is, one city with all the people that live here. It's obvious, when 70% of Metro services are already consolidated, that consolidating the balance of the 30% is not a huge step and is a natural evolution.

The second compelling reason I see for amalgamation is one council and one mayor to represent the interests of all the residents of Toronto. Toronto, in my view, is the engine that drives the Canadian economy, and we're losing touch with that fact. We're having businesses flee the metropolitan boundaries. In our case, trying to operate small businesses, the overwhelming load in taxes and paperwork is driving the small business man to distraction in the course of trying to create wealth and build jobs in our metropolitan community. I believe if we have one voice, one council, one mayor to represent our interests in Ottawa, Queen's Park and the rest of the world, it's of huge benefit for all the residents of Toronto.

That leads into the third reason that I think we need to amalgamate the various municipalities in Toronto. We'd have a better-coordinated development pitch for the rest of the world. Right now we have six different development offices going after the businesses that we need to rebuild the tax base in Metropolitan Toronto. It's too confusing for business. We need one consolidated effort to attract business to our metropolitan area.

I guess everyone has had a knock at the cost savings, but to me it's just abundantly obvious that 45 elected officials cost less than 106 elected officials and create a simpler, more easily accessible program. We'd eliminate a number of duplicated departments. As I previously mentioned, the economic development offices would go from six to one.

I believe in the end, after amalgamation, there will be more political accountability, not less. Instead of all the confusion created by dealing with a local and a Metro councillor trying to sort out who's responsible for what, residents will be able to go to one councillor and have their questions and concerns dealt with in a reasonable and forthright manner.

I've listened to many opponents of amalgamation and I've listened to the opposition they've voiced. I haven't heard a single compelling argument to sway my support for amalgamation. What I do see is hysterical opposition to any change in the status quo. The politics seem to be generated based on unfounded fear.

1000

The objections seem to consist of three basic objections:

(1) "Let's slow everything down and take another look at it," which really means, "Give us time to find ways to stop meaningful change." With municipal elections coming up in the fall, it only makes sense to proceed with the changes and save the money that would normally be spent electing 100 councillors and just elect the 45 that are proposed in Bill 103.

(2) "Everything's okay; don't change anything." Everything isn't okay. We can't afford the dual system of government that we're operating under. With less government we want accountable public officials, we want value for our tax dollars.

(3) "Communities will be destroyed." Communities have survived previous amalgamations, crushing tax loads and hurricanes. The neighbourhoods and communities that make Toronto such a wonderful place to live will not be threatened by amalgamation.

What's in it for me? I had to ask this question as I prepared my comments for today. I felt I had a responsibility to refute the naysayers because I support amalgamation. I'm hoping there will be a more efficient use of the resources provided by residents to our elected officials at the end of the day. I hope we end up with a government that has a vision for the future of our city and communities and not one rooted in the debris of the past.

I believe amalgamation creating the new city of Toronto is a natural progression in the development of the best place in the world to live and work. I believe everyone has a right to a dissenting view. However, I object to opposition based on deception and fearmongering. Finally, I believe the process of amalgamation will best serve me, my family, my neighbours, my local community and the residents of Metropolitan Toronto. Thanks for the opportunity to share my views.

Mr Sergio: Mr Brillinger, thanks for coming down and making a presentation to our committee. St Andrews, the area you live in, is a very nice area. I'm in North York and I'm very familiar with that location. It's wonderful and I hope it always will be kept and maintained that way.

You haven't mentioned the downloading of services on to the municipality and eventually on to North York residents. How do you see that this will affect your community?

Mr Brillinger: I believe that any downloading or reallocation of the cost of delivering services will not adversely affect my community, my tax rate or any other factor that's going to come into play in that regard. I see one big pot of money, wherever it comes from. It's still there, whether it's property tax or income tax or however you want to split it up. I don't see it going up or down. I think with the changes proposed in amalgamation there will be a more efficient use of all the resources that we as residents provide government to provide us services and that in the end it will all end up being even, or better than it is now.

Mr Sergio: You think social services, family benefits, welfare, housing, transportation, long-term care and child care won't have an effect eventually on either the services or taxes or both? You don't see that?

Mr Brillinger: The delivery of those services is going to carry on regardless of whether the city of Toronto is amalgamated into one city versus six cities, and frankly I don't understand where the discussion about the downloading comes into the discussion about the benefits of amalgamating the city into one place. If downloading occurs and a redistribution of the resources occurs, it would be a lot easier to conduct it through one level of government rather than six separate levels of government and a Metro government, as far as I can see.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Brillinger, for coming forward this morning and making your presentation.

TOM BARLOW

The Chair: Would Tom Barlow please come forward. Good morning, Mr Barlow, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Tom Barlow: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tom Barlow and I appear here today to speak in support of the initiative which is being taken by the government to recognize what is the reality and the promise of this city by establishing one Toronto.

I approach the consideration of this initiative from a number of perspectives. First of all, I am a resident who has lived and worked in Metropolitan Toronto for most of my adult life. I moved here in 1981. Since that time I have lived in several of the municipalities which comprise Metropolitan Toronto. I also approach this matter from the perspective of a lawyer who practises in the area of municipal and planning law. In my practice I work regularly with the process of municipal government and with individuals and companies dealing with the framework of zoning bylaws and other regulations. Finally, I approach this discussion on a personal note from the perspective of someone who has a strong sense of community and also has some experience of growing up in what was an amalgamated municipality.

As some of you may know, Cambridge, Ontario, was formed from the amalgamation of three municipalities. One of those was Galt, where I was born and raised. Galt, Preston and Hespeler amalgamated when I was growing up to form one city. As the member for Cambridge in this Legislature would no doubt agree if he were here, that one city continues to have a strong sense of neighbourhood and of community and has built upon its strengths since amalgamation to become the successful and growing municipality that Cambridge is today.

I support the direction this government proposes to take under this bill for a number of reasons. First of all, the direction of the government is consistent with the direction which has been taken by those with vision and courage in the past who established metropolitan government and those who have taken steps over the years to integrate the delivery of services as communities have matured and grown together.

No one can reasonably doubt that this municipality has grown together. Those involved in urban planning might say Metropolitan Toronto is now a mature and fully urbanized envelope. You've heard from others about the number of services and the percentage of services now delivered at the Metro level. Anyone on the street can tell you it is hard to say any more where one municipality begins in Metropolitan Toronto and another ends.

In planning terms, this is very different from those areas elsewhere in the province where upper- and lower-tier governments exist and settlement areas are separated by lands which are not similarly developed. Within Metropolitan Toronto the lines on the map which divide us have become artificial. The next logical and natural step in the evolution of Metro must surely be to recognize the reality of what now exists in the government we choose by forming one city. In doing so, I firmly believe we can be confident that the neighbourhoods and communities which make up this unique municipality will continue to exist and maintain their identities. Neighbourhoods are made up of people, not of politicians. They are not defined by artificial lines on a map.

There is nothing in this initiative by the government which restricts in any way the ability of residents to participate in the process of local government and get the government they deserve. On the contrary, it is my submission that the initiative by the government to form one city has the potential to increase the accountability of municipal government in a number of ways. I submit that improved accountability is a major feature of this initiative and one that I would like to address briefly.

Accountability is enhanced when government is understandable. I am very familiar with the bylaws that exist in Metropolitan Toronto from working with them. With one city the potential exists for bylaws of general application which are more understandable by residents and by those who carry on business throughout the municipality and are subject to local regulations. With one city it will be clearer who is responsible for delivering local services and who is responsible for the bylaws and policies which are of interest and importance to citizens. With one city everyone will know who to call.

The same councillors will be directly involved in neighbourhood decisions and also in decisions affecting all of the municipality. The number of councillors proposed under the bill is approximately the same as the number of councillors proposed by the mayors under their reform proposal at the end of last year.

1010

Councillors will be able to bring to their tasks the perspective of their neighbours and also the perspective of the city as a whole. They will be accountable to both. Furthermore, if the concept of community councils is adopted, councillors will be organized and represented on the executive committee on a basis which approximates current municipal boundaries.

It will be important in all matters that the councillors remain accountable to the city as a whole and also to those who elected them. However, the concept of community councils should be of particular interest to those who support the present structure of local municipalities.

Under the concept of community councils, councillors and councils would continue to be organized on a basis which approximates existing municipalities. What would disappear are the separate council chambers and the walls that now divide them and, through them, divide us all.

There are many arguments in favour of amalgamation, including the agreement of all participants that the status quo does not work and must be changed, the potential for efficiencies, strengthening the core of the GTA, a strong and unified voice for Toronto internationally and many other factors in favour of the formation of one city which I would not have time to properly address; others have.

In the time available, these are the comments I wish to make in support of the direction proposed by the government under this bill. I thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to appear before you.

Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mr Barlow. Do you know what the population is in Cambridge?

Mr Barlow: I don't know the precise population. I believe it's in the area of approximately 100,000 people.

Mr Silipo: Do you know how many councillors there are on the city council there?

Mr Barlow: Under 20 is my recollection.

Mr Silipo: I actually agree with a couple of points you make in here. Obviously, on the basic position we are on different sides of this issue, and that's fine. I agree when you say that it's hard sometimes for anyone to say where one municipality in Metro ends and another one starts. But it seems to me that you know when you're there; you may not know when you crossed. There are crazy things that happen in terms of boundaries. I represent an area of the city of Toronto that borders on the city of York, and there are boundaries that actually run through people's backyards. There are some things like this that are, quite frankly, absurd. But we've heard very clearly in the presentations here from mayors and from others that there are differences between one municipality and another in the way we do things.

What I say to you, more in response and ask certainly for you to comment back, is that what people who oppose the megacity are saying to us, besides the process the government has chosen, is the fact that we are losing that local flavour, that ability to have a relationship that's effective, as a citizen, with the local council while still being in favour of making change that would deal with some of the inefficiencies and some of the craziness that's developed over the years. Don't you think that would be a more sensible way to take a look at this? I'm assuming that back in the amalgamation that took place in Cambridge there was actually some discussion that involved people before that decision was made. One of the things people are clearly saying to us here is that there has been no real discussion about this proposal, about this issue, with the citizens particularly, let alone with the politicians.

Mr Barlow: I'll deal with the last point first. In terms of process and discussions, I'm sure you've heard much from others. There have been many discussions and many studies over the years, which I'm generally familiar with.

Mr Silipo: But none of those supports this direction, Mr Barlow. That's one of the points people are making.

Mr Barlow: That may be a point of disagreement between us or certainly between various individuals. In terms of the process, those are my comments.

But I want to come back to your substantive comment about communities. I agree that when you're there, you know you're there, you know you're in a neighbourhood, you know you're in a community. It doesn't derive from the fact that you've strained on the street or on the highway to see that there's a sign saying that you're entering the city of York or you're entering the municipality of East York or whatever; it derives from the fact that you're in a community that has a sense of neighbourhood and a sense of community.

My strong sense, and the sense of others you've had appear before you, as well as the submissions by experts, is that this neighbourhood feeling can and will remain whether or not the artificial lines are drawn as they now are or are drawn more realistically around the urban envelope that has come to exist in the broad base of knowledge.

The Chair: Mr Barlow, sorry to interrupt you. Thank you for coming forward and making your presentation today.

DAVID STRELCHUK

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

Mr David Strelchuk: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. My name is David Strelchuk. I am a professional civil engineer by training and have in my career worked in a municipal public works department, the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources, which I left in 1988, and the consulting engineering field. I am a long-time resident of downtown Toronto and own property in Toronto and the borough of East York.

What first aroused my keen interest was the initial response by the mayors to the provincial intent to amalgamate their municipalities. Immediately after the announcement the mayors met and announced that amalgamation wasn't necessary; they could, through combining services, save in the neighbourhood of $240 million per year. Where were they all previous years? Does this mean we have been losing $240 million a year? That's mind-boggling.

How much is $240 million a year? If you take the 2.35 million residents of the proposed new Toronto, that's about $100 per year for every man, woman and child, or for the average family $250 a year. Another example: $235 million is about the cost of building a new Maple Leafs hockey arena or a new Raptors facility every year. Furthermore, consultants estimate that by the year 2000 the new city would operate with up to 4,500 fewer employees than the 42,400 who now work for the seven municipalities.

Clearly, over the years it has been more important to maintain political fiefdoms than to seek tax savings. As far as I'm concerned, the prime mandate of a municipal politician is to manage tax dollars wisely. If the political system does not support this, it has failed. The mayors have found fiscal salvation too late. Backsliding is inevitable without municipal reform.

The mayors' counterproposal to a unified Toronto is to eliminate Metro and replace it with a coordinating body made up of local politicians. Metro's proposal is to eliminate the six local governments and create a new city of Toronto council. The size of the council is not indicated. Each proposal eliminates one level of elected government, namely, the other guy. The existing two layers of government have outlived their usefulness.

I would like to briefly describe a personal experience dealing with a planning issue that shows the overlap and confusion that exists with the two levels of government. I wanted to make an addition to an investment property I own in Toronto. A committee of adjustment application was necessary. Part of the process required a public meeting. This meeting was arranged and attended by a Metro councillor, with the attendance of the city of Toronto councillor announced. The application was denied. An application was then made to amend the official plan and zoning bylaw for the proposed addition. This process also required a public hearing, which was arranged by the planning advisory committee. This meeting was attended by the city of Toronto councillor. The application subsequently received council approval.

My point is that two local politicians were involved in a fairly simple neighbourhood planning issue. I am not faulting the politicians; they were simply covering their constituent territory. However, there was no need for the involvement of two politicians and two levels of government. How about the confusion to the local residents attending the public meetings? Whom should they deal with, their Metro councillor or their city of Toronto councillor? Which planning department should they phone? Some residents just give up in frustration.

If it ain't broke, why fix it? This question has been posed in face of recognition of Toronto as one of the best cities in North America to live. Complacency resulting from these types of accolades is a dangerous trap. Cities are dynamic, evolving environments and cannot rest on their laurels because of a favourable snapshot in time.

The two-tier level of government was created in 1953 when Metro was formed from a cluster of 13 townships, towns and villages. About half of this land was rural and agricultural at the time. In 1966, these 13 were amalgamated into the six current municipalities.

1020

Metro has since grown and services integrated to a point where a two-tier system of government has long outlived its usefulness. A one-tier, amalgamated city will bring efficiencies and allow us to orchestrate our resources to compete internationally for investment and jobs and, at the same time, provide us the necessary tools to safeguard and add to our quality of city life.

Perhaps we would have had a better chance at the 1996 Olympics with a unified Toronto.

It has been said that the distinctive nature of diverse communities will be lost with amalgamation. It is well recognized that long-time communities, such as Swansea, Mimico, Weston and Forest Hill, have thrived after amalgamation. The cohesiveness of communities is not determined by municipal boundaries or the number of politicians serving them but rather by the strength and spirit of the communities themselves.

Political actions originate from the strength and validity of the issue and the willingness of the community to champion its cause. Politicians are merely the tools of implementation. I don't think it helps to have two politicians per area when one will do. Community advocates quickly find where the power lies and exert any necessary political pressure for changes. If more politicians result in better communities, why not double them? I don't think that's the answer. We should strive to limit the minimum number of politicians necessary to serve the people.

The proposed voluntary neighbourhood committees will provide citizens an opportunity to participate directly in municipal government in an ongoing manner rather than an ad hoc, issue-by-issue basis.

Municipalities are funding anti-amalgamation efforts. If they were truly interested in an open and honest referendum, they should fund both sides of the issue or neither side. Why should our tax dollars be spent on supporting political issues we may not agree with? Political campaigning with tax dollars should not be tolerated, regardless of the issue. That is why we have elections. Leave politics to elections.

In any case, the current referenda on amalgamation are flawed. Given that the status quo is a no-go acknowledged by almost everyone, what is the value of a no-amalgamation vote with no alternatives proposed? That leaves the gaping question of, "What are you for?" and leaves the basic problems unanswered. We will be left with endless studies and self-serving politicians chasing different options with no end in sight.

A temporary board of trustees is proposed. This is a prudent safety measure against potential irrational council actions. With no accountability, there may be a temptation to fatten severance packages, dispose of assets without due diligence or other actions not in the best interests of taxpayers. This by no means is a foregone conclusion, but councils in the past have not always acted wisely, even under the best of conditions. In fact, without such precautionary steps, there would no doubt be much criticism over why such safeguards were not in place. It is good insurance for the protection of taxpayer assets.

There has been much ado about orders in council authorizing these measures before the legislation was passed. In hindsight, this should not have been done. The measures could have been proposals only, pending legislation. The intent and effect would have been the same.

The fearmongering comments of former Mayor Sewell in comparisons to dictatorships are irresponsible and eventually cast aspersions on him rather than add to the dialogue. The board of trustees would dissolve in less than a year. Given an improbable, worst-case scenario of unreasonable board decisions, the newly elected city of Toronto council can redirect any measures it chooses and will be responsible to the electorate.

In summary, the status quo is no longer acceptable. Significant cost savings can be made and governance improved by eliminating one level of government and amalgamating the six municipalities into a unified city of Toronto. Local neighbourhoods and communities can be maintained and given an effective voice through neighbourhood committees.

There is no advantage to prolonging the debate between stalemated municipal politicians and their supporting bureaucracies. They are driven mainly by self-survival. It would have been politically easier for the province to do nothing, but they have chosen to do the right thing. The province has stepped outside this endless circle of competing local politicians and proposed a new city of Toronto that will enhance its economic viability and the quality of life we all enjoy. If there are some snags that develop, surely these can be resolved in negotiations between a newly elected city of Toronto council and the province. Let's get on with building a better future.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Thank you very much. That was exactly 10 minutes. We appreciate your coming this morning and making a presentation.

LORNA KRAWCHUK

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Lorna Krawchuk, please. Good morning, Ms Krawchuk, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Lorna Krawchuk: Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation to you. My name is Lorna Krawchuk, and I am a councillor in the borough of East York.

I know you have already heard from my mayor, Michael Prue, and from the president of a ratepayers' organization of which I am a member, the Leaside Property Owners' Association. This afternoon you will be hearing from the president of another ratepayers' association in my ward, Penny Pepperell, representing the Governor's Bridge Ratepayers Association. The points they have made, and what I understand Penny Pepperell to be presenting to you, are views with which I concur, so you will know from that that I am speaking as one who has many difficulties with Bill 103.

One of the symbols on the borough coat of arms is a bulldog. I assume that the choice was made originally because many of the first residents of the township of East York were from England and a British bulldog seemed appropriate. When I was first elected to council, the mayor was David Johnson. Yes, bad David Johnson. He provided the eight of us on council, five of whom were elected for the first time that year, with an excellent role model of a mayor who spent the taxpayers' money carefully. But even he presided over a municipality where annual tax increases occurred routinely.

Now, with changing times, we have become progressively leaner, and 1997 is the fifth year in a row where we have had no increase at all in our municipal mill rate, including having to absorb the loss of the previous substantial grants of various kinds from the provincial government. Our capital program is likewise responsible. Our debt is manageable and reducing each year, to be completely gone in the next few years. Our commercial-industrial properties are being redeveloped, and our reserves and reserve funds are healthy. Thus, I find it distasteful that East York continues to be mentioned by people from other municipalities as a municipality on the verge of bankruptcy. This is not true. This bulldog is still here.

The rationale for Bill 103 continues to elude me. I have seen many references to the money to be saved made by the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and government members, and with no other information I know of, take it that the report from KPMG is the source material for these statements.

We asked our treasurer to consult with the borough auditors, Deloitte and Touche, and to report after reviewing and scrutinizing the figures contained in the KPMG report released by the province. This has now been done, and a copy of our treasurer's report to the regulatory and development committee of East York council, dated February 24, 1997, and Deloitte and Touche's letter to the treasurer dated February 2, 1997, have been forwarded to you. I have additional copies of this report with me, if you should wish them. The report is five pages long, so I will not go over the points but read you their second-to-last paragraph.

"Based on information that we have reviewed, we are of the opinion that great savings has resulted and will continue to result from efficiency enhancements, no matter what reasonable format of government structure is selected. We do not believe, however, that there will be any significant savings as a direct result of the proposed amalgamation over the next five-year period."

Another point mentioned frequently by supporters of this bill is that Bill 103 will reduce the number of politicians within Metro Toronto. That is correct, from 106 down to 45. But what is being traded off here? I won't speak for other municipalities, but at the borough of East York we are eight part-time councillors. We are paid part-time salaries and our total support staff is one person. With the system proposed in Bill 103, a population of approximately 103,000, which happens to be East York's population, would have two full-time members of council. I would think that each councillor would have two support staff. In my calculations, the total amount spent would be about the same as now.

What would be lost? In East York, we get the benefit of eight sets of skills, plus the skills of the mayor. We have councillors who are younger and older, male and female, with professional skills -- an architect, for example -- or more practical skills -- on our last council, a plumber. We can truly represent our community. With eight of us, as well, we can share out the responsibility of representing council on a number of important advisory and managerial boards in East York. It is not necessary to be wealthy or to be indebted to a political party or a developer to run a successful campaign and win election.

1030

Another major loss for our particular municipality is the loss of our identity as a municipality. The boundaries for the town of Leaside and the township of East York have been set for many years and became the borough of East York, as you know. The boundaries for electoral districts by Bill 103 result in pieces of East York in up to six different wards, with all our present boundaries obliterated.

The argument that often appears with the too-many- politicians one is that of too many levels of government. It certainly can be confusing to have a local government physically covering the same territory as our present Metro level of government and then have various versions of greater Toronto area coordination as well. Previous studies have substantiated that this is something that can and should be done better. But none of the previous reports specific to this area or other reports from around the world has shown that eradicating the local level of government is the solution.

Also, no matter how often I read the sections in Bill 103 talking about neighbourhood committees and community councils, I can't seem to see that there are any gains in accountability. The council for the city would establish neighbourhood committees to provide advice and guidance to community councils composed of the elected representatives from seven or eight wards, who would then make recommendations to the whole council on matters such as official plans and official plan amendments, but the overall decision would by made by the new city of Toronto council. Therefore, any planning change ultimately appears to be going through three sets of hoops, instead of the two now in place.

We have spoken with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario about our concerns. I believe there are some issues connected to the process involved in Bill 103 in which they may come forward to you, but as you are well aware, AMO is concentrating on province-wide issues in other bills at this time.

Listening to the radio yesterday, there was a program that had nothing to do with this issue, but the person being interviewed said, "Nobody builds a wall with the bricks in mid-air," and proceeded to provide the information as to how something had come about. I think we need to lay a strong foundation for our urban area. We need to take the time to ensure that bricks of cost savings, the number of levels of government, the number of politicians, if that is truly a substantive issue, have that necessary strong foundation. I know for sure that our council would welcome an opportunity for meaningful consultation to find a solution that is better for all of us than what we see before us as Bill 103.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Ms Krawchuk, for coming before us and making a thoughtful presentation here today. I'd like to deal with a fairly important aspect of your presentation here today, and that's this continuing myth, if I can use that term, that somehow size is a predeterminant of whether something is local or not. If 100,000 is local, then surely 500,000 isn't; and if 500,000 is, then surely 2 million can be.

This bill eliminates the second tier. That's what it does. It responds to an initiative that dates back to 1950 when the city of Toronto wanted to expand its local boundaries to take in the total territory that we know as Metro Toronto today. There will be one local government.

To highlight the difference between the view you're bringing forward and my perspective, my riding has the same population as the borough of East York. We have four very distinct, very vibrant communities -- not two, not East York and Leaside; we have four, very distinct. They continue to exist. In fact, one of them, the Guildwood community, has the highest percentage of households as members of a ratepayers' group anywhere in Metro Toronto. In terms of community involvement, in terms of shaping their individual destinies, we didn't need a separate city government, obviously. All of those things have happened in the context of half a million people who live in Scarborough. Councillors from as far away as Victoria Park and Steeles routinely sit there and pass judgement on council deliberations that affect just the local issues down in Scarborough East.

What is it that's so unique about East York -- and I ask this in all sincerity -- that you can say to the people of Scarborough East that people in East York deserve something different, and also say to the councillors in Scarborough that somehow they don't understand what they're doing because they have to deal with the concerns of 500,000 people whereas the eight councillors in East York do have a handle on their community?

Ms Krawchuk: First of all, I'm not saying that 100,000 is the perfect number so we should take all of Metro Toronto and divide it up into 100,000-level clumps. It just happens that we came about with a system in the latest round of amalgamation that had East York with 100,000 as a population. As far as we're concerned, 100,000 is fine for us, and we're certainly not saying that 500,000 isn't a good number for Scarborough.

But the problem is the second tier. The other studies that have talked about getting rid of the second tier have talked about things extending beyond Steeles -- talk about an artificial boundary; Steeles is it -- that we look as a whole at how to deal well with the economic health of the whole GTA; that we do something about that as opposed to this artificial version that says 100,000 is too small. I remember the first time I went to PEI and was politically active and realized their population was the same as ours.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for being here today with us, Ms Krawchuk. Sorry, we've run out of time.

TORONTO WOMEN FOR A JUST AND HEALTHY PLANET

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Angela Miles, please. Good morning, Ms Miles, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Angela Miles: I'm very pleased to be here and to have the opportunity to comment on the megacity proposal with so many well-researched presentations. I have handed out to people a Xeroxed sheet with a hand-drawn graphic on it, because my presentation's at home on the kitchen table, but I'll do my best. I'll be very brief and then I hope you'll ask questions that can help me link these larger issues I want to bring to the debate to what is being examined.

I want to try to look at the whole question of efficiency and the kind of frame within which we discuss that, because that seems to be the term within which the discussion is being framed: We want more efficiency, I think defined as smaller expenditure of tax dollars. We've been privileged, those of us who have been following the hearings, to hear very many studies brought in showing that even in those fairly narrow terms the claim is pretty problematic that a larger unit will save dollars, that fewer representatives are cost-efficient in that narrow sense.

I think there are other questions than that one, which are: Whose efficiency? For whom? At whose expense and in terms of what values? Efficiency in a narrow economic sense is: Produce more for less labour. There are many things indicating that we need to redefine that term economically now to take into account factors other than labour. If we want to save the planet we have to start looking for efficiency vis-à-vis use of raw materials and resources. We have to start redefining efficiency.

What I'd also like to do is raise the question of, efficiency at doing what? What I would like to say for the group I'm here speaking for, Toronto Women for a Just and Healthy Planet, and of course a just and healthy city is that we would like to see the debate start with the values of life, of human and non-human life, of people and the planet. In that sense what we have to do as a set of communities, very vibrant communities, as has been attested to at these hearings, with very reflective and very active citizens, is decide how to organize ourselves and our resources and our potentialities and futures to maximize that for everyone.

I brought this graphic -- and I thank you very much for Xeroxing this for me here; I find the support was wonderful -- to indicate some kinds of things that tend to get overlooked. What we have here is a graph of some research that was done by Hilkka Pietilka, who is a Finnish economist. She studied the Finnish economy and divided it into three sectors: the free economy, the protected economy and the fettered economy. By the way, I will hand in these presentations with a full explanation of this; what's at my kitchen table I will make available to the committee.

1040

The free economy is all the locally produced goods and services for local use that are outside of the market. A large part of that is housework, but there are many other volunteer activities and all kinds of things that sustain us as individuals and communities.

The protected economy is those services produced for local use that are in the market, and those include transportation, education, health services and so on.

The fettered economy is goods produced for competitive trade outside the community and often outside the country. She calls that the fettered economy. This is the economy that is subject to competition internationally.

If you look at the figures -- and this is why I'm so glad you have this graph -- these are done from my memory; I will give you the real, for sure accurate thing, but the proportions are true. The free economy is 46% of all the time spent in productive activity, and the value produced is 34%. It's not as productive. For the time you put in you don't produce as much value. However, it is the bulk of the economically productive activity in an economy. "Protected" is those services: 35% of the time put into production and 40% of the value. The fettered economy: 19% of the time and 26% of the value.

What we have is a debate that's going on nationally, internationally and locally, where everything is organized around how to serve the fettered economy, how to put all our resources into its capacity to compete internationally and to be successful. While it's very important to maintain that capacity, we must not lose sight of the local context, the communities, the environments, the context where real value for people and the planet is produced. That is, the worth of what we need to survive in sustainable and collective and communal ways, in healthy ways, is really done in the protected and the free economies, which have to be valued and protected.

When we talk about efficiency and we mean simply spending fewer tax dollars, what happens is that all the goods and services that make our life livable and qualitatively fine are defined as costs. It's absurd. It's a crazy mindset. We sit around our committees and our radio talk shows and we talk about costs, costs, costs, and we never once say to ourselves: "Yes, we have to do things well, we have to use our resources well for our local needs and for our future, but we mustn't define all we provide for each other and ourselves and our future as costs." We will make wrong decisions if we don't start from the value of what we want to do as communities and then make decisions and develop efficiency in terms which recognize all that.

In other words, we have to change how we define wealth, how we define value, how we define costs, how we understand ourselves as citizens and taxpayers and how we understand our services. The megacity debate about, "Cut out a few councillors; do it efficiently," has been a real concern to Toronto Women for a Just and Healthy Planet, because we see slipping away and buried and somehow lost a real human frame for the discussion in terms which we, I'm sure, all value.

We'd like to say to the committee, in your considerations do some doublethink or some unthink or question some of the terms which have been set about this thing of efficiency. I don't mean to say we don't need to look very carefully at how we use our resources. What I mean is, there are massively large questions. There are global agendas now where everything in the world is being organized to move more and more of our activity into the fettered sector, so that hospitals can compete, and old age homes. In other words, you make all the areas that have been protected into openly competitive internationally. And this is services as well as goods; free trade used to be just goods but now it's services and capital, which is a very different question.

For instance, I work at a university. Universities in Ontario are now in competition with universities from the States, which are not subject to any of the standards which are -- I won't say imposed on universities here but protected at universities here. They can hire a couple of recent graduates who may not even have a PhD and they can set them up in classes. Everybody enrols, gets a cheap degree. This is not efficiency; this is not saving. This is loss.

The world trade system and our local organizations are being shifted to fit that agenda. I think we need to look at that and decide how to protect our competitiveness, our viability economically in this large context, but how to protect as well the real values of our lives.

I hope there's time for you to ask me to clarify. I don't know how long I have.

The Vice-Chair: You have about 10 seconds.

Ms Miles: You might wonder what this has to do with this debate. I wish it was the core of the debate, but it may seem kind of far-flung for you at the moment.

Mr Sergio: You didn't leave any time for questions, so why don't you clarify?

Ms Miles: I thought if you were really wondering, "What is she talking about?" then you could ask specifically what the puzzle was.

Mr Sergio: I wanted to, but we have no time.

The Vice-Chair: That's right. I'm terribly sorry. Thank you for appearing here today. We appreciate you coming.

NICK DOEHLER

The Chair: I'd like to call upon Nick Doehler, please. Good morning, Mr Doehler, and thank you for coming.

Mr Nick Doehler: It's a great honour to speak to all of you today. I would like to say that I was born and grew up in Toronto and I'm a resident of north Toronto. I'm speaking here on behalf of myself alone about my ideas about the proposed Bill 103.

Bill 103 presents a major change in the city of Toronto, and as such should have been brought about with a lot more consultation than has occurred. I understand that the bill was introduced as a done deal, as the minister called it. It was presented to us as something which the government had decided would go into effect. Like any major project, its chances of success are diminished by the fact that there was so little participation in its development. The problem with the bill is that it had been presented with so little consultation.

There are many ideas that people in government have for people in private industry which turned out to be not so good once they're introduced. I think of the example of the metric system. As we all remember, back in the 1970s it made a great deal of sense, and if you had to argue it logically you would probably agree that it was a better system. Yet when it was introduced without asking anyone, it led to many inefficiencies and the implementation was very expensive.

In this case there have been no real studies done on why this amalgamation should take place. The Crombie commission, which I must point out was held in private without public consultation, really didn't look into the costs that would be involved. It looked into the logic of having different levels of government pay for different services, but it actually never did a profit-and-loss statement. This was left to the company KPMG. They, however, only used the figures provided to them by the government. Although they actually fulfilled the terms of their mandate, we must question what the actual value of the results was. It was basically taking government figures and adding them up. What the figures were based on is something which is in dispute.

1050

If we looked at what the private sector does, or how the private sector operates or should operate, I would say it wouldn't bring about such a massive amalgamation or hostile takeover, whatever you wish to call it, without actually figuring out how much it would cost and without actually getting figures it knew were reliable.

Come January 1, 1998, the transition team will come into play and it's their responsibility, I suppose, to ensure the amalgamation takes place as planned. But what planning has really been put into place before they take office? What are they going to do once they come in? Are they then going to initiate studies to see how efficiencies could be made? I would question why this hasn't been done already. It would have been much better had they studied the problem before taking office. They may find when they come into office in January that the savings are not as great as they expect.

The argument in favour of this bill, or one of the few arguments, I suppose, has been that there will be cost savings. We're all aware of the leaflet provided by the ministry which said the local cities accounted for only 28% of spending, yet that's the area where all the savings must occur. If there is duplication, it would be duplication between the various cities or between the cities and Metro, so when we're looking to reduce costs we could only look to reduce costs from amalgamation by reducing the costs of the local cities.

That is 28% of the budget, which the local cities account for, that can be reduced while reducing duplication, but because it's only 28% of overall spending it accounts for very little room to reduce overall spending. If we were to, say, cut spending by the cities by 10%, that would account for only about 2% of overall spending for Metro. So the actual efficiencies involved are quite small.

The whole logic behind this proposal apparently stems from the Who Does What committee. What I'd like to say about that is that the central thesis of Who Does What is that services should be delivered by the level of government that raises the taxes for them. Now, I know many people would question whether that's a fair approach to take. However, I would say that if we go along with that thesis, that the government which raises the taxes should be the one that spends them, then what we have in Toronto, following the Who Does What proposals, are cities that raise all their own revenue, that no longer receive any provincial subsidies and as such should be allowed to determine how they spend the money.

This means there's no need to impose a transition team on them and there's no need to impose amalgamation. If these cities want to bring about amalgamation, that should be up to them. But it would be wrong for the province, which now no longer provides any support for the cities, to actually tell them how they should proceed. If the province goes ahead with proposals to tell the cities what to do without actually getting the approval of the electorate and of the people who govern the cities, then it will find problems in that it is very difficult to implement any idea, even a very good idea, without broad support from the people affected.

For those reasons, and I suppose for many others, I feel we should reconsider this bill. If it is that important to bring about amalgamation, further hearings should be held and we should have a proper discussion and decide at that time whether to bring it about. I feel that if amalgamation occurs in this year and in the following year, we will face many serious problems. Although I understand that most people now feel unfavourable toward amalgamation, it will be interesting to see how people will actually feel once it comes about and how they will feel about the problems it may lead to.

Mr Sergio: Thanks for coming down and making your presentation to our committee. We share a lot of the concerns you expressed in your presentation.

One of the presenters this morning said there is no inventing disaster and the sky won't fall and stuff like that. Well, we know that. Let's hope it doesn't. But also there is a real possibility that taxes will go up, that services will come down, or both at the same time. Suppose we are right and the government is wrong but it still goes ahead with it, what do you think is going to happen?

Mr Doehler: What's going to happen is people are going to be upset about the amalgamation and will probably consider going back. That will bring about additional costs. I'd be interested to know how much it would cost to go back.

Mr Sergio: If you can go back.

Mr Doehler: If you can.

Mr Sergio: To go back to something else you have said, this is the only report -- we don't have a report from the government -- that didn't have any study at all. We have been asking for some data, information, statistics, facts, figures, on which they have based their bill. We can't get any of that information. Do you think it's because they don't want to provide it, they don't have anything, or they just want to push it through regardless because this is their agenda?

Mr Doehler: I'll try to look at the most favourable light on the government. I think they had an idea which they thought was correct and put it through without the proper study. Many people make that mistake and I think they have as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us this morning.

DEBORAH SWORD

The Chair: I'd like to call on Deborah Sword, please. Good morning, Ms Sword, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Deborah Sword: Thank you. And now for something completely different. I don't have a position on amalgamation. I'm a conflict manager and dispute resolver. My master's thesis was on public policy dispute resolution. One of my areas of expertise is conflict analysis and another is conflict management systems design. I want to give a brief analysis of what's happening and some possible strategies to perhaps change the nature of the exchange.

I know this government supports dispute resolution. The Attorney General has just announced mandatory mediation, for example. I am requesting that Bill 103 be treated as another opportunity to apply dispute resolution principles to public policy disputes. There are dozens of examples of this happening successfully.

There are three parts to my submission this morning. I want to talk about the nature of conflict, about an analysis of this specific conflict and then about some design options, as I say, to improve the quality of the exchange and maybe turn things around.

Because of the time constraints, this is not intended to be concise or thorough. This is going to be the "galloping tour" of dispute resolution. I apologize for the superficial treatment.

A little bit about the nature of conflict. Conflicts move through stages and within those stages there are levels. Conflicts evolve and mature. Often the stages are predictable. For those of us who understand conflict analysis, we've been watching this debate and saying, "Yes, we knew that was going to happen."

1100

We know that conflicts end. They come to a resolution, somehow. Why is it important to try to resolve a conflict when we know that eventually it's going to go away, that people will move on? The reason is that conflicts can end in feelings of either jubilation, victory, solidarity and cooperation or they can end in bewilderment and anxiety. We know that feelings and beliefs shape a society. We know that's what culture is based upon. If we create a foundation for whatever change is going to happen, if we create a foundation of bitterness and anger, we will be creating something quite different than a creation that's based on a spirit of collaboration, cooperation and joint problem-solving.

We have choices in this. We can decide what approach to take to things and it can be a conflict resolution approach or another approach. There are lots of approaches. What I'm suggesting is that today we are writing the future in which we all have to live, so consider the residue of the conflict and the legacy of the conflict that will influence the future.

Conflict is value-neutral, it is neither good nor bad, but it does have very real good or bad consequences. Society has to live with and adapt to those consequences. I suggest it's worth working very hard to try to turn the conflict into a constructive and useful exercise.

Something about the analysis of this particular conflict: We know change can be very challenging. From the research we know what factors are likely to create the most and least amount of conflict. Classic negotiation theory is very useful to analyse any conflict. We know that negotiation, to be most useful, should take into account the needs and interests of all. We know that we are most successful in getting what we want when we obtain the cooperation of those we would otherwise have to overcome. There are strategies for obtaining willingness to cooperate and the most important is to understand everybody's needs and interests. It's a lead-up to negotiation. We develop a mutual understanding of our interests. From that, we know what additional information we need to have a meaningful negotiation.

In this conflict, we went directly to bargaining on the basis of positions either for or against, omitting all the intermediary steps. We know that when people go into hard bargaining with a power imbalance, those who are feeling powerless do whatever they can. This is not a surprise.

Some of the common barriers to resolving conflict are equally applicable in this analysis. The first is misunderstanding. When parties move from an idea to hard positional bargaining, they stop communicating and misunderstandings are inevitable. Each believes the other does not understand and is therefore wrong. No one wants bad government. We have different ideas on what good government is, but I think there's pretty universal agreement that we want good government. So we need to have remedies for the misunderstanding by returning to the missed steps of trying to understand each other's interests and needs. We will discover that there are things we have in common, such as, we want good government.

Another common barrier is the use of facts. The lawyers call this the battle of the experts and we are seeing this. Again, that was predictable. When people can't figure out the correct answer, they get frustrated and turn to a preference, based on their own judgement. This frustrates others, who believe they are rejecting objective facts. It becomes a cycle of disagreement over whose facts are the more correct. A remedy is to design a joint fact-finding, problem-solving system in which information all believe to be credible can be gathered to answer questions.

Other barriers are procedures and escalation, and those work to inflame the conflict but there are conflict management strategies for resolving those.

I want to go to the third part of my talk, which is some design options. The present conflict involves these barriers and variations and more. Even so, a conflict management design could be utilized very successfully to address everyone's interests. What would it take to transform this conflict into conflict management? I suggest it would take three things and they are already present. All we would have to do is divert them.

(1) A bit of time: This conflict is already taking a lot of time. Public employees, politicians and citizens alike, who should be attending to their jobs and their families, are instead devoting thousands of hours to sustaining this conflict. The energy could be channelled far more productively into finding ways to accommodate each other.

(2) Some resources: We have already seen the estimates of the millions of dollars that have been spent in fighting each other. I suggest it would be better value for less money if it was spent on a conflict management process instead.

(3) The will to try: It can be hard for people to agree to commit to such a process. There has been a loss of trust; there's been deep entrenchment of positions. It can be turned around. That's been done in many disputes that were far more entrenched, far more durable, far longer- lasting than this one. Disputes that have been raging for more than a decade have been resolved through dispute resolution and conflict management.

Designing a conflict management system is very situationally specific and it is mostly common sense. A lot depends on finding the needs that have to be addressed and the interests underlying the needs. Generally speaking there are levels of design that can be used independently of each other or as part of an inter-connected plan. We can stream parts of a conflict into a separate process or we can deal with the matter holistically. That's part of the design process.

We know that some of the levels to the conflict management system design would have to deal with facts. This is communicating information in the face of misunderstandings that could occur at any minute. We all have, or believe in, different information and sources of information. But if we could design a process for sharing quality information that was agreed to by all the parties, it would go a long way to resolving that particular source of conflict.

We have disagreement over methods. We could design joint problem-solving sessions that could remedy that.

There are disagreements on goals and disagreements on values or the basic view of the world. These can be mediated, leaving the parties able to coexist peacefully. We might even find, to our surprise and pleasure, that our values on some of the issues are very much the same.

In conclusion, as I started, I have no position on the issue of amalgamation, but I am committed to the concept that dispute resolution processes are a superior method of addressing the conflict in which we all find ourselves. We're all spending too much time, money, energy and emotion on a subject that could be resolved using methods that have stood the test of time. I and my dispute resolution colleagues have been watching the conflict escalate, knowing it doesn't have to be this way.

There is a legacy that continues to exist after the conflict is resolved. A conflict in which everyone feels attacked, whether in the end they win or lose, leaves a legacy of bitterness and anger. The legacy of a conflict- managed process with mutual gain is hopefulness and a commitment to implement the plan. I submit that the greater Toronto area could use a good dash of hopefulness right now, so I'm just asking that we be willing to try.

Have I left time for questions?

The Chair: Unfortunately, not at all, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward today to make your presentation.

1110

LAURA ELEEN

The Chair: Would Laura Eleen please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Laura Eleen: The fundamental principles of democracy are that local government belongs to and should be responsible to the local citizens who elected it, not to the provincial government. No changes in the structure of local government should be made without the consent of the local citizens, using a democratic process which draws on their energy, knowledge, goodwill and support.

The Ontario provincial government is attempting to change the face of Metro Toronto without consulting with its residents. Under Bill 103, all of the municipalities in Metro will be amalgamated into one city and local community access to elected representation will be seriously eroded. There is no evidence that this change will be cost-effective and in fact, with changes to the taxation system and the creation of a new mega-bureaucracy, our taxes will likely go up.

Downloading welfare is wrong in principle. It also will increase property taxes in Metro by an estimated $530 million per year. This increase could average at least $2,500 per property. The board of trade estimates each business in Metro will pay $7,800 more in property taxes each year because of downloading. Property taxes for Metro homeowners will increase anywhere from 15% to 30%. No one knows the exact amount because the province has never done any impact studies.

What will it mean if property taxes and rents have to go up? In a recession, more welfare; more taxes; fewer services for seniors, even though the population is aging; higher TTC and GO fares; cuts to fire protection; replacing paramedics, who are now called for heart attacks too, with volunteers; higher rents; more homeless; users pay for ambulances; lower-quality day care; crowded classrooms; more poverty, more crime; more small businesses will go bankrupt.

The combined cost of these added to the individual's tax bill will be $1.8 billion. Taken off your tax bill: $1.26 billion for education and children's aid. This will result in over $530 million more for the same services. I feel that I can speak on this proposed cheapening of education services, as I am an unemployed primary school teacher, with a qualification in teaching English as a second language, or ESL, from the University of Toronto, faculty of education.

Present education spending on Toronto schools is 20% above the average in Ontario because Metro has more students needing ESL and special education from low-income or single-parent families and has developed innovative programs.

The province has not agreed to keep up the present educational standards or fund the unique needs of Toronto students. People with qualifications like mine are unemployed. Instead, the provincially appointed Education Improvement Commission, EIC, will dictate education structure and priorities. Decisions by the EIC are not subject to review. Local boards will have no power to ensure that local property tax dollars benefit the children in their municipality. Further, many believe the government will strip Metro of about $400 million and give that money to other school boards in the province. The motivation is profit, not the public good.

Soon, only wealthy people or those with the backing of a major political party will be able to mount credible election campaigns.

It is extremely important not to fix what isn't broken. It would mean the loss of local vigilance, which explains much of our livability and distinctive urban culture. The fierce determination of existing cities away from amalgamation is because they embody a complex history of the fine-grained negotiations that result in cities that work. The various city halls throughout the region are well-used civic places that evoke real pride in their citizenry. They are different from one another, reflecting the unique cultural makeup of each community. They need to be made to work better, not eradicated.

As the city becomes larger and larger, the ability of the decision-makers to understand individual neighbourhoods and districts decreases, lessening wise decision-making. The true test would occur when the proposed 44-member council sat together to debate a development issue. Are all of the councillors able to form a mental image of the place in question, from the Kingsway to Guildwood, from Cabbagetown to Yonge and Sheppard, the street intersections, buildings, activities, the people who live and work there? If not, beware the consequences.

Primarily also when planning for the future, environmental and ecological considerations must be made. Environmental programs started by local councils include: Every Drop Counts, a city of Toronto water conservation program; the highly successful blue box recycling program; backyard composting and city-level composting programs; support for the Task Force to Bring Back the Don and the cleanup of the Humber River; creation of the Toronto atmospheric fund and commitment to the Toronto target of 20% carbon monoxide reduction.

The Harris government plans to privatize water and sewage treatment plants. This will inevitably cause hefty water and sewage price hikes. In England and Wales, with privatization of water services in 1989, 450% increases have occurred in some cases, a 600% rise in dysentery, a 200% rise in hepatitis, gastrointestinal problems and dramatic increases in pollution offences. In England they even go so far as to cut off the water supply to poor families that can't afford to pay, prompting the British Medical Association to call for a ban on water disconnections due to the serious public health consequences.

This kind of blatant profiteering and meagre reinvestment in the quality of water and sewage systems can happen in Ontario. According to the Ministry of Environment and Energy, 25% of Ontario's water and sewage infrastructure is almost 50 years old and nearing the end of its lifespan. Some infrastructure is older than Canada. The profit motive of private companies depends upon increasing water use, and will work against efforts to conserve water.

Multinational companies lining up to buy Ontario's water and sewage assets are clearly interested in cornering a North American water market. Will the current Ontario government prevent private interests from diverting Ontario's water by pipeline to thirsty markets in the US? Even with Ontario's abundant supplies of fresh water, future droughts, overpopulation and climate change could lead to diminished supplies and conflicts between water users in the province. Canadians who recall the debate over the North America free trade agreement should also recall that, as a commodity under NAFTA, Ontario's water would have to be perpetually supplied, even during times of shortage in Canada.

Consideration must be made of the aforementioned environmental issues. Consider this:

The amalgamation legislation will almost triple the number of people each councillor represents and make it difficult for local citizens and environmental groups to have access to their councillor.

The workload of councillors will increase, making it difficult for them to be environmental champions or to do justice to specific neighbourhood environmental issues.

If bylaws from all councils are meshed in amalgamation, there will be pressure to adopt the lowest common denominator rather than the most environmentally sound policies.

The funding shortfall resulting from the mega-downloading of costs to municipalities will result in cuts to environmental programs and services.

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Eleen, you're getting towards the end of your time. We're going to have ask you to wrap it up.

Ms Eleen: In summary, in addition to the downloading of child care, welfare costs, seniors' services and family benefits, public health, long-term care services, ambulance services, public housing and public transit, this government is so bankrupt of ideas to improve the life of the people in Metro that all they could think of is to give us seven casinos.

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

1120

UNEMPLOYED WORKERS COUNCIL

The Chair: Would John Maclennan please come forward. Are you Mr Maclennan?

Mr John Maclennan: I'm Mr Maclennan. Do I look familiar?

The Chair: Have you made a presentation before?

Mr Maclennan: I actually was with York Citizens for Local Democracy. I also put under the capacity of my employment as coordinator for the Unemployed Workers Council. I won't be speaking.

The Chair: I understand that.

Mr Maclennan: The elected co-chairs will be speaking. Could I ask a question before we start?

The Chair: Actually, individuals can only appear once before the committee. I've got some other individuals --

Mr Maclennan: I put in for the Unemployed Workers Council and I was phoned for the Unemployed Workers Council. I told her that wouldn't be me. I told her it would be two other persons, the two elected people from the Unemployed Workers Council and I'm just here to explain that to you. I think it's pretty simple.

The question I have is, why does the Unemployed Workers Council only get 10 minutes? I was here last week, as you remember, for York Citizens and we had 15 minutes.

The Chair: Each caucus is allowed to select a certain number of groups which they've decided to allot 15 minutes to, and all the rest only get 10.

Mr Maclennan: I see. They've tailored their remarks to try to stay within the 10-minute margin. I would like to introduce Janie Rollins. She's the co-chair for Unemployed Workers Council. The other co-chair is Terry Kelly. Ms Rollins will go first.

Ms Janie Rollins: I would like to thank you for letting me speak on Bill 103. As an organization of unemployed people, we believe that megacity will create more unemployment. Estimations are 4,500 jobs lost directly from Bill 103, and when combined with Bills 104 and 105, the resulting privatization will cause an even greater loss of employment.

Most people, when speaking of the unemployed, speak in terms of numbers, some figures on a piece of paper. Our organization must deal with the person, the flesh and blood, whose dreams and future are being shattered. For the sake of simplicity I have arranged the unemployed into categories.

Expertise and experience: They are the ones who have been laid off mainly because of downsizing. Their Ul has run out. These people have been hardworking, motivated etc. They cannot get jobs. No matter how hard they try, no one is hiring. They cannot even get jobs that pay less money. Their high level of education is held against them. These people have been forced to cash in their RRSPs and sell their homes. They have no choice, for they have no money and are not allowed on welfare if they own property.

Skilled and semiskilled occupations: This group worked their way into positions where they attained middle-class income. They represent a major contributor to the tax base and are now being victimized by massive unemployment. They are losing their homes. Their dreams and aspirations are being eroded. They will end up either collecting social assistance or on the street.

Young and highly educated: Graduated in the last 10 years, many from master's degrees in science, areas they were encouraged to go into. Most of this group have still not been able to get an opportunity to use their education. The only experience that they have been able to get has been with minimum wage jobs offering no future. They cannot earn enough to pay back their student loans and are either disillusioned or becoming that way.

Young and still in school: Depressed, terrified, afraid that the choice of studies they have embarked on will not be the correct one and that they will end up like their older contemporaries.

University dropouts: Lack of funds to finish, afraid they will never be able to finish, stuck in minimum wage jobs, hopes dashed due to no means of getting further ahead and creating a future for themselves. Unless a job creation program is started immediately, this group will become permanently alienated from society. They will leave a legacy of homelessness and dependency.

Highly educated immigrants: This group was encouraged to come to Canada. Our high commissions misinformed them about the true situation here, telling them, "You will have no problems getting employment with your education and experience." They sold their homes and moved here. Their money is running out and they are afraid of what will happen to them. They feel betrayed and used.

They have put into Canadian society every cent that they collected throughout their lives. Now that we have stripped them of all their finances and left them bare and vulnerable, are we just to kick them out? What does that make us? Our treatment of them makes me ashamed to say I am Canadian.

Traditional group of unemployed: When we think of this group, we tend to think of the uneducated, the severely handicapped, the single parent, people with personal problems, psychiatric conditions, the temporarily disabled and the temporarily out-of-work. Many of this group will end up on welfare.

All of the groups -- and there are more -- large numbers are ending up on welfare or the streets. Also, being unemployed leads to depression, thus requiring more health services, but our social services are being cut, so they will not be able to get the help they need.

In conclusion, the unemployment that will result from megacity is one more straw that the unemployed will have to bear in an already difficult situation. We demand that the government withdraw Bill 103 and sit down with the local municipalities and help to create jobs to put us back to work.

Mr Terry Kelly: My name is Terry Kelly. I've lived in Toronto since 1953 when my family immigrated here. I went to school here. I'm an iron worker by trade in the construction industry. I'm out of work. I've been married here. I've raised a son and I have a grandson now here in Toronto.

The presentation I'm making today on behalf of the Unemployed Workers Council is in opposition to Bill 103, the amalgamation of the five cities and one borough into a mega-Toronto. There are numerous reasons for our opposition to Bill 103. Other groups and individuals have already expressed their concerns, with which we are largely in agreement.

One of the UWC's major concerns is that this legislation is one more piece of job elimination, rather than job creation, by the Tory government. Over a year and a half ago this government was elected after campaigning on a platform promising massive job creation. Unlike the federal Tories' promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, the Ontario Tories specified in their blue book the exact number of jobs they would create: 725,000 jobs. This is not an insignificant number, but one that would make a dent in the existing massive unemployment in Ontario. So where are the jobs?

Bill 103 lacks distinction, for it is just another piece of legislation that has in its design the elimination of jobs. Once again we are told in the government's own paid-for report the approximate number of jobs to be eliminated due to amalgamation will be between 2,500 and 4,500 jobs. With glee the Tory government ministers tell us how Bill 103 will create an economic environment ripe for business, when in reality they are creating an economic nightmare for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed and underemployed workers in our municipalities. Once again, where are the jobs?

The UWC feels, in discussing the proposed amalgamation of our municipalities, that we ought to look at the impact of not only Bill 103 but also Bills 104 and 105. With the downloading of education and the offloading of the cost of welfare, child care, housing, long-term care and other social services on to the municipal property tax base when we already are suffering from a decreasing tax base, we can envision the economic environment the Tory government has in store for the people of Toronto. This horrific view is one of privatizing vital services, as well as massive cuts to those very services that the increasing numbers of unemployed and underemployed will desperately need. This is immoral and inhumane, and we ask, why is it not illegal to abandon men, women and children to a Tory legacy of abject poverty?

With the staggering number of bankruptcies and with large corporations and small businesses continuing to lay off their workforce, those workers are going to require more use of our social programs that are designed to redistribute income. These programs are funded from property taxes, which in periods of recession place a huge burden on the municipal property tax system. Combined with the municipalities' inability to borrow or find other sources of revenue, we can expect to see severe restrictions or elimination of those very social programs the unemployed and underemployed in our municipalities so desperately need.

The Unemployed Workers Council calls on the Tory government to immediately withdraw Bill 103 and work with the municipalities to put together a joint plan for the municipalities in the greater Toronto area; live up to your election promise of creating 725,000 jobs by immediately initiating a program of full employment for the people of Ontario; live up to your moral and economic responsibility to provide unemployed and underemployed workers with an income sufficient for a dignified life; and repeal all legislation and proposed legislation that creates various forms of forced labour and the curtailment of civil liberties of unemployed and underemployed workers. Jobs must be at adequate wages and under humane and safe working conditions. We are demanding jobs or income now.

1130

Mr Silipo: I would like to say thank you to the presenters. I don't have any questions; the presentation is quite clear. I want to thank you for emphasizing the issue of jobs. It's one that others have touched on but I don't think any other group has really emphasized in the way you have. As you point out, one of the key findings in the government's own report, the KPMG study which they use as the basis for defending their actions, is that in order to find even the savings they want to find, we're going to see the initial loss of some 4,500 jobs. And that's just with the one measure; the others, as you've pointed out, go on.

I just want to thank you for coming forward and putting this information very clearly in front of us.

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

WOMEN PLAN TORONTO

The Chair: Would Reggie Modlich please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Reggie Modlich: Thank you very much. My name is Reggie Modlich. The presentation will be given by Janet Forbes, who is the co-chairperson for Women Plan Toronto.

Ms Janet Forbes: Good morning. I'm pleased to be here. I had one of those interesting experiences that we all have from time to time; just before I tore out this morning my computer printer failed, which means I do not have a nicely prepared report to you. I am here to talk to you about the concerns of Women Plan Toronto.

It's quite a challenge to present anything this committee hasn't already heard over the last couple of weeks, which in itself is relevant, because I believe the people have been of one voice over their concerns about Bill 103. They've been primarily concerned about the haste with which this bill is being implemented and the fact that there does not seem to be any substantive reason for doing this. None of the reports that have been commissioned by the government seems to say definitively that there will be any real economic savings in doing this, so we are left to wonder what the government agenda is about, catering to the interests of a smaller group of privileged people who perceive that governments are about efficiencies? Governments aren't about efficiencies; they're about people.

As it is, Women Plan Toronto, along with the Committee on the Status of Women for the city of Toronto and the Older Women's Network, participated in preparing a declaration, the content of which was presented to you by a Status of Women representative. But some of the points they made in that presentation are important to review. Some 60% of the seniors in this city are women and 17% of the families in the city of Toronto are single-parent families, most of which are headed by women. These groups are traditionally dependent far more on municipal services than other members of our community.

The provision of these services across the board without associated discrimination on the basis of economic policies is important. The fact that we provide recreation services without charge means that groups of our populace aren't ghettoized by their means to pay, that they can participate equally in the types of programs the city provides.

There is a tendency of this government to wish to segregate and ghettoize these people. The potential outcome of Bill 104, by restricting secure funding to teacher-in-the-classroom programs, has the potential of eliminating a great many of those programs that other people who can afford it then acquire through the provision of charter schools. These charter schools have the potential of leaving the public school system open only to those who cannot afford other.

Once again groups of people are being ghettoized within the city of Toronto.

Women have been traditionally ghettoized through their lack of economic wellbeing. This type of policy is against the commonweal of Canadians. The understanding that Canadians have long preserved is that the commonweal of the populace is more important than the privilege of a small group of people.

Women Plan Toronto has had two goals throughout its life. One is to ensure provision of services in a safe, healthy urban environment for women, and the second is to encourage women to go out and participate in achieving these things and to participate in the electoral process. Women traditionally have looked to local political processes as being their route into the power structure, for two good reasons: One is that it's difficult to go away to a Legislature hundreds of miles away from your home and your family; the second is the economic resources required to run for a Legislature.

I'm sure most of you here know how difficult it would be to run if you didn't have the economic resources behind you in the form of a political party. Does this mean we are looking at political parties in the city of Toronto? Does this mean we have to access this type of funding for people to be a representative on their school board or on their municipal government?

Briefly, I would like to make two more points. In the 1960s and the 1970s, we looked to mega public housing projects as a way to solve our housing crisis. They were considered to be modern and efficient. The passage of time has shown that this has not really worked. This is not to say that amalgamation in itself does not have possibilities. Women Plan Toronto members participated in the preparation of the Golden report and many of its recommendations are commendable, but the haste of this amalgamation process belies what happened in the Golden report. Despite what this government thinks, Bill 103 is not the Golden report and the many recommendations of the Golden report have not been put in place.

I would at this point like to comment on that little homily we all learned from our mothers, I'm sure, and many of us have experienced it in the practicality of our lives: Haste makes waste. I would like to suggest to this committee that yes, many of these things are possible, but doing them this quickly is not appropriate to the wellbeing of the citizens of the Metropolitan Toronto cities.

Mr Parker: One of the comments we've heard from a number of presenters relates to community and the need to preserve community and some concern that Bill 103 might have an effect on our ability to preserve communities. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.

Ms Modlich: I'm really concerned that at the most basic level, at the smallest scale, we have advisory councils that can be handpicked in one way or can be funded, like Janet suggested, that party politics might well creep in. There is none of the power that's necessary for this new level of community council. I'm very concerned how ill defined that level, at this point, still is.

Mr Parker: Let me pick up on that one point, because you can help us. Right now, you're right, there is very little definition to the neighbourhood council that's commented on in the bill. What sort of vision would you have for a neighbourhood council?

Ms Modlich: I think it would need to be democratically elected. There needs to be an assurance as well that all groups are able to stand for these elections, not only those who have the funds to pay for campaigns. At the same time, I'm concerned that we will insert an additional level of government rather than reducing. Again, it's such a hasty, sudden proposal that we have not been able to digest or to discuss with each other to ensure, through a dialogue, that we have the best solution.

1140

Mr Parker: I appreciate that, but this part of it has not been hastily brought forward. The concept has been put out there for people to comment on and the ultimate decision will not be made until comments have been received. So I'm quite interested in your comments.

Ms Forbes: I think one of the important parts is, what power do these councils have? Are their recommendations going to be --

Mr Parker: That's what I'm asking you. What would you like?

Ms Forbes: If you're going through the process of having a council, it's important that the recommendations and the decisions it makes be enacted.

Mr Parker: I'm hearing two different messages from you. I'm hearing one say that you don't want another level of government, but I'm hearing you say that you want them to exercise some authority.

Ms Forbes: I'm not saying I want it; I'm not sure I agree with the idea at all. Our current forms of representation, with various committees operated by the cities that speak to local issues, aren't necessarily entrenched in an ongoing process; they're usually struck for a specific purpose, and when that purpose has been met they die. But if you entrench ongoing, continuous committees you may end up with another level of government. I'm just saying if this comes to pass it's really important that their recommendations have instatement power. There is no point in having people go out and put all that work into their community and not have their recommendations followed up on, because that's a really demoralizing process.

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

JOE PANTALONE

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

Mr Joe Pantalone: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present my thoughts on Bill 103 and related issues. I should mention that the perspective I bring to this matter is one of having been elected at the local level, the city of Toronto, for a number of years; having served for three years at both the local level of the city of Toronto and Metro Toronto; and for the last eight years I have been serving as a member of the Metropolitan Toronto council. You could say I have seen both levels of government work or have their challenge, as the case may be, but primarily work.

At the local level I have seen the complaints about very individual issues, such as obtaining a building permit, the need to fix the proverbial pothole in front of one's house or in one's laneway, come up and be solved. I have also seen at the local level the importance of implementing, after citizen consultation, things like zoning bylaws, the putting in place of local libraries to reflect local needs, local traffic plans and issues of wider implication. For example, in the early 1980s, the city of Toronto was instrumental in developing an AIDS program which was primarily a program of public education, which, as you know, has been emulated by others in government, be it at the municipal, provincial or federal level. That's to show that local government does work, not only in terms of local issues but also in terms of wider implications. In many ways it's where a lot of the ideas start and become popularized.

At the Metro regional level, the emphasis has always been on bigger-ticket items, be it public transit projects, with things like the Sheppard subway, as you know, up to $1 billion; things like economic development, such as the $180-million National Trade Centre being built at Exhibition Place, which will serve Toronto, Ontario and Canada well; as well as the multimillion-dollar annual contributions which Metro makes to the Metro Toronto Convention and Visitors Association and the arts in this city and province; also the importance of developing a social infrastructure which is regional in nature and which serves everybody, from the middle-class parent who has a child they need to put in a child care centre to somebody who needs a bed in the middle of a cold, blustery winter night in order to avoid passing away; or how to deliver policing in such a manner that the job gets done, while understanding Toronto's diverse communities.

All of us can think that this kind of constant public input has changed attitudes, if you will, in our society, and that's why we have a society which is widely admired.

I believe region-wide responsibilities are obviously fundamental. Things like safety, an efficient and affordable transportation system and provision of basic needs are what make an urban area livable or fail to make it so. I also believe the local level has a role to play which is equally fundamental. Where the government is making a mistake is in assuming it's an either/or situation.

The problem with amalgamating the local with the regional is that either the personal touch which every resident requires will be lost or the regional planning won't happen. I know this since for three years, like I mentioned earlier, I served on both the local and the regional councils. Let me tell you, at that time I spent about 90% of my time on local issues, individual issues. There's nothing more pressing than a pink slip that says: "I've got a problem. Call me." Those tend to be very individual problems, like building permits, potholes and so forth.

Yet at the regional level, interestingly enough, we spent six to seven times the amount of the local council, yet I spent about 10% of my time doing it. Having the two tiers basically solved that problem by allowing us to give proper consideration and accountability.

There's no doubt that the system needs fine-tuning. Anybody who has been in it knows that. There's also no doubt it can be very irritating, the other level of government, depending where you are. I personally experienced it, as I'm sure everybody else has. But my basic premise is that the system is in need of fine-tuning; basically, it's not broken within Metropolitan Toronto.

Bill 103, in my view, is neither fish nor fowl. It neither establishes a truly regional government to look after the Toronto region, which is an organic whole, nor does it really deal with the local issues, because it's simply too big for that. A $70-billion budget, dealing with all those issues, is simply too much.

What we really need is to fix the uncoordinated sprawl that has put artificial boundaries between the core of the Toronto urbanized area and its limbs, limbs which go by names like Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan and so forth. This point has been made eminently clear many times, through the No Turning Back report which Metro council reported, the Golden task force report and so forth. The fundamental problem today is that Toronto has outgrown the statutory boundaries of the Metro council that was established to plan and manage its growth. Metro Toronto's boundaries are considerably smaller than the actual physical and economic size of Toronto, as No Turning Back says.

What are the consequences of this? The consequences are very grave. Metro taxpayers pay, for example, for services used by many others as well as its own citizens, things like the Metro Toronto Reference Library, which is a reference library for southern Ontario. We pay $17 million out of our budget for that, and there's no contribution from the other parts outside of Metro. It's true the province provides $1.6 million a year, I think, but it's far short of the $17 million.

Things like the Gardiner Expressway, the Don Valley Parkway: As you know, they are used both by Metro residents and people outside of Metro, yet the cost is borne at the local level. Things like the Hummingbird Centre, the Canadian Opera Company: Metro provides major funding for that. Our citizens buy the tickets, as does somebody from Brampton or Mississauga; however, those millions of dollars for providing that have to be borne by our taxpayers.

That's the real problem, which I believe the board of trade presented in the hole-in-the-doughnut argument. Those are the issues which Bill 103 does not address, in my view.

Also, Metro services act as a magnet for people in need from other regions in the province. As a result, Metro taxpayers pay an unfair share of the bill. Metro, for example, has about 50% of the population of the GTA, yet it has 72% of its seniors and 66% of the households earning less than $20,000 per year. Metro's welfare caseload in 1994 accounted for 36% of the provincial total, yet we had 25% of the provincial population. Those are basic facts. Collapsing the centre, the core, does not solve those problems, which were primarily core vis-à-vis Metro, vis-à-vis the outside regions.

The fact that the province is also moving forward to download more of the welfare bill, as well as the costs for family benefits assistance, long-term care, public health, public and non-profit housing, child care, and assessment delivery, is fundamentally wrong. In particular, the offloading of social services, according to the president of the board of trade, goes against the advice of every major study which has been done on this issue.

The net result is that the government's action is an additional burden which simply makes that initial load that much more unbearable. For example, you heard that the $531 million that Metro residents are supposed to raise through property taxes represents a 15.6% tax increase across the board for every resident and business owner across Metro -- 15.6%. That's assuming you spend the same amount of dollars. That is obviously unsupportable.

Furthermore, the introduction of actual value assessment is interesting. Even though it attempts to introduce certain equality, and often people mention the fact that people in Rosedale and Forest Hill will be paying their fair share, it's more than they who get affected. In my area, for example, under the previous figures of 1988 market values, 92% of my homeowners will get increases -- 92%. Just count them. Yet in my area the average income is 22% less than the provincial average. The provincial average in 1991 was $56,727; in my area it's $43,974. The idea that people who are cleaners, construction workers and often people who work for minimum wage can afford a 15.6% tax increase, plus whatever the effect of the actual value assessment is, is simply absurd, simply breaking their backs.

1150

The Chair: Mr Pantalone, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. We're getting towards the end of time.

Mr Pantalone: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Being an elected official, sometimes I tend to add more to my script.

I'd like to conclude by saying that I've been in politics quite a few years. I think it's an honourable profession. Those of us who are in public service sometimes don't get the credit for that. We have an obligation to work together, regardless of political orientation, to try to reach what is best overall. I believe, however, that this amalgamation plan, and in particular the downloading on to the new city, will fundamentally damage one of the best cities in the world.

Today I'm asking the government members of the committee and every other member of the Legislature to think about that. Toronto is a great city that works. It is Ontario's capital as well as being the residence of many of us. Its success is your success. Please stop the stampede which Bill 103 represents and find a better solution. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation this afternoon.

PHILIP CREIGHTON

The Chair: Will Roberta Corey please come forward. Oh, Philip Creighton replaces Roberta Corey, for the members' information.

Mr Philip Creighton: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, that I make a very poor Roberta Corey.

The Chair: I can't say that. I've never seen Roberta Corey, so it's hard for me to judge.

Mr Creighton: I haven't either, sir.

I am interested in the process that takes the government of Ontario from Mr Harris's 1994 Fergus statement to Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, 1996. Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to talk with you.

Mr Harris reportedly said: "I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger municipalities." Bill 103 will create by far the largest municipality in the province, a megacity, at least by Ontario standards. How was this remarkable reversal achieved?

In the Common Sense Revolution, much is made of the proposed reduction in the number of provincial members of the Legislature, although the resulting savings are not large. Very little is said about municipalities, except some sound advice that the government is not following: "We will sit down with municipalities to discuss ways of reducing government entanglement and bureaucracy with an eye to eliminating waste and duplication as well as unfair downloading by the province."

Perhaps we can take it as a faith statement, devoutly believed by the members of the government, that fewer politicians always equal greater savings. Other than faith, and perhaps arrogance, there seems little support for Bill 103. There is no business plan. There is no cost-benefit analysis. Apparently, there isn't even a complete listing of the costs involved in the downloading of social programs and the amalgamation of Toronto, let alone credible dollar estimates. There are no impact studies. The stakeholders weren't effectively consulted. The anticipated savings range from the improbable to the purely fanciful. But I need not go on. It is sufficient to note that little of the research and analysis that a prudent planner would require exists for the proposed amalgamation of Toronto. Sure, there are lots of studies around, but effective planning requires that your financial plan correspond to your proposal, not somebody else's.

If not faith, then perhaps arrogance is the real father of Bill 103. The government appears to have adopted an arrogant style of governance, I presume as a matter of policy. At the risk of overgeneralizing, the government picks a simplistic solution to a problem without serious study of the consequences of its actions. It uses legislation that seeks to insulate it from those consequences and relies heavily on ministerial discretion. It denigrates its opponents, limits discussion and uses a tight deadline. It takes charge.

I have been a chartered accountant all my working life in Toronto. I was actually born in East York but I didn't stay there long. I have noticed that many business people, particularly professionals, are often impatient with and frustrated by the bean counters: the economists and accountants. I understand that some members of the Ontario government, by simple inspection of the financial statements of the Metro-area municipalities, can predict that the Toronto amalgamation is going to be a success.

Then there is the KPMG study. I doubt if anyone, even the authors, believes in its "may be savings" any more. But even management consultants can do little with weak assumptions, little time, and if they are kept from talking to anyone who might understand the problem. But why was the KPMG study thought necessary? The government apparently assumed that substantial savings would make amalgamation popular. It was so clearly an afterthought. I presume that the government went outside because it had downsized its staff below the competence level. It did not have enough staff free to do a special project. It is a common problem with businesses that have been heavily re-engineered.

The shortage of staff resulting from downsizing has plagued the government. Too few sales tax auditors result in lapsed assessments. The Attorney General's family support payment system takes months to get payments from one parent to another, let alone catch the deadbeat dads. The Ministry of Transportation is reduced to holding photo opportunities for the Toronto Sun as a substitute for weigh stations in full operation to keep truck tires secure. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs can't deliver a clean voters' list to Toronto for its referendum. Savings are certainly super, but service is nice too.

I don't think it matters much whether it's arrogance or lack of staff that prevented the necessary cost-benefit analysis of the Toronto amalgamation being prepared. It was not done. If the government members were putting their own assets at risk without any plan, I would think them stupid or ignorant. But they are not using their cash; they are playing with yours and mine.

The major asset of many families is their house. I use individuals here rather than businesses because it's easier to see the consequences in a simple case. We can't know the probable outcome of Bill 103 because no serious study has been undertaken. However, let's assume that amalgamation is a success, even after $400 million in one-time costs and three-plus years of administrative chaos. What benefit can the property owner expect? At best, somewhat lower municipal taxes; at least, the Treasurer of Ontario has said they are going down. As Toronto is now reputed to be the most livable city in North America, slightly lower taxes are not likely to do much for property values except maintain them.

But assume that amalgamation and downloading produce a rotten-core city. Then the downside risk to property values becomes substantial, far greater than the corresponding upside advantage from successful amalgamation, because property values are so high to start with. In Bill 103 and its attendant social program download, what are we getting? A modest upside, a downside so big it is scary, and all because our government will not do its homework and has blind faith in its own decisions. What can we call its action other than reckless and wilful?

1200

Mr Sergio: Thank you for coming down and making a presentation to our committee. You have mentioned quite a few things that we have heard from other people as well. We have now another report from another financial consultant saying that there are no savings to be expected from this amalgamation. Many people have said we should study the entire situation all over again. We have heard that yes, some trimming needs to be done, but we don't have to cut down the tree completely.

Do you think the government is going to listen to the majority of the people within Metro and allow more time, pull the bill back, negotiate with the six mayors and with the people who are going to be affected? Do you think the government should do that?

Mr Creighton: Obviously the government should do it, but I wonder if its style will permit it to do it. It has adopted a confrontational style, and it's evidently willing to proceed with no study. It is the no study that gets me.

Mr Sergio: I can see that you're getting all wrapped up. It's the style, it's the process and it's the arrogance, as you have said.

Let me say this. I didn't want to ask you this question, but let me do it. A couple of days ago a judge in Scarborough did quash the appointment of the three trustees. Even with all that, we have the minister, Mr Leach, saying: "Don't worry about it. When we approve the legislation, we will reappoint them." What's the matter with this government, with this minister here? Can't they see what they are doing to the people? He's so arrogant to say: "It doesn't matter. We still are going to push ahead. We're going to approve it, and then we can reappoint and give them the power." What do you think of this attitude of the government, instead of listening to the people?

Mr Creighton: I am an old man, and I have lived through Leslie Frost, John Robarts, Bill Davis. I am surprised at the government. I cannot say myself that I have voted Conservative since the second administration of the late, lamented Mr Diefenbaker, but this does not seem to be the Ontario that I grew up in.

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

ENGIN ISIN

The Chair: Will Engin Isin please come forward. Before we start, Mr Isin, I have a feeling that the bells calling us to vote in the House are going to start ringing any minute now. Go ahead, Mr Isin. It will be a five-minute bell if we do get one, so we'll start anyway.

Dr Engin Isin: I thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee, though I wish we didn't have to face each other in a 10-minute monologue. My name is Engin Isin. I am a professor of social science and urban studies at York University, and an immigrant and a recent proud Canadian citizen.

My field of expertise is constitutional law and municipal government in Canada, the United States and Great Britain. Over the years I have examined and interpreted hundreds of city charters and acts of municipal incorporation reaching back to the 12th century. Among the most memorable charters I have read and examined are London in 1130, Kingston-Upon-Hull in 1440, New York City in 1664, Saint John in 1785 and Montreal in 1832. I mention these dates because I want to give you a sense that an act of incorporation of a city has a long history in Anglo-Saxon law, to which our jurisdiction is an heir.

Constitutional scholars often regard this long history as a seamless web and take pleasure in pointing out that whatever social and cultural differences may separate London in the 12th century from Montreal in the 19th, they are likely to have very similar clauses in their charters. It is not as though nothing changes. Since London received its charter there have been the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century, the American and French revolutions in the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century and the Russian and Velvet revolutions in the 20th century. Yet law changes very slowly and checks the excesses of revolutions. It seems law maintains continuity while allowing reasonable change.

We have now about a 500-year history of creating municipal corporations in Anglo-Saxon law and 200 years of creating them in Canada. What can we make of Bill 103 within this legal and constitutional history? I wish to address that question.

The Chair: Mr Isin, we'll address that question as soon as we get back from the vote. We'll just recess until after the vote. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 1206 to 1218.

The Chair: Mr Isin, you can resume. You have just a little more than eight minutes to go. Sorry for the interruption.

Dr Isin: As I was saying, the question I wish to address is, what can one make of Bill 103 within the context of this legal and constitutional history? I want to note, however, I'm here to address Bill 103, not the idea of amalgamation. I want to make a clear distinction between Bill 103 and the idea of amalgamation because within the established practices of constitutional law there are several hundred ways of amalgamating. Bill 103 is one of them and I want to address that particular manner.

An unusual aspect of Bill 103 is that it does not create a new city as much as it dissolves the current municipal system. It leaves many issues, such as the duties, powers and structure of the new city, to further legislation. Instead, it focuses on the transition between the dissolution of the old municipal system and the creation of the new city. From a legal point of view the question arises whether it is prudent to dissolve a complex municipal system before the duties, powers and the structure of the new city are actually determined. From a political point of view, the question also arises whether it is wise to leave so many aspects of the new city to two appointed bodies.

Bill 103 seems to solve the political problem of dissolving a complex municipal system without articulating the legal and political functions of the new city by conferring extraordinary powers to the minister, the board of trustees and the transition team. This move has, in my view, severe consequences. Bill 103 radically departs from several constitutional and legal norms and customs concerning the Canadian law of municipal corporations.

I will focus on four such anomalies and departures. The first one is the powers present in the bill without precedent. Section 2(5) confers on the new city every power and duty of an old municipality or old council. However, the powers vested in the minister in section 24, the board of trustees in section 9(4) and the transition team in section 16(4) can technically undermine and redefine these powers without the knowledge of the Legislature. In other words, Bill 103 not only wrests power from the electors by establishing the board of trustees and the transition team as appointed bodies corporate, as it has been pointed out before; it also wrests power from and absolves responsibility of the provincial Legislature towards the new city.

Section 9(4)(g), for example, leaves it open that the minister can prescribe the board of trustees any other duties not expressed in the bill. Similarly, sections 9(5), 9(6), and 9(7) confer extraordinary powers to the board by leaving terms such as "guidelines" and "documents" open to interpretation. Finally, section 9(9) is also extraordinary in that the board is empowered to define its own functions to create a bureaucracy outside the control of the Legislature.

In my presentation I list several other clauses and sections in the bill that I believe are without precedent. Nevertheless, section 24 is the one that I want to focus on in the next minute. For all the provisions in the bill, it's perhaps the most extraordinary. It empowers the minister to impose conditions on the exercise of powers of the existing councils and boards. It also empowers the minister to expand the duties of both the board of trustees and the transition team, which are in effect corporate bodies.

In other words, once it becomes law, the minister will have powers that are both beyond judicial review as well as Legislative review. Among these powers is, as stated in section 24(1)(f), to "define any word or expression used in this act that has not already been expressly defined in this act," which effectively appoints the minister as the king of the new city.

The second issue I want to raise is indeterminacy and imprecision of several clauses in the bill. Section 9(10) states, "On or after January 31, 1998, the minister may, by order, dissolve the board of trustees." Also, a similar section, 16(12), states the same thing for the transition team. In the context of the extraordinary powers already vested in these two bodies and in the minister to redefine and expand their duties, these sections are simply very dangerous. The indeterminacy of these clauses creates opportunities for political manipulation.

Similarly, the imprecision of section 16(4)(a), which states that the transition team will "consider what further legislation may be required to implement this act, and make detailed recommendations to the minister," is dangerous. In effect, this clause, when read carefully, accepts the insufficiency of the bill as an act of incorporation but vests powers in the transition team to supplement this insufficiency. From a legal point of view, I can't emphasize enough how much this may create several messy scenarios for the government.

The third issue I want to raise is the issue of trust. Bill 103 introduces a few clauses where an open distrust is displayed towards the existing councils and boards it dissolves. Sections 9(6), 9(7), 16(5) and 16(6), for example, legislate the cooperation of the members, the employees and agents of the old municipalities and their boards. These sections also legislate the existing municipalities to honour the requests of the board of trustees and the transition team for information and new documents.

These sections are exceptionally detailed in a bill that hardly spells out the duties and powers of the new city. Obviously, the government anticipates a resistance to the bill from the existing municipalities. This raises two thorny questions.

First, should one level of government display such distrust towards another level? To this question, the minister responded publicly by stating that the government would rather be safe than sorry. However, are there not enough checks and balances in our legal system, including the acts of access to information, to ensure appropriate transition? The second question follows from the first. Does not this mistrust reveal and catch a government introducing a takeover bill? In other words, if anyone had any doubt about the true intent of the bill not to create a new city but to dissolve the current municipal system, they need not examine any other section than those mentioned, 9(6) 9(7), 16(5) and 16(6).

The fourth issue I want to raise is the issue of boundaries and communities, which has been raised so far in connection with size, but I'm going to make a separate and different point. Bill 103 introduces a peculiar and, in my view, a dangerous provision of modelling city wards after federal and provincial electoral boundaries. I don't think the drafters of the bill have given enough thought to this.

The bill proposes to divide the city into 44 wards based on the new 22 federal electoral districts. To understand why I think this practice sets a dangerous precedent, it is important to state that political representation in English law has always been of communities -- territorial units sharing, in so far as possible, some unity of interest. This principle of representation of community can be traced to the origins of Parliament as an institution in the fourteenth century. The King summoned individuals to represent a specific town or borough, and the parliament was an assembly of such men. By participating in the parliament, these communities and the King accepted their reciprocal obligations.

By the 19th century, representation by population replaced the principle of representation of community in federal and state elections. The drawing of artificial boundaries to apportion comparable numbers of people in electoral districts or ridings became throughout representative democracies the principal means of representation. The reasons for this shift are complex. At any rate, from the point of view of municipal law, the significance of this is that municipal corporations historically maintained the principle of community interest. The ward system in many cities and towns is as much as a districting system for representation as it respects neighbourhoods and communities.

I want to conclude with a recommendation and a concluding remark. In my view, Bill 103 is a frenzied document. It is anomalous with regard to established legal norms of dissolution, annexation and amalgamation of municipal corporations in this jurisdiction. The bill creates not a new city, as is its ostensible objective, but a provincial board. Bill 103 is not, in my view, an act of incorporation. Among the bases for this anomaly are the Saving and Restructuring Act and the Better Local Government Act, which made it possible for the government to sidestep established juridical practices with respect to amalgamation and dissolution in this jurisdiction.

In my view, the recent ruling of the Ontario Divisional Court judge with respect to the legality of the transition team being appointed the day of the bill being introduced is only the beginning of a long and arduous legal battle that will be fought in the courts over this bill.

The bill therefore is fraught with more difficulties than the minister or the government would care to admit. In my view, the judicious course of action is to withdraw the bill, wait until other government policies such as on provincial-municipal finance and the GTA structure and responsibilities become more clear, and submit a new bill to a process as set out in the Municipal Act and the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, thereby involving the electorate and possibly the Ontario Municipal Board in creating a new city.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Isin, for your presentation. You've gone quite a bit beyond your allotted time but I thought that was only fair considering the interruptions you had to put up with. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward and making your presentation.

We're recessed until 3:30.

The committee recessed from 1230 to 1536.

CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR CIVIC AFFAIRS IN NORTH YORK

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Could Colin Williams please come forward. Mr Williams, welcome to the committee.

Mr Colin Williams: My name is Colin Williams. I'm the president of the Concerned Citizens for Civic Affairs in North York. On my left is Terence Sawyer, who is a member of the executive committee of the organization.

We'd like to thank the committee for receiving us so that we may make a presentation with respect to Bill 103. We appear before you on behalf of the of the Concerned Citizens for Civic Affairs in North York. Our executive has discussed the bill and is inclined to favour it. It offers the potential for reducing duplication in such areas as traffic engineering where the divided responsibility and the buck-passing make good transportation planning more difficult.

We are concerned with the decision to download more of the social support costs without municipal access to appropriate tax resources. We would like municipalities to have access, through requisition upon the province, to income and other taxes raised from citizens in the municipality. However, this is beyond Bill 103 and so in this presentation we wish to offer suggestions with respect to the democratic aspects of the bill.

Our suggestions are in three areas: nurturing our neighbourhoods; funding of municipal election campaigns; access to privatized municipal information and data protection for personal information held in privatized municipal information systems.

As has been pointed out, this bill is not people-empowering in some of its tendencies. Our aim is to suggest that amendments could be made which would counter these tendencies but not impair the central thrust of the bill. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg address, summed up the democratic ideal with the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people." Clearly, the bill envisages less "by the people." Some claim there is less "for the people."

One of the weaknesses of the bill is that it reduces citizen representation. On the other hand, in section 5 it leaves the door open a little for the introduction of some democratic balance. It provides for neighbourhood committees but is silent as to the purpose or structure of these committees. In its present form this section is redundant, as it gives no new power or duty to the new city. Cities have formed committees for various purposes from time immemorial.

Nurturing the neighbourhoods: What is needed in section 5 is some guidance as to what the committees are intended to do and by what process the committees are to be formed. The government leaflet One Toronto for All of Us has an excellent, even poetic section "Nurturing our Neighbourhoods." However, it does not identify the US or Canadian cities which have used the neighbourhood committees or describe those cases which have succeeded or failed.

What is needed in the bill are some principles which would guide this experiment in democracy. In our view these committees will only be successful if they are truly representative. The mechanism proposed for Hamilton-Wentworth clearly fails, as it envisages appointment by councillors. Further conditions for success are that the committees be given something meaningful to do and adequate secretarial resources to do their work.

Thus the committees would be empowered to make decisions on matters of local concern. The committees would provide advice on larger matters, and when grouped into larger communities, provide a recognized citizen voice with respect to such issues as the level of municipal services to be provided in the larger area. Such decisions would of course involve a higher tax relative to the higher service level. Thus we are asking that you consider replacing the vacuous section 5 with something that reflects the spirit of the "Nurturing our Neighbourhoods" section of One Toronto for All of Us.

Typically, municipalities form various boards or advisory committees and use nominating committees to staff these bodies. The new councillor soon learns that other considerations than merit play too large a role in the selection process. In North York, certain committee members have become perennials. Citizens deserve something better. We would advocate that no person serve on a neighbourhood committee for more than four years.

Some more open process is needed, perhaps a neighbourhood town hall or a random selection from a list of volunteers. The councillor should be an ex officio member of the committee, but not the chair.

"Nurturing our Neighbourhoods" sketches the role of such committees. It is, in our view, essential that the committees not be purely advisory. Citizens already have channels to advise their elected representatives. Functions which might be assigned to these bodies would include local traffic regulation, minor variances and other matters dealt with by a committee of adjustment -- curb cuts, closing road allowances and things of that sort.

The funding of municipal elections: We turn now to another important aspect of the democratic process. It has long been known that municipal election campaigns have been largely funded by the development industry and by municipal contractors. We regret the absence of anything in this bill to democratize this process. As with hockey, Quebec can teach us something here. They have the simple rule that only an elector may contribute to a campaign fund. Corporations are not electors; foreign citizens are not electors.

Finally, I'd like to turn to protection of privacy and access to information. The KPMG study envisages that savings to municipal funds could be obtained by privatizing and thus down-waging. We urge this committee to extend the protection of privacy and access to information legislation to municipal data held by contracting organizations so that there's similar protection for these organizations as in the existing municipal administration. These are in our view important elements of any democratic regime.

To sum up, we recommend the bill be amended so that the neighbourhood committees be representative of the people in the neighbourhood; that neighbourhood committees be assigned real responsibility with respect to the neighbourhood; that city elections be funded by city electors; that access to municipal information and the protection of personal information be extended.

We thank the committee for listening to us.

Mr Hastings: Gentlemen, how would you provide for or ensure, aside from just making an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the extent of personal information under municipal data, given that we already have access to it under land titles administration with Teranet? The two previous governments started it. There was supposed to be some tendering back in 1990. I think if you use the Internet, you can find out where you live, sir, how much your property is appraised at etc under land titles through Teranet that was sold by two previous administrations. How are you going to get that back? How are you going to actually protect, which I think is a good idea?

Mr Williams: I'm glad you're supportive of this proposal. The arrangements you speak of I believe were arrangements made by a former provincial government and thus not within the ambit of some municipal legislation.

Mr Hastings: You wouldn't specifically want this government to amend freedom of information and privacy? I think to some extent municipal data of a personal nature is already under the act.

Mr Williams: Where that information is held by the municipality, there is protection at the present time, but this bill could involve, further down the road, the holding of this information by private corporations. It's important that the protection of the law should apply to these data, as well as data held by the municipality itself.

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

GOVERNOR'S BRIDGE RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Would Penny Pepperell please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Penny Pepperell: My name is Penny Pepperell and I am president of the Governor's Bridge Ratepayers Association in East York. The association, representing 150 homes, both rental apartments and single-family homes, has been active in community issues, including the Leslie Street extension, Redway Road and the safe passage of trains through our neighbourhood.

We are particularly proud of our involvement in the plan for subdivision on the Bayview ghost site, located on the Bayview extension south of Nesbitt Drive. We were able to reduce the size of the proposed development from 913 apartment units to 64 single-family homes. As a result of the hard work of all the stakeholders, Governor's Bridge Estates, as the project is called, promises to be neighbourhood-friendly, environmentally friendly and a highly desirable place to live, and the association is solidly behind it. I mention this to show it is possible for a ratepayers' group to support redevelopment and intensification projects in its immediate neighbourhood, even projects more than one third of its own size.

Our association is involved in many issues that have little to do with ratepaying. Recently, one of our members was instrumental in extending the lease of a local store. I have been involved in fairly lengthy communication with the borough about traffic matters, in addition to organizing public information meetings on megacity issues. At the moment our association is in the process of raising $30,000 for a lookout station at the Brickworks, a Metro conservation project. I communicate with the membership by newsletters dropped off door to door, three since January.

I want to confine my remarks to the contents and the lack of them in Bill 103, and make a few modest suggestions.

To begin with, the neighbourhood committees. In section 5 the bill reads, "The city council shall, by bylaw, establish neighbourhood committees and determine their functions." Further on, it stipulates that the transition team will hold public consultations on "the functions to be assigned to neighbourhood committees and the method of choosing their members." Not explained is why neighbourhood committees have to be considered at all.

Any body that stands between our members and our elected representatives is an impediment. I have been elected president of the Governor's Bridge Ratepayers Association and I don't want to have my communications filtered through a volunteer/appointed/elected/it-doesn't-matter-how-they-got-there committee. Second-best, I want to talk to assistants to my elected representatives.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the transition team get out of the business of deciding the makeup and function of neighbourhood committees and instead acknowledge the importance of existing ratepayers' and other neighbourhood groups.

1550

In East York ratepayers' groups receive regular communications from the borough on all matters concerning council meetings and committee of adjustment hearings as a matter of course. If Bill 103 stipulated that groups, ratepayers or otherwise are integral to the fabric of local government and should be notified regarding matters affecting their members -- work it in any way you like -- it would enhance the democratic process and go a long way to making the new city more acceptable to a large group of people.

Another reason to delete neighbourhood committees from the bill is that it carries the implication that consultations might perhaps be limited to these bodies, which would be unfortunate. There are an extraordinary number of groups in the city worth hearing from: bird-watching groups, dog-walking groups, people who track underground rivers, people who clean up the ravines of garbage in the spring, people who monitor traffic violations at their local corner, block parents and business improvement associations and many others.

Together, these are the city's monitoring stations, producing regular audits on the health and livability of the city. If keeping in touch with these groups is more than a councillor can handle, perhaps we should have more councillors, or perhaps we should have more staff, which raises another reason why I don't like these neighbourhood committees: I suspect some people will regard them as a cheap substitute for a good constituency secretary.

Flipping this over, community councils aren't mentioned in the act and they ought to be. According to a speech given the Minister of Municipal Affairs, community councils are comprised of seven or eight wards, each ward having a representative on council and each council having a chair who will sit on an executive committee chaired by the mayor. The purpose of these smaller bodies is to address issues like planning, day care, libraries and building permits. "It's not in the best interests of anyone to have west end planning decisions made by a committee of east end councillors," said the Minister of Municipal Affairs on December 17, 1996. Why, then, aren't community councils mentioned in the act where we can get at them? If the minister is concerned that west end planning issues shouldn't be made by east enders, an excellent point, why isn't this reflected in Bill 103?

If there is some higher good involved in amalgamation, East York might be worth giving up, but it is a terrible risk and we have to know what higher good would be served. Right now, East York is a ratepayers' heaven, providing accountable and accessible elected officials and a penny-pinching, socially conservative government. East York has the lowest crime rate in the city because its bylaws prohibit the sex trade from setting up shop there. Can we hang on to these bylaws in this new city?

Thank you for the opportunity to make this deputation.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you, Ms Pepperell. I think it's an excellent presentation. I presume one of the things you pointed out here is the contradiction of the minister saying one thing and doing another, and also the lack of democracy, the hurried way, that is so evident in this process. What are your feelings about slowing it down, since they want to destroy and reconstruct this megacity? Would you feel that by slowing it down and having some more participation we may have some real democracy, building a community by the people for the people?

Ms Pepperell: Certainly, but slowing it down doesn't necessarily get us into a better position. I was reflecting yesterday on a recent trip I made to Washington and how wonderful it is to see people's beliefs and thoughts inscribed in stone in Washington. It's something Americans do very well. They're prepared to stand by and put their actions up against their words. I think this Bill 103 is bloodless. It is a skeletal kind of bill. If there is a real purpose, if it's supposed to increase accountability as I understand it is purported to do, I would like to see that written in the act. It needs a preamble. It needs flesh on it. It needs something you can grab hold of. It is a very strange read, as it stands.

Mr Curling: Does this destroy the ratepayers association as it is now? What importance do you feel it would have after this new megacity process is in place? Do you see a role at all for ratepayers associations?

Ms Pepperell: Oh, absolutely. There will always be a role for ratepayers, but one of the satisfactions of being the president of a ratepayers association, and it doesn't have a great many, is that I have on the other side people who listen and respond to me. There is a thrill that you get when you talk to an elected official. That's just one of the few highs I've got. Otherwise, I'm just dropping off flyers up and down icy driveways and not getting calls I want to get. That contact is so critical to maintaining the effort, and being heard and feeling that you can make an impact on your environment.

I want to see this thing work. I am deeply distressed by the divisiveness that has happened in our city around this issue and I would like to do what I can to bridge some sort of gaps. But yes, ratepayers will continue to be important but they have to find elected officials who will listen to them. Otherwise, they'll just dissolve.

Mr Curling: Will you and your organization be voting in the referendum? Has that been put forward by your community?

Ms Pepperell: I have not presented a position on the referendum to my members. It's a subject of great torment and I wouldn't hope, in a sense, to interfere with that. I know what people feel, I know what I feel, but I don't feel that I can represent my membership in a position on the referendum.

Mr Curling: Will you personally be voting?

Ms Pepperell: I personally have voted, yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Pepperell, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

CHARLOTTE MORGAN

The Chair: Would Charlotte Morgan please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Charlotte Morgan: My name is Charlotte Morgan. I'm here as a long-time resident of the city of Toronto. I very much appreciate the opportunity to come here today and address the committee with regard to Bill 103.

As I said, I've lived in Toronto since 1966 and have raised two sons here. Both Thomas and Ian appreciate living in this wonderful city as much as I do. Toronto is a safe, beautiful, cultured, commercial and diverse community that has nurtured me and my family.

I am going to talk about the balance of heart and mind that has made Toronto one of the very best places in the world to live, by anyone's standard. I can't remember exactly what it was that first sparked my interest in municipal affairs. It could have been the opening of our new city hall and the debate around Henry Moore's Archer and its placement in the square. Certainly around that time I became aware of the pride and deep sense of ownership that many Torontonians felt for their city and that tended to find its focus in our new civic building. I remember there were people who loved the building and people who spoke of it less enthusiastically. Everyone, however, knew it belonged to them.

Over the years, Torontonians have taken their city hall to their hearts. We've pushed open those big wooden doors and applied for parking and permits to picnic in our parks. We've been married here. We've visited our city councillors and listened to land use debates. We've used the main council chambers for meetings of our own associations. We've celebrated the new year in our square, and enjoyed skating on the ice rink and drinking hot chocolate in the frosty air.

Our city hall is the civic extension of our family lives. That's why, for me and for many Torontonians, city hall enjoys a very special place in our hearts, far more than this provincial Legislature or the impressive buildings on Ottawa's Parliament Hill. This is a fierce emotional attachment and one that I am prepared to defend. I have never before, for example, felt driven to appear before a legislative committee to speak in this manner. Today, it seems imperative that I do so.

I believe, in talking about the emotional attachment I feel for my city, I risk alienating those who may believe the world must be governed totally by reason, efficiency and by strict attention to the bottom line. I put it to you, however, that if you take the heart out of this city, nothing will be left but a façade. The very lifeblood that has made our town what it is today will have drained away. The many and various things we all value, including the commercial investment, will simply dry up and disappear. Who will want to be part of a city without a heart?

A little extreme, you think? In fact, the heart of the new megacity might become the present city's downtown core. What then of the hearts of the cities of York, Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke and Canada's only borough, East York? While I cannot speak for them, I believe that alienation will be real and pervasive for their citizens, and with alienation comes despair and decay. They will speak for themselves on March 3.

1600

The issues of the heart are both real and symbolic. They must never be taken lightly. Any organization or entity that has lost its heart has fallen into decline. The risk is very high that this is what would happen here too.

I want to say that the threat to this city and to its citizens has been an act of incredible and unthinking brutality that says legions about its promoters. I'm really hurt that Al Leach, my Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, seems to think I'm only here because I have nothing better to do with my time. I can assure Mr Leach that I do, although in a democracy I shouldn't feel I have to defend myself in this way. My active participation in civic life should be welcomed and encouraged, not scorned and scoffed at.

I say to Mr Leach, the fact that this government has the might to arbitrarily enact Bill 103 and amalgamate Metro against the will of its citizens does not give it the moral authority to do so. Even as Mr Leach belittles those who are taking time out from their busy lives to speak out against his megacity, he points to the proposed volunteer community committees as possible sources of citizen involvement with Metro's mega-government.

In Mr Leach's mind, voluntarism must now replace elected politicians and staff. Many citizens already sit on community committees, ranging from school councils to arts groups to social service agencies and housing cooperatives. In every case, the support of paid staff and access to governance is imperative. In matters of civic governance, it probably won't be long before those community councils petition the city for substantial budgets and staff time. Undoubtedly, some councils will be more active and powerful than others. Inequities, which even now can be seen across the city, will become more visible.

Emotionally, this act is a bankrupt piece of legislation. But can it be defended logically? The logic in support of Bill 103 seems to fall into two categories -- becoming more efficient and saving money -- no matter what the cost. The question is, will the megacity be more efficient than the current model of six cities and one Metro council? The answer lies, I've been assured, in the many reports that have been written over the years on the amalgamation of Metro. Unfortunately, not one study suggests the particular formula that this government is pushing forward.

Many prominent MPPs who are speaking strongly in favour of Bill 103 seem not to know this. For example, Anne Golden, in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, February 15, was forced to contradict Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East, when he said the government was promoting the recommendations of the Golden report. It's more than a little alarming that Mr Gilchrist should have done so little research about an issue of this magnitude and of which he's such a powerful supporter.

Could it be that having fewer politicians will make the process more efficient? At the moment, I have two representatives: a city councillor and a Metro councillor. In the megacity, I believe I will have one councillor. Not only will I lose the services of the other councillor, and presumably that councillor's staff, but the remaining councillor will have to deal with most of the things that formerly two councillors dealt with. Fewer people doing more work means less service. That doesn't sound very efficient to me. In fact, it sounds like backlog and chaos, rather like what has happened to our court and family support systems.

As there is scant evidence to suggest that the megacity will be more efficient, let's look at the evidence that it will save me money. If there is such evidence, where is it? At best, the government has declared that at the end of the day and after all the uploading and downloading, this amalgamation will be a wash. It's hard to credit the common sense that would cause all this turmoil simply to create a wash.

I don't think it will be a wash. I believe the megacity will cost me money. For example, what will happen if thousands of useful civic jobs are eliminated and the unfortunate people who are downsized cannot find work? First they will go on unemployment insurance, then on welfare. Then we get to hate them. It's a grand scheme, but it won't save money.

Will it be more efficient for land development purposes? Perhaps, but not certainly. It seems likely that the land in a city that has lost its heart and where taxes likely will rise to meet the needs of the unemployed will be much less sought-after than land in a vibrant and confident city. Once the checks and balances inherent in our current planning system are swept away in the name of efficiency, poor decisions will not be far behind.

Finally, much has been said during this debate about the nature of democracy and the various ways in which Bill 103 has attacked the process. These issues are both emotional and logical. I am deeply attached to the democratic process. In addition, I have been told repeatedly that democracy is what separates those countries that enjoy good government from those that suffer under bad government.

Logically, it follows that I am not in favour of decreasing my representation through eliminating politicians. The politicians I know have a high sense of civic duty and, although we do not always agree, they hear what I have to say. Working through the democratic process may take time, but unless you hold the millennial belief that the end of history really is near, time is something we do have on our side.

I was deeply insulted and angered when trustees who were above the law were appointed to oversee the actions of my elected representatives. As a citizen of Toronto, I thoroughly objected to being protected in this way. It was extremely patronizing, offensive and, as has recently been confirmed, unlawful.

I began by talking about the balance of heart and mind that has made Toronto one of the best places in the world to live. In fact, I believe that it is the active emotional engagement of Toronto's citizens with civic life that has been the most important ingredient in making this city one of the most livable on the planet. Eliminating the level of government that is closest to the people attacks the very foundations of our society.

In attempting to balance my emotional reaction against the violation that is known as Bill 103 with arguments of logic and reason, I find that my provincial government has not made the case that a megacity will be a better place to live, has not made the case that a megacity will save money, has not made the case that a megacity will be more efficient and has not made the case that my democratic right to representation will be protected.

There is still time to do the right thing. I urge you to scrap Bill 103.

Thank you for listening to me today.

The Chair: Mr Silipo, you have a quick minute.

Mr Silipo: Thank you, Ms Morgan, for your presentation. I just have one quick question to you. Government members, in reacting to presentations similar to yours, would say or have said on some occasions: "What's the big deal? At the end of the day, what's so magical about these boundaries that we have now, these artificial boundaries," as they would say, "that causes you and others to get so upset about this? At the end of the day, you're still going to have an ability to elect your representatives, you're still going to have an ability to hire and fire them, as you think is fit, so what's all this excitement about?" I wonder if you could respond to that.

Ms Morgan: I think citizens do have a very strong attachment to their local neighbourhoods. I can't believe that if the city hall was moved to Toronto, which I hope is where it would be, the citizens of East York or of North York would have the very same attachment and the same involvement with the civic process that happens when the government is centralized in people's communities the way it is today.

I also feel that the people in Scarborough and North York fought very hard to have some kind of central government and some kind of identification with place and purpose in their own communities, and now those are about to the wrenched from them. If I was in those communities, I would be very upset by that.

The Chair: Thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

JEFF STEINER

The Chair: Would Jeff Steiner please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Steiner. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Jeff Steiner: My name is Jeff Steiner and I'm a citizen who lives and works downtown in the city of Toronto. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak and to thank you all for the hard work that you've been doing on this matter. I am sure it is not easy to sit and listen day after day and to consider this matter in such great detail. I will keep my remarks brief and focus on just a few issues that surround the question of municipal amalgamation.

Let me say at the outset the time for change is long overdue. Every so often it is essential to re-examine our institutions and to re-engineer them. As years go by, institutions, whether they be governments or corporations, develop a culture which can become very inward looking and divorced from the realities of change in the rest of society, or indeed around the globe.

To give just one example, I can point to the post office. Ten or 15 years ago the post office was highly inefficient and had developed a lax culture about service. It was also resistant to technological change. Taxpayers had to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars a year in unnecessary costs, and it indirectly hampered the competitiveness of Canadian companies. After much turmoil and noise about change, the post office underwent a significant overhaul. Today it is much more efficient and reliable, and the unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money has been dramatically reduced.

As was the case with the post office back then and with municipal governance now, the time for change is long overdue. Now is the time to prepare greater Toronto for the next century, to prepare for the challenges and opportunities inherent in the globalized economy of the 21st century.

It has been about 30 years since major restructuring around Metropolitan Toronto. The time has arrived for the amalgamation of the existing cities into one unified Toronto. In fact, it is overdue. We cannot afford, as taxpayers, to continue to fund institutions that are not delivering services in the most efficient manner possible.

That was true of the post office in the past and of local government today. The overlap, duplication and confusion inherent in our current governance model has to be eliminated. A new, more streamlined system must be developed for the citizens of Toronto and the surrounding region.

1610

A unified Toronto saves taxpayers money and makes local government more efficient. The idea that we have seven planning departments, also seven roads departments, seven parks departments and numerous fire departments is an old idea, the old way of doing things that no longer is affordable in today's world.

I think this government's actions on amalgamation are very necessary. To continue to enjoy all the benefits that Toronto has to offer, we must be vigilant in preparing for the future. The assumption that the status quo can continue is naïve. Faced with global competition and limited resources, we must be smarter and find ways to be more efficient.

At the municipal level today, we have many different voices speaking for us, voices often contradictory, with too many political differences, protecting their own turf rather than working together. The need for provincial government action, Bill 103 and this committee was demonstrated in spades last year by the actions of our own elected mayors. After years and years of not taking action, not implementing cost-saving measures, not streamlining services and not cooperating together, they all of a sudden managed to cobble together a reform plan. They called their plan Change for the Better. I don't recall the public hearings they held before announcing their plan or really any consultation.

But what a reluctant group of reformers they were. Only under the gun did they start to take action. I am sure some of their ideas were very good and, as already stated, long overdue. But what took them so long? Why didn't they implement many of those good ideas earlier?

The mayors also included a bunch of ideas which underscored the need for a unified Toronto. Left to their own devices, the mayors proposed such convoluted ideas as having Etobicoke be responsible for managing parks in Scarborough and North York taking care of roads in Toronto, or vice versa. Anyway, I can't remember. It's already confusing enough to figure out who to call about local services. Thank God these mayors are not responsible for delivering the mail.

It should be stated that the mayors were not completely at fault for their convoluted approach. I think it reflects a problem with the culture that developed in our municipal governments over the past 30 years, the inward-looking perspective that takes decades to develop and is very hard to change. The only way to modernize municipal governance and prepare Toronto for the 21st century will be to shake things up, to re-engineer our institutions and create this unified government to serve taxpayers better.

Let me turn to the question of neighbourhood survival.

There seems to be a lot of hype and fearmongering that neighbourhoods will disappear under the amalgamation plan. If this were true, it is a serious concern about Bill 103. We have to look to you, the members of this committee, to consider this allegation and, after your study, to pronounce on it.

All I can tell you is that I went to school in the Forest Hill area and lived nearby in the city of York. My experience tells me that neighbourhoods and that sense of community do survive amalgamation. Forest Hill is certainly still a neighbourhood, or a village really, that has retained its sense of community, even though it was amalgamated into the city of Toronto a long time ago.

Let me add another reason why it's imperative to run our governments more efficiently and spend taxpayers' money more wisely. It relates to demographics and to the ideas contained in the book by David Foot called Boom, Bust and Echo. We are all familiar with the concept of generation X, that group of young citizens that have followed the front end of the baby boom generation.

Over the past 20 years or so, governments have engaged in serious deficit spending. They have spent more on services than were paid for by taxpayers of the day. In a way, the early boomers got free services, services that are now being paid for by generation X, which followed, all of that due to the spend-now, pay-later deficit financing attitude. But today, with balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility on the part of our governments, which I applaud, generation X will be paying the full cost for these services, in some cases even direct user fees, where in the past there were none.

How is this relevant to amalgamation? The answer is quite simple. This demographic group cannot afford the double whammy of paying more than necessary for government and its services. Generation X is already paying back the principal and interest borrowed by those who came before them. We must now be vigilant not to add to that burden with the unnecessary costs of overlap, duplication and waste. That is true for all levels of government, including municipal.

In closing, I encourage the members of this committee to review the legislation very carefully, but bring about a unified Toronto quickly. We cannot wait another generation for this kind of change.

I thank for your attention and your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Steiner. Mr Gilchrist, you have less than three minutes.

Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate your coming before us this afternoon and making your presentation. It's unfortunate the way the speaking rotation works that we don't get a chance to comment on every presenter. I'll just take a couple of seconds to note for the record to Ms Pepperell, who presented two presentations before you, that this bill is very much intended to be a skeleton on which the work of the transition committee and the future council will build.

To the previous presenter, indeed Ms Golden responded "no" when asked if the government had acted to follow up on her report and then proceeded to go on and say that as long as there was a Greater Toronto Services Board, the answer was yes. So I think it's important not to take things out of context. Let me go back to some of the things you said in your presentation here today.

The issue of community survival, of neighbourhood survival: Obviously in the 30 years since the last time Metro underwent any kind of political change there has continued to be a dramatic evolution in the practical side of Metro Toronto. What was once a very developed urban downtown core, and basically farm land in most parts of the surrounding communities, has now clearly changed to what would be considered an almost homogenous and totally urban community from one end to the other.

What about artificial boundaries has in any way preserved the nature of neighbourhoods such as Forest Hill or, I'd even go one step further, communities that never had governments, such as Don Mills, Guildwood in my riding, artificially created in the sense that a developer created them from scratch? What about artificial political boundaries has anything to do with how communities survive?

Mr Steiner: I can only speak on my experience from where I've lived, the Cedarvale area of the city of York, and I went to school, as I said, in the Forest Hill area. I don't think the municipal boundaries necessarily contribute or detract from what is a sense of community. Really it's the people and the history of the development of those areas and the informal institutions that have developed around schools and other services that are available in those communities. The local newspapers, the things we used to get at our doorstep, the Town Criers etc, which I'm sure are probably owned by one large corporation but are nicely delivered in those communities, reflect the reality of how people have been interacting over time in those places. As I've said, in the case of Forest Hill, when the boundaries and the political geography changed, the community certainly didn't, and it has maintained that kind of community sense over time.

The Chair: You have 10 seconds.

Mr Steiner: Speaking of time, I think the Chairman is cutting us off.

Mr Gilchrist: In 10 seconds we can't do anything except thank you again for coming forward, Mr Steiner.

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

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

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

Mr David Rapaport: Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity for me to make this presentation to your committee today. My name is David Rapaport. I'm the vice-president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union for the Toronto region. We represent about 30,000 members who work in Metropolitan Toronto and about 20,000 who live here. OPSEU is opposed to Bill 103 and all the downloading initiatives proposed by this government. I will limit my remarks to Bill 103.

I was glad to read this morning that Mr Leach has removed some of the extraordinary powers of the trustees. I would assume that was in anticipation of my presentation here today. The notion of trusteeship of democratically elected governments is itself undemocratic. However, removing some of its more undemocratic elements does not suffice. I would ask that you retract the entire legislation and then apologize to the people of Toronto.

I read with interest a remark by Solicitor General Bob Runciman earlier in the week commenting on the proposed closure of Brockville Psychiatric Hospital: "What really disturbs me is the fact that there has been literally no consultation with the community. There was simply no opportunity for local input." That's from an article in the Toronto Star. I can only hope that Mr Runciman will be consistent when voting on Bill 103. What consultation that has occurred has been overwhelmingly opposed to the legislation. The major task forces and studies done on the issue of governance in Toronto never suggested such a thing. In fact, Ms Trimmer and Ms Golden have both strongly spoken out against Bill 103.

The government argues in defence of Bill 103 that it will save money and result in efficiencies. There is no evidence that this will happen; in fact, there is some evidence that it might very well result in a diseconomy of scale. The government argues in defence of Bill 103 that it will eliminate an unnecessary level of government. How odd, since the very people who are affected by the governance of Toronto, the people of Toronto, were never consulted by the government before the government tabled the legislation. What is going on now hardly cuts the mustard.

1620

It takes an enormous amount of arrogance to proceed with this legislation. I'm being told by the government that it doesn't matter what we say, it will proceed anyway. They also have the temerity to tell us that they will disregard the results of the referenda scheduled to finish next week.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. My understanding of conservative principles is a belief that the best government is the type that is closest to the people; not a bad concept. Yet we in Toronto will be left with a government that has one representative for about 40,000 people, a severe reduction from what we have now. That will leave us in Toronto with an inaccessible local government.

Where does the government get off dictating to us the structure of our local governance? It was never discussed in the election. Until we indicate otherwise, the people of Toronto are happy with the structure of governance, particularly the existence of the six separate municipalities. Also, you are supposed to believe in referenda. You even said so. Why the contempt for our referenda?

We would have more respect for the government if it was to tell us why it was really doing this. It has nothing to do with cost savings. It has nothing to do with efficiencies. It has nothing to do with bureaucracies. If anything, the megacity is the creation of a huge, inaccessible mega-bureaucracy. Along with Bill 104 and downloading initiatives, it has everything to do with destroying local government and local political processes and destroying access to the real decision-making. It has everything to do with creating a governance that eliminates the participation of citizens. It will be distant and removed. It will be much more expensive to run for office. It opens up the floodgate for greater corporate control of local government.

The political philosophy of this government seems to be to destroy politics, to present politics as something too expensive and burdensome for the business of the province to occur. It is about privatization and corporate boardroom control of decision-making at either a board of education or a local government.

It saddens me when I walk by the city hall building on Queen Street. I attended committee meetings there with neighbours and colleagues in my union. I always had direct access to councillors who represent me. Government is more than that building; it is about political accessibility.

Retract Bill 103. It is wrong. At a minimum, we would ask you to accept the results of the referenda that are scheduled to be completed next Monday. Not to do so would simply be nothing better than a school-yard bully forcing his ways on the less powerful. This would be a substantial abuse of a parliamentary majority that makes our parliaments look undemocratic. The level of cynicism is overwhelming. Let the people of the city of Toronto speak our minds on our governance.

In conclusion, I want to say that I find it quite astounding that I must utter these words to you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Rapaport. We have a little less than three minutes.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Thank you for your presentation. I found it very clear, lucid and to the point. You made a reference to no evidence of any amalgamations that you're aware of that showed it would be more efficient or less costly. Can you cite any examples of that?

Mr Rapaport: If you look at the one study that I'm familiar with that was done, the Peat Marwick study about the amalgamation of Toronto, even there you find there's no real evidence that money savings will happen. You're in a situation where it might or it might not. I hear of studies of Halifax, where it did cost money, for example.

Mr Patten: A lot of money.

Mr Rapaport: A lot of money, much more than anticipated. When I talk about diseconomy of scale, it does reach a certain point where it starts costing more money when you amalgamate people at a local level to be governed. What we can say here is that there's really no evidence either way. What I'm trying to get at with my presentation is that there are other motivations at work here.

Mr Patten: I agree with you there. I have a couple of other examples. As a matter of fact, as you suggested, you could probably make the case the other way. If you look at some of the major North American cities, the movement is actually the other way. There are some boroughs in outer New York, for example, that are talking about splitting off because they found it so damn expensive, so removed from the representation they have, that they want to get out of that arrangement. The Halifax situation, which was supposed to cost about $10 million, is now costing $25 million more just in the transition. So I don't believe that's really the motivation.

I also find it strange that the Progressive Conservative Party is one of the few groups that denigrates its own profession. I find that, of course, there is a cynicism about politicians today. I don't share that all politicians are evil and that they are simply out for their own self-interest. I believe most of them are motivated for social good. To continue to perpetuate that kind of an image, which of course this bill contributes towards, is not in the interests of building a sense of confidence in the political structures.

In terms of the referenda, the government is saying they are not credible. What is your response to that?

Mr Rapaport: It's not as if we had that much time to organize the referenda. It's the best that the cities and the people of Toronto were capable of doing in such an incredibly short period of time. The people in the cities who organized the referenda should be applauded for the amount of work and the energy they put into it, because of the short time frame this government gave. It's totally undemocratic, and we're trying to inject some democracy into the process. They should be applauded, and the referenda should be respected and then proceed with some kind of a public discussion where people could have some input in this very important matter.

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

PATRICIA WATSON

The Chair: Patricia Watson, please. Good afternoon. You have 10 minutes today to make your presentation. If there is some time left at the end, I'll ask Mr Silipo from the NDP caucus to ask questions.

Ms Patricia Watson: My name is Pat Watson. I'm fifth generation Ontarian. My mother's great-grandfather settled near Richmond Hill. Both my parents were born in Toronto. I have been here all my life, except for a few years in Europe and 10 years in Montreal making films at the National Film Board.

Growing up, I certainly never expected Toronto to become the envy of North America, to be considered one of the best cities in the world in which to live. The Toronto of my youth was considered a boring place, butt of the old joke: "First prize, one week in Toronto; second prize, two weeks in Toronto." It was also a much smaller place. The population in 1951 was less than half of what it is today. To witness other cultures, see how other people lived, one travelled. We don't have to do that any more, nor do we need to travel to experience first-rate theatre, music, dance etc. It's all here.

Now the fear is that we're going to lose it, that Toronto is going to become just another big American-style city with the attendant crime and inner-city decay, the fabric of our city life destroyed.

When I applied to speak before this committee in mid-January, most of the city was still in a state of shock, numb from the changes announced during mega-week. Six weeks later, what can I say to you that you haven't heard over and over again from American consultants who, based on their megacity experience, warn us about increased costs and crime; from American immigrants like Jane Jacobs, who fear Toronto will become a clone of the cities they left behind; from the Golden task force, the board of trade, the banks; from your own supporters, who, feeling betrayed and bewildered, have flocked to meetings you called to angrily denounce the bill and in some cases call on their Tory MPPs to resign?

This surprised me. I wasn't surprised by similar behaviour at my neighbourhood meeting. Cabbagetown, after all, spawned John Sewell and Karl Jaffary. I was in the audience that booed and laughed impatiently through much of Mr Newman's presentation. I see Mr Newman, Tory MPP, is not here today. I thought at the time he must have felt very lonely.

1630

People have turned out by the thousands to march down Yonge Street, demonstrate in front of the Legislature, a cross-section of the city's population: professional middle class, union members, the working poor, women and children who will suffer most from the welfare changes.

Peter Russell, one of our foremost experts on constitutional law, has called this bill a "bludgeoning, undemocratic act." Margaret Atwood called it a "dismantling of democracy." It has been proposed that the federal government disallow it. An appeal was made to the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve this government for its undemocratic, unparliamentary ways.

Recently, the city of Scarborough, with Karl Jaffary, I understand, successfully challenged the legality of the trusteeship until the bill is passed. Further challenges are planned. Even members of the federal government have spoken out against it, fearing that the wellbeing of Toronto, which represents 25% of the gross national product, will be undermined, that plans to download social services and public housing -- a shared jurisdiction on which the provincial government has spoken unilaterally -- will create fiscal havoc. Ordinary people everywhere are talking about it, appealing to you to slow down. What's the rush?

Some of your own Tory MPPs, listening to their constituents, have broken ranks and spoken out against the bill, as have the aboriginal people, publicly burning a copy of the Common Sense Revolution. Mothers of school children, pushed to extremes, are threatening to take to the streets to bring down this government. This, a Tory government, traditionally a party of good, solid administration, slow change, preserving what is good, now accused of hasty, dishonest, inefficient administration.

Never in all my years in Toronto have I witnessed anything like it. How did this come about? I should know, of course. I should have been paying attention, but I confess I'm apolitical by nature and until mega-week assumed that in Ontario I could safely leave such matters to others. Never again.

I've tried to piece things together. The Golden report, commissioned by the Rae government, recommended a model that by and large would satisfy the citizens of Toronto today, that would maintain our local governments and create a Greater Toronto Services Board drawn from local governments to deal with common regional issues. But Golden's long-term, admirable effort was largely ignored. Mr Harris claims he has implemented 90% of it, which Golden has categorically and explicitly denied. In any case, we know he has not implemented her proposals for public consultation, a two-tier government and the strengthening of local democracy.

According to the Toronto Star, keen supporters of the megacity, nobody much liked the Golden report when it was released and the Harris government got sick and tired of listening to the mayors of Toronto bicker among themselves. Surely that's the nature of the democratic process, and politicians in particular. A megacity wouldn't change that.

Mr Bech-Hensen, a member of the board of trade who spoke to our Cabbagetown meeting, called the present agreement among mayors a form of deathbed repentance. Perhaps he's right. Perhaps it took the megacity scare to overcome their differences, to bring about their willingness to compromise and cooperate. What's wrong with that?

I telephoned Mr Bech-Hensen. He told me the board of trade had supported the Golden report and would do so again. They were for either keeping local government with the Greater Toronto Services Board or the megacity without the downloading.

The famous downloading: According to its enemies, the megacity is simply a smokescreen behind which social services and Ontario public housing might be downloaded. Others argue the plan is Mike Harris's way of striking out against what Mr Newman called the "inner-city lefties," which, it seems, includes me and my Liberal MP, Bill Graham.

"Will the plan hold?" I ask myself. With the opposition of the federal government, the board of trade, the banks, United Way and Crombie and with the revelation that $1 billion is needed to bring Ontario housing up to standard, the downloading seems doomed, or should be.

East York and its auditors have punctured claims that the megacity would save money. Recent polls suggest 68% of Toronto residents are against it. So what will happen if the referendums do in fact go against the megacity?

John Barber in the Globe and Mail quoted from the government Website as follows: "We believe that individuals should decide their own future. In turn, the function of government should be to serve and facilitate those aspirations, not to rule or constrain them. Referenda are but one way of putting taxpayers back in control of their government."

Others in these hearings have already quoted Mr Harris as saying, before he was elected, that he was opposed to amalgamation, that it would cost more, that bigger is not cheaper, that we should hold on to our identity, our roots. The cornerstone of his political position then was anti-big government, anti-megacity. It seems Mike Harris got it right the first time.

We all want change, efficiency, to streamline, to get rid of unnecessary duplication, but we also want to be part of the process. It's a deeply felt, growing need, some say the flipside of globalization. If this government continues to ignore it, you will follow the Peterson Liberals, the Bob Rae NDP, and the Mulroney Conservatives into oblivion. It's something to think about.

Mr Silipo: One of the things that has become clear to me, and you've made this point in your presentation, is that it's not just the inner-city lefties, to use Mr Newman's term, who are upset about this -- not that there's anything wrong with inner-city lefties, by the way. What we have seen on this issue is really an incredible grass-roots citizens movement that's sprung up and has come about, clearly in part because of the process and obviously also because of what the government is doing.

I wonder if you could comment a little about what that means -- you touched upon it in your final comments -- to a government that really is intent, it seems, in continuing to ignore that that is what is going on. This is not a political faction, it's not a small group of self-interested folks; it's a real grass-roots movement that's right across Metropolitan Toronto.

Ms Watson: It's a political phenomenon. Certainly for me, if I had had any doubt about whether it was worthwhile holding on to this community, watching what has happened and the commitment and the passion and the caring of people involved would have persuaded me. As I say, people do speculate that it is the flipside of globalization, which this government is rightly concerned about, but I don't think you can just latch on to one aspect of it and ignore others.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Watson, for coming forward and making your presentation to us this afternoon.

ROY MITCHELL

The Chair: Would Roy Mitchell please come forward. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Roy Mitchell: I brought my suitcase because it's all packed and I don't think I can live in a megacity. It's not unusual for me to think about moving.

What I want people to think about when you read this piece of paper in front of you -- this is from a biweekly gay and lesbian/bisexual newspaper that comes out in Toronto called Extra. My friend Arif Noorani and I wrote this paper looking at the megacity and its effect on gays, lesbians, bisexuals and people of difference who live in the downtown core. I was going to wear a suit today but I just couldn't face it. I thought, "If I'm going to go with this point that it's a diverse city, I'm going to wear something different." So this is my suit.

Like most gays and lesbians, most of my friends didn't grow up in Toronto. We came to Toronto because we saw Toronto as a place where we could develop our communities and where we could find support for our communities. This government now has shown little support for a lot of what our community has fought for. The government cancelled the funding for the lesbian and gay/bi youth line. Metro government just wouldn't support it. The only support we got for this lesbian and gay/bi youth line was from the city of Toronto, a downtown, focused group of people who can understand urban issues.

Urban issues are what this is all about, and I don't think the government now can understand what urban issues are all about. I know the government doesn't like big government, but they're certainly using big government to make little government. Using big government to make little government is probably because -- I don't think they're that concerned about being in government, at least some of the big top ones, because they're feathering their nests so when this is finished and they go back to their jobs, if they'll have them, they'll be quite comfortable.

But unfortunately for most of us who live in downtown Toronto and see amalgamation as a threat to our communities, this is not true. Downtown Toronto sustains us. I'm talking about amalgamation, but I see all this downloading and AVA and the school board bill, Bill 104, as creating a very hostile environment for gays and lesbians in downtown Toronto.

1640

Toronto is a city of difference. It's a diverse city. Sometimes disagreeable communities are forced to live side by side and accept each other, but not necessarily agree with each other. John Sewell said that Toronto fosters a live and let live attitude.

Integration in Toronto is a fact of life, but not so in other communities. I speak from the experience of having to get out of northern Ontario and my friend having to get out of Port Coquitlam because there was a community here that could support us and we could develop our skills as whatever we wanted to be and find support.

In Toronto the gay and lesbian community has a lot of influence in local politics and is involved in local politics. If you have something on your mind, you can do something about it. A local council is supportive to our needs and understands our needs. This whole group of this megacity would probably represent what Metro is right now, and Metro doesn't -- how would I say this? Metro will be a voice of the suburbs, and that doesn't look very good for us.

When Metro was going to agree to funding, whatever they had to vote for, two groups were isolated: Buddies in Bad Times Theatre Company and the Inside Out Video Collective. These people were not allowed funding and they had to fight Metro to get that funding, something like $8,000 and $2,000. That was a fight. I don't know if politicians are going to be able to fight for $8,000 or $2,000 on a mega-council. Is it worth it when they're fighting for day care, when they're fighting for all these other things that are going to see loss in services?

Amalgamating the school boards -- I know that's Bill 104, but I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about the headway that the board of education in downtown Toronto has made in anti-homophobia work and human sexuality workshops. I don't know if that will happen in a megacity. Concerns of lesbian and gay students will fall off the table.

One thing that's of concern to me is the people living with HIV and AIDS. The board of health will be amalgamated and we don't know what will happen with that kind of funding.

The problem with this megacity is that it's going by so fast and so furious that we haven't been informed about what we see in our communities will be challenged and changed. We don't know. We're sitting around listening to rumours, we're sitting around listening to hearsay. We know it's going to change and we'd like to know how, and we'd like to play a part in making those changes.

When you go straight ahead into this megacity thing, I suggest that you slow down and let the people who are involved help make these changes. If there are changes to be made that have to be made, we'll make them as a community, as a city that is going to be changed.

Gay and lesbian life is seen as controversial. It's an urban issue, and I'm concerned that this government doesn't have an idea around urban issues. Information around AIDS, around sexuality that is written for an urban community, that is written for a gay and lesbian community, will not pass, will not get a lot of support in a suburban-dominated council.

Inner cities and what they represent -- large numbers of people of colour, lesbians and gay men, the working poor artist -- have become common scapegoats for what's wrong with cities. You see all these things about urban life represented on TV cop shows, you see cuts to arts funding, you see family-values politicking. Gays and lesbians are seen as threats to family values in a lot of ways, so what you're going to have is a lot of people leaving downtown Toronto to live in suburbia where it's safe, because the downtown, with amalgamation, will probably see a lot of failure.

The big rumour is that the downtown services will be set at the lowest common denominator. I'm going to fight to make sure that doesn't happen. I was just joking: I'm not going to leave Toronto and I'm going to try and spend a lot of time trying to change and challenge this bill and all the other Tory bills that are happening, with a lot of grass-roots support. That's it.

Applause.

The Chair: Order, please. Two minutes.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Thank you very much. I want to ask --

Mr Mitchell: Are you Progressive Conservative?

Mrs Munro: Yes.

Mr Patten: They all are, on that side.

Mr Mitchell: I know. I just wanted her to say that.

Mrs Munro: I want to ask you two questions. One is with regard to this whole issue of neighbourhoods. We've heard from so many people who have really eloquently talked about the vibrancy of the neighbourhoods in Toronto. We have an almost 200-year history of Toronto being a community of neighbourhoods, and every time there's a reconfiguration of political boundaries, these neighbourhoods survive that political configuration. In fact, it seems as if it doesn't have a direct bearing on them.

Mr Mitchell: I think it does. If you look at AVA and start to raise taxes for homes, for property, people who pay rent will not be able to afford to live in a city where the rent is high. Whole neighbourhoods will change. If I can't afford to live in my apartment or I can't afford to pay my property taxes, I will leave. In Toronto you have working poor living beside rich, you have communities living all over the place, and there's a difference in income. When you introduce AVA, who can afford to live in these things? In Detroit, in cities in the States, there is no Rosedale in the centre of the city. The people like those in Rosedale, the rich, do not live in the downtown core. They live in -- I don't know the names of those suburbs, but that's where they live.

When you amalgamate, the property tax is what's going to be affected. When the property tax has risen, the people who pay rent and the people who pay property taxes will have to decide whether they're going to live in that city or move to where it's cheap. I think that will change neighbourhoods.

The Chair: We've effectively exhausted the allotted time. I want to thank you very much, Mr Mitchell, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this afternoon.

BERNARD MARTIN

The Chair: Would Bernard Martin please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Martin. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Bernard Martin: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the members of the committee for agreeing to hear me and other citizens on this important issue.

My name is Bernard Martin. I am a PhD candidate in English at York University, where I am also employed as a teaching assistant. I was born and raised in the suburbs of Montreal, and since moving from Montreal I have lived in the city of Toronto for almost seven years. When I first moved to Toronto my friends in Montreal warned me that it was impossible to get a good bagel and that the hockey team here was no good. Those things might be true, but none the less I've come to love Toronto. It's a wonderful city. It's a place where I can call up my city councillor and receive a reply from him or a staffer within 24 hours, every single time, whatever the issue was, even if because he was foisting it off to some other department; I've always gotten a reply. This is something I have never gotten -- I've never had Isabel Bassett, my MLA, return even a single phone call or fax.

I'd like to be able to preserve the good things about governance in Toronto. For this reason, I am opposed to Bill 103. The government has not demonstrated that amalgamation will produce any of its promised tax savings, and the examples of many other cities demonstrate that higher expenses, poorer services and reduced democracy will result from the new government.

The current megacity bill and the related mega-week legislation on social spending downloading and education uploading ignore the recommendations of most of the recent studies on municipal reform.

1650

But I have not come here today to take the government to task for the failings of the megacity bill. Many other speakers before this committee have done that well and explained in great detail the reasons the current amalgamation plan is a bad idea. Instead, I would like to make suggestions to the government of ways to amend Bill 103 or, I hope, to replace it with new legislation. While I'm sure the members of the committee will have heard by now many reasoned and constructive suggestions from citizens, I'd like to list my own suggestions for revisions to any future legislation on the megacity.

The next few weeks will be an opportune time for reflection on this committee's proceedings. On Monday the votes will be tallied in the ongoing municipal referendums on the megacity. Whatever the outcome of these acts of local democracy, the upcoming post-referendum period will be a good time for both sides of the debate to sit down, take a deep breath, and consider how best to proceed in a way that will keep Metropolitan Toronto a successful and thriving city.

(1) The provincial government must prevent itself from appropriating the reserve funds of the cities of Metro. Surely the provincial government is not contemplating a near-billion-dollar tax grab on these reserve funds built up over the years by the hardworking taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto. Appropriation of these funds for any purpose other than direct municipal expenditures would be a slap in the face to the citizens of all Ontario towns and cities, towns and cities which have worked hard, especially in recent times, to maintain services under increasing financial pressure while successfully avoiding the deficit spending allowed to our governments in Ottawa and Queen's Park.

Reserve funds are the result of prudent savings for the inevitable rainy days which befall all communities through economic cycles. Is there not a clause preventing such appropriation in the law amalgamating the towns of the Kingston area? The citizens of Metro Toronto deserve no less consideration. Surely the omission of such a clause in Bill 103 is an unintentional oversight. Surely the current government would not finance the contemplated layoffs of police, firefighters, and other municipal employees by using municipal reserve funds for severance packages, much less appropriate the reserve funds to offset its own promised provincial tax cut.

I urge the government to show its good faith and reassure the ratepayers of Metro by legislating a hands-off policy on municipal reserves in any future legislation.

(2) The timing of amalgamation should be stepped back or stopped until the parties involved can agree upon a schedule which will minimize expense and disruption. The current speed of the legislative process and the end-of-the-year amalgamation date suggest that smooth transition is being sacrificed in the name of expediting change.

For example, it may be true that amalgamating the current six fire departments of Metro into one will produce economies and coordinated services, as with the Metro police. I don't think so, but it might be true. But the bottom line must never be the driving force behind the amalgamation of services which, like firefighting, are necessary for public safety. It will be a false economy if the organizational disruption of amalgamation causes the loss of even one life or of even one house.

Let us instead make plans on how to amalgamate rather than construct a strict timetable. Justice Brennan's recent decision about the invalidity of the three trustees' actions until Bill 103 becomes law suggests strongly that the amalgamation process has already been proceeding too quickly and that the current legislation could benefit from some sober reflection. Contrary to what some members of the government have said, the time for studies is not past. Amendments on the shift in the schedule of amalgamation should therefore include provisions for the trustees' work to begin at a date only after the bill has been passed into law.

Moreover, let us take a lesson from past success: When the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was first formed, the transition team, elected by individual city councils, was put in place in 1953 and worked for the better part of a year to coordinate the functions of the fledgling Metro government before actually taking on day-to-day financial responsibilities in 1954. Today the population of Metro is larger, its relations with surrounding communities are more complex, and the financial stakes are correspondingly greater. Let us have a transition team in place for a year prior to taking official responsibility for the new city.

(3) Any transition team must be elected democratically, either by selection by individual city councillors, as councillors to the Metro level of government used to be elected, or by direct vote by the people. There should be reserved spots on the transition team for the current mayors and some councillors of the current cities, for the chair of Metro Toronto and some Metro councillors, as well as others currently without public office. This composition will recognize the democratic trust placed in the current elected officials, a trust ignored by the current legislation's faceless transition team.

The transition team's immunity from judicial review or any legal action puts it, or seems to put it, above the law. Citizen confidence in its new government will be rewarded if legislation allows full accountability of the transition team to voters and coordination between existing municipal governments. As well, the trustees must be accountable to the citizens of Ontario and to elected officials and must be allowed to speak publicly about their actions to individuals and to the media.

(4) Neighbourhood committees, as described in Bill 103, must have binding powers. Under the present legislation the transition team will decide in an irrevocable fashion the range and limits of committee powers. Neighbourhood committees without binding powers may be led by the best folks in the world and yet won't provide the democracy that many of us are clamouring to save. Democracy can only exist in the voices of neighbourhoods if neighbourhood committees make decisions which have the force of law, rather than suggestions which can be ignored or favoured by the whims of the newer, smaller, and more remote megacity council. And, since law must have the power of taxation behind it, any changes to the amalgamation legislation must give neighbourhood committees specific and real spending powers.

(5) Coordinate changes to taxation to preserve neighbourhoods. It is true that a fairer property tax system is necessary. It is unfair that a homeowner in Scarborough pays more tax on a house with the same market valuation than one in the Annex. But the proposed actual value assessment will make many homeowners victim to inflationary high taxes due to real estate speculation. If the properties surrounding a home are purchased for commercial development, under actual value assessment that home will increase in market value and the homeowner's taxes will increase dramatically. If the homeowner stays, he or she will be punished by higher taxes. No community should be subject to the transience of population caused by the exodus of people made suddenly poor through a tax hike.

Current government provisions to regulate the property tax load of low-income seniors flies in the face of the government's aim to simplify the tax system and disentangle government from the lives of citizens. Let us create a good property tax system that will be fair to all but will protect homeowners from the predations of real estate speculation and developer greed, guarantee slowed change to neighbourhoods, and enable low-income families to keep their homes.

In conclusion, let me recall the words of Minister Al Leach at a recent public meeting, where he dared anyone to say he didn't love Toronto. I don't doubt Minister Leach, but I ask him to demonstrate his love through his actions, by amending or creating new legislation to prevent a tax grab, and to slow or stop the amalgamation process until after the promised efficient and democratic organizations are in place.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Martin. You've exhausted your allotted time, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your presentation today.

BRENT PATTERSON

The Chair: Would Brent Patterson please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Patterson. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Brent Patterson: Great, thank you very much. My name is Brent Patterson. I've lived in Toronto for approximately 10 years. I'm originally from Saskatchewan. I'm a parent of a 10-month-old child, a resident of the Riverdale area, a lay worker for the Church of the Holy Trinity, and active in the Metro Network for Social Justice.

Many people have made articulate expressions of opposition to Bill 103. We've heard these concerns here at this legislative committee, at a massive number of public forums right across Metro, in letters to the editor in various newspapers, and in our own neighbourhoods and families.

I don't think I need to go over the points that others have made so wonderfully, other than to say I oppose Bill 103 primarily because of three reasons.

(1) Our local politicians would be less accessible. For North Bay, Mike Harris seems content with 10 city councillors for a population of 55,000 people. That's one elected official for every 5,500 people. Why then is he proposing for Metro Toronto a ratio of one elected official for every 50,000 residents?

(2) By eliminating levels of government and reducing the number of democratically elected representatives of the people, we would lose the necessary and historical counterbalance against the corporate interests that want to reduce us from citizens to mere consumers and producers.

(3) With the massive downloading being proposed to finance the government's ill-conceived tax cut scheme, residents of Metro will either find their property taxes, which are already a regressive form of taxation, skyrocketing or they will see a massive deterioration of essential services that we all rely on, such as child care, homes for the aged, public transportation, public transit, libraries, and the list goes on.

1700

It is clear that the people of Metropolitan Toronto oppose Bill 103. The Environics poll recently released finds that nearly 70% of Metro residents are opposed to amalgamation.

We have every reason to expect that the No side will win the referenda being conducted by the different municipalities. Even Al Leach, the Tory Minister of Municipal Affairs, was quoted in today's Toronto Star as saying that he expects a No victory in the referenda. Yet the Harris government has shown no willingness to abide by the democratic expression of the people and shelve Bill 103.

I would like to offer you three arguments to think about what you, meaning the Tory government members, are doing. They're really questions:

(1) Where is your mandate to proceed with amalgamation? I looked through the Common Sense Revolution document this morning and nowhere in that paper could I find a reference to amalgamating the six municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto.

(2) Where is your popular support for Bill 103? As I said, it's clear that the majority of people oppose it. Given the polls that have recently been released and given our expected victory on Monday, I can only ask: For which minority are you therefore pursuing this bill?

(3) If you believe Bill 103 is so essential, why don't you call an election right now and run on it as your central plank? Or perhaps we'll try and be more fair: Why don't you shelve Bill 103 for now and run on it in the next election, which will come within two years? I think you'll get a fairly clear expression of the people at that point in terms of your lack of re-election.

My central concern is that this government is unwilling to abide by the democratic expression of the people of Metro. Setting aside any critique of Bill 103, if the people say no to it, as they are doing, you are under an obligation to scrap your plans, and I do mean scrap Bill 103 -- not make a few minor technical amendments, but scrap it. If you do not listen to the democratic expression of the people, you take a huge step towards forfeiting your legitimacy as a government. It is my belief that if you forfeit your legitimacy you will be inviting a massive non-violent -- and I underline "non-violent" -- civil obedience campaign. You will be inviting sit-ins, road blockages and occupations of ministerial offices by people who demand that you be obedient to the wishes of the citizenry.

Back in October I was involved in a plant-in under Mike Harris's office window. We planted a garden to draw attention to the issue of the hungry in this province. We were arrested at that time and charged with mischief and damage over $5,000. We recently went to court and, if you've read the Globe and Mail article on that, you'll find that we were found not guilty. The judge ruled that political dissent should be encouraged here at Queen's Park rather than quashed by the Criminal Code. Nominally, one could define that as civil disobedience, but after the referenda I think we can look at civil obedience.

I'm appealing to your best sensibilities. Listen to what the people have to say, and don't cavalierly dismiss them. I can't tell you how many times I've seen on television Tory MPPs saying: "Look, I've gone to this meeting. It looked like the same old people, I heard the same old things, and it didn't change my mind." That's not what democracy is about. You're here to serve the people.

Al Leach said on CBC television last night that people are heaping a whole pile of issues into their reasons for opposing Bill 103 and really this is turning out to be a vote against the whole Harris agenda. Well, that's a really strange defence that Leach is using in terms of this, but when he says that I presume he means that people are growing more and more concerned over the elderly man who died unattended on a stretcher in the hallway of a hospital in Sault Ste Marie, or he's talking about people's concerns over homeless people freezing to death on the streets of Toronto, people's concerns over children who go to school hungry, people's concerns over the welfare cutbacks that have resulted in people living in desperate poverty.

If you can't hear your best sensibilities and, if I may say, listen to your heart, listen to Al Leach and know that the tide has turned against Bill 103, against this government's horrific policies and against this government itself. Thank you.

Mr Curling: Thank you very much. The points you've made here are excellent. You said you wanted to try to avoid repeating all those people's comments, but it is consistent, consistently saying, "This is a community," and the consistency is the thing this government refuses to listen to.

You made reference quite often to communities and neighbourhoods, in other words, boundaries and lines. But this government, like Mr Gilchrist and the other members, constantly say these invisible lines don't mean anything. Maybe one day we'll be flying the American flag and say there are no lines, or maybe one day Toronto will be a province or whatever it will be.

How concerned are you about the constant comments by the members: "What are you talking about? There are no lines. It means nothing."

Mr Patterson: If I may say bluntly, what I enjoy about the area I live in, which is Riverdale -- I'm a resident of the Bain Co-op -- is that I draw a lot of pleasure from living in a community, being able to share an area with my neighbours, being able to enjoy conversations, common areas, common parks where our children can play, all of that. Those neighbourhoods are really essential in that they absolutely bolster a sense of civility within a large city.

In terms of the kinds of comments that have been coming from Tory MPPs, I sense that they drive here in their big automobiles, spend the day at Queen's Park, and then drive home and, not necessarily live in a gated community, but stay within their house. I would appeal to their best sensibilities to try to get a sense of what community life is like and to share in that. Perhaps then they'd have some appreciation of how important communities, social network, social support is.

Mr Curling: Civil disobedience is quite often mentioned. It's always mentioned about frustration, not getting access to your politicians, government not listening to you. Are you hearing more about civil disobedience? I am. I've been to quite a few meetings and this is what I'm hearing. Do you see a lot more? You mentioned that, that you do really see a lot more civil disobedience coming about if nothing is done.

Mr Patterson: I've heard a lot more discussion around it. Again, in this instance I would want to characterize it as civil obedience. After Monday's referenda, when it's clear that the people have democratically, through a ballot box or what not, said no to the megacity, and it seems the government has every intention of proceeding with it, then in terms of citizens mobilizing, it's civil obedience, saying, "Listen to the will of the people." We'll use other non-violent methods to try and get the government's attention.

What I've seen in this is that it's not just your traditional activist group that is talking about this. This runs across a whole spectrum of people who are very angry and very frustrated but, thankfully, looking at non-violent civil disobedience or obedience to reject these government policies.

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

SHIRLEY ROBURN

The Chair: Would Shirley Roburn please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make a presentation.

Ms Shirley Roburn: What do you say to a bunch of people who might think your life isn't worth shit? That might seem a strange way to begin, but that really was the first question I asked myself when I came here, because I wasn't sure that what I have to say would be as equally respected as what some other people would have to say.

I thought back to why I was here, and I guess I want to begin by saying thank you to the long tradition of people who make me believe this process is meaningful. I want to thank the first nations, whose traditional land this is, for being here at all. I want to thank all the people, from Oliver Cromwell on, who have fought to extend our definition of democracy and what that is. I want to thank the suffragettes, who believed that women should be included, and social democratic movements from the churches, who also struggle to make that definition wider. I want to thank the people from Latin America, who in the early 1980s really showed what popular education and popular movements could be about.

Finally, because it's Black History Month, I want to say I looked especially to the civil rights movement and to the people who, at a time when they didn't feel very respected, went and registered voters and voted anyway. I find that a really inspiring example.

Very lastly, I want to thank you all for being here because it's in coming out every day and practising democracy that we make it meaningful.

1710

Coming back to that first question, I had a hard time coming here because I have a hard time balancing showing you respect with the really deep anger I feel about this bill and about where this bill is going. I find it hard to reconcile that and to use a lot of fancy words and a lot of big, long points to make it absolutely clear that for me and for my community and the people I know, you don't have my consent to go ahead with this bill.

If there are two things that I hope you draw from what I have to say here today, it is that I do understand this bill. I understand how it fits into the larger context of bills and the direction this government is going, and you don't have my consent to do it.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't about money, or the only way it's about money is about giving a 30% tax cut to the richest Ontarians. To make those kinds of deep cuts to social services, cuts like closing every single rape crisis centre in the province, cuts like making welfare so low that the recommended diet for people on welfare from our government is below the UN standard for prisoners of war -- for these kinds of cuts, I think it's clear you don't have consent. So the way the government is going about it is by creating confusion, passing a whole bunch of bills together so people don't know what's coming and what's going and how to fight it.

I want to say in the case of this particular bill that I recognize that to make these massive changes the government wants to make in order to unload some of its debt structure, it is going to place my democratically elected government into trusteeship, without my consent, and for one year to have totally unaccountable trustees, and then after one year to put in some new form of government which will be democratically elected.

There's been a lot of talk in the papers about this, about how seriously to take this allusion to Fascism or Yugoslavia or all these things. For me, it's really not a joke. I'm a European citizen and up till last June I was working quite closely with people from the former Yugoslavia. I'm the child of a refugee. For me, when I look at what's being done here, I really have a hard time seeing what the difference is in the spirit of that policy.

For me, it's the spirit of that policy that is really important. One strategy this government has used is to put out a bunch of changes that are unacceptable, revoke maybe the most obviously unacceptable ones and still go ahead with massive things that people don't approve of. I don't want that to happen here. Even if the trusteeship issue is taken out, there's still a really big problem with this bill.

I want to explain my problem with the spirit of this bill by telling a story. The other day I was coming off the streetcar on Queen Street in rush-hour, which I do every day, and I was going down to the subway, down this narrow, little way that maybe has room for two rows of people. As I was going down with a crowd of about 50 people, there was one man coming up the other way and as he started coming up the other way, he started pushing all the people out of his way and he pushed me and knocked me over to the side. When I looked up ahead of me, everyone in front of me was going down like a bowling pin. Finally he hit one woman who stopped right in front of his tracks and pushed him back and said, "Why are you pushing this tide of people?" He said: "There's only room for two lanes of people here. I have the right of way; you're wrong." He pushed the woman down the stairs and kept going. For me, that is the spirit of your Ontario and that's the spirit of this bill.

I find it really hypocritical that we keep talking about giving more responsibility to the community, about how the community is going to take on a lot of these new responsibilities, and at the same time we're totally eroding the infrastructure and the services that have built these communities over the past years. I think what we're really doing with this bill and bills like it is making the individual so isolated, so economically downtrodden and so stressed out that like all the people going down the stairs, they just don't have the energy left to fight back.

An example with this bill and the shuffling of powers would be day care. If there is less subsidized day care, that's going to go individually on to poor people who will look after more kids at home. Another example that made the Globe and Mail yesterday is elderly people. If we have less and less care for the elderly and more of these social services are downloaded, who's going to be looking after old people? Women.

For me it's not abstract at all. Because I don't have a lot of time, I want to give you one really concrete example of how this bill could basically erode community services and kill people. This is a personal example for me because I happen to have a queer sibling. In Toronto schools, in the Toronto school board, because there's been community support over the years in the Metro area which extended to dialogue with the school board, there is one school that is especially for children or young adults who are coming out and who are dealing with these issues. They face human rights violations every day sometimes in their local schools and they need these places. Right now a quarter of attempted teen suicides are queer teenagers.

If this bill goes through and a bunch of other bills like it go through and we shuffle and get rid of services and eliminate this kind of service as special or unnecessary, then more people are going to die and that could be my sister and I think that really sucks.

I think this process that we're going through right now is really unrepresentative. For example, I had to write a letter to get here and about 20% of Canadians are functionally illiterate. Those are probably the people who are using the adult education services that will be eliminated under this shuffling and amalgamation, and I don't see them here. I don't see people using English-as-a-second-language services writing letters or being here. I live on the outskirts of Parkdale and there are a lot of homeless people in my community. I don't see the clerk phoning anybody who doesn't have a fixed address and saying, "Hey, come on down and talk about the bill."

To me what's worse than the fact that this process is unrepresentative and what really scares me is that because of all the pressure I'm under and because of all the pressure everyone around me is under, I see that I myself am turning more and more into that little old man going up the stairs, into someone who is so ungenerous and avaricious and righteous that all I can think about is how to protect my own and how to get by day to day. I see that if my tuition doubles again, if my rent goes up 15% to 40%, I'm not going to be a very generous person either.

I guess I've told you a lot of things that I understand about this bill and how it fits in with other bills, but I have to say that what I really don't understand sometimes is how this could be. I look around and I see that I live in one of the richest provinces of one of the richest countries in the world and I don't understand why it is that 20% of children are living in poverty or why we are pursuing policies that are putting that on the increase.

I know that 75% of people in Toronto who need psychiatric services don't get any kind of treatment at all, ever, and yet we're amalgamating the very last psychiatric hospitals that are available.

The Chair: Ms Roburn, I'm sorry to interrupt but you've come to the end of your allotted time.

Ms Roburn: I'm done?

The Chair: No, a final wrapup, if you want.

Ms Roburn: I'm really concerned about the mean-spiritedness of this bill and this amalgamation. I don't think we've ever done enough to meet the needs of our neighbours and our sisters and our brothers, and I don't think it's time to be pulling the purse-strings tighter.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward today and making your presentation.

1720

KATHY EISNER THEILHEIMER

The Chair: Would Kathy Eisner Theilheimer please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Kathy Eisner Theilheimer: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Unlike most of the people speaking at these hearings, I'm not a long-time resident of Toronto. I've been living here less than 6 months. My husband and I came, as many Ontarians and Canadians come to Toronto, to work.

I'm from a small rural community in the Ottawa Valley where we love to hate Toronto. We bought a house here, but we are still holding on to our farm and hope to return there some day, so I'd like to speak today for the many Ottawa Valley transplants to Toronto and for my rural neighbours.

Like most Ontarians outside of Toronto, we love to hate it but we know we need it and we know we need it to remain vibrant and livable. We know we need it because it not only feeds our resource-based economy, it is our economy. We need it to remain one of the best cities in the world because its degeneration means our certain economic demise. Most of all, we need it to remain a livable, human city because we send our children here to go to school, to work. So, much as we love to hate Toronto, we have a great deal invested in it remaining a great city and not degenerating into a deteriorating American-style city. We need to know that our children, when they come here, and they will, will have a safe, human city where they can lead productive lives. That's why I am opposing Bill 103 and the forced amalgamation of this great metropolitan area.

I visited Atlanta a couple of years ago on business. It's a good example of the kind of city we don't want, with huge divisions between the wealthy and the poor, incredibly vast areas of suburbs, a crumbling inner core and extremely high crime rates. On a beautiful spring day when I was there, the urban core was a ghost town.

As I said, I've been living here for less than six months and I'm in awe of this city. We bought a house in the east end. My neighbourhood is clean, safe and friendly, with many recreation opportunities and an active community centre. Many of my neighbours have been there for 30 years or more, but even the newcomers clearly have pride in their community.

As far as dealing with different levels of government is concerned, I had no trouble finding what I needed from either the city or Metro government. The divisions seem clear enough.

The Toronto area municipalities have avoided the blight of many North American cities partly through sound urban planning based on made-in-community solutions for various community needs. Being the best city in the world in which to live didn't just happen. People worked together to make their neighbourhoods livable. They want to continue to work together. To do that they need access to their local government representatives. Don't take that access away.

Coming from a small municipality, I'm used to being on a first-name basis with municipal councillors. They know me, they know where I live, they know where all my relatives live and they know I will be on the phone to them when I have a problem or an opinion on a municipal issue. I don't expect my urban representatives to be so close at hand, but I do expect them to be accessible. So far they are. I've already had an opportunity to meet the councillor for my ward.

As a newcomer to Toronto, I'm impressed with how well the city works. I'd like to tell Mr Leach that it ain't broke. But it will be if the government insists on bringing forward the restructuring changes it plans.

Many speakers have already talked about the damage that will occur in the Metropolitan area if the changes outlined in the Harris mega-week go forward. I'm in full agreement with those speakers. It can only mean higher taxes and cuts in services, the very things that will destroy the urban core and bring about a deteriorating American-style city. We cannot let that happen.

As a person who still has deep roots outside Toronto, I'm also opposed to Bill 103 for another reason. The amalgamation of the municipalities and the downloading of costs of services that are clearly part and parcel of the plan, if not this bill, must be stopped here in Toronto. It must be stopped here before it destroys the rest of the province.

While paying for a greater portion of welfare costs, housing, child care, long-term care and other so-called soft services will be devastating to Toronto, the results will be far worse in small rural communities like mine. We have little enough as it is in terms of services and now they are under threat.

In Toronto, services will be cut back. In our small communities, they will entirely disappear. There is no way our child care centres and libraries will survive. Unemployment in many of our resource-based communities far exceeds the provincial average. Our welfare rates are high. We have little control over the levers of the economy and yet we are expected to pay when it fails us. We have a higher percentage of older folks, as people who have spent their working years paying taxes in the city move home to the Valley to retire. We have not gained municipally from their taxes and yet we are expected to pay for their care.

People in our rural communities want to care for one another, they want to have things like libraries and child care for their children, and yet if the downloading of costs of services goes ahead these things will disappear. There is no way we can afford them.

Forced amalgamation of townships means greater expenses as municipal governments have to deal with vast geographic areas, areas that have very different needs and differing populations. How will we decide which things go first in our communities? There will be chaos and battles between communities. It's already starting.

Our children don't have museums or art centres, they don't even have TVO, and now you will take away our libraries. People on social assistance don't get the so-called extras in our rural municipalities, things like refrigerators or furniture, and now you want to take us back to the time when they will be lucky to get just a bus ticket out of town. Don't force us to these decisions. Don't force us to this meanness. We must stop these dangerous moves here in Toronto before the rest of the province is destroyed.

The Harris government may think it's just the Metro municipalities that don't like its restructuring scheme, that the rural parts of the province where Tory support has been strong won't care, that they will be happy to see Toronto pushed around. Well, I've got news for you: We are not that mean-spirited and we're not that stupid. Please withdraw Bill 103 and the accompanying plan to download costs of services to municipalities.

Mr Silipo: Thank you very much, Ms Eisner Theilheimer. A couple of questions if we have the time to deal with them. The first is on the point you made in the last part of your presentation around the implications this has for the rest of the province. Going back to the beginning of your presentation, as someone from Toronto, I'm more than conscious of this, as you put it, love-to-hate-Toronto attitude that exists. Sometimes it's quite jovial; sometimes unfortunately it's real.

I agree with you that certainly if this government is able to do what it's proposing to do here in Metropolitan Toronto, then let all smaller communities beware that they can have their democratic rights trodden on in a much more sweeping way than we've seen to date. Is that understanding growing out there, as far as you can tell, whether it's in the part of Ontario you come from or in other small communities, as you see it?

Ms Eisner Theilheimer: I would say it's definitely growing. I would say there's the beginning of a desperation, certainly as far as municipal councils go, the idea particularly of the downloading, the idea that there's going to be all these expenses they are going to have to take up. That's going to force them to move much more quickly than they want to on any kind of amalgamation because there's absolutely no way that individual municipalities, where there might be 350 ratepayers or 1,000 ratepayers, or in a big one a couple of thousand ratepayers, can pay for their social services, that they can pay for a home for seniors, for child care, any of those things.

There's a great deal of desperation. There are already arguments between municipalities about how they're going to ever manage firefighting and whose equipment gets used. It's creating great havoc and it's just starting.

Mr Silipo: I wonder if you could also comment on your sense, as a relative newcomer to the city, on what you've seen within Metropolitan Toronto in terms of the response to Bill 103 particularly. One government member, I gather, has described the anti-amalgamation forces as coming really from inner-city lefties. It's my sense that while good, inner-city lefties are very much part of that opposition, in fact it's a very much spread out genuine citizens' movement that seems to bring in all sorts of people from all walks of life.

Ms Eisner Theilheimer: I'd say absolutely. I've been amazed at it. I don't know how political Toronto can get, but this has been just remarkable. The older Italian lady across the street has put up a sign in her yard. People all over the place have put up signs.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, I must interrupt. We've gone past time. Thank you very much, Ms Eisner Theilheimer, for coming here today.

1730

SHEILA KUMAR SARO KUMAR

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Sheila Kumar, please, and Saro. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Sheila Kumar: Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson, members of the committee and all of you who are here in the endeavour to create and foster democracy in Ontario. It's good to come here today and register my opposition to the passage of Bill 103, which proposes the amalgamation of Toronto with the surrounding cities.

I urge you to withdraw this bad bill. The people on whom some of you wish to foist these changes manifestly do not want them. People who live in free countries do not willingly permit those who are elected to represent them to implement poorly planned, poorly evidenced laws to jeopardize the civility and prosperity of their communities, and prosperity is a shaky, ill-distributed commodity in Ontario right now. We jeopardize it at our peril. I believe that the widespread, vigorous community opposition we see all around us now is the beginning of the end of this bill.

I have lived in the city of Toronto for the last 16 years. Prior to that I lived in the outer suburbs of Chicago, Illinois; Abingdon, Oxfordshire; Geneva, Switzerland; Glasgow, Scotland; London, England; southwest France; Singapore; and various other parts of Britain. I could have chosen to settle in Switzerland or England or various parts of the US; I chose to settle here.

I have experienced a variety of forms of municipal government and, in particular, a variety of styles of city life. Here in Toronto I often reflect on the contrast between Chicago and my home here. I recollect Chicago as a place where the affluent knew about as much as there is to know about grabbing dollars and displaying a lavish lifestyle. What a pity for them, I thought, that the best they could do with all that affluence was to have intricate discussions about the precautions one needed to take to be reasonably confident of making it alive from the underground car park to the art gallery, the fine dining restaurant or wherever.

What a mistake I believe it would be to move closer to that model of city life. It may look glossy and enticing in some ways if you drive through on vacation, but believe me, you do not want to start your day by listening to the list of last night's murders on the radio each day.

Listening as closely as I could and at great length to the proponents of these measures to try and discover what they hope to achieve by them, I have yet to hear a single evidence-supported convincing argument from them. Instead, I have heard those who oppose this bill accused repeatedly of being afraid of change, of being negative or solely motivated to protect narrow, marginal interests. I find these accusations insulting and thoroughly inaccurate and a poor mask for a lack of solid, good reason for bringing in these measures.

I haven't lived in the many places I have lived because I am afraid of change. I badly want all our precious tax dollars, many of which are paid by or lost to poor people who can ill afford them, to be used with the greatest efficacy possible, and for the most part my interests are surely the same as most of my fellow Torontonians.

My daughter is going to make a few remarks now.

Ms Saro Kumar: Thank you for letting me speak today. I'm a grade 10 student at a high school in Toronto and I wanted to speak here because I feel that the proposed changes that will be brought in by Bill 103 will change my life and the lives of my friends and neighbours.

I've heard time and time again Mr Leach and other members of this government talk about the necessity of the amalgamation of Metro. It will reduce waste and duplication, they say. However, he fails to convince me of reasoning behind this bill.

I've been told in school that Metropolitan Toronto is similar in population to that of all the Maritime provinces. Am I to understand that Mr Leach thinks that those provinces are lavish or irresponsible if they fail to amalgamate all their services as he proposes to do in Metro, or does he think that because we live in a densely populated area we can be herded like cattle into inflexible mega-departments? After all, if one fire department makes sense for this huge city, why stop there? An Ontario fire department seems reasonable, or even all of Canada. Just think of the savings.

I like my city. I like that I can, and do, sit on a committee on Metro council to help with an issue that I'm concerned with. I like its vibrancy and its relative safety. I don't want it changed for the worse, as I'm sure this bill will do. Don't let this city fall into the classic textbook example of United States urban core decay. Let it be the textbook example of a good city. Listen to our democratic voices and stop Bill 103.

Ms Sheila Kumar: I have one more point to make. In the absence of sound, convincing arguments, I am left to speculate as to what is behind these measures. It seems to me most likely that this is a means of reducing the obligation of the affluent to contribute to the good of the community. I think that will backfire badly. Or are you simply hoping to make a whole generation of senior appointments with the kinds of benefits we have recently learned that Mr Leach enjoys from his previous employment?

Don't do it. It won't work. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We have a moment here for questions. We'll ask the government caucus, Mr Parker.

Mr Parker: Thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned that the prosperity of communities may be jeopardized as a result of Bill 103 and you give the example of Chicago as something that we don't want to emulate. Is downtown Chicago amalgamated with its surrounding suburbs?

Ms Sheila Kumar: I can't tell you about the structure of municipal government there, but the reason I refer to it in the context of the changes that are proposed is to speak up for the quality of life that we have here in Toronto and because I am familiar with how we maintain that here. I can't comment on the structure of municipal government there.

Mr Parker: I'm interested in how you see Bill 103 affecting the prosperity of our community and why you bring Chicago in as an example.

Ms Sheila Kumar: What is real prosperity? What does it profit a man if he gains the whole megacity if he loses the security and safety to enjoy it?

Mr Parker: Bill 103 will bring that about?

Ms Sheila Kumar: Yes, I think that it may.

Mr Parker: How will that happen?

Ms Sheila Kumar: Because you're destroying the networks, the communities, the way of handling things that we've grown up with here and you're replacing it with larger electoral districts, which I think are less likely to give people what they need.

Mr Parker: How are communities destroyed as a result of Bill 103?

Ms Sheila Kumar: None of us knows. None of us has a crystal ball. None of us can predict exactly what will happen. I've watched Mr Leach asked many times how he views the impact of these changes and he doesn't seem to have a very clear idea either.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Kumar, and Saro. We have run out of time.

1740

BOB FRANKFORD

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Dr Bob Frankford, please. Good afternoon and welcome -- I think welcome back -- to the hearings here today.

Dr Bob Frankford: I appreciate the opportunity of coming here to speak on Bill 103. My name is Bob Frankford. Among the topics I will mention is that of homelessness and the municipal hostel system. With me in the audience are some staff and residents of Seaton House, where I work as a daily physician. Like other citizens, they are interested in the implications of the proposed legislation, but any comments I make are my own.

In the time available I would like to draw on my personal involvement in a couple of areas. Members of the committee have had the privilege of participating in the most comprehensive and articulate discussion about how we should be organizing our municipal governments and urban areas. You have heard some of the most respected and thoughtful people around, some of whom, like Jane Jacobs, can be considered world class by any standards, though as a modest person it's probably an epithet she would hate. It's disappointing that the committee decided not to follow the advice given when originally established to move out and make the hearings accessible to people in Etobicoke, in the Yorks -- East, North, and plain vanilla "city of" -- and in Scarborough, the city I know best.

Two topics I would like to spend some time on are local economic development and dealing with the homeless.

Jane Jacobs gained much of her reputation from clearly identifying the central role of cities in the development of healthy economies. She and others see a difference in urbanization and suburbanization. A city does not become one just by proclaiming itself so and labelling the city hall and the adjacent shopping area as the city centre. Cities as economic successes have an organic nature and can appear quite messy as they form. Jane's observations give us the benefit of rules that can be applied to the development of real cities as safe and attractive places for both residents and visitors.

If we look closely, we can see an evolution of the city of Scarborough towards urbanization. It may not be obvious, but it seems to me that, to name one locality, Kennedy Road is becoming increasingly lively and that this local economic development and revival is being moved forward by the existence of a business improvement area.

As the committee is probably aware, this BIA arrangement is a local levy, essentially an extra tax put towards the economic development of a defined area. This seems to me an excellent model of a type of local participant initiative, but this is dramatically different from the local planning committees that we are led to believe, though without any clear details in Bill 103, will be produced by the government in the belated acknowledgement that megacity is far too centralized for even its most unremitting supporters. The BIA has a budget to work with, the ability to decide on its priorities and spend accordingly and, to complete the circle, accountability to its participants. I'm not particularly enamoured with many American political ideas, but we know that they would vehemently argue for "no taxation without representation" and the complementary "no representation without taxation," ie, to be effective, local bodies need funds to spend and some influence over the taxation process. I agree with this.

I know that the Kennedy Road BIA and its executive director, Brian Hull, have worked closely with the city of Scarborough staff and elected officials. If the predicted mega-chaos of the megacity comes to pass, who will they talk to, elected officials or staff of the one mega-planning departments we are constantly reminded of? Most likely neither for the first year, while people decide what labels to put on filing cabinets and how to get computers to talk to each other.

My life in Ontario over the years I have lived here has revolved around Kingston Road, and I have seen this important thoroughfare change and, in many ways, decline economically. I was very pleased when I was a member of this Legislature that we were able to get a Jobs Ontario grant of about $50,000 for a Kingston Road study. This was channelled through the city of Scarborough planning department and has led to geographical and economic studies, as well as community consultations. None of this is simple and it takes time to approach a consensus, but again I worry about what would certainly be delayed and most likely lost in the mega-chaos of amalgamation. We're not talking about something that can be defined in conventional accounting dollar terms, since that neglects the volunteer time given by the local residents and the hardworking small businesses and motel owners looking for a secure and attainable vision of the future.

What are the costs of loss of continuity and of institutional memory? I do not believe they are calculated in exercises such the KPMG study, but they certainly exist somewhere.

I would like to move to another aspect of local government that I have become very involved with. I work daily as a physician at Seaton House, the country's largest shelter for men, part of the hostel system which itself is a responsibility of Metropolitan Toronto. In the time that I have worked there I have become a strong defender of Seaton House and the hostel system. The challenges are constant, the difficulties are many, but I have observed and worked along with an intelligent administration and a dedicated unionized staff dealing with the most deprived and needy. There is support from the political and bureaucratic levels at Metro that is reflected in an increased capital budget proposed for this year and a commitment to new and diversified programs.

But does working at this amalgamated level and supporting what is done there make me a supporter of amalgamation? No. Let me point out to you that Metropolitan Toronto's hostel system is not just a shelter for the homeless of Metro. I do not have time to explain the complex composition of our population in Seaton House, but let me assure you that we are constantly receiving people from within the GTA, from other parts of the province and from other parts of the country.

Like many others, I am perplexed that amalgamation within Metro is somehow seen as a panacea. It is coordination between regions as recommended by Golden that I see as the real priority. Why should we be the recipients of hardship, job loss, housing loss, psychiatric breakdowns in the Durhams and Peels? Right now we have superior but overstretched facilities in Metro.

So far, I've restrained myself from mentioning the downloading of social services spending to municipalities. Clearly the proposed package will only encourage the dumping of cases by outside regions on Metro, or its successor, and the chances of outside areas taking the initiative to develop their own innovative hostel programs, in my opinion, are zero.

Clearly, we need reform and integration within many different areas. I bring to you a couple of models of change in progress which I believe can produce more for less. There are some changes which may be beyond the scope of the provincial government package but which may be of far greater importance. I'm thinking in particular of the funding of social services. You have heard many times of how inappropriate it is to pay for these out of property taxes. The federal government has much greater control of the taxes that are broad-based and progressive. Why should we not negotiate for an uploading of the costs of the most basic human needs?

I want to make my position clear that I do not believe this bill and the accompanying proposed changes in legislation can be subject to small amendments. The overall approach is so flawed that the whole package needs to be withdrawn.

Finally, as a former elected politician, I want to express my opposition to the view that difficulties we experience are due to too many politicians. It's a cynical view, propounded by people who do not realize the complexity and necessity of the democratic political process. It is said that the cure for the problems of democracy is more democracy. I concur.

The privilege of being an elected representative gives one access to research, to input from all quarters and the opportunity for reasoned debate. This bill has produced a reaction and a public debate unprecedented in my 30 years in this province. There's nothing wrong with gradual reform based on a vigorous debate with input from all quarters. I suggest and hope for your going forward within the parliamentary tradition to produce the changes that really will benefit us all as citizens of this great province.

1750

Mr Patten: How much time do I have?

The Vice-Chair: Two and a half minutes.

Mr Patten: Dr Frankford, welcome back to Queen's Park. I really appreciate your observations, especially from your background as an elected member, and I agree with you in that I don't share the somewhat cynical view propagated that politicians are somehow not worthy of the responsibility. I share your view very much.

I suppose one message that I hear you talking about is that, by amalgamation and having fewer politicians and having a greater sense of responsibility, and I think necessarily a larger or at least more removed bureaucracy, the sensitivity of that political system necessarily will not see what you see, or feel what you feel, or be able to relate to the services that you have with people who are homeless, or hopefully formerly living on the street. Is that part of your message?

Dr Frankford: Yes, indeed. As I mentioned, I'm very concerned about disruption; that if there is a break from existing government structures, much will be lost, the expertise both at the elected politician's level and at the bureaucratic level. I have really come to respect, in the sector of Metropolitan Toronto that I know, the expertise and the vision that exists there.

Mr Patten: You alluded to Ann Golden's recommended model, which was not this unified model, that it was an acknowledgement of different communities but had a larger regional government, but kept in place the local structures.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Patten, I'm sorry, I must interrupt you. We've run out of time. Thank you very much, Mr Frankford, for coming here today.

JASON YING

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Jason Ying, please. Good afternoon, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Jason Ying: Most of the points I bring up here most of you will already have heard, but I restate most of them.

In today's age when cities compete for global investment and recognition, a unified metropolis has a definite advantage over its smaller parts. There are many advantages and several disadvantages toward having a megacity. The long-term benefits are crucial to the financial wellbeing of the city and of its government.

I'll go through the advantages and the disadvantages first.

By creating one city instead of seven, as you know, this will reduce the overlapping of services currently. As the seven local governments compete against each other, this will eliminate waste, duplication and overlap and improve accountability and efficiency. It will also mean better decision-making. The proposed new city council will be able to make better decisions that impact long-term growth and development of a unified Toronto. As the KPMG study concluded, $865 million could be saved over three years by having one government. Another $300 million could be saved each year after.

A unified government may create new jobs and attract more investment, as people outside Metro may not understand where exactly cities such as Etobicoke and North York are, and allow Torontonians to speak to the world with one voice.

Moreover, a megacity will reduce the size of government. Municipal politicians, as you know, would be reduced to 44 plus the mayor from 106. Each councillor will thus serve about 50,000 residents, working closely within the neighbourhood committees to understand and act upon the concerns of the residents.

On the other side, the possible disadvantage which could exist is the deterioration of community and social services within each local municipality. Items such as provincial downloading of welfare, public housing and nursing homes should also be noted.

North York Councillor John Filman and Mel Lastman noted also that an increase of property taxes in the amount of 19% could occur and also the decrease of North York's high standard of services, such as twice-a-week garbage collection and snowplowing.

Although the province has proposed to take over the responsibility for education, it's downloading a lot responsibilities for major social programs to municipalities. It has been said that these proposed changes will cost Metro taxpayers almost $400 million more per year, on average, a 10% increase in property taxes. Also, paying for a greater share of welfare and other programs through higher property taxes could discourage new investment and drive existing jobs out of Metro.

Furthermore, opponents claim that in megacities politicians are less accessible. Big governments mean that control of your neighbourhoods will frequently be in the hands of people removed from the community, such as in such cities as New York or LA, where successive movements have grown because of people's dissatisfaction with mega-governments.

In conclusion, however, the need to cut government debt and deficit is important. Budgetary restraints are definitely necessary. Reduction in government duplication is definitely a move in the right direction. At the same time, we must not let the public get out of touch with their elected representatives. Communities must not deteriorate through the neglect of government services.

Finally, the downloading of responsibilities will just result in the shifting of money coming out of the property taxpayers' pockets. This is unfair also. No doubt the government cannot stay with the status quo; it must constantly improve the structure and way of doing things, as long as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

The Chair: Mr Silipo, you have a little more than four minutes.

Mr Silipo: I just want to be clear. You've done a fairly good job of listing the pros and cons of the arguments that have been before us. I gather it's fair to say at the end of the day that you line up on the side of those who are in favour of the proposal, although you have some concerns about how it's going to be put together. Would that be a fair summary of your position?

Mr Ying: That would be a fair summary. In the long term, I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. However, there are a lot of issues which still have to be either changed or amended in the proposed bill. It's good to see right now that a lot of amendments are taking place. I definitely agree that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in the long run.

Mr Silipo: You'd like to see the disadvantages dealt with so that we don't get into those problems you identified, the increases in property taxes, decreases in services. If those could be done, then you'd like the government to proceed.

What is your response to what is happening and what will likely happen next week with the referendum if in fact a majority, however large or small that may be, of people across Metropolitan Toronto in the referendum say no to the megacity? Would you say the government at that point has an obligation to stop and to figure out a way to deal with that issue, to talk with people, to look at what the alternatives might be, or do you think it should just proceed with what it's doing?

Mr Ying: I definitely think that if the vote is no, they should take into consideration the people's views and try to come up with a compromise on the terms of the bill.

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

1800

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS INSTITUTE

The Chair: Would Valerie Cranmer, Frank Lewinberg and Philip Wong please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make a presentation. If there's some time left at the end of your presentation, I'll ask the government caucus to ask questions.

Ms Valerie Cranmer: I'm Valerie Cranmer. I'm president of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. With me today is Phil Wong, who is our past president, and Frank Lewinberg, who chaired the committee of our members who prepared our brief on Bill 103.

Our institute represents 2,200 practising planners in the province of Ontario. Our members work for governments, private industry, academic institutions and special agencies, and engage in all practice areas, such as urban and regional community planning, urban design, natural-heritage and environmental planning and environmental assessment.

OPPI is committed to working with the provincial government on policy matters which affect our profession and its practice. We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide our comments on Bill 103 and some of the government's recent announcements about changes in municipal responsibilities and funding for services.

The government has had the courage to face a number of very difficult issues that have plagued Ontario for the last few decades, such as funding for schools, disentanglement of the provincial and municipal governments and the governance of the greater Toronto area. While changes to the existing government structures can be advocated, the institute has identified a number of areas of concern. I've asked Frank Lewinberg to address those concerns briefly.

Mr Frank Lewinberg: I'm going to simply read a couple of the extracts from our brief, because it is too long to read in the time allotted.

The OPPI chose not to formally express a position for or against amalgamation of the Metropolitan Toronto municipalities, respecting the diverse public and private sector cross-section of our membership in the community. However, the institute does have specific concerns over process issues, over the relationship between the proposed new city of Toronto and the rest of the GTA and proposed changes to the property tax, all of which are integral to considering the future structure of Metropolitan Toronto.

The decision to amalgamate the municipalities in Toronto is a major change which will take a long time to fully implement and will have a significant impact on many institutions and individuals. If it is not the right decision or it is not done well, the results could be harmful to Toronto, the GTA and all of Ontario.

Bill 103 does not provide the necessary detail to understand the full ramifications of the proposal. For example, due to the lack of information available on community councils and neighbourhood committees and the duties they will assume, it is impossible for OPPI to comment on the appropriateness of these structures for dealing with planning issues. The institute would have serious concerns if it was intended to delegate the authority or responsibility for matters currently vested in municipal councils under the Planning Act to unelected bodies.

OPPI does not support those aspects of Bill 103 that have unelected bodies making decisions on matters which should be made by accountable, elected politicians. The proposed legislation places the trustees and the transition team in an inappropriate role for which they are unaccountable in any democratic or legal forum.

OPPI would like to see changes to the legislation that will provide time and the information for meaningful and full public discussion of alternatives, encourage participation and reduce to a minimum the role of unelected civil servants in decision-making.

Restructuring Metropolitan Toronto does not solve the key problem. OPPI strongly supports the position that an effective government structure for the whole GTA is needed that can provide the coordination that is required for GTA-wide issues.

The structure of governance for the whole GTA needs to be carefully integrated with the structure for the constituent municipalities. It makes no sense to first create a new structure for Toronto, the centre, and later address the structural issues of the remainder of the GTA. The structure for Toronto should be delayed until the enactment of a new structure for the overall GTA so that the whole can be evaluated comprehensively as one integrated and balanced system of governance.

OPPI supports the government's proposal to disentangle itself from the provision of hard services such as roads, water and sewage disposal which are related to the use of property, the costs of which are fairly predictable and largely within the control of municipal governments.

The government has proposed to substantially increase municipal funding responsibilities for social programs such as welfare, family benefits, long-term care, public health and social housing. Taxing property to pay for income support programs will risk the quality of life and potentially the survival of many of Ontario's municipalities. During a recession, these tax changes would pose a danger to small towns which depend on a few industries. The closure or decline of a major employer will create a downward spiral of higher social service demands with resulting higher property taxes on a shrinking tax base. The impact on that community would be to exacerbate the problems and lead to abandonment by those who can afford to do so.

This process would also have a major negative effect on Ontario's larger centres, where most of the social housing and welfare recipients are located. The higher property taxes resulting from the increased funding responsibilities for social programs relative to those of nearby suburban towns and cities would cause a flight of businesses and residents to the low-tax suburban communities. This is likely to create the urban problems of social segmentation, abandonment and decline associated with many cities in the United States, a fate that has been spared most Canadian cities to this point in our history.

OPPI strongly recommends that income redistribution not be placed on property taxes and that the many other taxation alternatives that have been put forward by the Who Does What panel and others be considered.

These matters relate directly to the issues contained in Bill 103 and provide further reasoning for the bill to be delayed until these important matters are fully analysed and worked out.

Mr Philip Wong: To conclude, OPPI represents a profession that has learned the value of public participation in planning matters. Such participation is an essential component in the ultimate acceptance and successful implementation of any plan. It is critical for this government to create such a climate of consensus when dealing with the complexities of local government, one that has been undertaken largely on a non-partisan basis in Ontario until now.

We respectfully request the government to take more time, to offer more information and undertake a comprehensive approach to these changes. We are prepared to work with the government and offer any assistance our institute can bring to seeking such an understanding.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about a minute and a half for a quick question from Mrs Munro.

Mrs Munro: I want to come to page 3 of your presentation. In the last paragraph there before the heading "Changes to the Municipal Role," you have made reference to the need for governance of the whole GTA. I know this has been mentioned by a number of presenters. If we were to look at that concern you've raised, does this mean we're looking at the status quo for Toronto as it is right now? If so, who would represent Toronto, then, in a greater Toronto designation, as you suggest here?

Mr Lewinberg: I believe there have been a number of models put forward, particularly by Golden but also by others, in which an integrated structure, really a widened regional level of government, or not quite a level of government, has been proposed which would then form the coordinating structure around whatever the municipal structure below that would be. We haven't taken a position on what the structure of Metropolitan Toronto might be, but we think it's important that the overall coordinating level of structure be defined first, because as you are aware, there are still the regional governments existing in the other areas. It's very difficult to understand how this new megacity would relate to such a new structure when the others are in transition.

Mrs Munro: My question comes from the idea of, which level of Metro would you be talking to, then, in discussion on a GTA? Would you imagine that you're talking to individual cities or are you talking to Metro council?

Mr Lewinberg: One would talk to both, I would presume, at the moment -- they both exist -- as you would with Mississauga and Peel. You'd talk to both at the moment, which I believe the government is doing.

The Chair: Thank you for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

The committee stands in recess until 7 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1810 to 1903.

ED PHILIP

The Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Our first presenter this evening is Ed Philip. Welcome back, Mr Philip, former member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I believe.

Mr Ed Philip: That's correct. Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure for me to be here this evening and to express the concerns of the residents of northern Etobicoke, neighbours of mine whom I represented for almost 20 years in the Legislature. I have met with many of them in the last few weeks and indeed have met with many groups, and they're very upset about this legislation.

I feel I have some knowledge of the problem, since I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and minister responsible for the department of the greater Toronto area in the last government, the NDP government. We understood that these are complex problems, problems of integration of services in the greater Toronto area. My neighbours recognize that. Many of the services they are using are from the Mississauga and Peel region, and many people using our services live there. So we understand the need for integrating services. We understand the need to make Metro Toronto a strong economic entity to deal with what is being called the hole in the middle of the doughnut.

That is why we established the task force that was starting to build consensus, a task force whose work was stopped by the Conservative government. The recommendations of Anne Golden and her task force have been completely discarded by the Conservative government. Mr Harris threw out the Golden task force report, a report that showed how $1 billion per year could be saved in the greater Toronto area.

It's unfortunate that the process here is so different from the process that was followed under Bill Davis as Premier and under David Peterson and under Bob Rae, a process in which complex issues like this would have had papers sent out for discussion and comment, more papers sent out for further discussion and then hearings, hearings in individual localities. I can tell you that the people in Rexdale, and indeed some of my friends in Scarborough, greatly resent that the Conservative members on this committee decided not to have this committee go as far as their communities. One has to ask, who are the Conservatives hiding from? The people of Ontario.

I can tell you that the people in Etobicoke are strongly opposed to this legislation. An independent poll released only a couple of days ago shows that the people in Etobicoke are overwhelmingly opposed. Indeed the northern part of Etobicoke, particularly with regard to wards 10, 11 and 12, has percentages like 72% saying no to 28% in favour. That's what the people of Etobicoke are telling this government loudly and clearly.

Why is this Republican government -- it's the only way to describe it; if you knew Bill Davis and people like that back then, you'd have to describe them as Republicans rather than Conservatives -- so determined to pass legislation which is contrary to what the public is telling it, contrary to what the Conservative Party task force recommended, a task force that Mr Leach and indeed Mr Kells from Etobicoke were on, a task force chaired by a prominent Conservative, Joyce Trimmer? Why are they going contrary, in their downloading, to the recommendations of the Crombie commission that was set up by this Conservative government? Why, if Premier Harris really wants to deal with the issues of integration, has he refused to even consider the recommendations of the Golden task force, which shows very clearly that there are ways of doing that and saving tax money?

What we're really about in this legislation is the downloading of services on to the municipalities and downloading of costs on to the taxpayers so that we will get more bureaucracy, higher taxes, a pass-on equivalent of $11,000 more per business in the Metro area and an average of $490 more to the average home owner. You only have to use common sense to see how unfair this is. Go to the Rexdale GO station in my area where I live and you find out that 50% of the people using that service are from outside the Metro Toronto area, but thanks to the downloading of this government, we in Metro will be paying for their transportation or a large part of it.

Welfare: In the last recession, one out of every two people who were on welfare in Metro came from outside the Metropolitan Toronto area. We as Metropolitan Toronto residents will be paying for the poor of the whole province instead of just our own people when the next recession hits, and we've seen what's that done in the United States and in other countries where welfare has been put on the backs of the ratepayers, of the home owners, of the apartment dwellers. It's meant that some municipalities have gone into bankruptcy.

Let's talk about some of the democracy issues. To become mayor of this megacity, you will need a campaign fund of over $1 million. Who is going to be able to pay that? Surely what we will end up with is a mayor who is answering to the developers, the only people who can give those kinds of campaign funds.

A paper presented to your committee yesterday by Etobicoke residents Janice Etter and Rhonda Swarbrick pointed out to you that your government, the government of Mike Harris, amputated large chunks of the Planning Act that the NDP government had introduced, a Planning Act that curbed costly and inefficient sprawl and protected the environment, but now you have to go further with this act. You want the developers in the mayor's seat, and that's what you're doing with this legislation.

I want to say to you that the people of Etobicoke, the people of Rexdale, are very, very strongly opposed to this legislation. They know it will mean increased taxes, that that's the game of downloading on to the municipalities, the game the Conservative government is playing. We say to you, this is not a choice, as our Conservative friends would lead us to believe, between change or no change, between this change or no change. There are a number of choices out there. Anne Golden suggested a number of tings that can be done that will solve a lot of the problems we are facing. We have a start here with the Golden report. We need further hearings and further consultations. We need a government position paper.

1910

I suggest that Bill 103 is offensive to the principles of democracy, it's offensive to the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto, it's offensive to those of us who care deeply about our communities and about our environment, and it should be withdrawn with the understanding that there would be further study, that we would deal with the sensible recommendations of David Crombie, that we would deal with the sensible recommendations of Anne Golden and her task force and that we would look at this again.

There are solutions. There are solutions we now know. There are solutions we can put out for further study and further comment. That's the democratic process. That's the process that people like Roy McMurtry used when he had complicated legislation, the Family Law Reform Act and other pieces of legislation. That was a Conservative Party that was progressive, not the Republican Party that wants to slam through a hidden agenda on the people of Ontario.

I want to thank you for your attention, and I greatly appreciate the attention of all members of the committee.

Mr Sergio: Thank you, Mr Philip; good to see you. Welcome to our committee and thanks for the presentation. Evidently you speak with some authority and experience, and you have touched on the vital parts of the bill as it is presented.

This legislation, as it has been presented to us, is contrary to all the others, such as the Golden report, the Trimmer, the latest one, Mr David Crombie's, reports for which they received considerable input from a number of agencies, apart from the people themselves. The latest one, Mr Crombie's, enjoys a lot of respect from all sides, all people. This is the only one that didn't have any input from anyone whatsoever. When it came to us, Bill 103 came as a time bomb, unexpected really. Do you think this was something the government had already in mind to do?

Mr Philip: I don't think the government originally had this in mind. Indeed Mike Harris in the election campaign said he would eliminate Metro Toronto and save the municipalities. That wouldn't have solved the problems of municipalities like Etobicoke, where we have a need for greater coordination with the Peel area and with some of the surrounding areas in the GTA. It certainly wouldn't solved the problem of the hole in the middle of the doughnut. But that was what he campaigned on and that's why it came as a complete shock to many of us. We thought he would keep his election promise and indeed do away with Metro Toronto -- what he would replace it with he didn't say, but do away with Metro Toronto -- and our communities and our councils that we've learned to work with over the years would be preserved.

What's particularly frightening is that at the same time they've done that, they've gutted the Planning Act. Therefore, people are concerned that their environment, their communities are going to be badly hurt as well under this type of legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Philip, for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

BRENT LARSON

The Chair: Would Brent Larson please come forward. Good evening, Mr Larson. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Brent Larson: Thank you very much. I'd like to offer all the members of the Ontario Legislature, those who are here and those who are not here, a new criterion, a new standard by which to judge Bill 103 and the rest of the mega-legislation surrounding it, for despite what some say, none of this is yet a done deal. Difficult as it may be, each of you still has the power to vote any way you wish.

To provide you with this new criterion and to give you a far larger perspective so you can see just how momentous and historic this final decision will be, I am invoking a free spirit from the past. It is the spirit of the Englishman who sparked the original Common Sense Revolution of 1776 with his pamphlet, Common Sense. I am invoking the spirit of the man who has been called the first citizen of the world and, by the computer magazine Wired, the moral father of the Internet: Tom Paine.

I am not doing so for the frivolous reason that Common Sense is also, by coincidence, the name that the Ontario government has given to its revolution. Rather, I am doing so because the basic political choice Tom Paine laid out so brilliantly for humanity 200 years ago in his Common Sense and in The Rights of Man is the very same basic political choice facing you in Bill 103 and facing us all in Ontario and around the world as we move into the 21st century. The same basic political choice at the heart of both the American and French revolutions is again ours to make.

This most fundamental of all political choices is the one between two opposing structures of government which are deadly enemies of each other. One of these structures is that of top-down, hierarchical power, where the ultimate decisions that shape society are made by élite masters, invariably, as history shows, for their own benefit. In this dictatorial structure, the élite masters are the sovereign. The other structure is totally different. Here the ultimate decisions that shape society are made by the whole population affected by them, as they participate as equal citizens in their community seeking the common good. In this interactive structure, the people themselves are the sovereign.

I believe the masters' structure is best symbolized by the pyramid and the people's structure by the circle. A pyramid of power or a circle of power? This is the fundamental choice confronting us. This is the eternal standard by which to judge all government action.

The difficulty for us at the dawn of the 21st century is recognizing the pyramid. In Paine's day it was easily identified: hereditary monarchy. In the 20th century the pyramid structure has taken on different colourings and packagings, different ideological justifications, from left-wing Communism to right-wing Fascism, which reminds us that our choice between the pyramid and the circle is not at all a left/right issue. It is the people versus the masters.

Unfortunately, today's emerging pyramid of power has largely been able to cloak itself in invisibility, but recently some people have started pointing at it. For example, the Toronto Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice does so in this poster here, which is called "Exposing the Face of Corporate Rule."

To see the peak of this new world pyramid, we have to look way, way up, beyond local governments, beyond provincial governments, beyond national governments. Way up there, the men at the top of the new mega-pyramid are attempting to use the vast wealth they control to set the world's political agenda and to reshape the world's society. They are doing this through a small and diminishing number of transnational corporate conglomerates and through a handful of transnational financial organizations, which in effect make up a new, unacknowledged and unelected transnational government.

These new élite masters, who come from several countries and have allegiance to no countries, are remarkably similar to the old monarchs so hated by Tom Paine. Like the kings of old, they too have the potential to be hereditary rulers, as their wealth is transferred to new generations. Like the kings of old, they too are surrounded by courtiers all too ready to justify their masters' power, not this time as the divine right of kings but rather as the natural consequence of the global market, the global economy -- the only god these new masters recognize, the god of money.

These new élite masters are not conspirators but, like the kings, rulers at the top of a pyramid structure. Like the kings, they are determined builders of empire, on the backs of at least 90% of the world's population. Already this world is so under their reign that 358 billionaires own 47% of the world's wealth.

This new pyramid government needs a name, a name to make it visible for what it is, the new enemy of the people. I would therefore like to introduce a brand-new word here for the 21st century's pyramid of dictatorial power: corpocracy, the global corpocracy. Those who support it might be called corpocratists, though, since this is a mouthful, let's nickname them corpses. It fits since they are on the side of death, the death of individual citizens with civil rights, the death of cities and the civilization they make possible, the death indeed of our fragile planet itself.

1920

Moving towards this emerging global corpocracy is moving back in time, way back to the feudalism of the dark Middle Ages, an ancient repression which is being intensified by state-of-the-art technology.

The most basic and profound question facing you, as elected members of the Ontario Legislature, is whether or not Bills 103 and 104 and 107 and all the others move Ontario further into the grip of the global corpocracy, making Ontario more a minor branch plant of the global masters. Any legislation which moves real political power up and away from the people does so. Any legislation which has the overall effect of making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else by, for example, opening up public services for their exploitation does so.

I'll say nothing here about the announced reason for the worldwide cuts in social programs: to pay down the deficit and the debt, which actually means a massive transfer of money mostly to the rich from the poor and the middle. But before making your mega-decision, I hope you'll also consider the proposed tax cut, which seems to be the primary motivation behind all the mega-bills here in Ontario. However good it may sound, any income tax cut made as a percentage widens the ever-growing gap between the rich and everyone else. You see, 30% off thousands of dollars due is real money, while 30% off only a little isn't so much, and 30% off nothing is nothing at all.

If you do decide that this is all pyramid legislation, which is what the evidence indicates, then voting against it is most certainly not a negative act, for saying no to the pyramid is saying yes to the circle. While the pyramid is the corpocracy, the circle is of course democracy. This is not a throwback at all, not even to the sort of democracy Tom Paine advocated, nor is voting for democracy voting for the status quo -- far from it. Democracy is a circular political structure. Circles can roll with the times. It is a wheel we want for movement, not a pyramid.

We democrats have been criticized for being naysayers, for saying no, no, no to every proposed change. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are saying yes, yes, yes to democracy, to the greatest, most promising, most glorious change of all: an expanding grass-roots democracy.

But the government of Ontario has rushed everything at such a mad pace there is no time to present this very real alternative. There is not even time here now for me to read from this.

This is a positive, 21st-century declaration of democracy, modelled not on Tom Paine's work but on that of his friend and his betrayer, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence. This new document, which states six founding principles of grass-roots democracy, may help guide the spreading democracy revolution, which here in Ontario has been sparked by the so deceptively named Common Sense Revolution. This declaration of democracy will be available, after a bit of polishing, for any citizen's consideration and perhaps signature.

Let me emphasize in closing that this is not a party issue. If we are going to get to an expanded democracy it is only through the ever-growing grass-roots movement. All political parties, left and right, are themselves pyramid structures, and in this new age, as we have seen all too frequently, this makes party leadership particularly vulnerable to the mega-pyramid of the global corpocracy and its self-serving agenda: free trade and the GST, the social contract and mega-legislation. This is why Canadians and Americans and Europeans and people all around the world are sick and tired of political parties. We throw out one party after another and all we get is yet another one led by a new élite gang of corpses sporting a different-coloured party tie.

I believe, however, that the true majority of you members of the Ontario Legislature are not composed of corpses but of democrats. The support many of you have expressed, regardless of party affiliation, for the legislation introducing binding referenda is one indication that this is so. This is why the mega-legislation is not a done deal. You do not have to follow the leader.

But the pressure on many of you will be enormous as the mega-voting approaches, from the party pyramids of power. I urge, therefore, before you vote for moving all of Ontario a giant step towards either the pyramid of corpocracy or the circle of democracy, that first you make certain that your own vote is protected by insisting on the democratic circle within the Legislature itself rather than the intimidating pyramid of party discipline. The only way you can guarantee this is by demanding a secret ballot. Your vote is too momentous and too historic for us all to permit it to be anything other than the true expression of your individual soul.

In conclusion, let me say that I and others understand and sympathize with the dilemma so many of you members face. May these famous words of Thomas Paine leap two centuries to give you heart and to give us all heart in the struggles yet to come:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered: yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Larson. We've exceeded your allotted time a little, but I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this evening.

BETSY DONALD

The Chair: Would Betsy Donald please come forward. Good evening and welcome to the committee.

Ms Betsy Donald: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Betsy Donald and I was a policy adviser on the Golden commission. I'm also completing my PhD in urban regional economics at the University of Toronto, so I spend my days reading about this and the relationship between size and efficiency and the role of local governments in a global economy, and the role of city regions and the new structures that are starting to come into play in London or New York or Toronto. What I want to focus on tonight are the economic implications of Bill 103. I'll start with some of the micro-concerns I have.

It goes back to what many people have been talking about, the whole issue of evidence of cost savings around amalgamating to a large city of 2.3 million. All the evidence I have found -- really, there's no serious study that would support delivery of services over about half a million. There are some that suggest one million. However, generally speaking, if you look at the literature in the United States or Britain or Canada, usually they're talking efficiencies around 500,000.

Obviously, this government has to have pretty cogent evidence to support amalgamating the city of Toronto and the other cities into one large city to justify the pure cost savings of amalgamation. What I've been given is the KPMG study. If you look at the study, with all due respect to KPMG, because they're a very solid firm, they simply didn't have enough time to do a lot of the issues. They even say in their report, "We have performed no original data collection or verification against original sources."

Mr Dan Newman will recall that I asked him at the Cabbagetown Historical Preservation meeting, "Is the KPMG study the only evidence you have to support amalgamation?" He said yes, that this is your best evidence. Mr Leach was asked the same question at a meeting the next night at St Paul's Church, "Is this your best evidence you have to support amalgamation?" He said yes.

We have so many reports and so many people saying this just isn't good enough. The latest one is the Deloitte and Touche report that says: "We have not seen put forth any concrete evidence that would support that there are savings of up to $865 million over the first three years and $300 million annually thereafter.... There is clearly no one group of people, whether they be consultants, senior bureaucrats or politicians, who can fairly claim that they have a good grasp of the ramifications of a merger of the seven existing governments of Metro into one new city of Toronto."

This is no basis for passing such a monumental piece of legislation. We need sound public policy evidence to support this kind of amalgamation.

Moving away from the lack of evidence for cost savings, I want to focus on the real issues we should be focusing our energies on, and that is regional coordination. Milt Farrow has started the process, and this is good; we have the Greater Toronto Services Board. But it's only a discussion paper. We see on the first page that we haven't even made recommendations about its authority or its powers, how it should be governed, what types of services it should be concerning itself with, how it should be paid for, what relationship it should have with the municipalities, the public and the province. This is what we should be focusing our energies on. We should be getting this structure set in place. We should be moving this region forward first, before we go ahead and ram Bill 103 forward.

I would submit to you, please hold back on Bill 103 until you've got this in place. Why not work on this and make sure you've got the truly regional issues identified rather than artificially setting up these boundaries between the 416 and the 905 region? Instead of pitting citizen against citizen or region against region, 416 versus 905, which we hear about so much in the media, why don't we start working on this together, working cooperatively, setting this region on the right path for the 21st century?

1930

Truly regional coordination means looking at issues around transit and issues around economic development. Economic development isn't just about marketing for the Olympics; it's about providing good, sound physical infrastructure, human capital and social infrastructure for the region, which means we need to have a body that really has some legislative authority and power, power to tax to raise the revenue to do this. My concern is that if we don't do this first, we're going to go back to the same problems we had before.

Obviously, why Golden was set up and what Crombie talked a lot about was that we have this disparity in business property tax between the 416 and the 905. If we could get the regional government set in place first, we could start looking at issues around a uniform commercial-industrial tax rate, which would alleviate some of the tax disparities for business.

I'm just urging you: Why don't you postpone Bill 103 until you have addressed the real regional needs of the region? Then we can start looking at how more local services are going to be delivered.

Thank you very much for your attention. If we have time, I'd be happy to take some questions.

The Chair: We do have time. Mr Silipo, a little better than three minutes.

Mr Silipo: Ms Donald, thank you very much for your presentation. I start from the last point, which you emphasized a couple of times. As you and others have said to us, the first priority here should be that regional coordination, and only after we've gotten that in place should we be dealing with questions of potential amalgamations of municipalities at the lower level.

Perhaps it's just the optimist in me, but I continue to feel -- and I feel reinforced to some extent by the previous presentation of Mr Larson. In terms of understanding our responsibility as legislators, even a government as adamant as that of Mr Harris, it seems to me, cannot just continue to ignore what the population out there is saying in a very clear way. It's not just the experts; it's not just the good work that you and Ms Golden and others did or the recommendations from Mr Crombie; it's also what average citizens out there are saying in this whole discussion we've had the last number of weeks. What they're saying very clearly is that this is just wrong. It's wrong because of the process; it's wrong because of the substance of what it does.

It seems to me that the government has not just an obligation but really an opportunity next week, when the referendum results come in saying no to the amalgamation, for the government to finally turn around and say, "Okay, as a party that believes in the people having a voice and the people continuing to have a voice and needing for that voice to be reflected by the government, we would be prepared now to pause, to look at this whole issue again, to look at the whole question of the GTA structures and issues and, only within that, look at the question of what changes should be made."

I guess I'm looking for whether I'm just dreaming or whether that is the kind of approach that a good and sensible government, even a Mike Harris government, might yet take in the days ahead.

Ms Donald: To me, governing is about governing for the people; it's not governing for the people who elected you. It's about compromise, it's about consensus, it's about listening to the experts, listening to the public, listening to all those concerned and really building around that.

We have so much disparity in so many aspects in Canada, if you look at the aboriginal versus non-aboriginal, Quebec versus federalism, environmentalists versus loggers. Let's get beyond all that "us versus them" stuff and let's start working together and building a great Toronto. I'm not a card-carrying anything. In fact, I don't even have a particular love of Toronto. I'm not even from here originally, but I am really concerned about setting this region on the right path for the 21st century.

There's a massive conference coming in April, an urban affairs association. Experts from all over the world in the next few months are coming. The conference is called Meeting the Challenge, looking at new institutions being set up in different city regions around the world. I think a lot of people are coming with some excitement to see what Toronto's doing, because Toronto has always had a reputation for doing things right, for institutional innovation at a time when the economy structurally has changed.

We have an opportunity to do it again. I think Golden made some really good points. I think Crombie had some really good points. We have to do it again. We don't want to ram through Bill 103 without really thinking about those things. A lot of good study has been done. Let's just do it right.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Donald, for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

KEN BRYDEN

The Chair: Would Ken Bryden please come forward. Good evening, Mr Bryden. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Ken Bryden: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm here because I'm a conservative. Being a conservative, I support the New Democratic Party, since it is the only party in North America today that respects conservative traditions. Permit me to outline some major applications of those values that I support and that lead me to reject the arbitrary decision to herd the residents of Metro Toronto into a huge megacity.

First, the true conservative believes in community. Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying that there is no society, only individuals, thereby denying the entire conservative tradition and embracing instead an extreme form of 19th-century laissez-faire liberalism, tending towards social Darwinism. To the conservative and to me, the individual is inseparable from society, and within the larger society his or her personality can find fulfilment only within a community.

The conservative believes that good local government is a government that is small enough to interact regularly with its communities. One need only visit Metro Hall with its locked doors and unwelcoming ambience to get an inkling of what the Kremlin of the megacity will be like.

Second, the true conservative believes that it is inappropriate to try to fix something that's not broken. The constituent municipalities of Metro Toronto are currently working to the satisfaction of most of their residents. I'm one of the residents, and most of my neighbours think our municipality, which is Toronto, is working reasonably well. Certainly these municipalities are not perfect, but what human institution is?

The only problem that needs major attention is that of coordination between Metro and the rest of the greater Toronto area. Unfortunately, the government's approach to that problem appears to be to appoint an inaccessible and unaccountable board, or perhaps a czar, I'm not quite sure which, but it seems to be heading in the direction of a board, which will simply lay down the law to elected councils. The government would do well to pause and let the significance of the Golden report sink in.

Third, the true conservative believes that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Conservative thinkers over the years have decried what they saw as a destructive drive for perfection in socialism -- a valid criticism in regard to some varieties of socialism, notably Marxism. The present government has embarked on a determined drive to tear down what has taken years to build in grasping for perfection.

1940

Fourth, the true Conservative believes that constructive change can be achieved only gradually. The present government has thrown caution to the wind and is hell-bent on turning local government upside down, especially in Metro. This can only be counterproductive: destructive of democracy at the local level.

The ill-considered, root-and-branch, full-speed-ahead course on which the government is now careening is the antithesis of conservatism. It is an ideologically driven experiment in social engineering.

Mr Chairman, I don't think I've used up my 10 minutes of fame yet, so perhaps I'd like to make a couple of additional comments on this question of the referendum, which is a good deal in the news. I watched some of your proceedings on the legislative channel here on TV and a couple of weeks ago I heard and saw Mr Gilchrist, I think it was, arguing that referenda are not really appropriate in a parliamentary system of government. Basically I agree with the philosophy he was expounding, although I think he should direct his remarks to the government and not to those of us out here who already agree with him.

There's one place where I think there is pretty wide agreement that referenda are appropriate, and that is in the matter of constitutional change. Bill 103 sets a new constitution for the government of this Metropolitan Toronto area, and if there is anything that is more appropriate for a referendum than that, I just can't conceive of it. Surely when the whole structure under which they operate is being -- I was going to say slaughtered -- changed in a drastic fashion, the people should have some say in it.

It appears that those who are trying to drive through this amalgamation anticipate that the people are against it and are going to turn them down, so now they're doing everything possible to discredit the referendum. Let me just say that there are difficulties: out-of-date voters lists prepared by the province, which are inadequate; there is the machinery that certainly could be improved. Surely the government could have conducted a referendum in an appropriate and proper way. They have the resources and they could have created a new voters list, so let's not have that criticism.

Also there are arguments about the question, but as the Environics people said today, "Everybody understands what the question is, so let's not quibble about that." I saw some guru in the Star a week or two ago who said he doesn't understand what No will mean. Maybe he wouldn't understand it, but I suggest that anybody with brains at least equal to a jellyfish will understand that No means they don't want it. Surely that's plain.

You can't, in a referendum, cover every possibility under the sun. It's got to be Yes or No or at the very most a choice between two options. I am suggesting that if you don't like the referendum it's because the government didn't conduct it in a proper manner, but the municipalities have done the best they can.

Have I used up my 10 minutes yet?

The Chair: You've got about a minute left, if you want to wrap up or take a question.

Mr Bryden: I'll take a question.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Mr Bryden, I think you taught at York University for a period of time, did you not?

Mr Bryden: Just for one year. I was mainly at the University of Toronto. I was one year at Atkinson College.

Mr Jim Brown: You did such a great job. I was in that course. You actually passed me. Then you must be a conservative, because here I am.

Mr Bryden: I'd better revise this, take another look.

Mr Jim Brown: But he's a true conservative. He said it. He taught me to be a true conservative.

You seem to think the status quo is okay, that everything is going smoothly.

Mr Bryden: I never in my life said anything is going smoothly. As a conservative I never believe anything is going smoothly. All I'm saying is that it's going better, it's going reasonably well, to the satisfaction of most people. But I think we have to do something, as the previous speaker here said, about the relationships between Metro and the rest of the greater Toronto area. That's where the problem is; it's not within Toronto.

Mr Jim Brown: But the previous government struggled with this problem as well.

Mr Bryden: The previous government at least set up the Golden commission, which has been thrown into the ashcan -- a great pity, because it certainly was pointing in the right direction. Golden should have been allowed to complete her work. That was the great problem. She wasn't allowed to fine-tune her report by having public input.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bryden, for your presentation. I appreciate your coming forward this evening.

JENNIFER GREEN

The Chair: Would Jennifer Green please come forward. Good evening, Ms Green. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Jennifer Green: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Green. I'm a 23-year-old graduate of McMaster University. I'm in first year at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine. I was born and raised in Toronto and I'm a graduate of the Toronto Board of Education. Enough about me; what about you?

You are sitting here before me as elected representatives for the citizens of Ontario. You, like elected municipal representatives, are a product of a democratic process, and I'm hoping that you honour the election that got you where you are today. I urge you to consider, then, how it would feel to have that legitimate democratic election overridden, as this bill plans to do to the municipal representatives.

Let us begin with the broader issue beyond Bill 103, the manner in which this government is ramming through major legislation, Bill 103, Bill 104, massive changes to the municipalities, the proposed downloading of soft services to municipalities. My concern is that this government is being a poor role model for youth of the province.

In bypassing the proper civil discourse, political discourse and democratic process which are essential before making such huge changes to the province, I fear, I'm actually embarrassed, for the youth of this province that this is being held up as an example of democracy, because I don't feel that it is. Even these public hearings and the referendum itself I feel are just a pretence for the government to say there has been some public consultation. There has not. None of the details of the proposed amalgamation were discussed during the election, and I think it is becoming quite clear that there is no mandate from the people to ram through such changes. The youth deserve, all of the citizens deserve, that when major structural changes with such widespread impacts for the future are being made, there is time to be taken to gain a greater consensus.

Back to the issue of overriding the decisions of elective municipal representatives: I feel this is undemocratic and that it leaves far too much room for party politics to enter into municipal affairs. The agenda of centralizing power is unhealthy for democracy and it is also dangerous. Centralizing power allows for the rise of extremism, whether it be from the far left or from the far right. This is dangerous when unchecked. Centralized power may suit the needs of the Harris government at present, but it could just as easily swing the other way if another party were to come to power. The Liberals held power in this province for 40 years and they did so because they governed from the centre, and generally from consensus, so I'm urging that you take the lessons of history. Let us also take from the lessons of history when looking at other examples of amalgamations: Halifax, New York, London. These megacities have proven to be inefficient and to deprive citizens of input.

We have heard financial arguments, such as the one presented earlier, and also from people such as Andrew Sancton, Wendell Cox, Joseph Kushner. The evidence is simply not conclusive that it will save money. If the government does want to save money, which I agree should happen, then these changes can be made, these cost savings can be made within the existing structure instead of just trying to create an entirely new structure.

As a youth, I feel that this bill paints a bleak picture for youth. Residential taxation will rise. What does that mean? Higher rent. As well, we have a prediction from the Metro board of trade that local business will be devastated. I assume that because of the higher property taxes, new businesses will be discouraged from entering the area. How does that impact on summer jobs? I feel there are a lot of risks here. That, coupled with the enormous burden of tuition increases, is just adding up to too much for the students of this province to handle.

1950

As a naturopathic medical student I study the primary determinants of health. These are employment, environment, family support and community network. The existing system, although not perfect, supports the health of Metro citizens through its day cares, its parks and rec services, its public transit, its care for the elderly, its healthy city program and its AIDS initiatives. These programs work in improving people's lives and they work because they are specific and unique to the communities they are addressing. I fear that these programs will be lost when professional politicians from the suburbs battle those from downtown. Health is my priority, and this bill means we can lose too many vital health-creating programs.

What makes me proud to live in Toronto is that it's clean, it's fairly safe and it's multicultural. It's a city where community individuality is celebrated and where there is local control. Local control and local input, in my mind, are what makes this city great.

In conclusion, I feel the government should be bringing communities together, not tearing at the fabric of the city by undermining municipalities, creating divisiveness and acting against the will of the people.

I'd be happy to take any questions.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Jennifer, thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to just propose a scenario for you. If there was an opportunity for the Metropolitan Toronto area, made up of the various municipalities that make it up, to improve their lot, to improve the life of the citizens, do you not think that everybody would be supportive of it?

Ms Green: Are you asking me if Bill 103 is going to do that?

Mr Kwinter: No, I'm not talking about Bill 103. I'm talking about just the general concept: If this was going to be good for the people, they would be supporting it.

Ms Green: Yes.

Mr Kwinter: Obviously either the government has not sold them on the merits of what they're doing or people are not accepting what they have been told is going to happen and that's why they're objecting to it.

Ms Green: I feel actually that this is not so much about this bill only; it's about centralizing power. It fits into a broader agenda, and the bill has not been considered for its merits in and of itself because it has no foundation in research, as we have heard earlier, and it certainly hasn't convinced the citizens of Metro Toronto. I think the reason it's still going ahead is because of the broader agenda that's there.

Mr Kwinter: I happen to agree with you. I think the agenda has more to do with money than it has to do with providing better government. I think there's an issue here where the government is trying to get its hands on money to be able to deal with its other agenda. Do you agree with that?

Ms Green: Certainly I agree, yes.

Mr Sergio: Can we separate the two, the megacity and downloading, or do they have to go together? Do you think the agenda of the government is that in order to accomplish the effect of the downloading, it has to deal with the megacity the way it is dealing with it?

Ms Green: I think the plan will not work effectively without the megacity.

Mr Sergio: What about the effect of the downloading?

Ms Green: Absolutely horrible.

Mr Sergio: How do you think it's going to affect -- if you really want to know what people think of what the government does, any government, if their taxes will go up or down, they will give you a very quick reaction. We know with this one here, from the facts which have been provided by the various mayors and other people, that taxes will go up and services will come down. Do you think it's proper for a government to want to impose on the people of Metro some things that are not going to work?

Ms Green: No, absolutely not. I think you're right; it's totally unfair of the government.

Mr Sergio: Do you think we should delay this bill and bring it back?

Ms Green: I don't think we should ever bring it back, actually.

Mr Sergio: I don't mean bring the same thing back. I think we all agree that something has to be done, that some changes are needed. I don't think that because the branches have overgrown and it needs trimming, we should cut down the tree completely.

Ms Green: Exactly. A very good analogy.

Mr Sergio: I think we all agree with that. So it's not a question of bringing out exactly the same bill, but we have had the Trimmer report, the Golden report and Crombie and they made some good recommendations. Would you say to the members of the government side here, send a message to the Premier and Mr Leach saying, "Go back, get out those reports, sit down with the mayors and come up with something we can accept"?

Ms Green: Yes, basically do your homework. I'll try and do mine.

Mr Sergio: They haven't done their homework, evidently.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Green, for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

BRUNO MARCHESE

The Chair: Would Bruno Marchese please come forward. Good evening, Mr Marchese. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Bruno Marchese: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to speak to you against your proposed megacity and the related downloading legislation. In my submission I will outline my rationale for your consideration.

Amalgamation: Your proposal to create a metropolis of almost 2.5 million people is not researched or well thought out. This bill ignores some basic economic principles, namely, the economies of scale and the law of diminishing returns -- Economics 101, for those of you who took that course. Well-researched and academically accepted studies have stated that smaller and more compact cities of about half a million people are the most efficient and cost-effective. I challenge this government to produce credible economic impact studies that unequivocally prove that this bill in itself will save money.

I urge you to let amalgamations occur through negotiation and referenda. I personally would support the Golden task force recommendation of four cities and a GTA coordinating body as long as the residents of those communities support the proposal. The Golden task force understood that it is regional services that need amalgamation and that the existing cities within the GTA need strengthening. The proposed GTA coordinating body is what is needed here for the whole plan really to work.

I question the government's assertion that the current municipal governments are financially wasteful. There are regular elections, which many of you have been through, that these politicians have to become accountable for. Municipal politicians must face public scrutiny at election time. If politicians are not doing their jobs, they will be voted out of office, as some people who used to be in this place know. That's the democratic process.

I want to talk to you a bit about downloading. I agree with genuine disentanglement, but your mega-week announcements were about downloading, not disentanglement. What I'm trying to say here is that you're looking at transferring your debt to the municipalities. These costs of soft services are just not sustainable at that level. Your action is no better than what the federal government has done to this province, downloading its budget deficits on to the provinces.

Municipalities have three choices at budget time to fund the increased responsibility. They can't legally run deficits, as you know. They are going to have choices. They can raise property and business occupancy taxes, they can cut or eliminate current or proposed services or they can introduce user fees. I suspect that there will be a combination of all three when politicians are faced with difficult decisions that affect people's lives.

By downloading responsibility without the companion taxing powers, you will be imposing your government's slash-and-burn agenda on the municipalities. I object to social services being funded by the property tax, which should be for services related to property. The progressive income tax should fund these soft services, which are unstable in nature and difficult to fund, given the legal and economic constraints on municipalities in the economic cycle. Since it has made sense for municipalities and school boards to fund a small portion of costs that are locally administered, funding should continue to be shared at an acceptable ratio. It has made sense for a government that is paying for a service to have some policy input. This ratio should be negotiated with the municipalities and school boards in good faith.

I want talk to you about your election promise of a 30% income tax cut. I believe this promise is what has motivated your mega-week announcements. You have discovered that you can't afford it any more and you're letting the municipalities pick up the tab. Your government has often said that there is only one taxpayer. I agree. I disagree that only the income tax should be cut. If you must keep your ill-conceived income tax promise, I suggest you cut property taxes and raise income tax in a revenue-neutral manner.

2000

The Fair Tax Commission proposed that soft services and education not be funded by property tax and shifted to income tax. It created economic models that assumed a 10-year phase-in reduction in property tax and an equal shift to income tax. The data show a modest increased total tax in the higher tax brackets and a corresponding decrease at the lower income level. The people in the lower-level tax brackets benefited most. This group is most likely to spend any tax savings and help boost the economy. I propose that you implement the Fair Tax Commission recommendations and abandon your downloading proposal.

On market value assessment, the Fair Tax Commission recommended that unit value assessment was the most preferable form of property tax because UVA was the most compatible form of tax that serviced property. It took lot size and the necessary related services to the property into account when calculating property tax with an acceptable market component relating to area rental costs. UVA is better than the market value assessment proposal for the following reasons: It's less susceptible to market forces that inflate the realty prices; people like seniors on fixed incomes have a more stable tax bill and can budget their money more carefully; with a more predictable tax bill, ability to pay can be budgeted for; tax appeals will be limited because the criteria for tax assessment will be difficult to challenge; and finally, municipalities can count on stable revenue and they can budget accordingly.

I wanted to talk to you a little bit about election law reform. I'm currently involved in the referendum campaign in my neighbourhood, which is the city of Toronto, ward 11. I just wanted to state that the Magna Carta stated that free men were people who owned property. All others were not free men, according to the Magna Carta. In municipal elections we have something similar by allowing property owners to vote even though they are not residents at that property. This doesn't exist at any other level of government. It is offensive and should be changed. All citizens should have equal voting rights and residency should be the only criterion for voting.

I wanted to also talk about the Election Finances Act as related to municipal spending, mostly because of what happened in my community some years ago. Municipal spending limits have too many loopholes. Currently a candidate can register to run in one ward, spend the limit, close down the campaign and start a new one and in this way circumvent the spending limit. This is a ludicrous situation, it is unfair and it should be stopped. There is no financial disclosure after a candidate has filed with the election finances commission. There are no records kept after that and there's no record of where that campaign debt has gone to.

Anyone who has canvassed in this referendum knows how bad the voters list is. Your proposal for a permanent voters list has merit, but only if it is administered properly. A thorough door-to-door enumeration should be carried out every two years and municipalities should coordinate revision offices in the interim period.

In closing, I urge you to abandon your ill-conceived mega-week announcements and let the people decide on this issue.

Mr Silipo: Given the short time, just on the referendum, because you raised a number of points, I've been suggesting, and certainly many others have as well, that the government simply cannot ignore the will of the people. If, as we all expect, there will be a strong vote against the megacity on Monday in the referendum processes across Metro Toronto, do you agree that is the way the government can, if it really still has any sense of respect for the democratic process, use this as the way to say, "Maybe we made a mistake here; we need to sort of take another look at this whole issue and find a graceful way to back out"?

Mr Marchese: If that's what they need, fine. I think it's a bit more fundamental than that because they're going to have to face the people in two years, on their record. As we saw last week in the various town hall meetings held throughout Metro, they got the message. It was loud and clear and they should listen to it.

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

JIMMY JOHNSON

The Chair: Would Jimmy Johnson please come forward? Good evening, Mr Johnson, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Jimmy Johnson: The last two provincial majority governments have been accidents. Bob Rae and the NDP won a majority because the voters did not want David Peterson and his Liberals any more, and Mike and the Conservatives were not seen as a change. In the last election, Mike and you Conservatives won because the NDP and Bob Rae had fallen from grace, and the voters could not vote for Lyn McLeod and her Liberals because of her flip-flopping on the issues.

When you were out there trying to get elected, you talked about common sense, but you never, ever mentioned the amalgamation of Metro. If you had, we would not be here tonight, because you would not have got yourself elected. You also never mentioned that you would download more tax responsibility to the municipal level than what you are taking away. Again, if you had, we would not be here because you would not have got elected.

I've attended two meetings in Scarborough to try and get the facts about Bill 103 and how it will save me, a taxpayer in the city of Scarborough, money. I've asked two MPPs to show me the facts and figures you people have. Mr Gilchrist sent me a package of propaganda, there were no facts and figures in the package, and when I asked Mr Newman, he couldn't answer the question. I'm here tonight to ask you to show me the facts and figures that you, the government, have that will save me, the taxpayer, money.

Presently in Scarborough I pay $25 per year for snow and ice control. How much will I pay under Bill 103? I didn't think so.

The Chair: Mr Johnson, would you stick to your presentation first, and if you want to leave the questions out there --

Mr Johnson: The questions are part of the presentation. I'm here to get the answers.

The Chair: I realize that.

Mr Johnson: So you just handle your end of it and I'll handle mine.

The Chair: That's exactly what I'm doing, Mr Johnson.

Mr Johnson: Okay. I pay $197 per year for local parks in Scarborough. How much will I pay under Bill 103? I pay $97 per year for library service. How much will I pay under Bill 103? I pay $45 per year for garbage collection. How much will I pay under Bill 103?

If you continue down the road and pass Bill 103, here is some factual information you should know going in: If the six Metro fire departments are amalgamated, Scarborough's per capita tax for the fire department will go from the lowest of, $64.94, to $92.77, and that's based on the 1995 Metro fire statistics. The city of Toronto's will come down from the highest, of $134.57, to $92.77.

Finally, you do not have a mandate to do what you are doing, and we, the people, are entitled to the democratic process more than one day every four years.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Johnson. You have plenty of time for the government caucus to make comments, ask questions and perhaps answer questions.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Mr Johnson, thank you very much for your presentation. There have been a lot of deputations coming forward and suggesting their perception of a connection between the amalgamation and the announcements made on the transition or the transfer of responsibilities between municipal and provincial governments. If that's the case, what in your opinion would require the province to amalgamate the municipalities in Toronto in order to deal with the transfer of services? Why do you see that as a connection?

Mr Johnson: In order for you to download what you intend to download to us, it's far easier for you to download it on a Metro-wide basis. If you try and download it to Scarborough or Etobicoke or York or East York or whoever separately, they'll go broke trying to pay their share. But if you download it on a Metro basis, it's far easier for you to do it. That's why everybody says that these are hooked in together. Even though they're separate issues, they are hooked in. You have to have megacity to have mega-download, no question about it.

Mr Hardeman: I don't agree with you, but if that were the case, don't you see that most of the transfer of responsibilities is going to the regional government where you have the Metro corporate now, that your downloading suggestions would apply to Metro?

2010

Mr Johnson: I see what you people are saying, but I'm saying to you, and people have already said this earlier, that most of us like what we have right now. We don't see anything major wrong with this thing. We see some minor changes that need to be done. Very minor surgery needs to be done, but when you people try and amalgamate and make things better, you're going to make a big mess. Just the fire departments alone, you can't put them all together without a great deal of cost and a mess to be put forward, because they're not compatible with one another now. They work in conjunction with one another but they're not compatible.

Mr Hardeman: On the fire departments, if I could just for a moment, Mr Johnson, what do you see that would be so difficult about putting them together?

Mr Johnson: Radios, for an example, just a simple thing of communications. Everybody has their own communications setup, so you would have to do away with six of them and keep one, and then you would have to have separate areas like the police have, because you can't transmit right across the whole of Metropolitan Toronto. The other part of it is that you seem to think that by taking away these individual chiefs and creating one chief -- one chief can't run a fire department of that size. He's going to need deputy chiefs or assistant deputies, whatever you want to call them, and you've already got that right now. You've already got chiefs in Scarborough, in Etobicoke, in North York and they're all doing that job. The work is being done and there's no problem with the service. They overlap when they have to overlap. If Scarborough has to go into North York or North York has to go into Scarborough, they do it every day.

Mr Hardeman: You don't see a saving, then, having one training centre for firefighters instead of four?

Mr Johnson: No. The training centres are already there.

Mr Hardeman: You don't see any savings that were achieved when they amalgamated and centralized the police services in Metro?

Mr Johnson: They didn't save money when they amalgamated the police. They're saving money now but they didn't save money in the initial amalgamation of the police.

Mr Hardeman: But you feel that was an appropriate action to take, to go to Metro policing?

Mr Johnson: Not necessarily.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Good evening, Mr Johnson. Good to see another one of my constituents down here today. I've been sitting in on the hearings, listening to all the presentations for and against. A couple that I want to mention to you and get your comments on -- one is a former politician and one is a current politician.

Tony O'Donohue spoke about the object of the entire exercise that's going on here being to find the best practices that are being conducted in each of the existing municipalities. Norm Kelly, the current Metro councillor for the Scarborough-Wexford area, said the problem with what is happening is that all six municipalities, with the exception of Metro, are acting efficiently and that that is the problem. He felt that through amalgamation the savings would be realized because everyone is doing a good job; we have six people doing a good job when one could do it. I'd like to get your thoughts on those two presentations.

Mr Johnson: I think he's right. I think we are doing a good job separately. The old story is, if it ain't broken, why do you want to try and fix it? Leave it alone.

Mr Newman: Okay. So you're happy with the status quo, then?

Mr Johnson: Quite.

Mr Newman: There's no need for change?

Mr Johnson: There might be some minor things, but nothing major, and that can be done through negotiations. It's not up to me to decide and it shouldn't be up to you guys to decide. It should be up to the people involved in the day-to-day stuff.

Mr Newman: Is there any advice that you could give us?

Mr Johnson: Yes, listen to the people. Let them have their say. You've already had people here ahead of me weeks ago telling you the same thing: Let the people understand what's going on, give them an opportunity, talk to the regions outside of Metropolitan Toronto and do it right if you're going to do it. Don't do it half-assed and screw it up. If you push it down somebody's throat, they're going to spit it back up at you because they're not going to like the taste of it.

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

LESLIE SOOBRIAN

The Chair: Would Leslie Soobrian please come forward? Good evening, sir. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Leslie Soobrian: Good evening, Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee. As you heard, my name is Leslie Soobrian. I appear before you this evening for the opportunity of occupying the next 10 minutes to support Bill 103.

I have been a resident of Metro Toronto for almost three decades. I have lived in the city of Toronto, in East York and Scarborough and finally moved to North York in 1974, where I've since resided. I have a family: a wife and two teenaged boys.

As a resident, a small businessman, a small landlord, a community worker and a sports administrator in Metro Toronto I have felt the inconvenience, experienced the frustration, witnessed the confusion, been hurt by poor services, been amazed at the waste and duplication, the relentless and irresponsible behaviour of some municipal politicians and local government. I think the time is right to act.

I am very angry. So are hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who are fed up with the many layers of government that contribute to the waste, duplication, added costs and inefficiency and too much bureaucracy of local government.

Those who oppose amalgamation are saying that it will increase costs and reduce services. As a businessman and an accountant, I understand all about fiscal responsibility and prudent management. As a taxpayer I have the right to demand such from my local government. I support Bill 103 because I believe that amalgamation will save money for taxpayers of Metro Toronto in a unified city in which services will be more accessible. One government will mean a simpler, more accountable, less confusing system of local government. Financial experts KPMG, a firm that is credible with a high reputation locally and internationally, predicts that up to $865 million could be saved over the first three years and $300 million annually from there on.

These are the some of the financial facts that I think the mayors and local politicians and those who oppose Bill 103 should be discussing with the public, rather than acting as scaremongers and trying to manipulate their local residents and special interest groups in an effort to save their jobs and to protect the status quo.

A unified city with 2.3 million people will create growth and strength. It will have more clout internationally, bringing investment to the area, boosting the local economy and creating jobs. We know the situation with our high unemployment today in Canada, and I think Metro Toronto can play a very important part in a unified government. If we set the infrastructure right, we can encourage investment into this province, into Metro Toronto, and lead the way to job recovery. That is something I think members of this committee should think about.

The benefits of streamlining in the new city of Toronto will be enjoyed by all its residents. Experience in other Ontario jurisdictions indicates that operating expenses can be reduced without any reduction in services. The artificial and invisible barriers between current municipalities will be removed while communities and neighbourhoods will be strengthened.

Some people are saying that we will lose our community, that the community will lose distinctiveness. I don't think so. I think our local community will continue to keep its distinctiveness.

2020

In 1966 we had amalgamation. The provincial government of the day reduced the number of municipalities from 13 to 6, creating the city of Toronto and the boroughs of North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, York and East York. Although the villages of Forest Hill, Swansea and Long Branch and the towns of New Toronto, Mimico, Weston and Leaside were gone as municipalities, they are very much alive today as vibrant and distinct communities.

History has proved, there is a track record to prove that amalgamation is an ongoing process. It's not here to destroy anything. It's here to create efficiency. It's here to improve the lives of people within the municipalities.

I can refer to some of those frustrations that I talked about earlier in my opening statement. As a businessman and a consultant, I have been dealing with city halls, I've been dealing with municipal governments with respect to zoning, with respect to the bylaws. I represent clients just starting a new business. If you want to open a small grocery store on the corner and you want to put up a sign, you have so much red tape to go through. That is not fair. Small business brings employment. Small business is responsible for employment in this province, and yet we create red tape to prevent them from operating efficiently.

Why do we need seven parks departments? As the president of the Commonwealth Cricket Association of Toronto, an organization that promotes cricket -- we have 40 clubs -- let me tell you something. We've been operating for 20 years and I've gone to all three levels of government: regional government, Metro and North York. We've been trying to get water pitchers on the playing field for 20 years, and you know what we have been told every time we ask? "It's Metro works," or, "It's Metro parks," or, "It's Metro Toronto," or, "It's North York." Nobody seems to have a clear jurisdiction in what they're doing. We have a confused system.

People today don't know who to approach for what. We don't have any clear definition. We don't have any clear direction. They all seem to be duplicating our efforts in the local governments. It's time we stopped that. Unifying the six municipalities indeed will save money, indeed will reduce duplication, indeed will cause less confusion, indeed will create a stronger and better Toronto for all of us, for our children, for our grandchildren to live in in the future.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Soobrian, I apologize, when you started, did you say you were an accountant?

Mr Soobrian: That's right.

Mr Kwinter: I just want to ask you about your comments on the KPMG report. You said the facts are that it'll save this money and that they are a very reputable firm; if they say it, it's fact. Is that what you said, more or less?

Mr Soobrian: It's a prediction. I said these are the facts in the prediction that should be discussed publicly. I don't think the opposition to Bill 103 has really gone out and looked into the KPMG figures.

Mr Kwinter: The reason I say that is we have Deloitte and Touche, another reputable firm, that virtually discounts what KPMG has said. If you are an accountant you know that if you were representing a client and you took that statement to the bank, they would throw you out because it's got a total qualification. They did no original research. All the figures were provided to them by the ministry. I had an assistant who had a favourite line. He said, "Consultants borrow your watch so they can tell you what time it is."

What they did is say to the government, "Give us the figures and we'll churn out something you can use." But there isn't anybody, and I say this with all respect, who is prepared to defend the KPMG study. There isn't anybody.

Mr Soobrian: They're two different reports and two different opinions, and I strongly believe in the KPMG report as you strongly believe in the Touche report.

Mr Kwinter: No, I don't. All I'm saying is that with the KPMG report there is nobody who is prepared to say this figure is correct. Even the government is not prepared to say it, although they say this is what they made their decision on. They said this is their research that justifies what they're doing, and there is no one outside the government, and with all due respect yourself, who think it's a valid document.

Mr Soobrian: I think it's a valid document --

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. I'm sorry, we've run out of time. I want to thank you for appearing here this evening.

SANDRA FLEAR

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Sandra Flear, please. Good evening, Ms Flear, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Sandra Flear: I brought a written statement. I don't do this very often so I'm a little bit nervous. I just want to say that I came today because I want to state my opposition to the amalgamation of the six cities and Metro Toronto into one city. Many of the problems of amalgamation have been raised already, so I am going to keep my deputation short and to one point. The point is about the responsibility of elected officials.

The point I want to make is that people are precious and fragile in many ways, and so are the places where they live. Anyone who has any power to affect these precious things has a burden and privilege of responsibility, and I'm sorely disappointed in the way the Ontario government has borne its responsibility. The reason I'm disappointed is that I don't think this government sees its position as a responsibility but as a position of power over others, and it is behaving irresponsibly because of this.

The way this irresponsibility shows up in this case is in an inability to really listen to people affected by the government's decisions. It is clear most people do not want amalgamation, so it should not be done. We are not in a crisis where things have to be done quickly. Good decisions are made slowly with much thought, discussion and experimentation.

I do not care if this government has only a limited amount of time in office to put in their agenda. This is not important. People's lives are important. I believe the only responsible thing this government can do is to stop Bill 103 and to continue from this point on with slowness, collaboration and care. Anything else I think forfeits the legitimacy of their position.

Mr Silipo: I won't use up all the remaining time, but I did want to ask Ms Flear a question. Would you agree that the government so far hasn't listened when the Speaker told the minister at least that what he was doing was inappropriate in terms of the flyer he sent out? The government seems not to have listened, although there's a mixed message there when the judge has told it that the appointment of the trustees was illegal. The government seems to be indicating it's not prepared to listen to the referendum results even if they clearly say no.

Ms Flear: Yes, I think that's the most obvious.

Mr Silipo: It seems to me they're going to be in a very untenable position as a government if they persist in that attitude if there is a clear objection by the voters, as we expect there will be next Monday. Would you agree that is the case?

Ms Flear: Yes, of course.

2030

Mr Silipo: I've been suggesting, and many others have as well, that the referenda results are perhaps the last remaining way in which not only can people who live in Metropolitan Toronto express their view and try to make their views known in a very clear way and put pressure on the government, but it also I think is the way the government can try to get itself out of the corner it has painted itself into.

Even if we were to leave aside all the rationale about why they're doing this and whether it's really because of the megacity or whether it's all connected to the downloading, as I believe it is, it seems to me that if they really have any kind of respect left at all for the democratic process and see any kind of sense themselves of not having, as you said, power over people but really having a responsibility towards the electorate, the referendum is also the way out for them in terms of saying, "We thought we were doing the right thing, but clearly people either don't understand or don't accept what we're doing, so we're going to stop what we've done and go back to the drawing board and take a look at the problems that have to be dealt with that many people have been telling us about as to the GTA coordination being the primary responsibility we should be tackling, and then within that look at what kind of sorting out of responsibilities we need to be doing at the local level."

Do you see that as a way in which the government could almost find a face-saving way out of this dilemma they've put themselves in, and more importantly put all of us in?

Ms Flear: I think they could save face in many ways. I think that just stating they want to reconsider it all -- I don't even think they need to have some excuse. That would give me a lot more respect for them. But if they feel they need to have some way to save face or whatever, yes, the referendum would be such a clear and easy way to do that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Flear, for appearing here this evening.

SEATON VILLAGE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Brian Mayes, please. Good evening, Mr Mayes, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Brian Mayes: I don't know if I can match the previous speaker's admirable brevity, but I will try.

My name is Brian Mayes. I am currently the co-chair of the Seaton Village Residents Association. I don't claim to speak on behalf of everyone who lives in our neighbourhood, but I think I'll give you what I see as an accurate reflection of the feeling in our neighbourhood. Seaton Village is a small neighbourhood in the city of Toronto bounded essentially by Dupont, Bathurst, Bloor and Christie and it lies within Mr Silipo's riding at present.

I will ask your indulgence. Normally I don't read comments, but I've just come from a 22-hour bargaining session for security workers of Metro Housing, a round of bargaining that's been much complicated by the introduction of Bill 103. I'm a bit not at my best, so I will read at least part of my presentation.

Certainly the people in Seaton Village are opposed to the amalgamation, I think largely around questions of democratic access. Right now we have easy access to our city and Metro councillors. Anyone who's gone down to the city of Toronto council knows that you can depute in front of committees but not in front of the council. Often you're waiting all day at the committees. There's enough of a backup simply at the city of Toronto council. I think there's a real fear about how much access there's going to be if we go to one megacity-wide council.

The people in Seaton Village are also opposed to the downloading of funding responsibilities. I think Seaton Village residents justifiably fear that a property tax increase produced by Metro's enormous tax deficit will be caused by the downloading. I think the fear is that if property taxes don't increase to cover that deficit, there is a genuine spectre of some American-style problems. We're already seeing the introduction of for-profit ambulance service in the province. I obviously have serious concerns about what's going to happen to some of the social housing buildings, given that the union I work for represents a lot of those workers.

In travelling around the city I also think about an area like the High Park area. This area has a strong sense of community. That sense of community will survive amalgamation, but can it survive the introduction of actual value assessment and the erosion of long-term health care?

Similarly, in an area like East York, people are rightfully concerned about the loss of local elected representatives and the threat to a well-established community, a community that will be hit by higher taxes, loss of services and a greater gap between the rich and the poor.

Finally, I was at a meeting in North York a few weeks ago where Gordon Chong, who is a Metro councillor at present, told residents not to worry because no megacity councillor would ever raise property taxes 18%, which is at least possibly what you might need to raise property taxes to cover off the downloading deficit.

Mr Chong is probably correct in that statement, but what does that mean? I think it means erosion of health care in the city, it means erosion of housing standards and it means erosion of public transportation. He's probably right in saying someone who wants to be re-elected isn't going to jack up your property taxes 18%, but it means you're going to see some serious cuts at the municipal level.

All that being considered, my sentiment is that I personally and Seaton Village residents are opposed to amalgamation. At least part of our role here is to suggest amendments to the legislation. If the amalgamation does go ahead, I feel it should be on the following basis:

(1) It should be on the basis of an open vote in the House, as we've seen on some important and controversial legislation in the past.

(2) Any offloading would be cost-neutral for Metro Toronto, not the current deficit that's going to be created. Some people say it's $300 million; some people say it's $800 million. Obviously, that's a penalty that's going to fall on Metro as a result of the downloading.

(3) I attended a meeting in December that Mr Gilchrist ran to talk about the introduction of this bill and at that time I said, "When will the boundaries be set, and why is it only 44 megacity councillors?" The answer seemed to hinge around, "We've got to build off the federal ridings."

I don't think it was ever adequately explained to me why it was 44. Why not, say, 66? That I think would help address some of people's concerns about the loss of democratic -- instead of representing 50,000 people, you'd represent 30,000 people, to round off the numbers. Maybe that should be a transitional thing for an election or two. Certainly, Winnipeg, as it merged in 1971, had a larger city council than it does now. It has gradually shrunk the number of councillors. God knows, there's going to be a lot of work for whoever's elected to that first council in terms of the transitional arrangements.

Everyone I've talked to has said, "They'll really have to staff up, these councillors, if there's going to be 44 of them." If some of the money can go towards having more elected people, that's preferable than simply having additional staff budgets.

As a final note, I was struck by this bargaining I was involved in over the last 22 hours for Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, struck by what the tenants there will face, which is that they've already had a cut in their social assistance in the past year and now they're looking at a cut in the housing stock and in the repair budget for that housing. The people I was bargaining for do security there. We've been told these may be the first people to go. I don't think that's why this government was elected.

What is the spectre that raises? Loss of security, loss of repair to these buildings, loss of income to these people. I think the spectre is a very dangerous one and the potential is towards the kind of downtown you see in some of the larger American cities.

That concludes my comments.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have just a couple of questions. You talked about the representation and why 44. I wasn't sure I caught it. Were you suggesting that, even staying with the boundaries, increasing that to 66 would better serve the people of the area, to have 66 politicians doing the job?

Mr Mayes: I think the explanation we've heard is that right now there are 106 municipal politicians and we need a smaller number. There's no magic to 44. There were 23 federal ridings before the current redistribution. Now there are going to be 22. If you'd done this legislation a year ago, you'd have been talking about 46 instead of 44. Similarly, as the feds redistribute each time, the boundaries are going to shift around. There's no magic to 44, I would suggest.

Mr Hardeman: I would suggest maybe there's no magic to 44, but I guess the issue is of fair and equitable representation and accessible representation. If you go to Mississauga, every councillor in Mississauga represents 64,000 people, which is 14,000 people more than would be represented by a representative on the 44-member council.

Mr Mayes: The number in North Bay is probably smaller.

Mr Hardeman: Incidentally, they also serve on the regional council; they serve in both capacities. So far we haven't had a lot of residents from Mississauga suggesting we should double the size of their council or someone should double the size. No one seems to be asking for more representation. I'm just curious why you would feel that would be different in Metro than it would be in other jurisdictions.

Mr Mayes: Clearly, you're not talking about going from 106 up; you're talking about going from 106 down. So whether you go down to 44 or down to 66 and base it on the existing federal riding boundaries is obviously the issue in discussion. We're not talking about Mississauga, "Let's arbitrarily increase the number of municipal politicians." In Metro Toronto you're talking about a reduction. I think the issue is, in a public policy sense, what is the wise number to reduce to?

2040

Mr Hardeman: On Tte other issue, the realignment of services, in your opinion, what part of creating a unicity impacts the realignment of services? Obviously, it's happening at the same time, but what, in your opinion, would make the realignment of services different if the unicity proposal was not being debated presently?

Mr Mayes: One could argue that amalgamating will save or one could argue that amalgamating, pure and simple, will increase, but that's frankly an academic debate in this context. This bill is going on with a downloading of funding. It would be an interesting academic debate, and that's being engaged in by some people, but my concern is with the actual announcements around ambulance and long-term care and social housing, those sorts of things.

Mr Hardeman: It's fair to say then that the debate on Bill 103 is not the realignment of services; it's about the amalgamation. If we separate the two, would your people still be opposed to Bill 103?

Mr Mayes: It is hard to separate the two. As I said, there's certainly a concern about loss of access to a local elected official and I think there is concern about a council that's going to have 44 people for the whole of the Metro area. If you're asking, "If the downloading weren't happening, would people feel somewhat differently?" it's an academic question, I guess.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for being here tonight, Mr Mayes. We appreciate your coming.

TED BUTLER

The Vice-Chair: Ted Butler. Good evening, Mr Butler, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Ted Butler: I am appreciative of the time that has been allotted to me tonight to come here, and I come here as a resident of the city of York, a constituent of MPP Mike Colle, and as a supporter of the government's plan to amalgamate the six Metro municipalities into one city, the city of Toronto.

This new megacity, or to use the Toronto Star's term, supercity, for me is a natural progression for the Toronto area, its evolution. Clearly, it is taking our existing operations and making them better. I think that all concerned will admit that our current system is far from perfect, and so much has changed since the first Metro government was put together in the 1960's. At the time, Metro was a very ambitious concept and the plan had to overcome much scepticism, as is the case with the government's plan today.

Consider how much has changed in the Toronto area in the years since Metro's inception. The population has grown exponentially, the need for roads has increased, as well as the need for public transit. The 401 is now a 16-lane highway. It was intended to be a bypass around Toronto. There are three and a half more subway lines now than back then, and none of today's great downtown skyscrapers were built yet, let alone the major office towers in North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke. No SkyDome, no CN Tower, no convention centre, no National Trade Centre, no Ontario Place.

There were no calculators, let alone computers on the desks of city staff, no voice mail -- maybe that's the way it still should be -- no cell phones, no fax machines, no e-mail and no Internet. All of these tools, good or bad, are here to stay, and over the past 20 years these tools have facilitated a revolution in the way business is done. These tools allow us to do more with less.

In the early 1990s many corporations were forced to realize that we are living in the post-industrial era and that in order to continue as viable businesses, major changes had to occur. Articles about corporate restructuring have dominated business publications for the past few years. They are full of anecdotes outlining the how-to and what-to, and what we should expect in the process. But they all seem to maintain one common thought, and that is, no matter how painful it is, companies must evaluate and improve their business practices in order to survive in today's competitive environment.

What does this have to do with Bill 103? What Bill 103 is offering us is opportunity. It is the opportunity to improve our current system. The province and the municipalities were not adhering to sound financial management for much of the last 10 years, and as the government of the day makes its run at good financial management, it has become clear that the structure of municipal government must change in order to provide its customers with sound financial management practices.

As Mel Lastman said in 1983: "We look like idiots not amalgamating. Why do we have all these works 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."

In September 1983 in the same newspaper, the Toronto Star, Lastman was quoted as saying that he had done a lot of soul-searching lately and had come to the conclusion that it was ridiculous to have six fire departments, six works departments and six of everything else in Metro Toronto.

Thus we arrive at this day 14 years later, preparing to go forward and improve the structure of municipal government in the Toronto area. I believe that we must attempt to change. Past governments have spent a lot of time and money analysing the concept, but nothing came of those past efforts. We are now at the point of committing ourselves to the plan that is outlined in Bill 103. We can release ourselves from this state of analysis paralysis and go forward, because the fact is that if we do not seize the opportunity and go forward and change today, we'll be faced with having to do it tomorrow.

It seems that those most vehemently opposed to amalgamation were at one time great supporters of the concept. My own MPP, Mr Mike Colle, was at one time the chairman of a group called Reform York. The goal of this group was to amalgamate York and East York with Toronto and some of North York into one Metro borough called Greater York. In October 1983, as a member of York council, Mr Colle was the only supporter of a motion that was defeated 9-1 to amalgamate York with North York and Scarborough. In the 14 years elapsed since then, Mr Colle, I cannot see what has happened to change your mind. What has changed since April 10, 1982, when you said to the Globe and Mail that York should be disbanded "because we find our taxes are the highest in Metro and our services, if not the worst, are among the worst in Metro"?

I bought a house three blocks to the north of Mike Colle in March 1994 and I feel the same way now as he did back in the 1980s. I appreciate the level of effort that the city of York staff puts out. I find them hardworking, courteous and professional, but they are fighting a war they cannot win without money or access to it. Why is it that when I walk to the bottom of my street to buy my groceries or enjoy a meal at any one of the friendly restaurants along St Clair Avenue, the dollars I'm spending are not supporting my community? No, I'm wrong. They're supporting my community; they're not supporting my municipality. In a united Toronto I wouldn't have this problem. By extension, maybe we could solve the problem of areas such as Oakwood and Vaughan by giving them access to the greater tax base that would exist instead of the dwindling resources the city of York has to devote to such problem areas.

Among the many interesting pieces of information that Mike Colle sends around to my home is how to appeal your property taxes, a service that he offers through his constituency office. As an aside, I wonder how vocal Mr Colle is around the caucus table when it comes to criticizing Mr Eves's tax cuts. For my money, Mr Colle has put more money in the hands of my neighbours than any politician at Queen's Park today. I fail to see the value in encouraging people paying only $2,000 a year in property tax to the municipality with the lowest assessment rolls in Metro to appeal their tax rates.

I received this piece of literature at my home today, outlining the problems with Bill 103. This piece of literature is a reminder of what is for me one of the weaknesses of party politics: the concept of opposition for the sake of opposition. For me, Bill 103 is in its initial draft. It's not perfect and I'm sure that the minister, in his wisdom, will make amendments to the main body of the bill as a result of the ideas brought forth by these hearings. After all, that's why we are here tonight.

I have already outlined what a strong supporter and what a crusader Mike Colle was when it came to the concept of amalgamation. Why then would he use his party money or his money as an allowance of the Legislature to mislead constituents such as myself about the concepts of Bill 103? The least he could do is offer us an alternative, much as he did 14 years ago. But then again, perhaps he's just disappointed that he ran for the wrong party, or maybe he's just another flip-flopping Liberal.

2050

My time for speaking is coming to an end and l would like to make one more point. As l said before, we're on the verge of making big changes to the business practices of this city. Should this legislation pass, all of us will be asked to make some adjustments. Let us maintain the belief that we are making life better for those who follow us. We should aspire to leave behind a system that will serve the citizens well for years to come and provide them with a system that in time they will improve on, as we are improving ours.

Finally, the time has come for us to accept the responsibility of moving forward. Let's make the improvements to the bill presented to us today and get on with it. If we at least start, we can always come back and tinker with it later, and everyone in this room knows that we will. Thank you.

Mr Sergio: Thank you for coming down and making a presentation to our committee, Mr Butler. You said that if we don't do it now, if we don't do it right, we'll never do it. But you also said --

Mr Butler: No, I didn't say that.

Mr Sergio: Not in those words, but you said that we've got to do it now, right?

Mr Butler: Now is the time.

Mr Sergio: You want to do it right, right?

Mr Butler: Let's go, let's do it.

Mr Sergio: Let's go. Also, at the beginning of your presentation you said that we've got to make some changes, right?

Mr Butler: Yes.

Mr Sergio: Are you saying then that we should halt what we are doing, get this bill back on the drawing board, let's plan it right? What you're saying to us is --

Mr Butler: No, I didn't say that at all.

Mr Sergio: Hold it a second --

Mr Butler: Is there a question?

Mr Sergio: Yes, it's coming. If we don't do it right, you say we're going to come back and tinker with it. Wouldn't you want to do it right the first time?

Mr Butler: Do we ever do anything absolutely right the first time? Everything we've ever done in this country is perfectly right? How many provinces started out in Confederation, four or 10?

Mr Sergio: I'm asking the question, wouldn't you want to do it right the first time?

Mr Butler: I'll take this as a start. I'm happy with a start.

Mr Sergio: But then we're doing it wrong, aren't we?

Mr Butler: Was Rome built in a day?

Mr Sergio: To me it doesn't make any sense that we have a huge opportunity -- you, the government, everybody -- to do it and do it right. We agree as well that we've got to make some changes. We do agree with that.

Mr Butler: I think you missed the first thing I said, that I'm a supporter of the bill, so in that case I would agree then that it's right. Maybe there are a few minor changes we could make, but --

Mr Sergio: I see. Such as? What kind of changes would you make?

Mr Butler: Offhand I'm not an expert on it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Dan Newman): Your 10 minutes are up, Mr Butler. Thank you very much for appearing before the committee.

MARK RUBIN

The Acting Chair: The next presenter is Mark Rubin. Good evening, Mr Rubin.

Mr Mark Rubin: My thanks to the committee members who are still here. I hope that copies of my remarks will reach the several absent members. I know I'm last on the agenda. I know we're running a bit late so I'll try to be swift.

My name is Mark Rubin. I live in Etobicoke. I'm a small business owner. I have three children. I have no affiliations with any political party or group. I do, however, share the very serious concerns of a great many citizens about Bill 103 and about many of the other recent government initiatives as well.

I came to Toronto 29 years ago to attend the photo arts program at Ryerson, and one of the reasons I chose Ryerson was because I was so favourably impressed with the city of Toronto when I first visited to check things out. Having been born and raised in Detroit, my first impressions of Toronto were typical of virtually all Americans who visit here: a real amazement at the city's cleanliness, safeness and vitality. Once I was living here my appreciation of Toronto, of Ontario and of Canada grew and grew, to the point where I chose to remain here permanently after my studies were completed. I became a Canadian citizen as soon as possible and I have lived and worked in Metropolitan Toronto ever since.

As a former American and former resident of Detroit, surely one of the saddest and least functional of all North American cities, I have always been really interested in analysing and trying to understand just what it was that made Toronto so much better in so many ways, and the longer I've lived here the more I've come to feel that out of the many positive factors working in Toronto's favour, one of the most significant has simply been good local government.

Certainly in Detroit, and in at least the majority of other American cities as well, the dominant feeling about city government was that it was something that was really remote, something that was pretty well irrelevant to most people's lives, something that was almost totally ineffective and something that was probably totally corrupt. City politics just wasn't something that very many people knew much about or cared much about, and it certainly wasn't something that anyone in their right mind would ever try to do anything about.

You can imagine my surprise, as a newcomer to Toronto, to discover how different things were here. Toronto's city politics, in very marked contrast to Detroit's, aroused a great deal of public interest. It included a great deal of public involvement. It was very relevant, was treated very seriously and, most significantly of all, it was very accessible.

City politicians in Detroit really existed in their own cloistered little world. You didn't know any of them and, what's more, you really didn't want to know any of them. Toronto's city politicians, on the other hand, were our neighbours. They were people one did get to know, and they were people who actually could be and frequently were reached and communicated with by average citizens like me. It was this sense of accessibility, above all else, that initially impressed me the most about Toronto's city politics. It is this sense of accessibility that has continued to impress me as one of the more positive and distinctive aspects of life in Metropolitan Toronto, and it is this sense of accessibility that will almost certainly be lost in the proposed megacity.

This is the most basic reason why I feel amalgamation is such a bad idea. Within a larger, more centralized government, there is just no way that the average resident like me will be able to feel the same sense of connection.

As for the myriad other issues surrounding the amalgamation debate, I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs. Will it really save money? The government tells me it will; many others tell me it won't. Will it really be more efficient? The government tells me it will. Many others tell me it won't. Will it really be good for the residents, for the region and for the province?

It's certainly all quite complex and confusing, but within this confusion two islands of clarity stand out. The first is that the government has certainly not presented the least shred of evidence or logic that would justify the major changes it is proposing and the major risks that these changes represent. The second clear conclusion is that even if amalgamation did save money and even if it did work more efficiently, we would still, at the very least and to a very significant extent, lose our sense of accessibility, lose our sense of connectedness and relevance, lose our sense of community. These, to my mind, would be losses that would far outweigh even the most optimistic of the government's hoped-for gains.

I realize of course that my objections focus on intangibles, and if there is anything that can be said with certainty about the present government, it's that it does not have a very good handle on intangibles. It really seems that for this government quality of life is a totally foreign concept.

It's exactly the same whether the issue is government, education, health, social services, long-term care, child care -- the list goes on and on. Every government initiative that has been brought forward in every one of these crucial areas seems to be guided by one principle and one principle only, and that of course is deficit reduction. Of course the government does throw in all the right words -- "better," "fairer," "more efficient" etc -- but the only word that it really seems to have any true understanding of or interest in is "cheaper."

The government really seems to have absolutely no concern about and indeed no clue about the seemingly obvious fact that drastic spending reductions must have and will have drastic social consequences, and that drastic social consequences must and will bring serious long-term economic costs; in short, that if we ignore social issues now, the few dollars we save today will cost us many times those few dollars down the road. Yet, in blindly following its overly simplistic agenda, the government either ignores or really is oblivious to this simple and very crucial fact.

In closing, I would offer the government these final few observations and predictions.

My observations are, first, that a lot of people who voted for this government in the last election have already realized that the PC Party now in power bears little or no resemblance to the PC Party that governed the province in previous years with honour, moderation and reasonableness.

My second observation is that a lot of people like me, who have never before been very politically active, are now becoming seriously concerned with the government's direction, seriously angry about the government's tactics and seriously motivated to get involved.

For my own sake, my children's sake and indeed the entire province's sake, I really would like nothing better than to be shown that my concerns and anger are misplaced. To do this the government would simply have to slow way down, ease way up and demonstrate that it is indeed listening to and heeding the many calls to reason that are currently being shouted from so many different directions.

But if the government does not heed these calls, if it continues hastily pushing through its agenda -- in short, if the government continues to stay its current arrogant, shortsighted and very confrontational course -- then I would offer the following very sure bets.

My first bet is that a great many of the people who still support you today will soon come to realize that even if they still agree with you in principle, the way you are going about things is hopelessly ill advised and counterproductive.

My second sure bet is that people like me will be part of an unprecedented public groundswell of opposition to your government, that we will fight your bad initiatives in every conceivable way possible, that we will work very hard to make sure that your government is thoroughly repudiated in the next election and that the result for the Tories will make the Tory showing in the last federal election look like a landslide.

My third sure bet is that the first order of business for the next provincial government will be to try to undo at least the worst of the damage that your government will have done.

My final and surest bet of all is that all of the present government members, and particularly those who have meekly followed their government's leadership without so much as a dissenting murmur or independent thought, will have the distinction of being forever after known as having been willing and obedient cogs in what history will surely remember as Ontario's worst, most divisive and most destructive government ever.

Mr Silipo: Just very briefly, Mr Rubin, do you see that the referendum results on Monday, if they are as we expect them to be, based on the polls, opposed to the megacity, give the government an opportunity to say: "Whoa, prepare to roll back. We've made a major mistake here"? Is that sort of the last opportunity the government has to be able to respond and to deal effectively with this issue?

Mr Rubin: If there is a clear indication in the referendum, along with all the other voices that have been raised, many coming from former Conservatives, although not as many of those as I would have hoped, yes, I hope the government will take this opportunity to really rethink and go back, not just make a few amendments and a few concessions but really go way back and think this thing through properly.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Rubin, for coming tonight.

This committee stands adjourned until Monday morning, March 3, at 9 o'clock.

The committee adjourned at 2104.