Committee Transcript 1997-Mar-03 | 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.

RUSSELL HIGGINS

The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government.

Our first witness this morning is Mr Russell Higgins. Good morning, Mr Higgins. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes this morning to make your presentation. If there is some time left at the end of your presentation, I'll ask the Liberal caucus to perhaps ask some questions.

Mr Russell Higgins: Good morning and thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Russell Higgins. I'm a resident of the borough of East York. I'm here today to support the amalgamation of the seven Metro area governments into one. What I'm going to talk about this morning are specific examples that we've encountered over the last 30 years in the province.

I am president of Mandarin Creek Developments Ltd, which is a land development company based in North York. We are primarily developers in smaller communities throughout the province. We have an associated family engineering firm, Higgins Engineering Ltd, and over the two companies there's been about 30 years of experience within our family developing within the province. Over that time we've come across numerous examples of problems with service delivery due to political boundaries, and that's going to be the focus of what I want to chat about this morning.

Specifically, I want to take two examples we've come across in the last five years where political boundaries have negatively impacted the delivery of services between municipalities. Although these are smaller municipalities and at first the connection to the Metro amalgamation may not be obvious, at the end I'd like to tie it together and show how the principles that cause problems in delivery of services in smaller municipalities can also be applied to the Metro case.

The first example I'd like to take is in the township of Erin, about 25 minutes north of Brampton, and in this case the service in question is water delivery, potable water for the homeowners who turn on their drinking taps. In this case the problem was that the subdivision we were developing, about a 40-lot subdivision located in the township, abutted the village of Erin, which was and is a separate municipality.

The water system in the village had recently been upgraded, thanks in large part to the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which had paid almost 80% of the cost of a new water tower within the village. That water tower was a couple of years old when we approached the village and asked to hook up to it because it made a lot of sense from an engineering standpoint to have our subdivision connected to the water system next door. The actual hookup was less than 1,000 feet from our subdivision.

We were turned down by the village council. We approached them and offered them the sum of $220,000 to connect to the system. The reason that number was chosen was that the village had identified well points at other locations within the village which they had drilled and tested but didn't have the financial wherewithal to develop. The $220,000 was the amount of money it would cost to develop one of these wells for connection to the village system and upgrade of the village system. It would have resulted in about 250 housing units being able to be developed or supplemented within the village, of which we would need 40, for a net benefit of about 200 units to the village.

The reason we were turned down was strictly political, and I was told that by the then and current reeve of the village, Terry Mundell, who also happens to be the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario right now. What Mr Mundell told me was that the village council -- it was the decision of council, not Mr Mundell -- did not want to create a precedent of selling water to a neighbouring municipality. But for the political boundary, we would have been amalgamated to the village system.

Today we have a situation in Erin where there are three separate water systems within 1,000 feet of each other. There is our own system, which we ended up building on our own because we weren't allowed to connect to the village system. We built it at a cost of about $300,000. There's a 40-year-old system across the road which is inadequate in that it doesn't provide fire flows to the residents in that subdivision. It's called the Mountainview subdivision. That system has safety issues concerned with it because they don't have fire protection. And then there's the village system. You end up with three systems 1,000 feet from each other due to a political boundary.

The second example I'd like to cite is in the town of Lindsay, Ontario. We're in a strikingly similar situation in Lindsay which we've been dealing with for the past three years. In the Lindsay case there is an existing 40-year-old subdivision, again 40 years by coincidence, that we're not involved with but we do own lands close to that subdivision in the township. Again, we are seeking services to be extended from the town of Lindsay into the township of Ops. As in the Erin township/Erin village situation, the township of Ops completely surrounds the town of Lindsay.

Lindsay is the service provider and it has the services which we need and which this existing subdivision needs. The existing subdivision has its own septic/sewage lagoon system and its own septic/water system. Both are inadequate. The water system again does not provide fire flows and the sewage system is failing. They've had backups where people have actually had sewage back up into their basements.

Again, the political boundary is what prevents this from being amalgamated with the town system. The town has had a policy of not extending services beyond its municipal boundary.

The other thing going on in Lindsay is that growth has been stifled over the last 10 years because of the inability to construct what's known as the northwest trunk sanitary sewer, which is a sewer which is going to run through Ops township and back into Lindsay due to the topography of the land. Over the last three municipal councils in Lindsay, they have been unable to reach an agreement to build this sewer, mainly because most of the land owners who would hook up to the sewer on the downstream portion are within the township and therefore aren't entitled to the services.

Now, these are small towns and some of you may ask what that's got to do with Toronto. The principle involved here is that the delivery of municipal services is being impeded by a political boundary, and that political boundary is an artificial boundary which divides, in both cases, watersheds.

We have a similar situation in Toronto where for all intents and purposes most of the municipal services which we as residents receive are Metro-wide. I've read recently that something like 72% of the tax dollars that Metro area residents spend on municipal services go to the Metro level of services, such as police and some Metro roads and all the other services that are bundled under the Metro umbrella. The remaining services which are not amalgamated, fire and some planning services within the individual municipalities in Metro, should, according to our experience, also be amalgamated.

If you're going to take the step to amalgamate all of these services and have one bureaucracy looking after these services, there is really no need to have seven different political machines looking after essentially one set of services that should be delivered from one body. That's the parallel I'd just like to draw together for you here today.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Thank you very much for coming down to make a presentation. I really enjoyed it because it's a bit refreshing from all other presentations which we have had. I get from your presentation that small municipalities are or will be affected by the megacity legislation as well.

Mr Higgins: No, I don't think they will. The bill, as I understand it, strictly deals with the amalgamation of the six municipalities within Metro. We would certainly like to see it extended to smaller municipalities throughout the county system.

Mr Sergio: I say that because over the weekend we have had a number of people -- I was at a couple of meetings -- telling us that yes, small municipalities will be affected as well by the ramifications of the megacity legislation.

But let me point out another one to you: King township, the town of Nobleton, for example. They've been lacking storm sewers for many years and development has been halted because of that particular reason. Do you think that in amalgamating with other local municipalities King is going to get that service?

Mr Higgins: I can't comment on the specific example because I don't know anything about it but as a general rule -- just very quickly, we're involved in another situation in St Thomas, Ontario, where although we're in separate municipalities, the level of cooperation has been quite high between the municipalities. None the less, it's taken us three and half years to get the necessary approvals for a piece of land that was already designated for development, about double what it should have taken.

The Chair: Sorry, we've come to the end of your time. Thank you, Mr Higgins, for coming forward and making your presentation to us this morning.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS

The Chair: Would Mark Anshan please come forward. Good morning, Mr Anshan. I understand you have some others who will appear with you. You have 15 minutes this morning to make a presentation. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves before you begin speaking, for the benefit of Hansard.

Mr Mark Anshan: My name is Mark S. Anshan, and I'm chair of the City of York Hydro-Electric Commission. Next to me is Carl Anderson, chair of North York Hydro. I'm appearing on behalf of the six Metropolitan Toronto electricity utilities and as chair of the recently formed Metropolitan Toronto Inter-Utility Commissioners Committee. In addition to Mr Anderson, there are a number of other commissioners from the six utilities, together with their chairs or their designates from the six utilities, including Vice-Chair Kathy Chant from Toronto Hydro, Chair Bob Currie of East York Hydro, Chair Doug Beatty of Scarborough Public Utilities Commission, and Chair John Alati of Etobicoke Hydro.

The six Metropolitan Toronto electricity commissioners are appearing before this standing committee on a without-prejudice basis in regard to our individual views relating to the merits of amalgamation of the utilities as set out in Bill 103. Our appearance is not to be construed as either support for or opposition to the proposed amalgamation. Acting in concert, we have chosen not to express an opinion on that matter. Rather, in recognition of the policy established in Bill 103 and in the interests of our customers and employees, we wish to ensure that the proposed amalgamation, if implemented, be done effectively and efficiently.

One of the results of the proposed amalgamation of Toronto, East York, York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York into one city would be the formation of a single electricity distribution utility called the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission. The newly formed utility would comprise the six public utility commissions that currently exist in the municipalities and will serve 655,000 customers. It would be the fourth largest electricity utility in Canada, after Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec and BC Hydro. It would be larger than most of Canada's provincial electricity utilities and serve the largest energy market in the country. Revenues of almost $2 billion per year will be generated through the sale of electricity.

Immediately following the first reading of Bill 103 on December 17, 1996, the commissioners and senior staff at the six utilities put procedures in place to facilitate a smooth and efficient amalgamation in the event that Bill 103 is passed. The commissioners believe that it is their responsibility to do the utmost to ensure that the best interests of our customers are protected and that the interests of our dedicated employees are considered fully during the transition. To these ends, we have formed joint committees at the commission and senior staff levels. We have drafted proposed amendments to Bill 103 that will improve the bill and help to achieve the successful organization of the new utility. The six commissions are unanimous in their support for these amendments.

In addition, we have created a number of interutility subcommittees that are considering how best to achieve the consolidation of all operational and capital infrastructure matters, including human resources activities, technical needs relating to the control of the six distribution systems, communications, public affairs, information systems and other related administrative and operating functions.

We wish to advise the standing committee that the public utility commissions are addressing the many practical issues involved in a merger of this size and that we will continue our efforts to achieve the results that the government is seeking through Bill 103. We are presently discussing with the government the possibility of having a process whereby the utilities will be directly involved in the coordination of the amalgamation. The final details are still to be worked out by the commissions.

It is important to note that in addition to amalgamation, the Metropolitan Toronto public utility commissions are preparing for the restructuring of Ontario's electricity industry as recommended by the Macdonald committee on the introduction of competition into Ontario's electricity industry. We anticipate that commercialization of the industry will take place in the near future and that some degree of competition will be introduced at the electricity generation and distribution levels.

We anticipate this change, but we require an amendment to Bill 103 that will provide the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission with the "powers of a natural person." This amendment will provide the utility with the ability to engage in commercial activities such as energy management, cogeneration and environmental management while exercising privileges and powers granted under the Public Utilities Act and Power Corporation Act.

0920

At present, a hydro-electric commission in Ontario is restricted in the activities it may undertake to those permitted in its enabling legislation. However, commercial corporations with the powers of a natural person are not so restricted. For example, a corporation such as Consumers' Gas may engage in any commercial activity and may also exercise privileges and powers granted under the Public Utilities Act, Municipal Franchises Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Hydro-electric commissions in Metropolitan Toronto are already being requested by their customers to undertake activities and business ventures that are beyond the powers granted in their enabling legislation. As the government introduces competition into the sale of electric power and energy, new business challenges and opportunities will arise. If the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, the fourth largest electric utility in Canada, is to be able to take advantage of these new opportunities and compete effectively in a businesslike manner, it requires greater flexibility in its operations and financing arrangements.

The recommended amendment adding the powers of a natural person to the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission will provide the greater operational and financial flexibility required by the utility.

In seeking the powers of a natural person, we acknowledge that such powers will be subject to existing legislation and changes that the government introduces in respect to the Macdonald committee report. However, it should be emphasized that the Macdonald committee proposed that such powers be granted to utilities in recommending that distribution utilities be given all the powers of a corporate body under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Our proposed amendment is set out in the written portion of this statement, which has been distributed to the standing committee, or it will be shortly after my presentation.

The composition of the existing six commissions varies from utility to utility. The mayors of each municipality or his/her designate from council are members in each case. However, some utilities fill the balance of their commissions through the municipal elections process, while others have their members appointed by their respective city councils, and in some cases Ontario Hydro appoints one member to the commission as well.

While there are advantages to each of the above methods, we believe that the elected members of the new city council, who will be representing an average of 50,000 constituents each, will not be able to devote sufficient attention to the responsibilities of the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission. The commission will be responsible for a $2-billion corporation operating in a competitive and turbulent energy marketplace. The scale of the utility's operations will require a large commission, and we are recommending that the number of commissioners be seven or nine members.

All of the existing utilities have a majority of citizen members, as opposed to council members, serving on their commissions. In addition, there is a strong tie to city council either through the mayors or their designates. This system has worked extremely well and therefore we recommend that the mayor or mayor's designate from council continue to sit on the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, but that the remaining six or eight commissioners not be members of council but shall be appointed by the council and shall be residents of the new city, eligible to vote in municipal elections. This will ensure that the commissioners have the resources to enable them to devote an appropriate amount of time and attention to the complex business of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission. Again, our proposed amendment is set out in the written portion of this statement.

The electricity segment of Ontario's public utility commissions is regulated by Ontario Hydro through the authority of the Power Corporation Act and Public Utilities Act. Each year, Ontario Hydro formally approves the budgets and retail electricity rates of each utility and has wide-ranging legal authority over the financial activities of the utilities. The 1997 electricity utility budgets and retail rates were approved by Ontario Hydro in December 1996 and took effect on January 1, 1997.

Ontario Hydro exercises its authority. For example, Ontario Hydro approves each utility's capital budget and any borrowing requirements. Also, Toronto Hydro was required to obtain Ontario Hydro approval recently prior to proceeding with the acquisition of land to build a service centre facility at 500 Commissioners Street in Toronto, as one example. Ontario Hydro approved the financial expenditures for commission facilities built recently by North York Hydro and Scarborough Hydro. The utilities cannot dispose of properties without Ontario Hydro approval, and Ontario Hydro enforces its authority consistently in its relations with the utilities.

The application of utility rates to individual customer circumstances and the rules for the maintenance of accounts are two other areas of Ontario Hydro regulation of municipal electric utilities.

It is clear that the affairs of the public utility commissions are effectively regulated by Ontario Hydro. Therefore, we recommend that sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Bill 103 regarding trusteeship not apply to the public utility commissions. Again, our proposed amendment is set out in the written portion of this statement. In addition to the three proposed amendments, we also wish to put on record our views relating to the composition of the transition team, which we are also discussing directly with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The once conservative electricity industry is now recognized as one of the most turbulent business sectors in the world. Industry reform is well under way in Britain and Australia, and every jurisdiction in the United States is facing mounting pressure to open electricity markets to competition. It is commonly acknowledged that Canada, and particularly Ontario, cannot sustain the present closed-market regulatory regime.

The public utility commissions in Metropolitan Toronto are already facing competition on several fronts. Large commercial and industrial customers now have alternatives to electricity to meet their cooling requirements, and many are interested in cogeneration facilities that will reduce their energy costs. Downtown, district steam heating and cooling are competitive and available to developers. Customers are seeking choice and lower costs. We believe that industry restructuring will meet both these needs.

The new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission will serve the largest electricity retail market in Canada, a market that will attract many energy services suppliers and one that will offer real choice to consumers. Unlike the other municipal public works that will be amalgamated, the electricity utilities are facing complex technical and business challenges that require careful consideration during the transition phase envisioned in Bill 103. The transition team will have to be mindful that amalgamation of the commissions is taking place in the context of the profound restructuring of the multibillion-dollar provincial electricity marketplace. Therefore, we are recommending that the government appoint a person with knowledge of and experience in the electricity industry to the Bill 103 transition team.

We are discussing with the government the possibilities of having a process whereby the utilities will be directly involved in the coordination of the amalgamation. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the final details are still being discussed by our commissions.

Thank you, Mr Chairman and committee, for your consideration this morning.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Thank you for your presentation. I think it's important that the committee hears of some of the complexities of restructuring which would have to happen if the bill is passed.

I would assume, given what you've said and the common ground around the need for further competition, that changes to the system are going to come. There are differences in opinion as to how that should work, but I believe everybody pretty well agrees that competition is coming. I would assume, because you stated at the outset, that you are not for or against amalgamation per se, but you believe that some of these changes are necessary whether or not there is amalgamation? You would be asking for specific changes even if the government were not proposing amalgamation?

Mr Anshan: In fact, we already have through the submissions to the Macdonald committee. Our industry in Ontario has been very clear about the changes we would like to see within the restructuring of the electricity system in Ontario, absolutely. That's a matter of public record.

Ms Churley: Is it your position that the amalgamation of the six cities would enhance or hinder or make any difference whatsoever in terms of restructuring?

Mr Anshan: Of the utilities?

Ms Churley: Yes.

Mr Anshan: I don't think it's clear in terms of the evidence that's on the public record as to whether or not we can answer that question with any degree of expertise. In terms of the utilities themselves, we believe that needs to be handled as a separate matter, separate and apart from any amalgamation of the municipal governments, because of the nature of the industry and the details that I have been trying to express this morning.

Ms Churley: I wanted to clarify one point that you made. You said that if amalgamation proceeds, because you're already regulated by Ontario Hydro, you would like to see an amendment in the bill that exempts you from being under the trustees.

0930

Mr Anshan: That's right. Right now, as we view it, there's a real conflict between the trusteeship powers in Bill 103 and the existing regulatory powers under the Power Corporation Act that Ontario Hydro exercises over the utilities in Ontario. Notwithstanding that there's a conflict-of-interest provision in Bill 103 to say that wherever there's a conflict, 103 prevails, it's our view and the view of some of our legal advisers that there still will be potential conflicts between the existing regulatory regime and 103.

In the time frame in which this is going to happen, during transition in 1997, we would like to avoid those conflicts and continue our business. The regulation of Ontario Hydro has already proceeded. As I've indicated, they've already approved our budgets and rates for 1997, so we're already into it and there's not much more that we're going to be making in terms of major decisions in 1997 that have not already been made in the approval of our budgets.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this morning.

TORONTO REAL ESTATE BOARD

The Chair: Would John Vail please come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes this morning to make your presentation. I'd appreciate it if you would identify yourselves at the beginning for the purposes of Hansard.

Mr John Vail: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Vail. I am a member of the board of directors of the Toronto Real Estate Board, commonly known as TREB, and municipal chair of its government relations committee. With me today are Fareed Khan, the board's policy adviser for government and legislative affairs, and Von Palmer, the board's policy analyst in the same area.

I would like to thank the committee for allowing us the opportunity to appear before you today to express TREB's views on Bill 103. Since our time is limited, my remarks will be relatively short.

The Toronto Real Estate Board is one of the largest real estate boards in the world, representing more than 19,000 realtors in the greater Toronto area. During the 75 years since its founding, TREB has been a key source of in-depth information on all aspects of the real estate industry in the GTA. In addition, our members have played a key role over the years not only in selling real estate in this region, but also selling the image of Toronto as an ideal place to live, work, play and do business.

In light of the enormous impact that local and regional government activities and decisions have on the real estate industry and our clientele, we felt it was necessary for the real estate industry's voice to be heard on this very important piece of legislation.

I would like to start out by saying that in principle, the Toronto Real Estate Board supports the concept of amalgamating municipal governments where the result of the exercise leads to the elimination of local political parochialism and to greater service and administrative efficiencies, provides clearer lines of political accountability and responsibility, eliminates overlap and duplication, and organizes the region into a more cohesive unit for the promotion of economic development.

We believe the objectives stated in Bill 103 mirror many of the proposals recommended by the Toronto Real Estate Board and other private sector groups to the GTA task force under Anne Golden and to the Who Does What panel. Consequently, we would like to state our support for Bill 103 in principle.

As TREB sees it, once this legislation is implemented, it will put in place the final part of the governance reform plan which was initiated by the provincial government when Metro Toronto was created in 1953. It is the next logical step and needs to take place if Metro Toronto and the GTA are to remain economically healthy and socially and culturally viable.

While TREB is encouraged by efforts of the provincial government to address municipal governance reform in Metro Toronto, we cannot say the same for efforts in the rest of the GTA. We strongly believe that in order to address the problems surrounding service delivery across GTA regional boundaries and cost-effective municipal administration, governance reforms need to take place in Metro and the other GTA municipalities concurrently. In order to achieve this, we believe a new municipal governance structure for Metro and the GTA should be based on the two-tier Metro model, which has received many accolades over the years. While we remain committed to this viewpoint, we will endorse Metro amalgamation at this time because it is the first step in the process leading to municipal reform across the GTA.

The next step, as we see it, should be the amalgamation of smaller municipalities into larger cities in the other four GTA regions, eventually leading to the elimination of the regional levels of government and the creation of a GTA governance structure which covers the urbanized areas.

Notwithstanding TREB's support for Bill 103, we have very strong concerns about the environment within which this legislation will be implemented. By this, I am referring to the provincial proposal to remove education from the property tax base and in exchange download on to municipalities the increased costs of funding numerous services, including community social programs, welfare, public housing and other social-assistance-related functions. We realize this proposal is not part of 103. However, the fact that this exchange of funding responsibilities will take place at the same time as amalgamation, implementation of AVA and education reform leaves us anxious in the extreme as to the impact this will have on property taxes within the new Toronto municipal structure.

For the record, we want it noted that we have previously called for the reform of the property tax system and the education system in conjunction with GTA governance reform. Consequently, we have no objection to these three reform processes taking place simultaneously. However, we have never supported the downloading of increased social assistance costs on to municipalities, and we feel the provincial decision to do so will derail the financial and administrative gains of the other reforms.

As we all know, the cost of education funding is somewhat predictable, since it is based on the educational needs of the number of students in the education system and the staff required to fulfil those needs. However, the same cannot be said for funding social assistance, welfare, and public housing. As experience has shown, the cost of funding these programs can fluctuate dramatically with the economic cycle. During good economic times, these costs tend to be lower, as is the case now. However, when there is economic slowdown or recession, the cost of assisting those in need increases dramatically. The cost of funding these programs, which are clearly programs which could fall into the category of income redistribution, should not be borne by municipalities but by the province, even if it means maintaining education on the property tax base.

If the provincial government does go through with its plan to exchange funding responsibilities with municipalities, we feel an amalgamated Toronto government could be forced to cut services or raise taxes, or both.

The logic of the provincial proposal is questionable, considering Ontario's historical experience with municipal responsibility for social assistance. During the 1920s and 1930s, when funding and delivery of welfare was the sole responsibility of municipalities, cities and towns in Ontario were on the verge of bankruptcy due to the cost of providing these services. This necessitated the province taking over social services funding and providing a financial bailout of many municipal governments.

In addition to our concerns about the proposed social funding transfer and its impact on property taxes, we have some questions about the proposed municipal social assistance reserve fund. Although the province has announced that the fund will be permanent, there is no guarantee that future government priorities will not cause the province to reverse this commitment. Furthermore, what will happen if the fund is insufficient to meet the burgeoning demand for social assistance during the next economic downturn? Will the province then add to the fund to meet those needs, or is the provincial commitment limited to the $1.8-billion figure?

All these questions need to be answered before amalgamation takes place, because they are intertwined. The reform of municipal governance in Metro Toronto cannot be implemented without determining the financial impact of the exchange of these funding responsibilities. Unless these answers are forthcoming before Bill 103 is adopted by the Legislature, we strongly recommend that the social assistance transfer to municipalities be cancelled.

In conclusion, we would like to summarize some of our key points:

The Toronto Real Estate Board supports the concept of amalgamating municipal governments in principle, where it leads to greater administrative efficiency and better political accountability.

We support Bill 103 in principle, since it's consistent with our past recommendations to government.

Bill 103 is the next logical step in governance reform of the GTA and should be followed by efforts to establish a two-tiered municipal structure similar to the Metro model covering the urbanized envelope of the GTA.

The Toronto Real Estate Board is opposed to the downloading of costs for social assistance, welfare and public housing on to municipalities in exchange for the province taking over responsibility for funding education. Given a choice, we recommend that education remain on the property tax base and that the province retain responsibility for funding welfare and public housing.

0940

In conclusion, we would like to commend the province for having the courage to undertake the process of municipal government reform. It is something at which previous governments were unsuccessful and it is long overdue. In addition, we would like to caution Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Al Leach and the Premier to take the time to do it right, because once Bill 103 becomes law, it will be more difficult to fix any mistakes which might have been made along the way.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to express our views to the committee.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I appreciate your presentation here before us this morning and also for making the very clear distinction in your presentation between the issues that we are truly faced with here in consideration of Bill 103 and a number of other discussion points that are certainly out there and that many of our critics, in order to get the kind of numbers I'm sure they're aspiring to in the so-called referendum today, are lumping into this debate.

There's no doubt that we agree with many of the premises in your presentation; for example, the need to coordinate across the GTA. As you're probably aware, we have a very respected former civil servant, Mr Milton Farrow, presently consulting with the councils of all the GTA municipalities to develop a consensus as to how best to do that coordination and which services should be thrown into the mix. That bill will be coming forward this spring and it will take effect coincidental with this. So that piece of the puzzle and any concerns you may have in that regard will be allayed.

Let me just ask you very quickly, though: In your presentation, you talk about one of the important things and one of the reasons why you're supporting amalgamation in principle being the elimination of local political parochialism. Have you ever quantified as a board exactly what it costs in the production of housing to have the 180,000 bylaws and all the duplicate responsibilities that are attendant here in Metro? Would you care to hazard a guess at what sort of impact that has had on the cost of housing or, looked at from another perspective, the delays in bringing housing to market?

Mr Vail: Exactly. You've certainly quantified 180,000 bylaws. We were floored when we heard that figure. Maybe Mr Khan has done some research on that.

Mr Fareed Khan: We haven't quantified the cost, but just from anecdotal evidence from members who have had to deal with various municipalities, it ends up being quite a cost to business.

For example, there are different zoning bylaws in each municipality, with no consistency. The zoning designations are different within different municipalities, and that ends up costing time and effort for our members if they happen to have businesses across Metro; they have to go to the various municipalities to ensure that whatever regulations are particular to that municipality are met. We have, for example, in each municipality six different sign bylaws or rules and regulations with respect to signs, and since our members use, for example, Open House signs as part of their marketing, they have to be aware of the bylaws with respect to that.

I can't tell you with respect to the cost, but anecdotally, frustration has been expressed by our members over the years about the complexity in terms of dealing with various municipalities, not just across Metro but across the GTA.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Gentlemen, I get an impression that your support for assessment reform is somewhat muted in terms of your referencing on page 3 anxiety about high taxes. What exactly is your position on assessment reform in terms of the proposal in the bill regarding actual value assessment?

Mr Vail: I think Mr Palmer can answer that.

Mr Von Palmer: The reason we haven't addressed that was, as you know, that it's a separate piece of legislation and because of time limitations, but we support AVA as a concept. The legislation on property tax reform reflects a lot of things that TREB has been calling for. That's the reason why you haven't seen much reference to that.

A number of concerns we had, including the phase-in for those facing higher property taxes, especially senior citizens, some of those things have been addressed by the legislation, so we don't have any fundamental problems with AVA in the legislation that has been --

Mr Hastings: With your reproposal to bring the education cost of property tax back on to the property tax, doesn't that in a sense probably cancel out or neutralize any significant tax relief that people in the suburban cities would be getting?

Mr Palmer: When you talk about property tax reform, and I see where you're getting education reform, when you talk about AVA we feel, and I should have mentioned this, that the greater concern is the industrial/commercial taxes and education portion of that. The education portion of property taxes and how that ties in with social downloading refers to the residential portion. We feel that you have to address the industrial/commercial taxes because, remember, when we talked about property tax reform, the initial concern was the business life in Metro, and things such as pooling across the GTA have come up and that hasn't been addressed yet. In fact, that's something we will be calling for.

The reason why we've said, "Take education back," is because it's the lesser of two evils. Better the devil we know. That's the reason why, in light of the downloading and the fact that local levels are being asked to face increased costs for things like social housing and welfare, we're saying if that's the option, they might as well retain education at the local level until a better option is found. We're not saying that's a final answer, but let's take the time and see if there are any better options out there.

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

SHEILA BROWNE

The Chair: Would Sheila Browne please come forward. Good morning, Mrs Browne. Welcome to the committee.

Mrs Sheila Browne: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's the second-last day of these hearings. I've heard lots of other speakers. I've heard them here personally from the back and I've heard them on television. There have been so many well-qualified speakers giving articulate, informed, even passionate presentations against this Bill 103, which will abolish Toronto and the other five municipalities and then meld them into a megacity.

Incidentally, before I go further, I will say that when I came in the door I was asked if I hadn't already spoken. Apparently the very first or second day of these hearings there was a Sheila Brown who spoke. If you look at my surname, it has an "e" on it, so I'm Sheila Browne with an "e."

The other comment I would make is that I don't have a computer and I haven't received any instructions from any Web site. There was a newspaper article about that in the paper.

I'm going to give a personal account, more or less. I'm Sheila Eleanor Browne. I was born Sheila McCullough in Toronto. My father was born in Toronto and he was born of Irish parents. My mother came to Canada as a baby with her family from Scotland. My parents met in the Beaches area of Toronto, got married and moved to Moore Park at Heath Street and St Clair. I graduated from North Toronto Collegiate, University College and Toronto Teachers' College, the latter in 1955.

I got married, and when my husband graduated from the College of Education in 1958, we moved out of Toronto. We moved to Kincardine, a small town, and then we moved to Welland, a middle-sized city. We both taught school.

In 1966 we decided we wished to return to Toronto, so we moved into the centre of town. We bought a house, our present house, in 1967 in the Annex area of Toronto. My husband continued teaching school and I stayed home with two small children. Subsequently I went back to school to George Brown College at the Western Hospital and trained to be a nurse. I graduated in 1977 and worked as a nurse at the Western until I retired in 1993. So I've had experience in both the educational field and in the health care field, two fields which this government is trying to downsize. A great deal of unemployment is one of the results of the downsizing.

0950

We joined the local residents' association in our area, the Annex Residents' Association. This group has a very good rapport with its local city councillors and we have an excellent local area plan. Initially we became involved in the fight against the Spadina Expressway, and our attempts and the attempts of the ratepayers' groups adjacent to the Annex to stop the Spadina Expressway failed. We were outvoted because the folks in the suburbs wished to be able to drive downtown and they didn't care if these neighbourhoods were ruined.

The Progressive Conservative government of William Davis, by cabinet decision, stopped the Spadina Expressway. I will concede they were a truly Progressive Conservative group of people who realized the dreadful effect such an expressway would have on the centre of the city.

We all live in neighbourhoods, several of these neighbourhoods make up a ward, and each ward has one city councillor. The goal of the city council is to have city neighbourhoods which are safe and stable and which provide adequate services and amenities. Different neighbourhoods have different goals and different goals have different costs. What might be important or worthwhile to one might not be so to another.

If the new mega-council is created, there will be only 44 councillors for the whole 2.5 million people. Toronto will have 11 of these 44 councillors. I believe that's a minority. Where will that leave the local concerns of Toronto citizens? Where will it leave the local concerns of the citizens of the other municipalities? I'm speaking specifically about Toronto because that's what I know about. What about Toronto's grants to the arts? What about our special health service costs? What about our special community centre services?

The downtown and midtown Toronto wards will not have their one city councillor and their half Metro councillor. Instead, they will have a councillor with a larger area to cover with more people. The neighbourhood councils which are mentioned in the act have no specific powers and no budget, so I don't feel that they're relevant at all. I hate to think what would happen if advocates of automobile expressways became a majority in this mega-council. We need our local councils to have our local democracies.

Right now this system of each municipality running its own show, so to speak, seems to be working quite well. It might need a tune-up, but it doesn't have to be smashed in order for repairs to be made. There are such methods as discussion and cooperation and cooperative action which could be used. As Anne Golden has said, "If amalgamation solves a problem, that problem has yet to be identified."

This is a quote from Mr Harris: "There's no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger municipalities."

I'm going to move, next, from my concern about local democracy in the city to my equally serious concern with democracy in the province.

In Ontario all political parties have worked for the development of responsible democratic government which brings order and fairness to our lives. Despite the gap between rich and poor in this democracy, we have always had public systems making a safety net of social services which serve and protect everyone. We have public health care, public education, public utilities, public community services and various kinds of social assistance benefits and pensions. I have the definite impression from the mega-week bills that the present government is trying to weaken the foundations of these public services. These bills have been put forth without due process of consultation or discussion of various alternatives.

Does the government not realize it has no mandate to weaken or even privatize our public services and institutions? The government did not get a majority of the votes cast in the last election and it got an even smaller percentage of the possible vote. How did it happen that the government suddenly put forth Bill 103 and other bills as well in such a rush?

Can we really take Mr Leach seriously at all if he answers this question as he is quoted to have done, "I had to do something"? Is it possible that Mr Leach thinks that a megacity is more efficient and will save more money when we all know this is not true and that studies show definitely that bigger cities cost more?

On the first day of these hearings, February 4, Mr Leach was quoted by the Star as saying that he vowed to push ahead with the megacity, and he also said, "We have a one-time opportunity...to take advantage of the best ideas in government innovation and planning." I think that's a really strange statement: "one-time opportunity." Where did he get the idea that he had the best ideas? What were his sources of these best ideas? I would have hoped that now, a month later, having considered all the informed input from so many individuals and groups about why this bill is too hasty and does not follow democratic processes, Mr Leach might concede that the bill should be reconsidered. But in the February 27 Star he is quoted as saying, "...on the basic premise of the bill, recommending a single city, nothing has come forward at this time...to change my mind."

This is really not acceptable in a democracy. Mr Leach cannot be a dictator. He was elected to serve his constituents and the province, and if he isn't prepared to listen to people's concerns seriously, he really should resign.

The Chair: Mrs Browne, sorry to interrupt, but you're coming to the end of your allotted time and I'd appreciate if you could wrap up.

Mrs Browne: I will. Mr Leach should remember what Mr Harris said, and I quote from the Globe: "Leadership and reflecting the will of the people go hand in hand." I say to Mr Leach and to Mr Harris and to the government members of this committee that your electoral majority doesn't give you a blank cheque. You were elected as government of all the people. You should withdraw Bill 103, since there was no mandate for it and it will definitely adversely affect this wonderful city of Toronto. Thank you.

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

ANNIE KIDDER

The Chair: Would Annie Kidder please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Annie Kidder: I haven't prepared a long statement. My name is Annie Kidder, as you've said. I am a resident of Toronto. I'm a parent. I'm a member of a group called People for Education that's been fighting the cuts to education that this government has made for the last year.

I too, like the woman before me, live in a neighbourhood. It's called Seaton Village. It's about 36 square blocks. It has two community schools: one separate school and one public school. I just want to give you a little, tiny example of what a neighbourhood does as opposed to what an enormous kind of government body can do.

About two years ago a superstore was going to be built on the edge of our neighbourhood. Loblaws was building an enormous store. It caused a lot of concern about what that was going to do to the traffic in our neighbourhood, and after a fair amount of fighting we as a neighbourhood, along with the city, worked out a traffic plan. We radically changed the traffic in our neighbourhood. It took about six months.

It's taken two and a half years to change one traffic light on the edge of Seaton Village because it's controlled by Metro, because Metro is a government that's very far away from us that is concerned, as the woman said before me, about moving traffic a lot more than they are about neighbourhoods. We had no sense, any of us in our neighbourhood, of being able to get to the Metro government. On the other hand, with our own city government we had a total sense that we could go in and out of there, we could go talk to them, we could talk to various people in the government about how traffic worked and how we can change it.

It's very worrying to me, then, what this plan will do to our neighbourhoods. I worry about what the government's total plan is in terms of its seeming willingness to make very large entities where there were small ones before. It seems to be willing to take away every level of local representation at this point. They're willing to destroy my school board so that my children's school will no longer have any kind of local protection or local representation. I really fear for the community schools and what that does to neighbourhoods and that we're going to lose the vitality because we're losing our school boards, because it's not a Fewer School Boards Act: it's a no school boards act. We're losing that.

1000

I've learned from somebody that they're planning on closing the hospital where my children were born, where probably a quarter of the children at my children's school were born. That's another, "We're going to make a bigger hospital," which people seem to think will be more efficient but really just removes everything again from a local level.

This government seems to be now planning to take away my city and my city government. I don't think there's anything that's been shown that proves it costs less, that it's more efficient. I think that all these things, destroying my hospital, my child's school and my neighbourhood, are just ways of taking more money out of the system so they can pay for a tax cut.

I'm so angry at this point, which us why I couldn't even prepare a speech, because it really all seems to come down to money. It doesn't have anything to do with quality of life. It doesn't have anything to do with any sort of common good for people. It doesn't have anything to do with my children. It doesn't have anything to do with the future. It just seems to have to do with money.

I am very angry that all these things in our lives in Ontario -- I talk to people all over Ontario all the time, and they're suffering very badly in the rest of Ontario too -- all these things are being destroyed so that the government can take a lot of money out of the system and fund a 30% tax cut. That's all I have to say.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Certainly, as you know, this government is on the record as saying that they're going to ignore the referendum results. They basically said they're going to charge ahead. As a previous speaker, Ms Browne, said, the minister said nothing has come forward to change his mind. So people are voting today all over Metro, I think the majority will say no, and the government is going to come up with some tinkering and some optical changes to the bill, but in essence they're going to say: "We're right, you're wrong. We don't care what you said. We're going to go ahead anyway." The question I have to you is, as one who's very involved in your community, on many levels, what happens next?

Ms Kidder: I don't know. They seem to be willing to go ahead with practically everything no matter what anybody says. I have been trying to talk to the Minister of Education for a year, to no avail, as have many parents. I don't know what will happen next. I think that people will gradually lose faith in any level of government. I think that the government is mistaken, where it hates big government but it's going to create more bureaucracy, more unaccountable levels of people working whom we don't actually have any control over or any knowledge of what they're doing.

When they say things like, "No matter what the result of the referendum is, we're going to go ahead and do it," it just proves to me and shows, which they have shown over and over again, that they actually don't care about what real, normal, regular people think and that they're willing to push ahead a plan without hearing any specific criticism or listening to people.

Mr Colle: The other thing that's very apparent is that this government doesn't appreciate what local government does. Their attitude is, "Well, most of it is amalgamated; it's easy to just do the rest," although they misstate the facts and say that 72% is amalgamated. It's actually about 50-50, because they exclude the $1.9 billion that your local hydro utilities spend, and they're not amalgamated, so it's about 50-50.

How can you restate the fact that local government or local school boards give you as a citizen more voice and that the opposite is going to happen with this megacity?

Ms Kidder: Local governments are approachable, and they're especially approachable by ordinary people. This is the thing I fear for most that we witnessed in the other hearings I've been involved in on Bill 104, where no ordinary people even got to speak -- ordinary, average citizens feel able to phone their local government and complain or yell or scream or whatever they want to do and feel that they can actually get results from their local level of government.

It's much more frightening and much more difficult, as we all know, to approach a larger level of government. It's harder to get to people who represent a huge area, people who don't actually know you or know your local concerns, have no idea what your neighbourhood is or what it's like. My local level of government in the city understands that my neighbourhood is made up of a very mixed group of people, what the essence of that is, and I really worry that it makes government only available to people who already have a lot of power.

Mr Colle: I'll make one last comment: It's interesting that with Bill 103 the government is now, in terms of trying to defend its position, saying it's going to create these community councils. By the way, there is no mention at all of community councils in Bill 103. Do you think setting up these so-called community councils some time in the future is going to replace your locally elected city government?

Ms Kidder: No, absolutely not. They're trying to do the same thing in Bill 104, saying, "It's all right, all these parent councils will take over the schools." I think it's a ridiculous idea as a replacement for government. Government is there to be objective. They're there to take care of the interests of everybody. They're there to look at concerns objectively. Local neighbourhoods, like local parent councils, look at only the interests of their own neighbourhood. You need an objective level of government that can look at the interests of your neighbourhood and then fit it in within the interests of a city.

To think that volunteers somehow are going to start doing all of these jobs that government used to do is absolutely ridiculous. Only a certain kind of person can be a volunteer or have the time to be a volunteer and they're not necessarily representative of their neighbourhood at all. They're not usually people who have English as a second language. They're not usually people who are new immigrants in any way. It's an appalling idea to think that volunteers can take over government this way.

Mr Sergio: Ms Kidder, is it the content of the bill, is it the process with which the government is introducing and presenting this bill or is it both?

Ms Kidder: It's both, basically. It takes away a local level of democracy. All of their bills seem to be doing that and it's very worrying. It's both things. It's the process, which seems to ignore what anybody wants in Metro, and it's actually the content also.

Mr Sergio: You would like to see some changes, but not as proposed by Bill 103?

Ms Kidder: Yes.

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

BARRY WEISLEDER

The Chair: Would Barry Weisleder please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr Barry Weisleder: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, today is a momentous day in the history of Metropolitan Toronto. Today votes will be tallied across the five cities and one borough that make up Metro, and they will show two things quite clearly: (1) that voters reject the megacity concept and Bill 103 in particular; and (2) the extent to which the Ontario Conservative government is out of touch with the people of Metro and that to ignore this reality the government would proceed at its peril.

My name is Barry Weisleder, and I am a member of the executive board of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which has nearly 100,000 members province-wide. I am also president of OPSEU Local 595, which represents over 1,000 substitute teachers working in the elementary and secondary schools of the Toronto Board of Education, one of the school boards you intend to abolish.

OPSEU stands in total opposition to Bill 103, and also to Bill 104, which in my opinion is even worse, in many respects, than Bill 103. The government declares that the legislation to rob and mutilate school boards province-wide is non-controversial, and in their supreme arrogance Tories allow only for 10 days of public hearings. Such outrageous conduct is more than symptomatic of the problem we face with Bill 103. Increasingly, the government resembles a blinded and bloodied raging bull, snorting in all directions, preferring to fight rather than to switch. Well, if it's a fight you want, you've awoken the people and I think we are ready to take you on.

Everyone knows why the Conservative government wants a megacity. You want to reduce democracy. You want to privatize public services. You want to cut corporate taxes. Your efforts to masquerade this exercise as one of cutting costs and ending duplication have fooled very few people. The test of the pudding is in the eating, and we in OPSEU, one year after the biggest strike in Ontario history, have been subjected to your bitter diet of layoffs, divestment and privatization affecting thousands of jobs, which of course would have been far worse had the OPS strike not secured some job protection in the current collective agreement. But we know all too well what you want to do to our cities.

1010

You want to marginalize resistance. Corporations want radically reduced government services, less public process, fewer regulations and lower corporate taxes, and Tories desperately want to accommodate their corporate backers. The megacity is a plan to eliminate local opposition to a corporate vision for the city's future; as Premier Harris was overheard saying, "to get rid of those lefties on city councils," to create one large, "simplified" city government that corporations will find it easier to lobby and to influence.

The rush to do this now is in open defiance of your promise in the Common Sense Revolution, the document that says, "to sit down with municipalities to discuss ways of reducing government entanglement and bureaucracy with an eye to eliminating waste and duplication as well as" -- get this -- "unfair downloading by the province."

The rush is all about taking billions of dollars out of local services to fund a tax cut for the rich, while forcing local authorities to slash jobs and wages, contract out and privatize, and impose a myriad of user fees.

You say that you will pay no attention to the results of the mega-vote today. Then I have to wonder, why did you make those television commercials? Why did you get your friends to produce and air those radio ads advocating a Yes vote? Why did you appoint a small army of scrutineers and establish pro-amalgamation committees across the cities of Metro? I know why you didn't appoint a major, central pro-megacity spokesperson -- and it's not because you didn't try to find one.

Today's vote is historic. The movement against amalgamation, and against the social and economic costs of it, especially for working people, is a gigantic movement. It is reflected in an unparalleled level of grass-roots activism across this region and it will be reflected in the vote count tonight. This will not be a narrow victory for the No side. It will be a big victory. Not just a simple majority; not just 55%; all indications suggest that it will approach or even exceed a two-thirds majority with a large rate of participation.

The people didn't buy your propaganda about how megacity is inevitable or how megacity is likely to create jobs or likely to save taxes. Most people recognize, deep down in our hearts, and in our wallets, that the opposite is true. Megacity is a plan to subordinate local government and the mass of the people to the dictates of big business, to a nasty and brutish economic future, to a bleak social existence and to a ruined urban landscape. We will not stand for it.

In the face of the massive opposition that government will see today, there is only one practical thing for you to do, and that is to withdraw Bill 103 and, I add, withdraw Bill 104. Don't amend them, just get rid of them. Withdraw them. Take them back. Go back to the drawing board. Start talking to the people whom you seek to impose your plans upon.

Beyond the practical, there is only one honourable thing for you to do, and that is to resign, to call an election and to put all your megacity, mega-school board, mega-cutbacks and hospital closure cards on the table. That would be the honourable thing to do, and that may be too much to expect from this government.

But we can be sure that should you choose to ignore today's vote and the vast social movement behind it, you proceed at your peril. To ignore the will of the people is to invite massive, ongoing protest. It is not difficult to imagine the forms protest may take. There may be massive civil disobedience. There may be strikes and shutdowns that will make October 25 and 26 in Toronto seem like a summer picnic, a momentary interlude. There may be a mass refusal to pay property and income taxes. There may be disruption of every activity where government members and their business supporters are present -- everywhere.

Soon the people will have spoken. You better be listening and obeying their will. You do not have a mandate to proceed otherwise. Please remember that. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Ms Churley: Thank you for your presentation. Because we have a brief period for questions here, I want to ask you to elaborate a bit more on the connection between the downloading and Bill 103. The government and some deputants, some people, believe there is no connection and that's what's going to cause the big No vote and they're saying that's unfortunate because it's not connected. I would like you to elaborate on what you see as the connection between the downloading and Bill 103 and Bill 104.

Mr Weisleder: The connection is economic and the connection is also in terms of time and space. To deal with the latter one first, if there was no connection, it would be simple for the government to either withdraw the downloading and allow a real discussion to take place on restructuring local governance, deal with that and then introduce the other policies, or to withdraw Bill 103 and, as I added, 104 and let us debate the questions of taxation and the division of responsibilities between the province and the cities.

The impact of the downloading is all too obvious and has been discussed extensively in the media, if not in the Legislature by government members, and that is of course it will make it impossible for the cities to cope with escalating costs, particularly with respect to general welfare.

It's been argued for many years that school boards need to have a tax base. The government is taking that away from them. It's going to take control of education; not just revenue intended for education, but determining the whole direction of education, the priorities and the curriculum, the overall thrust. That's an assault on democratic rights. That's part of the downloading picture. You take away some responsibilities and the source of funding for those, and hand down other responsibilities which are going to end up costing a lot more than they presently do, particularly with the next downturn in the economy. The impact is economic and the impact is temporal. The way to disconnect them is for the government to withdraw one, the other, or both preferably.

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

SYDNEY WHITE

The Chair: Would Sydney White please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Sydney White: I'm here speaking as a citizen and also as a member of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform.

First of all, everybody's saying, "Why the rush?" and, "Why are we doing all this?" Well, the megacity is a Trojan Horse and inside are the appointees. The appointees will be set up and they will be able to do anything: sell off whatever they want, contract out whatever they want.

We're telling Mike no, overwhelmingly no, we don't want this. He is giving the typical response, "I don't care," or "You don't really mean no." Women especially, what happens right after someone says, "You don't really mean no"? The assault, and the assault is happening.

My name is Sydney White. I have been in the diplomatic field most of my life and was in the press department of the United Nations during the Hungarian Revolution. I watched as students tried to stop Russian tanks with homemade gasoline bombs. They became bloodied grease for the wheels. But I was a Canadian and I would never know totalitarian force.

Shortly after Mr Harris came to office I was in Queen's Park when students were beaten unconscious and blood flowed again. Most of them were women, one pregnant. They did not have so much as a pencil in their hands. All the television media were there but nothing of this was seen on the news. The corporate-owned media know when to censor themselves. Thus began the reign of Mr Harris.

No one wants to hear or mention the "F" word. The historical definition of Fascism from Thomas Jefferson and beyond has always been "an alliance between business and government enforced by domestic and military police." To people who want to feel that this cannot be, I will concede that the flow of blood has been minimal so far. However, there is no need for much physical restraint if you can control and restructure the public mind by spending thousands of dollars on blatant lies to disguise your corporate takeover.

1020

The Harris government can probably raise taxes and go on making cuts without having a megacity in place. What they cannot do without their megacity is appoint chosen individuals to absolute power. An appointee can sell all of our publicly owned institutions with impunity and behind closed doors. These public institutions are not theirs to sell. We, the citizens, have built them with our money and our labour. How did the North Bay bowling league get this idea of using the megacity as an excuse to set up their own personal salesmen?

The Harris government is merely following a recipe used in the United States. In the late 1980s Americans were pushing for a universal health care system modelled on ours. In panic, the Congress appointed -- that magic word again -- a commission headed by John D. Rockefeller which effectively killed any chance of Americans having a true health care system. As Rockefeller explained to his organization of 300 corporations, known as the Trilateral Commission, "Employer-based coverage is the last resort we have against a national health care system that neither you nor I want." George Bush, one of the richest members of the Trilateral, went on a three-week fishing trip with Mr Harris right after Harris was elected, and out of these murky waters came the plan for the megacity as a vehicle for the magic and powerful appointees.

Some of you may not know what the Trilateral Commission is because the name is not supposed to tell you anything about their objectives. Founded by Rockefeller and the US foreign affairs adviser Brzezinski in 1973, it consists of 300 global corporations whose primary goal is a borderless world in which multinationals would be free from regulation by governments. It's now the most powerful organization of world planning known to exist. They have a finger in every government pie, including ours.

Some of the Canadian members of this Trilateral Commission are Maurice Strong, who brought the business lobby to the Rio Earth Summit; John Wilson; Paul Desmarais, who's intermarried with the Chrétien family; the C.D. Howe Institute, a member since 1976; David Hennigar; Marc Lalonde, director of Citibank; Adam Zimmerman, director of TD Bank; Simon Reisman, our free trade negotiator; Mickey Cohen of Molson's; Conrad Black; and Allan Gotlieb, our ambassador to the US from 1981 to 1989. Gotlieb almost singlehandedly engineered the passage of NAFTA.

NAFTA was a straightforward corporate strategy pushed by David Rockefeller and Kissinger, among others. All disputes under NAFTA are judged by appointees. These appointees are not judges but arbitrarily selected individuals who are obligated to governments and special interest groups. They bend the constitutions of the United States and Canada to suit corporate rule. Like them, the megacity appointees will be bending and breaking our Constitution for their own corporate bosses.

In 1994 a provincial advisory body called the Metro Toronto District Health Council appointed a nine-member hospital restructuring committee, who all have a conflict of interest. They are CEOs of banks and insurance companies. In fact, Richard E. Lint, a member of this slash-and-burn group, is president and CEO of Citibank, the financial core of the Rockefeller empire.

John Wilson is another member, formerly of Ernst and Young. He and Maurice Strong cut 12,000 jobs from Ontario Hydro. John Wilson has now founded the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, a think tank funded primarily by Manulife. Two weeks ago they gave a closed seminar on how US drug and insurance companies can gain access to Canada's national health care. Monsanto, Hoffman-LaRoche, Manulife, Magna International and our own deputy minister of institutional health were present. The subject of their seminar was "How the Private Sector Can Build Effectively on our Medicare System." In short, the appointees are getting ready to sell off every public institution that we, the people, have built with our blood, sweat and taxes. I repeat, it is not theirs to sell and what the Harris government is doing is treasonous.

For those of you who would call out "conspiracy theory," I say that I have a lot more difficulty dealing with your "coincidence theory."

Phoney polls showing that Canadians were in favour of cuts were produced by a PR firm based in Ottawa, but this firm is owned by Burson-Marstellar of the Rockefeller group, whose chairman is Allan Gotlieb, the same ex-ambassador to the US and deputy chairman of the Rockefeller 300. The Trilateral Commission has stated that they are against "an excess of democracy."

The privatization of our water is on the agenda of our corporate puppets. In England, after eight years of privatization, one third of the population get their water from public washrooms because they cannot pay the $2,000 per year and have been disconnected. One third of the water leaks from unrepaired pipes. Dysentery has risen 600%, hepatitis 200%. Save the Children, which usually only goes to Third World countries, came into England to investigate. The owners of the water, however, have more billions than even they had dreamed of.

Snobelen, having been told by the education experts that children who study music are exceptionally good at reasoning, logic and math, immediately decided to remove the music programs and insert computers in their place. Any time that those screens are not in use, advertisements will be swirling and flashing continuously on the screen. Screen guards will not be supplied and the child's eyes and brain will be close to low-level radiation on a long-term basis. A glorified typing course will replace any dangerous leanings towards analysis. Having had a good public education, I find that it develops a very strong crap detector. Since the Harris agenda, mine has been working overtime.

At present, a joint venture is being formed with Paul Desmarais's Great West Life, the Royal Bank and a US corporation, Unisys, which company has been banned in several states. This new and profitable venture is the tracking of cheap labour. All those who have been downsized into social assistance will be fingerprinted and given their own special card.

Instead of being prepared to deal with the ludicrous natural rate of unemployment, they will be rented out like draft animals on a low-wage contract basis to the same corporations that downsized them in the first place. The cards which will send all financial and other information back to a central computer will actually be a tracking device for the enormous slave labour force called workfare. Metro council had almost decided against this type of identification, when suddenly our last hearing was called off on account of the megacity. Now those magic appointees may have a chance to inflict this.

The appointees will obey their corporate masters and bring in workfare as soon as they can because it is the key ingredient in competing with prison factory labour, child labour and the starvation wages in Asia which our federal government, along with Harris, are so gaily courting.

With 18 of our environmental laws trashed and all of our enviable social programs slashed by these corporate pimps, we have our work cut out for us. Remember, no one can buy unless some of us are selling. We will stop this treasonous practice with whatever it takes.

The last time a population this size was taxed without representation, George the Fool lost the colonies and there was an enormous tea party in Boston harbour, not to mention the war. Given their spotty academic record, Harris and Snobelen may have missed this particular history lesson. We will do our best to fill this gap in their education.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms White. You've exhausted your allotted time. We want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this morning.

Would Andrew Scorer please come forward?

Ms Churley: Before he begins, I would like, with your indulgence, to ask for unanimous consent to allow this group -- he has some people with him. I realize the rules say no props. I believe this is a professional performing troupe with small musical instruments. I'm wondering if I could ask for unanimous consent -- there are no puppets, no big props, we did have the Raging Grannies sing -- if they could use their little instruments while they give their presentation.

The Chair: As discussed, I'll put your question. My problem with it is simply that once I allow one instrument, no matter big or small, I can have a whole flood of instruments coming in. It's really not a theatre, it's a place to hear submissions, but I will ask for unanimous consent. They can use instruments?

Interjection: Certainly.

Interjection: It's their 10 minutes.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Could we just find out what it is we're talking about?

The Chair: Fine. Not hearing a no, go ahead, Mr Scorer.

1030

ANDREW SCORER
MARY SUSAN YANKOVICH
DAVID ANDERSON
BIE ENGELEN
JULIA VON FLOTOW
SCOTT BELL

Mr Andrew Scorer: My name is Andrew Scorer, a resident of Toronto for 24 years, actor, board member of my neighbourhood association, member of the Green Party of Ontario and the Green Party of Canada and twice a candidate in provincial elections. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in democratic government by being able to speak at these hearings. I beg your indulgence as I ask for some help in introducing my speech. I call on the Spirit of Democracy.

Ms Mary Susan Yankovich: We have with us today, ladies and gentlemen, all the way from Sarajevo en route to Hong Kong, the star of our story, who's taken time out of her busy schedule to be with us today -- ladies and gentlemen, the Spirit of Democracy herself.

Mr David Anderson: Once there was a city.

Ms Yankovich: A proud city.

Mr Anderson: A green city.

Ms Yankovich: And the people of the city looked after it.

Mr Anderson: And whenever there was a local problem, the people knew just who to call.

Ms Yankovich: And so the Spirit of Democracy danced.

Mr Anderson: It was the best city in the world.

Ms Yankovich: Until, one day --

Ms Bie Engelen, Ms Julia von Flotow, Mr Scott Bell: If you're rich you deserve it. If you're poor you can rot. 'Cause everybody knows you deserve what you've got.

Mr Bell: It's just common sense.

Ms Engelen: If you're rich --

Ms von Flotow, Ms Engelen, Mr Bell: -- you deserve it. If you're poor you can rot. 'Cause --

Mr Anderson, Ms Yankovich: Oh, it ain't necessarily so, no no. No, it ain't necessarily so.

Ms Yankovich: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is your city.

Ms von Flotow: Not without its problems.

Mr Anderson: But still, a great city.

Ms Engelen, Ms von Flotow, Mr Bell: If you're rich you deserve it. If you're poor you can rot. 'Cause --

Mr Bell: -- everybody knows --

Ms Engelen, Ms von Flotow, Mr Bell: -- you deserve what you've got.

Mr Bell: Go tell them, Bill.

Ms Engelen: This is a stick-up.

Mr Anderson, Ms Yankovich: It's Megacity Bill.

Ms Engelen: Resistance is futile. You will amalgamate.

Ms Yankovich: But the Spirit of Democracy stirred.

Mr Anderson: And the people of the city rallied.

Mr Anderson, Ms Yankovich: Oh, it ain't necessarily so, no, no. Oh, it ain't necessarily so.

Ms Engelen, Ms von Flotow, Mr Bell: Rob and pillage. Let's kill that village.

Mr Anderson, Ms Yankovich: No, no, no. The things that you're liable to read in the Tory bible, they ain't necessarily so.

Mr Scorer: Thank you, Spirit of Democracy.

I looked up the definition of "democracy" in the Oxford dictionary. "Democracy: Government by all the people, direct or representative." "Democracy: Form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views."

Either we live in a democracy or we don't; either the Ontario government believes in democracy or it doesn't. If it does or thinks it does, then it either doesn't know how to encourage democracy or it thinks that its majority government created by less than half of the voters is a legitimate tool for manipulation of an easily abused parliamentary system.

In a democracy obviously, by definition, the government would incorporate what is being said here into its actions. Will this happen? I hope so. Obviously, since we live in a democracy, then by definition the government will immediately throw Bill 103 out because of today's referendum results, or Conservative backbenchers will vote against Bill 103 because of today's referendum results. If neither of these things happen, then I believe that the Lieutenant Governor has the moral authority and duty to not sign Bill 103 into law.

There is a mushrooming movement against this government with hundreds of groups, meetings and actions. It's the kind of human phenomenon that can't be stopped. The Premier and MPPs are servants of the people, paid by the people, and I would suggest that if they want to keep their jobs they should listen to their bosses, the people. The next provincial election isn't so far away.

Why do we tolerate an electoral system that creates a majority government from less than 50% of the vote? A proportional representation system of electing members of provincial Parliament would really be a commonsense initiative. In a proportional representation system, the number of seats that a party gets is in proportion to its share of the popular vote.

Now I'd like to talk very briefly about wealth and money. Here's a quote from a book by Buckminster Fuller: "What is wealth? Wealth is the organized, technological capability to protect, nurture, educate and accommodate the forward days of humans; whereas money is only a medium of exchange and a cash accounting system. Money has become completely monopolized by the supernational corporation colossi which inherently, as legal abstractions, ignore the problem of how to protect and nurture human lives."

The title of that book is Grunch: GR -- gross; UN -- universal; C -- cash; H-heist. Gross Universal Cash Heist. Grunch is a word to remember. It describes what's happening all over the world. Cash is being heisted by transnational corporations from the people and I suggest that cash is being heisted by the Ontario government from the people and that Bill 103 is part of this heist.

Interjections: If you're rich you deserve it, if you're poor you can rot. No, it ain't necessarily so.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Two minutes for the government caucus.

Applause.

The Chair: Order, please. Two minutes for questions from the government caucus.

Mr Parker: Your last point, that cash is being heisted from the people by the Ontario government, can you elaborate on that, please.

Mr Scorer: I would say through the taxes, the rearrangement of --

Mr Parker: How does reducing taxes heist cash and how does any of that have to do with Bill 103?

Mr Scorer: I said that Bill 103 is part of this heisting of cash from the people, from the poor to the rich. I would say that the centralization of municipal governments is a way of centralizing power and that centralizing power is a way of heisting cash from the majority of the people.

Mr Parker: I'm interested in finding out just why that is so. Can you help me out with that?

Mr Scorer: As to why amalgamation?

Mr Parker: Why amalgamation heists cash, or in what way does amalgamation heist cash?

Mr Scorer: There would be many fewer city councillors for the population and so it will be really difficult for the people to have a voice in how the taxes are rearranged -- for example, the property taxes -- simply because it would be harder to contact politicians since there will be far fewer of them and they'd be far less accessible.

Mr Parker: And this will result in the heisting of cash?

Mr Scorer: I would say that the centralization of any government is a way of taking the power away from the people and thus inevitably taking money away from the people.

Mr Parker: On the subject of democracy, I'm interested in your thoughts. Would you consider a secret ballot to be central to a free exercise of democracy?

Mr Scorer: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Parker, I'm sorry to interrupt but we've come to the end of your time. Thank you, Mr Scorer, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

SUSAN BREKELMANS

The Chair: Would Susan Brekelmans please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Susan Brekelmans: Thank you. That was rather a hard act to follow.

Mr Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill 103, the so-called megacity bill. I'm afraid I'm probably not going to say anything new, anything you haven't heard before, but I can only hope that saying it again will help you understand that there are a lot of little citizens like me out there who are concerned about the bill.

I want to start by telling you that I was born in Vancouver, and as you may know, out in Lotusland we're bred to dislike Toronto. When I moved here a little over two years ago I expected to hate this city. I thought I'd be very miserable here. I thought it would be large, faceless, colourless, uniform and unfriendly.

I was surprised and delighted to find the opposite. I discovered that there were several cities in Metro, each of which had its own characteristic, much like at home. There are several cities in the Vancouver regional district. There were dozens of neighbourhoods within the city of Toronto, each of which I soon realized had all of their own characteristics. I've now lived in three neighbourhoods and I'm looking forward to living in my next one.

1040

The arts scene here is great. It's supported by residents and by the city. And this being an urban centre and naturally attracting poorer people and immigrants, I was pleasantly surprised by the services offered to those who need them. Most of all, since coming here I've been very impressed by the way in which the residents of Toronto pay attention to their municipal goings-on. I've actually never met people prouder of their city and more staunch in their support of what's best for it.

Please don't tell anyone at home about the good things I've said about Toronto.

So you can imagine my concern when I first read about the planned amalgamation of the cities that make up Metro Toronto. I had thought things worked fairly well here. Why change the system? The more I heard, the more concerned I became. I'll tell you some of my reasons for worrying.

First of all, I'm concerned by the way that this bill has been pushed forward. I can only describe the government's method as high-handed. Amalgamation was not mentioned in the Common Sense Revolution and it's not something we expected as part of the government's agenda. Given that, I feel the government could have acted more responsibly in the way it put forward its ideas for change in Toronto. I have to say that I feel the government is acting with not very much respect for the people in the cities in Metro Toronto or for their elected officials or for the opinions of experts in the field of urban studies.

The high-handedness of Bill 103 is compounded by the fact that no convincing studies have been presented to support the amalgamation that the government proposes. The KPMG study commissioned by the government doesn't seem sufficient to me, as I understand that the firm was only given three weeks to study the amalgamation of Metro's cities. Many people have pointed out that the savings KPMG listed in the report don't really have anything to do with amalgamation.

I'm afraid I'm going to go on a little more about the method of this bill. The government has said that it will not pay attention to the results of referenda held in the cities of Metro Toronto on the subject of amalgamation. Well, wait a second. Didn't this government state last summer that it wanted referenda, that government-initiated, opposition-initiated and citizen-initiated referenda were a good idea? So why is the government now saying that it will ignore a referendum on the subject of amalgamation? Perhaps I am revealing my youth and naïveté here, but it seems to me that those of us who support a referendum are doing just as the government suggested and I wonder why the government won't pay attention to the results.

You've heard a great deal before me about the trustees the government had appointed to oversee the transition to an amalgamated Toronto. This has now been defeated but I was concerned when the powers of this non-elected group were made retroactive to the introduction of the bill. In doing this, the government took power away from my representatives and essentially took power away from me and the people. It makes me and other people I know concerned about the future of democracy in this province.

I've vented my feelings now about the way the government has gone about managing this bill and I'd like to talk about my concerns with the bill itself.

So far I've read nothing that makes me feel certain that a new Metro-wide government would be as effective and as accountable as the current two-tiered system. You've probably heard this a million times by now, but it doesn't seem to make sense and, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to save any money.

The beauty of the current system is that local municipal governments, the cities within Metro, are in close touch with residents. The elected councillors are accessible to their constituents, and because they're responsible for a relatively small piece of turf, they can pay attention to details, things like street corners and intersections, park benches, community centres, that sort of thing. I feel that these are the things that give a city character and that show people that not only do the residents care about the city but the government cares about the city as well.

Like some of the people who've spoken before me, I have serious doubts that the councillors in the amalgamated Toronto will be able to operate on the same human scale. The ratio of councillors to residents will be such that there is no way the councillors can know what's going on in every corner of their riding. Residents and neighbourhood associations will not have the personal contact they need to be effective and they also won't have the voting clout that will make them effective. We still don't have any details about what the neighbourhood committees outlined in the bill will be like, but I don't imagine they can be as effective as they need to be.

The city governments are in contact with the people and they provide local services and look after things that need to be locally tailored. It seems to me that Metro has worked fairly well since the 1950s in providing and coordinating services needed across the region, like transit and sewers, which are boring but very important, regional roads and waste disposal, and social services, of course, because all of us in Toronto benefit if the poor and the needy are taken care of.

My suggestion for a course of action is not a new one but it's one that I think is more sensible and would be more acceptable to residents of this area. The change that I see as necessary is to recognize, as you have done a little bit, that the boundaries of the entity called Toronto have changed. The active urban region now stretches beyond Metro to what we call the greater Toronto area, and I think it makes sense to deal with this big, complicated region now rather than sort of leave it. The government could show itself to be progressive and forward-thinking here and do some good work for the future, leaving something good behind.

Since those of us who live in the GTA share the benefits of our region -- the arts, the culture, the economy, the transit and the highways -- we should also share the costs. We need to manage regional issues like traffic, social services, environmental issues, police and garbage disposal across the whole region because they affect all of us who live in this big city-region. I feel that the people who manage the big region should be elected representatives because it does make them more accountable.

Making this larger region work would require, even more than Metro did, that local municipal governments continue to exist. If you've got a huge region, you have to have people who can deal with the details. I know I'm not the first person or the smartest person to suggest this. It's the conclusion the GTA task force came to when it reported after a year of study; it's a model advocated by Ken Greenberg, an urban planner I admire and who is very much respected; it was something emphasized by David Crombie's Who Does What panel; and it's something suggested by GTA mayors.

Basically, I'm concerned about the methods. I feel a two-tier level of government is very important and I think the local tier has to be small and city-sized. I'm urging the government to rethink Bill 103. Trash it and let's start over. As a region, we need more time to figure things out, to think things over, to find the best way of managing the GTA. I think it's important that you consult the citizens, consult the people who've had experience managing the area until now, and consult the experts. Most of all, make the process of change open and inclusive, and it needs to be sensible.

Mr Sergio: Reading from the same book you have quoted from, I'll read you another one: "Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does."

If Mike Harris and his government don't hear the result of the referendum, do you think we're just paying the bills as spectators and not part of that particular process?

Ms Brekelmans: The government has a responsibility to pay attention to the results of the referendum. If they don't, they're going to have some trouble being re-elected and I think the people will protest -- I don't know; I'm not advocating civil disobedience -- and I don't think people will stop protesting.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Brekelmans, for coming forward this morning.

1050

TOM SHEVLIN

The Chair: Will Tom Shevlin come forward, please. Good morning, Mr Shevlin. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes this morning to make your presentation.

Mr Tom Shevlin: Good morning to the Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to express my views on Bill 103.

I'm a professional engineer and a new resident of the Leaside neighbourhood of East York. While I've lived in the city of Toronto and in North York, as well as in several US cities, I've chosen to make my home at three addresses in East York for most of the past 25 years. I had hoped to remain a resident of ward 4 of the borough of East York for the foreseeable future. I should add that I'm not a member of any political party.

First, I should state that while many presenters have felt the Minister of Municipal Affairs has made some mistakes or been misguided in the formulation of Bill 103, I do not share these feelings, nor do I agree that his actions have been undemocratic. In the form of democracy that Canadians have chosen to accept, a bill introduced by a minister of a majority government has an effective degree of inevitability that his counterparts in the US Congress can only dream about. Mr Leach may technically have been in contempt of the Legislature for acting as though Bill 103 were a done deal, but really it is. But just because a majority government can act this way, should it?

I admit to having been puzzled at first by the way in which Mr Leach unwrapped the various layers of the onion that constitute Bill 103 and the so-called mega-week bills, particularly in his strident refusal to consider the wishes of the residents of Metro Toronto. He seemed to be doing all this not for Metro or with Metro but rather to Metro. His every statement to the press seemed guaranteed to produce the kind of widespread angry reaction among Metro residents that has in fact occurred. Could it just be that he is less than expert at public relations? Or is this exactly what was desired?

I submit that with Toronto-bashing being a favourite activity of most Canadians outside Toronto, as was confirmed by the previous speaker, along with the fact that the PC Party derives its Ontario power base outside Metro, this government could heavily consolidate its future electoral chances by maintaining its popularity in the regions where it had the support that put it in power while, and by, causing pain to an area whose support it could readily sacrifice. This is a recipe for the creation of a dynasty.

Taxation disparity within the GTA is a real problem for which real proposals exist, but reform would eliminate the economic advantages of the 905 area over 416, in terms of fewer costs for infrastructure replacement, social services, culture and others. Thus, 905 doesn't want reform and 416 does, but 416 is going to be so taken up for the next few years with trying to sort out the internal mess created by Bill 103 that it won't be able adequately to address the serious GTA reform that would prevent it from becoming the hole in the doughnut. So 905 will prosper as 416 sinks. The louder the screams from 416, the more 905 and the rest of the province will like it, and the Tories get re-elected. The 416 area begins to resemble Detroit, but that's okay with the electoral majority of Ontario.

I agree with those who have complained that the government was not elected with a mandate to amalgamate Metro. Indeed, there are those who say that their mandate was to eliminate photo-radar. They have recently replied that they had a mandate for change and that Bill 103 is certainly a change. No argument there. But had they used their majority status to pass a bill requiring the wearing of clown suits in the Legislature, that would also have been a change, and probably a less destructive one.

There has been a lot of talk in these hearings concerning representation in the new council, about how one representative for 50,000 is more or less the same as what most people in Metro have now. This neatly avoids the question of what the representation is going to be as a proportion of the area over which new laws will have jurisdiction. Right now my vote is worth one out of 100,000 in East York. It is going to become one out of 2.3 million, a dilution to 4% of its previous value, and my ward goes from one in four to one in 44.

That was supposed to be the cue for the Spirit of Democracy, but the Spirit of Democracy appears to have left the building.

The government members have often repeated the idea that the neighbourhoods will survive with their identities intact, since I guess they have up until now. I dispute that. Because the borough of East York has the power to make its own bylaws, backed up by the ability to raise its own taxes, it has created something that has its identity primarily due to these bylaws.

East York is a little slower and more sedate than the rest of Metro's components, not at all hip, a place where older folks are comfortable, where families don't have their values challenged at every turn, and from which some must travel to find certain earthly pleasures. East York, by virtue of its bylaws, has no strip clubs, no escort services and only one pool hall, that one having been grandfathered in. Whether one considers these to be beneficial, I can guarantee that under a uniform set of Metro bylaws, this certainly will change, either for East York or perhaps for the rest.

The city of Toronto requires practically an environmental assessment before a tree is cut down and loves to put up frighteningly excessive traffic calming devices on its streets. Etobicoke historically overregulates such things as the parking of certain kinds of vehicles in driveways etc. But the people in those places accept these things or they move on. In the new homogenized Toronto, the place to move on to will be 905, and I suspect many will.

I have been involved in my work with the planning for several $100-million-plus projects, but I cannot imagine how the abolition of seven governments and the overnight creation of a single one to replace them can be brought about on January 1, 1998, without either (1) chaos, or (2) the reinvention of the original seven governments, thus killing any opportunity for the hoped-for savings.

A concrete example: I sign my kids up for swimming lessons in December, to start in January, with the borough of East York recreational program. Who in 1997 is going to design programs, accept registrations and plan to conduct these programs for 1998 when the corporation for which they work will no longer exist? Really, it's been said this amounts to a hostile takeover. And will these swimming lessons have a reasonable user fee, like East York now, or be free but require lining up all night for registration, like in Toronto? I have been asking these questions and there are no answers. When I brought up this point at one of the public meetings, my Metro councillor, an amalgamation supporter, rubbed his chin and said, "You know, I don't think anybody has given these things much thought yet" -- to say the least.

The so-called mayors' alternative plan for streamlining Metro has been, quite rightly, subjected to harsh criticism. What this signifies to me is that you can't do a proper job of these things in a short time with a gun to your head. At least they had some details in their plan, far more so than Mr Leach. You cannot expect to wave a magic wand over the best place to live in the world and make it completely different but even better overnight.

I would like to respond to the statements of many amalgamation supporters that the members of the No forces are under the spell of various rabble-rousers. For me, the rabble-rouser was Mr Leach himself. The minister started leaking his plan to the press just a few days after I moved into my new home, at a considerable increase in my housing investment. Whereas I thought I'd be spending many years in the East York I knew very well, suddenly it was all being blown away. My subsequent letter to the Star was the first one on the subject they printed, even after they sat on it for 11 days after its receipt.

I'd like to use this forum to respond to Mr Leach's contention that Metro has seven layers of government. My dictionaries tell me a layer is something that lies above or below another layer, not alongside. While I may occasionally require clarification as to whether something falls under Metro or East York, I am highly unlikely to confuse East York's jurisdiction with Etobicoke's. By that reckoning we now have two layers, and if you count the neighbourhood councils and the GTA coordinating board, they are about to be replaced with at least three.

As appears to be de rigueur before this committee, I too do not see the status quo as the best option. I feel the whole GTA needs to present a unified front to the global economy where the macro issues are dealt with through economic amalgamation, while the micro issues -- the neighbourhood concerns, the local bylaws, committees of adjustment, parks and recreation etc -- are preserved in more or less their present form.

The borough of Vaughan: I like the sound of that. It isn't going to happen, of course, due to the reasons given previously. Still, the campaign videotape of the successful PC candidate in my riding proclaimed "Local Solutions for Local Problems," and I really can't argue with that.

I am greatly concerned about property tax and property values. According to figures from University of Toronto economics professor John Bossons, after amalgamation, combined with the downloading effects of Bill 104, my taxes will double and property values will drop approximately 10%. I thought I was doing a good thing for my children buying this property, but I'm increasingly feeling like I may have blown their inheritance.

Perhaps all is not lost. I remember fondly when the PC government of the day reversed itself on the completion of the Spadina Expressway. Mr Leach should be assured that while it is admirable to stand up for your principles, it is even more so to admit you are wrong and start over. But Mr Leach is certainly a man of principle.

Assuming this to be a done deal, I urge you to at least delay the turnover to the new council until a reasonable amount of time can be spent creating a semblance of order and continuity. Unlike others, I do understand the need to rush. This government is desperate to fulfil its promise of an income tax cut. I'll tell you what. I think I would much rather Mike Harris keep my tax cut and give back my local government and my existing property tax bill. I won't hold him to his promise to resign.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Thank you very much, Mr Shevlin. We've run out of time. I appreciate your being here before us today.

I call on Sylvia Pellman. Is Sylvia Pellman here? Okay, we'll move to the next.

1100

MARJORIE NICHOL

The Vice-Chair: Will Marjorie Nichol please come to the front? Good morning, Ms Nichol, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Marjorie Nichol: Good morning, and thank you very much for letting me come here this morning. My name is Marjorie Nichol. I have lived and worked in North York and Toronto for the past 25 years. Like one of the previous speakers, I'm also from Lotusland. Nothing amazed me more when I moved here than to find out what a wonderful place it is to live. I am worried that that is threatened.

There are so many reasons this bill is a horrible mistake that I won't bore you with going over them all again. I'm sure you all know by now that the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto really don't want to be amalgamated. Perhaps even more importantly, we would have liked it if somebody had asked us what we thought of the idea before they began steamrolling ahead with it. People don't like having things rammed down their throats.

All of this has put Conservative members of this Legislature in a very difficult position. There is no easy way out of this mess. I hear it said all the time that you guys don't care what people think, that you're dictators and you're going to ignore the results of all the referenda. I just find that hard to believe. This is Ontario. I believe that although there is no easy way out of this mess, there are some reasonable alternatives to the course this government is presently following.

Even if the megacity itself is a really great idea, which I doubt, I know I'm not the only one to be deeply offended by the way this government has tried to implement it. If it is such a great idea, take the time to convince us. We are reasonable people. If it really is a good idea, we'll come around. Right now, we are not convinced that our services are going to be delivered more efficiently; we are not convinced that having fewer politicians is going to be good for us; we are not convinced that it's going to save us any money. On the other hand, we are also not convinced that our taxes won't go up; we're not convinced that there won't be a tragic collapse in social services. We are not convinced about any of these things, and that is why we are so worried about the future of our cities.

There are two important issues here. Many people I know are voting no because they don't want a megacity, but I believe just as many are voting no because they don't believe such an important decision is being made properly. We never heard a word about this during the last provincial election. I never heard one person saying they were going to vote Conservative because they wanted to live in a megacity. We have cities that work. We are scared that it's going to be seriously damaged and we don't like being told that our opinions are unimportant.

That's why tonight's referenda results are going to be what the Premier has called a slam dunk for the No side. The people are telling you to go back to the drawing board. It has been said that there are flaws in the referenda process. I agree. But that's not an excuse to ignore what people think. One of the biggest problems is that you guys haven't bothered to campaign.

Last week, I worked one afternoon as a volunteer for the city of North York. I was calling people up and reminding them to go and vote. A few people said to me that they were confused. They wanted to do the right thing. They'd heard all kinds of reasons they should vote no, and no one had told them any reasons they should vote yes. What should they do, they asked me. I didn't know what to say. If there are any reasons to vote yes, I don't know what they are. I suggested that they call their Conservative MPPs and ask them. It was all I could do.

There is a perception that while we've been campaigning, the government of Ontario has simply repeated over and over again that it doesn't matter what we think. It's not too late to change that perception. My first choice would be that the government respect the wishes of the voters and just forget this whole idea. Turkeys can't fly, and this idea is a turkey. If the Conservatives withdrew Bill 103 tomorrow morning, you would rise in the esteem of voters all over Ontario. I'm not saying we'd all turn into Tories overnight, but we would have to admit that in a difficult situation you did the right thing.

There are other alternatives. If, for whatever reason, you don't think these referenda have been fair, why don't you hold one that you think is fair? Have one voting system for all of Metro, find a question that you and the mayors can agree on -- I'm sure you can do that -- and then you can campaign. Explain your vision of how this amalgamation is going to improve our lives. All the issues can be aired and thoroughly discussed, and if it is as good an idea as Mr Leach says it is, I suppose you'll win. I know this will cost some money, but it is the way this probably should have been handled in the first place.

Another, less expensive possibility -- and my personal favourite, unless you withdraw the bill tomorrow morning -- is that you could shelve the idea until after the next provincial election. Use the election campaign as an opportunity to explain the benefits of amalgamation. If the people agree with you, you'll be back here with a clear mandate to proceed.

As things stand now, you are in a difficult position. Premier Harris and Mr Leach are asking you to support a bill that is enormously unpopular and possibly ruinous to your careers. You've heard from your own riding associations that even lifelong Tories are against it. I don't believe that any one of you went into this business because you wanted to ram bad ideas down people's throats against our will. I talk to people all the time who believe that is why you went into politics. Maybe I'm naïve. I just don't think that's possible.

I think you go into politics because you believe that politics improves people's lives, or it can. Unfortunately, that means you sometimes have to make decisions that are extremely difficult. In this case, your moral responsibility is clear. In the absence of public support for the amalgamation, you really have no choice but to oppose this bill. I know it's not easy to vote against your own party, but you know that your first responsibility is not to Premier Harris; it's to us. Besides, it seems to me that loyalty should be a two-way street, and if I were you, I'd be asking him why he put you in this position in the first place. He's put all of your jobs at tremendous risk, and it wasn't necessary. This could have been handled very differently. It should have been handled very differently. It's not too late for you to tell him that, and it's not too late for you to do the right thing. Please show that you respect the people who elected you. If you can't convince this government to withdraw Bill 103, please let them know that you have no morally supportable choice but to vote against it. Thank you very much.

Ms Churley: Thank you for your presentation. I thought you did a very good job in a reasoned way in trying to explain to the government members why people are so angry, and I think one of the major reasons is what you said. It's being rammed down their throats, and neither the government nor the three major papers who editorially are supporting amalgamation have been able to prove their case, which to me is interesting, given the amount of money that the papers and the government itself in its advertising have put into it, which leads me to this question.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are some flaws in the referendum system, notwithstanding the fact that I like your idea -- it would be nice if the government were interested in doing one itself, but it isn't -- this government is already discrediting the system, saying it won't listen to it because it's a flawed referendum. What do you think the people of Metro Toronto are going to feel like if it's an overwhelming no and this government still says, "We're not going to listen, period"?

Ms Nichol: I'll answer the question indirectly. I have lived all my life in this country. I don't believe that these gentlemen are just going to stand up and say, "We don't care what you think." You're asking me what we'll do if they do that. I just hold out hope that in a democracy these gentlemen will look in the mirror, try to remind themselves why they went into this business and just go in to Premier Harris and say: "Look, I'd like to do what you want, but I can't. I work for the voters." If they don't do that, I don't know what will happen.

I hear all the time that you guys don't care what we think. I don't believe that. I hold out hope that you will listen to the people. So I can't answer your question. If you don't, I don't know what will happen. It will be a nightmare.

Ms Churley: How will you personally feel if, as you say, these gentlemen don't support you in this if it's an overwhelming no? How will you feel about that?

Ms Nichol: I guess I'll feel that I was naïve about how politics works in this country. I'll feel betrayed.

Ms Churley: Given the general disdain that's held for politicians throughout all levels right now, do you think this is going to make that even worse?

Ms Nichol: I think it would, but I don't share this view that a lot of people have that all politicians are terrible and none of them cares what people think and they're only looking out for their own careers. You guys could prove me wrong, but I don't believe that. I believe that you guys really want to do what the people want or what is best for the people, and I believe that some of you are going to go in and say that you just can't vote for a bill that you know is this unpopular. I have faith.

Ms Churley: Do you believe the referendum tonight, in your mind, given what we know about the process, is just a few rabble-rousers and the majority of people are on the Yes side but aren't bothering to express it?

Ms Nichol: I don't think anybody believes that. Everybody knows this is terribly unpopular. There are some rabble-rousers, but the people who live on my street are not rabble-rousers. I live in North York. We've never been rabble-rousers before. I don't think even the people who are saying that really believe that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Nichol, for being here today. We've run out of time. We appreciate your coming.

I'd like to call for Sylvia Pellman. Is Sylvia Pellman here?

1110

MATTHIAS SCHLAEPFER

The Vice-Chair: Is Matthias Schlaepfer here? Good morning, Mr Schlaepfer, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Matthias Schlaepfer: Thank you. Critics of Bill 103 have been called ill-informed, self-protective and narrow-minded. I have lived in Toronto for exactly half of my life; the other half I have spent in Zurich, London and Paris. For almost 30 years, I have worked internationally in urban development, design and planning, for the last decade primarily in the United States. I live in Mr Leach's riding and work on Bay Street. Yet I belong to those who seem to be enslaved by, to use the Premier's words, "a maze of confusion," since I question Al Leach's urban theories and Mike Harris's royal prerogatives.

On January 13, the minister said in the House: "That's the democratic way to do things: have committee hearings, allow people to make deputations, give their concerns, give their suggestions, give options -- all of which will be taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker."

There is one small problem. Supporting policy studies either don't exist or are being kept secret. What options were considered? How were consequences predicted? What evaluation criteria were used? We don't even know how amalgamation within Metro's boundaries, boundaries that have become largely irrelevant, is to benefit the real issue of GTA-wide coordination. But we can make deputations, give our concerns, give our suggestions, give options, all of which will be taken into consideration. So here is suggestion number 1 for the minister: Show us how Metropolitan consolidation is to solve GTA-wide fragmentation.

Proponents of Bill 103 seem to be unaware that the intended GTA structure, a heavy-duty core with small fringe units, has been tried before and dropped. Between 1954 and 1974, Metro's planning area was three times the size of its jurisdiction. Surrounding municipalities, although represented on the planning board, were politically disfranchised and dominated by Metro. Such a regional guidance system proved to be a flop.

Of course, addressing overspill problems is supposed to be the province's duty. For decades now, it has simply downloaded its responsibility. Provincial ineptness, however, has reached new heights with Bill 103.

In the absence of relevant facts, I've consulted the Guide to Municipal Restructuring. In his introduction, the minister urges: "Local restructuring should not be left up to an independent third party to decide. These decisions should be made by local governments as they know best the needs of their taxpayers." The obvious suggestion number 2 for the minister: Heed your own advice, or was this another honest mistake?

I've also checked my member's newsletters. In spring 1996, Al Leach mentioned the Golden report and wrote: "For the past several weeks, a panel has been gaining public input from GTA residents and interested parties about the recommendations. The government will make its decision on reform in early spring or so." Then we were also allowed to make deputations, give our concerns, give our suggestions, give options, all of which will be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, our concerns, suggestions and options, as reported by Libby Burnham, didn't please the government, so that democratic way had to be abandoned pronto.

I have studied the minister's board of trade speech in which he boasted about the KPMG study and all its wonderful fairy tale savings. By now, of course, we have all learned that Mike Harris was right when he said services always cost more in large municipalities. Understandably, neither the minister nor his experts can name a single city anywhere where amalgamation has saved money. Here is suggestion number 3: Show us savings based on more than a hope and a prayer.

The minister went on to brag about a new structure of city council, community councils and neighbourhood communities, which incidentally isn't mentioned in the bill. He said: "It will reduce overlap and duplication. It will be a simpler, more accountable, less confusing system of local government."

New York City has a similar makeup of city council, borough boards and community boards. To learn how it reduces overlap and duplication, you review, for example, its convoluted Uniform Land Use Review Process. You've got a diagram in your package. Suggestion number 4: Learn from the mistakes of megacities.

I've also examined the minister's famous pamphlet. In it he asks, "Would we be better served by one unified government...one that is competitive and strong and brings with it international recognition and presence in the global market?" The answer is simple. No. Big governments are not competitive. Places that flourish in the global economy bridge local boundaries, promote creative learning and foster adaptive alliances. In contrast, Al Leach wants to fashion Toronto after autocratic Singapore.

Japan, Germany, Switzerland and the United States consistently excel in international rankings of competitiveness. How were their successful areas structured?

Japan's Keihin region, the world's leading high-tech area centred on Tokyo and Yokohama, is a composite of numerous local jurisdictions.

Germany's Baden-Württemberg, recently singled out as a role model for 21st century competitiveness, is organized as a multicentred region focused on Stuttgart, with 560,000 residents.

The canton of Zurich, the economic engine of Switzerland, covers only a quarter of the GTA but is made up of 171 municipalities whose autonomy is safeguarded by a cantonal constitution.

The Silicon Valley, covering 15% of the area of the GTA, crosses municipalities from Palo Alto to San Jose. Success factors include a celebration of individualism, a disdain for bureaucracy and a distrust of big-government solutions, the direct antithesis of a megacity.

Suggestion 5 for the minister: An open, cosmopolitan mindset cannot be imposed through a rigid metropolitan structure.

This brings me back to the democratic way to do things. The Toronto Star's John Honderich recently wrote: "On the issue of referenda, the Star has consistently opposed their use to determine government policy. This is not because of any attempt to deny democracy, but more because we believe in a theory of representative democracy."

Unlike the Star, the apparent brain trust of megacity mania, I'm no authority on the theory of representative democracy. But to call democratic a practice where, for five years, a government elected by a minority can impose on the majority whatever it likes, even the exact opposite of what it promised, I find shocking. That in fact is democratic centralism, a doctrine proclaimed by Lenin in 1906, which calls for iron discipline and autocratic control. Is it any coincidence that Moscow is one of the few megacity precedents? In 1931, the central committee of the Bolshevik Communist Party and the USSR Council of Ministers assumed direct control of Moscow, and in 1960, its size was doubled by Khrushchev. He at least had the guts to admit that: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even when there is no river."

For 2,000 years, democracy meant rule by citizens. Only 200 years ago, representative democracy was born because, as Alexander Hamilton put it in 1777, from the people, you must expect error, confusion and instability.

However, as the Economist recently pointed out: "The changes that have taken place since then have removed many of the differences between ordinary people and their representatives.... As a result, what worked reasonably well in the 19th century will not work in the 21st century."

What doesn't work has been plainly exposed in this megacity fiasco. Not only does our electoral system distort the popular will, colossal confusion reigns over the roles of representatives. They don't reflect the views of their constituents, the principle of delegation; they aren't obedient to campaign promises, the principle of mandation; and they don't act according to their own conscience, the principle of representation. Instead, they submit to the capricious control by party despots whose highest moral credo seems to be, "If you are willing to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul."

Some advocates take the narrow legalistic view, firmly based on deep medieval thinking, that cities are nothing but creatures of the province. Surely the nature of a city's evolution directly affects its democratic legitimacy and shapes its political culture. A city based on the normative will of its citizens has a capacity to form a consensus on aspirations and to nurture ingenuity, tolerance, liberty and compassion; an institution imposed through reckless intervention and brash coercion does not.

In summary, Bill 103 offers a foolish choice. To paraphrase Woody Allen: More than any time in history, Toronto faces a crossroads. One path leads to the status quo of despair and utter hopelessness; the other to amalgamation and total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.

My final suggestion is for government members. Show integrity and stand up for moral standards. Free us from this mega-blunder so that we can find common ground. That's the democratic way to do things.

1120

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Schlaepfer, and we'll ask Mr Gilchrist: 30 seconds.

Mr Gilchrist: Very briefly, then. Sorry we don't have more time. Thank you for your presentation. I would correct one aspect of your report. In fact, the Robarts report suggested a number of changes within Metro that if not followed, his submission was, York and East York could not survive, particularly York. The Goldenberg report in 1965 called for the elimination of York and East York that far back. So to suggest that there have not been studies that suggest it is inappropriate to have communities that small -- they date back 30 years.

I note that in your summary of various authors on the subject you don't list Neal Pearce, Michael Keating, J. J. Palen or Robert Dahl. For anyone you could quote suggesting cities should stay small, I could quote you one who has said the cities must grow to be able to remain competitive with the other large cities around the world, we must find a niche, we must market ourselves comprehensively as one common market to be able to stand on our own and to continue to attract jobs and investment. But I thank you for your report.

The Vice-Chair: We've run out of time. Thank you very much for appearing here today.

Mr Schlaepfer: Was that a question?

The Vice-Chair: We've run out of time. Thank you very much.

JAN BEECROFT

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

Ms Jan Beecroft: I'm here to speak to an aspect of community life that is normally not terribly politically active. First of all, I'm an officer in several organizations, one of which is a local history group which studies the downtown area, particularly a section of the city which contains eight historic communities. I'm also an officer in an organization which studies the founding period, and I would suggest to you that there are probably very few people in this room who actually know where Toronto began and where the original town of York existed and what may be left of any of that. I'm also chair of a heritage cooperative which deals with everything from ethnic history through rail history, and I'm spokesman for a movement which deals with the Toronto waterfront and increasing concern over what's happened to that waterfront. This movement has a published vision which has over 100 pages of public endorsements. I'm here to address the subject of heritage, which I do not see evident anywhere in either Bill 103 or any of the other legislation that is being proposed.

I would like to suggest that communities, as well as governments, exist for the benefit of their citizens, not the other way around. What defines a community, large or small, whether that community is simply a neighbourhood or a province, are the things that give it an identity. The sense of community and identity are inextricably tied to history.

The Metropolitan heritage community has been trying to map the heritage of the Metropolitan region. Over the past five years, we have identified 90 aboriginal village sites dating from a period of 10,000 years that we can talk about and another 90 which we are unable to talk about because of the need to protect these as archeological sites.

I ask you to think where in the Metropolitan region there is any evidence whatsoever of 10,000 years of aboriginal occupation in those communities. I'd ask you also to think of the French regime, where we had 200 years of French history in this province and in this city before the British regime ever began. Where would you go to learn about or see that? There were five French communities here before 1759 and what followed 1759.

In the British regime, this maps project has identified the existence of nearly 300 communities that can be pinpointed within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto and were in existence before 1900. What has happened to these communities? Many of them continue to exist as neighbourhoods, and in those neighbourhoods I think you'll find, if you look, that not only have there sprung up a number of heritage organizations which research and try to protect the things that identify that neighbourhood, but there are also residents' associations which do the same thing. These organizations often end up opposing the political officials elected to protect the public interest.

If so much of this heritage is already invisible, what is going to happen within the Metropolitan region with continuing change? If you watch television, you'll see an ad from CIBC on television which says, "When you never forget where you came from, you can see clearly where you're going." That is an axiom which has been expressed over and over again throughout the field of heritage work and through historical research. You can't know what you should do next until you know what's already been done.

Within the Metropolitan region there has been a constant evolution, a constant series of changes: changes of boundaries, mergers, amalgamations, annexations, absorptions of various kinds. The ones that have worked have worked because the citizens asked for it.

It's my perhaps naïve belief that governments are elected to serve the public interest. In the province of Ontario, and this bears directly on the Metropolitan region, what is the government doing in this bill or in any of the other bills to protect the backbone of historical research that reveals our identity, and that is specifically the land records? Perhaps the committee is aware that all of the land records from 1793 to 1945 have been destroyed. All we have left are copybooks with errors and some microfilm which is not complete and is of very poor quality. That is a responsibility of the government of Ontario, to protect these records. That's part of knowing where we came from.

It also has significance because in Bill 103, because there's no mention of heritage, there's no mention of the rights of certain groups -- I'd like to draw to the committee's attention the Mississaugas of the New Credit, who were the people who lived here with whom the negotiations for the Toronto purchase were carried on. Those negotiations began in 1783 but the final documents weren't signed until 1923, and throughout the whole process the Toronto Islands were never part of the deal. No government in Canada owns the Toronto Islands. Where is the protection for the rights of the people who own them? Where is the protection for the Toronto Islands as a natural heritage resource?

If people who do not know their history make decisions, they're going to repeat the mistakes of the past. We've seen in the Metropolitan region a lot of mistakes: We've seen our rivers buried; we've seen our ravines filled in; we've seen the shoreline of the post-ice age Lake Iroquois eroded and bulldozed away and developed over; we've seen the builders and their achievements of the past torn down and forgotten, resulting in a serious loss of identity and a metropolis that looks or is beginning to look as if it was just born yesterday.

1130

Bill 103 has no mention of heritage. What is going to happen if government at the provincial level abdicates its responsibility for preserving the identity of communities, downloads it on municipalities, who then download it on to the volunteer sector, which is the one I work in?

Taking the land records as an example, the suggestion has been made by this government that those who value these records -- the volunteer sector, the historians who work without any support -- simply take these records over. In the Toronto region the present set of records from 1945 to 1955 amount to some 68 filing cabinets full of records. Most heritage groups in the volunteer sector don't even have a home. They meet in libraries or park benches or restaurant tables. How can they assume that responsibility which is properly that of the province?

Museums are closing. What is going to happen to tourism if not only the buildings are disappearing but the existing museums and heritage resources which might bring tourists from other parts of the world to visit the city and understand it? What is going to happen to that tourism industry if these things fail?

The Chair: Sorry, Ms Beecroft, we're coming to the end of your time. I wonder if you could sum up in the remaining seconds.

Ms Beecroft: I would like to propose that Bill 103 be withdrawn and that the process of consultation with those who pay the bill begin. Thank you.

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

DAN KING

The Chair: Would Dan King please come forward. Good morning, Mr King. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today for a presentation.

Mr Dan King: Good morning. I trust everyone has a copy of my presentation which is being passed out at the present time.

My name is Dan King and I am one of the active members of the Toronto LETS system. LETS stands for Local Employment and Trading System. The Toronto LETS system has over 700 members from all parts of Metro Toronto. These are people who believe in actively trading goods and services between each other without the use of cash. Careful records are maintained in nominal dollars, and we pay our income taxes.

Our system works because it constitutes a closed trading circle where everybody is empowered to trade with everyone else. This enables everyone to participate fully in a closed economy and ensures that no one who is willing to work will be left behind. The net result of this is that small businesses are able to cooperate through the exchange of underutilized capacity, and this reduces costs in the short run.

The members of the executive of the Toronto LETS system would like to encourage this committee to consider the benefits of Metro-wide or GTA-wide trading and exchange systems for municipal governments specifically. This is how it would work:

Let's consider three municipalities which have specialized skills in specific areas. I want to point out that the examples I'm giving here are just examples and don't reflect necessarily any real skills on behalf of the municipalities. Let's suppose that North York is excellent in lawn maintenance, the region of York is very good in building maintenance and Etobicoke has a specialized skill in road maintenance. Each municipality has these areas which they're better at and other areas where perhaps their departments could be improved. Rather than spending extra money on upgrading these departments, these departments could be closed or reduced and the funds released invested in their better departments.

Each municipality will trade with the other municipalities those services that they are most efficient at providing, and there would be no need for each municipality to balance out their trading. With six or seven municipalities bartering, trading and exchanging with each other, all that would matter is that there was, in general, an overall balance.

Simple bookkeeping would keep track of all this. A central municipality exchange office could keep a ledger, and this could easily be handled by Metro or possibly by a GTA level of government.

Municipalities would achieve greater efficiencies through specialization. While municipalities achieve greater economies of scale, they would at the same time achieve a greater choice of suppliers. In some areas of service, several municipalities could compete to become the efficient supplier of choice.

I'm moving on to the middle of the next page now. I have spent several years working in the oil industry, and there are extensive exchange agreements with the different companies. Texaco would lift, as we call it, product from our Edmonton refinery and we at Gulf Oil lift product from the Nanticoke refinery. The consumer benefits from these arrangements because the transportation costs that would be required if we had just used our own refineries are eliminated.

The municipalities are doing much the same thing as we do in the oil industry for fire service in Metro. They keep records and they bill each other for their various service calls. Let's expand this program that we have going and working for the fire service in Metro. Let's barter and trade every service that we have in Metro, every service that our municipalities have to offer. Let's increase this 100-fold.

In his recent position paper, Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute -- and I've included this as the last page of my flyer -- points out that large amalgamated city governments reduce competition between governments simply by eliminating them. This produces big-government stagnation and inefficiency. Michael Walker supports the disaggregation of municipal governments into smaller units, like the ones we have now in Metro. These can compete with each other to produce the most attractive urban environment possible for Metro residents, and a diversity of lifestyle choices at the lowest possible cost.

I'm particularly addressing this to the government members. This has been a very difficult process of amalgamation, not only for Metro but also for the government, and everyone's position appears to be in jeopardy at this time. The government spokesmen have indicated that amendments are likely to be made, and I ask this committee to consider taking something very positive back from the hearings to cabinet. I ask this committee to take something that will result in major cost savings without any significant outlays in transition costs at all.

Our proposal will permit amalgamation of Metro at a balance-sheet level without enduring the costs of amalgamation at a political level. The 15% savings that are needed to deliver the government's tax cut targets could be reached by delivering this at a municipal level. A Metro-wide trading and exchange system for goods and services specifically for the seven municipal governments will provide this government with a positive restructuring alternative that will yield great benefits and change for the better the very nature of municipal government.

I'd like to ask the Chair for permission to at least receive questions of clarification perhaps from all members of the committee, since this is a matter of economics.

The Chair: The Liberal caucus has the ability to ask questions at this point in time, so they can ask or answer or transfer their periods. It's up to them. Do you want to put some questions on the record?

Mr Colle: I just have one question. You brought up an interesting point here in terms of quoting the conservative think tank, the Fraser Institute. The executive director, Michael Walker, who basically reinforces your point, says: "Amalgamation also brings with it another problem, namely, monopoly supply. An amalgamated municipality has only one supplier of all city services. This monopoly supplier typically then finds it expedient to negotiate with only one supplier of labour services. The taxpayers then become the foils in a ritual drama..."

In terms of your system, you're trying to say that you want to encourage competition and a multitude of suppliers of products and services. Is that the essence of what your thesis is in your LETS program?

Mr King: That's right, just the way business works in the community: a multiplicity of suppliers. But in this case here, for those who are concerned about union jobs, we could have union workers in East York and union workers in North York and they would perhaps both be doing municipal services of different types, and they would compete to do the work in Etobicoke.

1140

Mr Colle: Okay, that's fine.

Mr Sergio: Mr King, from your presentation, I gather that you prefer the "smaller is better"?

Mr King: It's interesting, because smaller is better in the sense that we can permit greater variety of choice. On the other hand, if instead of having seven lawn-trimming departments in Metro, we have maybe three or four, we'll also be benefiting from competition and choice, but we'll still achieve economies of scale.

Mr Sergio: I haven't read anything in your presentation with respect to the GTA. It may be fine to have these three or four new cities within Metro here, eliminating one level, but what about the GTA, which has been something that has been touched, studied, recommended by previous reports? Do you think we should be addressing ourselves, if we do make changes now with this sort of amalgamation idea, to take into consideration the GTA as well?

Mr King: I think actually the possibility of a GTA-wide level of government is very exciting for this type of proposal because instead of having seven municipalities competing and providing that choice, Etobicoke would have the alternative of getting some of their landscaping done by Mississauga's departments. There's opportunity for tremendous efficiencies increasing there.

The problem with Metro amalgamation is that it actually reduces the viability of GTA government -- I'll call it government, the GTA organization -- because you have one very large member-participant and then a lot of smaller ones. So we're really going in the wrong direction.

Mr Sergio: What squabbling we have seen is the Metro municipalities versus the other regions, again the GTA. This is something that even the government has been basing its own legislation on here that says we have to eliminate this and that. But are we really eliminating by creating one big city here, leaving the GTA untouched? We are creating two larger bodies to go at each other again.

Mr King: I certainly agree with you, especially in the fact that it would reduce choice. It would reduce choice not only for citizens but also for governments and for different people. There's less choice with one larger government.

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

MIRIAM HAWKINS

The Chair: Would Miriam Hawkins please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Miriam Hawkins: Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr Chair, members of the committee.

I wanted to follow up on what Dan King was talking about with respect to the Local Employment and Trading System. I think it's quite a brilliant plan and it's one that dovetails with some movement in the rest of the world economies. We see local governments across New Zealand, Australia and now England moving towards local employment trading systems. They're subsidized by the federal governments and by municipal acts that allow for seed funding for local employment trading systems to be established in these areas. We have 600 across Australia and New Zealand and another 600 being established in England as we speak. So local employment trading systems are certainly a form of alternative currency.

I think one of the things we see as one of the major thrusts in terms of what will be devastating results of the implementation of Bill 103 is that we're running out of money. We're running out of money federally; we're running out of money provincially. The honourable Marilyn Churley will remember how we introduced casinos and why we introduced casinos into this province despite huge public distaste for casinos. I remember sitting in the casino project offices and seeing the stacks of petitions six feet tall lined up side by side. We're bringing in casinos because we're running out of money, and this is one of the reasons we need to look at alternative currencies.

But if we could just backtrack a little bit to Bill 103 and the nature of Bill 103, it is entirely anti-democratic. It sets a precedent whereby a provincial government can eliminate local democracy in one fell swoop. It stuns me how much power this gives a single minister of the government. There isn't a recourse to cabinet; there isn't a recourse to public consultation. It sets up a process whereby we would have public consultation but it wouldn't have any meaning, it wouldn't have any authority. In fact, the public consultations are really void of any kind of meaning except that they are included in the bill perhaps to let the public think they will have input. But there's no binding enforceability of anything the public has to say.

If the intention of the government is to ask the public for input into the development of a strategy, this is certainly not the way to do it.

If I could just review a couple of the aspects of the bill, what I think is most confusing perhaps is the dates. What we see here is that the order to take place on January 1, 1998, is back-dated under section 23. We're talking about subsection 4(2), the order for the wards and neighbourhood committees to be reassigned under 22 electoral districts. The date on which this order takes effect is rescinded by a subsequent section, and this is very confusing. I don't know whether this is intended to facilitate something that again should be subject to public discussion. I think the public wants to take part in the reorganization of electoral districts. To have all this taking place by the end of 1997, with the order taking effect after the fact, and for it to be back-dated by yet another section of this bill is incomprehensible.

We see the transfer of powers and provision for the private and secret sale of public utilities of all kinds. Again, public control over these utilities is a long-established and meaningful example of how the public should be taking part in the control of its services. This is a very frightening direction and one that again calls into question the sincerity of this process.

The city council will be responsible for establishing the neighbourhood committees, and yet we see a process whereby the function of these neighbourhood committees would be determined by the board of trustees. Where will the final power truly lie? Will it lie with an elected council or will it ultimately lie with appointed trustees and transition team members? Who are we really saying the neighbourhood committees will report to if they have no power and if the trustees are appointed?

Another question is, do we want to maintain a system where we might have a trustee who can appoint a single person -- the board of trustees can be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor; it can be a single person. So in other words, we're vesting an incredible amount of power in potentially one person who is appointed by an appointee. It seems to me that we're taking what is now a very large city with a great degree of representation and boiling it down into a single appointment that will have no public recourse, no recourse in the courts. It sounds to me like an abrogation of all democratic principle.

When we see what the bill holds in terms of the public consultations and what the transition team will do, the transition team is already given the power to establish the new city's basic organizational structure, which makes one wonder what the purpose of public consultations will be, because we already have the functions assigned to the neighbourhood committees and the public consultations are after the fact. We already have these things designed; it's in the bill. We have these neighbourhood committees already set up and their functions designed and then we hold public consultations to decide what that will be. That sounds like putting the cart before the horse. As to the rationalization and integration of municipal services, again it appears that there's public consultation on this, but we've already set this up in advance. These functions are already determined by the appointees, so I don't see that these public consultations are meaningful nor are they binding.

There's no end to the examples of how there is no more public representation under this bill. I stayed up till 6 o'clock in the morning reading it and re-reading it and trying to find a way that the public's input is really going to be meaningful, and I could not. It seems to me that we are certainly moving away from a system in which the public can access its councillors to one in which there will be a Premier and possibly as few as a single trustee on a board of trustees which can make decisions without recourse to any kind of public consultation.

I'll leave it at that. It seems that we're going in the wrong direction as a municipality and that the public will not be satisfied with the downloading of costs and that in fact we may see these local employment trading systems growing as a direct result of this in any case. Whether or not the municipalities take part in this, the public will turn to alternative forms of currency because of federal policies and provincial policies that don't take advantage of our power to create money for public works and to pay our bills. I think this will be the ultimate result, that people will join barter systems and alternative currency systems and move away from a dependency on a system which is falling apart.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You have about a minute, Ms Churley.

Ms Churley: Thank you very much. I'm not "the Honourable" any more, by the way.

Ms Hawkins: I still want to call you Honourable.

Ms Churley: I continue to try to be honourable.

Your example about the casino: Of course our government brought in the one in Windsor and the first nations and said that we would not allow VLTs outside of gaming establishments. Interestingly enough, it's connected in a way to this bill because Mike Harris, who was then the leader of the third party, said that he would not allow any more casinos without referendums. In the meantime, they're establishing them all over Ontario through the back door, charitable casinos, without referendums.

Of course we're having a referendum today because this government refused to go out and listen to the people. The cities are having these referendums. The government says it will not listen even though we all know by now -- they've even conceded -- that it will be an overwhelming No. How do you feel about that, that the government said it won't listen to the results of a referendum?

Ms Hawkins: It's fitting with the style of this bill because the public consultations which are built into the bill to develop the role of the neighbourhood committees and that would purportedly set the course for the design of the new city do not bind the government to anything the public has to say in these consultations. So it seems to me that they want to do it their way and ignore what anybody has to say from the outset and it's built into the bill to reinforce the lack of recourse that the public would have on any consultative process.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Hawkins, for coming forward with your presentation.

Stewart Mlotek? Sylvia Pellman? I think both are no-shows, so this committee will be in recess until 3:30.

The committee recessed from 1154 to 1533.

DENNIS RAPHAEL

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the standing committee on general government and the hearings on the City of Toronto Act. Our first deputant today is Dennis Raphael. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Dr Dennis Raphael: My name is Dennis Raphael and I'm a professor of community health at the University of Toronto. I'm also a psychologist. I research the quality of life of communities with particular emphasis upon the health and wellbeing of seniors, youth and persons with disabilities. I'm here to talk about Bill 103 and why I see it as a threat to the health and wellbeing of the residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

The first reason Bill 103 is a threat has to do with what we know about the health and wellbeing of individuals who live in different sized cities. An extensive body of research has documented that the health and wellbeing of individuals who live in larger cities are generally worse than those who live in smaller cities. After an extensive review of all these studies, Kirkpatrick Sale concluded:

"Evidence of a poorer quality of life in larger cities abounds in the areas of mental and physical health, education, crime, recreation, and cultural activities (excluding symphony orchestras and opera companies). The traditional economic advantages provided by the `agglomeration effects' (the benefits of having everything conveniently lumped together) no longer are in evidence in giant cities."

In regard to illness and disease, the extensive review by Sale found:

"The data consistently favour small cities: There are fewer pollution- and stress-related diseases, lower death rates for cancer, heart disease and diabetes, markedly lower incidences of bronchitis, ulcers, high blood pressure, alcoholism and drug addiction."

Why would this be so? Mr Sale states that once a city becomes too large -- he sees cities of more than 100,000 as becoming problematic; others argue for an optimal size of 250,000 -- citizens lose the ability to influence local governments. Essentially, they lose their ability to participate as partners in the democratic process. Urban authority Jane Jacobs, the author of the classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities, argues that larger governments are more distant and unable to respond quickly to local needs.

Community psychologists find that a prime component of health and wellbeing is a sense of belonging and community that larger cities are not conducive to developing. In all of these scenarios, the lack of community belonging is associated with feelings of powerlessness, which then serves as a risk factor for the development of malaise, illness and disease.

All the published literature I have seen agrees with these conclusions. Extensive studies done by Lee and Guest, Appelbaum and Dahmann all reached similar conclusions: Larger cities are related to lower quality of life. Let me repeat this: Larger cities are related to lower quality of life.

One of the most famous living authorities on cities, Ms Jacobs, has already testified to this committee on how Bill 103 bodes poorly for the people of Toronto. Why would any rational human being want to risk destroying the number one municipality in which to live in the world in light of all of these findings?

In my own ongoing research, I ask residents in Metropolitan Toronto what makes for a good quality of life and what is it about a neighbourhood or community that makes life good for them and the people they care about. People of all ages speak of how responsive community representatives, availability of free or low-cost community recreation and service facilities, quality and well-cared-for housing, public transportation, and safety and security improve their lives. Also mentioned are the availability of medical care and local community health centres. Of almost universal concern is the effect of cutbacks in services. Nobody thinks that amalgamation will improve their quality of life. In fact, most people we have spoken to believe that the biggest threat to their quality of life are the policies of this government, including Bill 103.

This should not be surprising. The World Health Organizations's healthy cities project has documented a number of qualities of a healthy city. These include a number of characteristics that are directly threatened by amalgamation. These are a safe, clean physical environment of high quality; an ecosystem that is stable and sustainable; a strong, mutually supportive and non-exploitive community; a high degree of participation and control by the public over the decisions affecting their lives, health and wellbeing; the meeting of basic needs for all the city's people; and the encouragement of connectedness with the past.

The city of Toronto is a founding member of the healthy cities movement and an honorary member of the World Health Organization's European healthy cities office. Does anybody really believe that an amalgamated Toronto will be able to achieve the qualities of a healthy city? The threat of amalgamation to Toronto citizens led to the following resolution being moved and accepted by the health and wellness working group of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Aging: "Whereas local government is seen as most likely to meet the specific needs of seniors and whereas larger governments are more likely to not meet the specific needs of vulnerable groups such as seniors: The TMCA identifies Bill 103 as a threat to the health and wellbeing of Toronto seniors, and therefore states it opposition to Bill 103." This motion will be considered by the full committee tomorrow.

Based on everything we know, including the overwhelming opposition to Bill 103 from virtually all urban experts, why would this government continue with its blind adherence to legislation that is so obviously flawed and misguided? Some believe that Bill 103 is a smokescreen for downloading social and health services on to the municipalities. In this blitzkrieg analysis, the government throws so many things at municipalities that they won't know what to do next. There probably is much truth to this view, but I have a different explanation.

1540

I was originally trained as a child psychologist, and in child psychology there is a concept called impulse control. Impulse control refers to the ability to control feelings and ideas of hostility and aggression, as well as inhibit immediate gratification of desires. For children, impulse control is an important issue among two- to five-year-olds.

In most children impulse control develops together with empathy and a decrease in egocentrism. When impulse control does not develop, we see behaviours that are common among spoiled children, delinquents and, in severe cases, criminals: verbal abuse, impulsive actions and little if any reflective behaviour. Also common are outbreaks of sulking, brooding and whining, and episodes of untruthfulness.

It is my hypothesis that Bill 103 is a result of the lack of impulse control among prominent government cabinet members. If a cabinet minister has the idea of downloading public health costs, "Sure, let's do it." If another thinks to get rid of social housing, "Why not?" If another gets the idea to punish the city of Toronto for opposing the end of rent control and having a progressive council and mayor, "Sure, let's get rid of them too."

Sadly, the prognosis for the lack of impulse control is not good. If caught early enough, new skills can be learned and sometimes late bloomers can internalize controls without behaviour modification. Sometimes even medications are helpful. Becoming aware of the problem is part of its solution.

At a recent meeting of Citizens for Local Democracy, best-selling author John Ralston Saul, another opponent of Bill 103, related that an assistant to Al Leach had asked Mr Saul with much gusto words to the effect of: "Don't you want Toronto to be like New York or Chicago? Those are great cities." Well, I grew up in New York and I also lived in Chicago. In both places many people had no idea who their city councillor was, and many residents of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island had no idea where city hall was.

Was New York a great city for me? While it may have been great for the opera, classical music and theatre, and even at times for its basketball and baseball teams, it was also great for crime, break-ins, racial hatred, poverty, illness, dirt and garbage. Chicago was a bit better, but don't be caught downtown after dark, or on the south side any time.

If New York and Chicago represent the image of Toronto that this government and Bill 103 would have us aspire to, then the people of Metropolitan Toronto are in trouble. Many would share my view that government members who wish to live in a Toronto like New York or Chicago, should move there rather than bring it here.

When I first came up to Toronto from New York City in 1973, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. I still do. In Toronto I know my city councillor, Metro councillor and provincial MPP on a first-name basis. In a representative democracy who else can I and others call upon to influence the government of the day? The mantra of this government that we have too many politicians begs the question: If we have fewer politicians, then who do the people have to influence how governments make policy? Should we leave this influence to big business, the market, the global economy, the chamber of commerce?

The problem is not politicians. I am very happy with mine, thank you. We need more like them, not less. The problem is politicians who feel no need to be accountable to citizens, who deny citizens the opportunity to meaningfully affect government policy and who, already found to be in contempt of the Ontario Legislature and more recently found to be in contempt of the law, continue to be in contempt of the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

Bertolt Brecht said: "What good are cities, built without the peoples' wisdom?" Today, March 3, the people of Metropolitan Toronto are speaking their wisdom. Listen to them and withdraw Bill 103 now.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Raphael. You've effectively exhausted your allotted 10 minutes, but I want to thank you for coming forward this afternoon and making a presentation to the committee.

ROB MAXWELL

The Chair: Rob Maxwell, please. Good afternoon, Mr Maxwell, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Rob Maxwell: My comments are going to be quite brief. I would expect that by this point in the hearings everything that could possibly be said about this bill has probably been said many times over.

On a personal note, you have my sympathies: I know what it's like to sit through these long meetings and I certainly congratulate you for having the stamina to do that. I hope that what you're hearing today, and on previous days, is going to have an affect on the decision that's ultimately made about this bill.

I want to talk a bit more about the politics surrounding this issue rather than the bill itself. I'd like to offer a way out of what I think has become an extremely messy situation for the government, and I think it's a way that would suit the interests of all the parties involved. All I really have to say about Bill 103 is that it is virtually without merit or support. Normally all that it would take not to proceed with a piece of legislation would be one of those two things, and here you have both. I would echo the words of the previous speaker that this bill should clearly be withdrawn.

One of the first rules I think everyone learns in politics is that when you figure out that you've dug yourself into a hole, you should stop digging and look for a way out of the hole rather than try to get yourself in deeper. I think the simplest and cleanest solution for the government is to simply agree that it will respect the results of the referendum that is happening today across Metro. The people of the six local municipalities would understand what you were doing, they would respect you and thank you for doing that, but the minister is saying that he will not do that.

I guess the question that I would put to the government members of this committee is: Why would you trust the judgement of the architect of what has been the biggest political fiasco for this government today? Why would you follow the advice of a general who is preparing to march all of you over the edge of a cliff? I think it's very difficult for someone to imagine what else Mr Leach and his advisers could have done wrong with this bill.

Initially, I think the strategy was that they believed the municipalities would not have the referenda, and that was wrong. I think they then felt they could convince us that we shouldn't proceed with the referendum, and they were wrong in that assessment again. The bill was announced as part of the mega-week package, which I think was another example of bad judgement.

While all this was going on, of course, Mr Leach was found to be in contempt of the Legislature, and a major part of the bill was thrown out by the courts even before it got through this committee. I don't think anyone could think of an example of a piece of legislation that has taken that many hits and has been subjected to that much bad advice.

The strategy Mr Leach appears now to have adopted is to downplay the referendum and its legitimacy and to tough it out and to hope that eventually the opposition will go away and that the government will come out of this thing clean. But I think all of you know that is not going to happen because this issue has really taken root all across Metro, in communities all across Toronto and the other local municipalities.

The opposition to the megacity makes the battle over the Spadina Expressway really look like a skirmish at a Sunday school picnic over who's going to choose the tuna fish sandwiches. That was, to this point, probably the biggest political debate that has occurred in this city for decades. I have been involved in politics in Toronto for nearly 25 years now and nothing that I have ever witnessed even remotely comes close to approaching the level of anger that exists among the public about this legislation.

I think what the Metro Days of Action may have failed to accomplish last October you have done to yourselves as a government. When the inevitable implementation problems that are going to crop up around this bill for the new megacity arise next year, those problems will not be the political responsibility of that new municipality. They will be the responsibility of the government. Everyone will know that. Everyone will point the finger at Queen's Park. I think everyone has told you that you cannot possibly implement the legislation in the timetable you have set for yourself. There are going to be some very major screwups around the implementation of this bill should you decide to proceed. The public will see that it is not the responsibility of the new municipality that's being created, it is your responsibility.

My observation about this government is that, above everything else, it wishes to appear competent and in control. You, as members of the governing party, want to be seen as good managers. It's very difficult to establish that kind of reputation. It's a tough thing to do, and once you lose that kind of reputation, it's even harder to win it back. I think really at the end of the day that's what's at risk for the government on this issue. I think above and beyond the fact that you are going to look like you do not care what people think, it's going to look like you don't know what you're doing.

That is something that's going to affect you not just here in Metro, it's going to affect the government across the entire province, and I think increasingly across the country. This has clearly become an issue of some national importance and the national press are watching very carefully what is happening in Toronto today and will continue to watch how this whole process rolls out.

I think the bottom line is that the government is going to pay an enormous political price for proceeding with this bill and at the end of the day you're not going to have a whole lot to show for it.

I think that the solution, however, is very simple. You should respect the results of today's referendum, and if the result is no, I would urge you, as a number of government members did last week on a motion coming from the opposition on the health care issue, to vote against the government.

I would then ask you to urge the minister to sit down with the local municipalities and Metro, which is really what you've done in any other city where this type of process has taken place, and talk to us and with us about the kinds of problems you see and some of the solutions you would like to offer and listen to what we have to say about that.

I think you would be very surprised at the level of agreement that would flow from those discussions. If you approached us in a fair and equitable manner in the same way that you have other municipalities in this province, I think that you would find a gesture of good faith coming back towards you and that we could sit down and probably hammer out about 90% of what you perceive as being problems, and we could probably do that for you in a way that would avoid the kind of fuss and bother you have got yourselves into up to this point.

Those are my comments. I said I would be brief and I'm very happy to answer your questions.

1550

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Are you suggesting that you are not comfortable with the status quo in terms of the kind of organization we have currently?

Mr Maxwell: I think there's a willingness on the part of my municipality and the other local municipalities within Metro to sit down and engage in a discussion on this.

Yes, clearly there are some problems. I don't think the problems are of the sort that require the mega-solution that is being brought forward today. For example, Mr Hastings, when he was a councillor in Etobicoke, and myself were involved in a committee of local councils within Metro that talked about many of the issues the government is hoping to deal with today. There were processes that had been engaged in to try and address those concerns.

What was needed was the intervention of the government is a way that respected the local municipalities and didn't dictate to them. We needed someone to come in and facilitate some of the difficulties we may have had with the discussions. I believe absolutely and completely that we could have achieved something had that been the approach the government took.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Councillor Maxwell, should Bill 103 pass -- under the assumption that Bill 103 passes, if it does -- in regard to the councillors you work with today on city council, as to those who may choose to run for this new council, is there a willingness on their part to make this new council work?

Mr Maxwell: Mr Newman, I can't speak for them in that regard. We have been involved in a process of trying to ensure the bill doesn't pass and we will wait to see whether the bill does pass and in what form.

Mr Newman: How about yourself?

Mr Maxwell: If the new council is formed, we will have no choice but to try and make it work. If you're suggesting that a bunch of people would be elected and then try and frustrate the existence of that --

Mr Newman: No, I was just asking a question.

Mr Maxwell: -- level of government, I think the answer is no. But what you have to understand is we will be in a difficult position. I expect and I think everyone in this room expects that after tonight we will have a mandate that we have to deal with as local politicians. The mandate will be to continue to oppose this legislation and try and ensure it's not adopted. I think it will require some discussion in our constituencies and among ourselves as to how we are going to proceed if the government doesn't respect the wishes of the people of Metro.

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

MARK WINFIELD

The Chair: Mark Winfield, please.

Dr Mark Winfield: I'd like to thank the members of the standing committee on general government for the opportunity to address them on this important issue. I have lived in Toronto all of my life and am deeply concerned by the contents of Bill 103.

I hold a doctorate in political science from the University of Toronto and am currently director of research with the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. However, I am appearing today in my capacity as a private citizen, having been born in North York, lived in East York and now currently being a resident of the city of Toronto.

I will not be proposing specific amendments to this bill, as I am opposed to its contents in principle. I take this position for the following six reasons:

The first is the legislation itself is deeply flawed. I would have expected legislation dealing with as complex an issue as the amalgamation of the seven municipalities making up Metropolitan Toronto into a single city would have provided a detailed structure for the transition process. Perhaps reflecting the haste with which this proposal has been moved forward, Bill 103 simply fails to do this.

Rather than providing a structure for the amalgamation process, the bill simply grants the minister, the trustees to be appointed by the minister and the transition team vast grants of authority to deal with transition issues and insulates the exercise of this authority from review by the courts. Not only is this wholly inadequate, it also constitutes an attack on the principles of democratic government and the rule of law.

Second, the proposal would reduce the representativeness, responsiveness and accountability of municipal government in Toronto. Bill 103 proposes to replace the existing seven municipal councils with a single 44-member council. This will reduce the degree to which councillors can reflect the concerns of their constituents, due both to the much larger number of constituents they'll have to represent and the wider range of issues the single council will have to deal with.

Issues of concern at the neighbourhood level, in particular, are likely to be lost in the decision-making process of the new city. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to shape policies for the whole of the new city which address the concerns and character of local communities. Residents' access to their councillors will also be greatly diminished. This has major implications in terms of responsiveness and accountability.

Third is the issue of costs. The government has failed to present any evidence capable of withstanding rigorous analysis that the amalgamation of Toronto with existing municipal governments will result in cost savings. At the same time, serious questions must be raised about the extent of the transition costs associated with the creation of an amalgamated city.

These include the direct economic costs in terms of staff time, severance packages and the disposition of assets. Consideration must also be given to the costs of social and economic disruption, particularly if the integration of services does not take place efficiently.

There are also significant opportunity costs associated with this proposal in the sense that the resources required to deal with the transition might be better employed in other ways, such as capital maintenance on essential infrastructure and the provision of enhanced community, social or environmental services.

Fourth is the loss of opportunities for policy innovation and experimentation within Metropolitan Toronto. One of the most important aspects of the current federal structure of municipal government in Metro Toronto has been the opportunities it has provided for innovation in policy development and service implementation. The city of Toronto, for example, has been recognized as one of the leading centres of innovation in the delivery of public health programs in the world. Many ideas first developed by the city have been subsequently adopted by other municipalities in the federation, and indeed around the world.

The single-tier model proposed by the government in Bill 103, by contrast, will provide virtually no opportunities for small-scale innovation and experimentation in policy development and service delivery. This contrast between federal and unitary systems of government is widely recognized by scholars as one of the key advantages of the federal model.

Fifth, rationale: The government has failed to provide any clear rationale for its amalgamation proposal. It's been unable to present any persuasive evidence as to the nature of the failures of the existing system of municipal government in Metro Toronto, or how its amalgamation proposal would address these failings.

At the same time there is considerable evidence to support the contention that the existing structures have been highly successful. To the degree to which problems have been identified with the existing structures affecting Toronto, they deal with the question of the relationships between governments in the whole of the greater Toronto area, particularly the need for the integration of large-scale services and to curb urban sprawl in the outer regions. Bill 103 does nothing to address these problems.

Sixth, the government, in my view, has no mandate to pursue this initiative. No reference was made to the possibility of the amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto's constituent municipalities in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario's June 1995 election platform, the Common Sense Revolution. Consequently, the government has no mandate to pursue the fundamental restructuring of municipal government proposed in Bill 103.

In this context, the people of Metropolitan Toronto have a fundamental right to be heard on the issue of how they will be governed at the municipal level. This is an essential democratic principle. Furthermore, it is the residents of Metropolitan Toronto who will have to bear the economic, social and environmental costs of amalgamation. Their choices in this matter must be respected and I suspect their decision will be clear in the results of today's municipal referendums on the issue.

In conclusion, I am aware the members of the committee have likely heard many of these arguments from other witnesses. In that context, I would like to conclude by asking in particular the government members to consider that if you have not found these arguments to be persuasive, then what evidence, what kind of information, what kinds of facts, if they could be demonstrated to be true, would convince you that this proposal should not be implemented?

This is a critically important decision for the economic, social and environmental future of all Ontarians. It should only proceed on the basis of a clear rationale, substantiated through research and consultation and with the consent of the people who will be affected by it.

1600

Mr Colle: Thank you very much, Mr Winfield. The question has been asked, "Has there ever been an amalgamation of this magnitude done in recent history?" -- I notice you've got a doctorate in political science -- and we've been trying to find one. The only one we could find was New York and Chicago at the turn of the century. Have you found any other amalgamation of this magnitude in your readings?

Dr Winfield: No, there does not appear to be any evidence. There have been examples of amalgamations on a large scale in recent history, but none which point to it as being a successful outcome.

Mr Colle: But has there been any amalgamation on this scale, rather than whether they're cost-effective or not? I was just searching for one that might be a good benchmark.

Dr Winfield: Offhand, in Canada the one that is cited most often is the Halifax amalgamation. In terms of North America, I can't think of any others offhand. I must admit my expertise is not in municipal government, it's at the provincial and federal levels, but offhand I can't think of any examples.

Mr Colle: Halifax is about 300,000.

Dr Winfield: Yes, much smaller.

Mr Colle: So it's smaller than Etobicoke, basically.

Dr Winfield: Yes.

Mr Colle: Therefore, we're going into uncharted waters and this government hasn't done any risk assessment. There's no cost-benefit analysis. There's no impact analysis. What are we looking forward to then if they decide to bull ahead with this, no matter what these people say in the referendum?

Dr Winfield: There's no specific information but it's difficult to have any confidence in the notion of a positive outcome. What evidence exists suggests there will be serious problems both in the transition and in the end product, that it will be less responsive to local concerns, that costs may well increase. One of our points particularly is that this legislation just does not provide for any structure to deal even with this transition. It's just a blank slate of powers to the minister and the trustees. In my view, it reflects the degree to which this just has not been thought through properly. They just haven't thought about how this is going to work.

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

JIM CARR

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

Mr Jim Carr: Good afternoon. I should start by saying thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak. I am a resident of North York, specifically the Parkway Forest community. I'm very involved with other community things, as well as Neighbourhood Watch and community police liaison. I believe in community. I was born in Toronto, raised in Etobicoke and Woodbridge, and am living in North York at the moment. I've been all over the Toronto area.

I personally believe this amalgamation plan will be the biggest positive change that this government will have on our society in this generation. I believe it will bring about the rebirth of neighbourhoods, of community spirit. It will unite people with common goals and interests, and allow them to start working together towards a common cause, addressing their mutual concerns and desires.

There are many reasons for wanting to rid the Metro area of the waste and duplication that's been developing and growing over several decades, but none is more compelling than the direct savings that will result from eliminating an unnecessary level of government, coordinating similar efforts and departments, and the slightly less visible savings that will result from removing the multiple layers of bureaucracy that have been built up to support the extra layers and levels of government that we currently have.

I don't have enough of the financial details about downloading to make a well-informed decision on the matter, but I believe it can lead to positive changes. The more hands our tax money passes through, the less left to spend where it is needed: in the community where it was collected. The concept of keeping money close to home and spending it there is one we have lost through years and years of big government.

No one is going to be more fiscally responsible than the people paying out the tax dollars used to support the infrastructure and social programs in their areas than the people who actually pay out those dollars, and no one is going to keep a closer eye on how and why it is spent than the community in which it was raised. If a community has special needs that must be addressed, it can decide how its resources are going to be allocated and not be at the mercy of someone who has no sense of the urgency, priority or importance a project may have to those citizens and residents. This is just another step towards a version of direct democracy and/or less government.

With a unified system of government, business can be allowed to flourish. Regions will not be competing with each other for which side of the road a new business should locate on and the playing field can begin to be levelled.

On this level playing field property taxes can be more fairly collected. A house is essentially a house. It is the quality of the neighbourhood that will dictate the value and ultimately set the rate of taxes to be paid, and the rates should not be subsidized on the backs of the business community in that area. It's time for us to bring business back to the downtown core or at least allow them a viable option to choose from, to do so if they so desire.

Finally, I think we should make Toronto a place in which all of us can live, work and shop at our local businesses, a place with united neighbourhoods and strong community bonds, a place that future generations will be proud of.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I find your support of this bill interesting, to say the least, given the number of people who have come forward and very eloquently expressed the exact opposite view.

I guess the part that challenges me the most -- and I'm not from Toronto. I'm from Sault Ste Marie. I know that those of us from outside of Toronto who come to Toronto value a whole lot of what the people of this community have preserved over the years and one of those things is the essence of community that's here. It's not a dead place. It's not a place with empty buildings and all of that. When I talk to people, they tell me that doesn't just happen, that it's something a lot of people work at to preserve.

You're saying this new megacity that is being proposed would in fact enhance the further development of that sense of community. Would you mind expanding on that, how you think that will work, as opposed to what we have now?

Mr Carr: I believe what we're seeing is a lot of hype and panic over what will happen to my city, my town, if it's amalgamated into one Toronto. I think people will look inwards to their own communities, to their neighbourhoods and it'll be a chance for them to band together to find their common roots, their common bonds.

As you say, I've worked very hard in my area, the Parkway Forest community of North York, of Willowdale, to make it a better, stronger community and it is a lot of work. This is the type of thing that I think can, not force people but allow them to refocus and develop a sense of community.

Mr Martin: People in fact have done that. You've said you yourself --

Mr Carr: It's taken a lot of effort, a lot of work.

Mr Martin: But it has happened. There are those who point to other jurisdictions, other communities where that hasn't happened, where amalgamations of sorts have taken place.

I know myself when I go to a large American city, one of the things that hits me the most is that sense of not being safe, particularly at night in the downtown core. The sense of friendliness that you feel when you come to Toronto is not there in those larger entities. That doesn't happen by osmosis or simply because people will it; it happens because people work at it. In Toronto that's the case for those of us who come, as I said, from outside to Toronto. We feel safe and we feel a certain sense of friendliness. We know it is something that you and others have worked hard at engendering and making sure it is present.

Can you point to anything that might ease my concern about this new venture we're latching on to now, driven by the present government, that the friendliness and safety will be maintained? Big cities in other jurisdictions have not been able to keep that once they got into the kind of development that has happened in those areas.

1610

Mr Carr: What we're looking at is essentially a paper change. The boundaries drop, the signs change, and instead of living in North York, I change my address to Toronto. My street address stays the same, everything else stays the same, my postal code stays the same. But I live in a community. If the sense of the greater Toronto area identity is lost when you're living within the Toronto area -- as soon as you get north of Barrie, for example, 60 or 70 miles away from the Metro area, you usually refer to the place you live as Toronto; maybe it's 100 miles, but whatever that distance may be.

With the Toronto umbrella, all of a sudden we have people looking inwards to "Where do I live?" I keep running into so many people in Don Mills, in my part of North York, in Willowdale, who come from Leaside. They have such strong roots that come from Leaside; it's such a strong community. It doesn't matter whether it's in East York or Toronto, it's still going to be Leaside. It's still going to have the neighbourhood characteristics of Leaside. I believe these external changes will allow people, as I said before, to refocus on: "Where do I live? I live in a community. What can I do to make that community a little bit better?" The bonds will be strengthened.

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

REENA LAZAR

The Chair: Would Reena Lazar please come forward? Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Ms Reena Lazar: Good afternoon. Tonight we'll find out whether the majority of voters in Metro Toronto favour amalgamation. Contrary to this government's inferences that what is happening in Metro Toronto is not a real and proper referendum, I hope to convince you today that this referendum is 100% consistent with the stated intentions of this government to support direct democracy. I urge this government to honour the results of tonight's referendum and, if the outcome is negative, to withdraw Bill 103.

When I found out that I had the opportunity to speak in front of this committee, I was hoping I could come up with a new argument that was so rational and straightforward that this government would finally see how flawed Bill 103 is. But the problem is that thousands of rational, logical and, in my opinion, commonsense arguments have already been presented to this government. To summarize and re-emphasize them didn't seem like an effective strategy on this third-to-last day of this public hearing process. Instead, I'd like to use my opportunity today to convince this government to listen to the voices of all the people in Metro Toronto.

We all understand the difference between representative and direct democracy. A feature article in the Christmas issue of the well-respected Economist magazine explained that the starting point of democracy is the belief that every sane adult is entitled to an equal say in the conduct of public affairs. It goes on to say that there's therefore something odd in the fact that in most democracies this voice is heard only once every few years, in elections. Between elections, parliamentarians do all the deciding, while the rest of the democracy is expected to stand more or less quietly on the side. This, they conclude, is part-time democracy.

In direct democracy, elected representatives are not left to their own devices in the periods between elections. The rest of the people can at any time call them to order by cancelling some decision of the representatives with which most of the people do not agree. The machinery by which this is done is the referendum.

In a letter by the parliamentary assistant to Mike Harris, written on January 24, Mr Clement affirmed the government's commitment to support direct democracy in Ontario. According to the letter, Mike Harris was determined to bring the same kind of reforms to government as he did to the way his party operates. As he said in the Ontario Legislature five years ago, "Leadership and reflecting the will of the people must go hand in hand."

According to Mr Clement's letter, it's already possible for the provincial government to submit an issue to a referendum and consider the results to be binding. The government intends to bring in legislation this year which will enable citizen-initiated, legally binding referendums as well. In fact, it has already distributed a white paper on its intentions. The government believes that binding government- or citizen-initiated referendums are legitimate policymaking tools and is committed to making them a vital part of the process in Ontario. Why then are we hearing that this government is not planning to honour tonight's referendum outcome?

The first reason it gives is that the referendum is not citizen-initiated. Let me please remind you that there's not yet a system in place to have a binding citizen-led referendum. After all, the referendum in Hamilton-Wentworth was citizen-initiated, but the provincial government calls that one illegitimate as well.

Mr Clement's letter goes on to point out what the provincial government sees as flaws in the way the referendum is being managed. It says the referendum is led by six mayors who stand to lose their positions in a unified city. What it does not mention are the six elected councils and thousands of citizens who have also been leading this referendum.

I'm the president of the Ward 4 Residents for Democracy. In our ward alone, there are approximately 120 people taking time away from their families, above and beyond their full-time jobs and school, to volunteer their time to work on this referendum. They, and I, are deeply concerned about the impact amalgamation will have on our services, way of life and our communities.

We are concerned about how quickly this government is proposing to merge seven distinct and elected governments that serve 2.3 million people. We feel uneasy that this government chose not to implement the major recommendations of the Golden and Crombie reports and is so far ignoring advice from internationally acclaimed experts like Jane Jacobs, to name just one.

But most important, we are resentful that we have not been asked by the provincial government to take part in this debate in a meaningful way. This referendum is our desperate attempt to create a real debate and to insert ourselves into it.

The letter from Mr Clement goes on to say that inconsistencies from one area to another in determining who can vote and the hodgepodge of voting methods in use call into question the legitimacy of the process.

The Municipal Elections Act, 1996, states that municipalities may choose alternative election methods, a feature highlighted as a major positive innovation by the Who Does What panel and by Minister Al Leach. The Municipal Elections Act could not be more clear about voter qualifications, and public information campaigns of the various cities repeat these qualifications in many formats and media.

Mr Clement's letter also says that none of the necessary safeguards is in place to ensure that the question is fair, the process is open or the result democratic. I strongly disagree, as all the cities in Metro Toronto, except Scarborough, are conducting their voting process in strict accordance with the procedures in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. They are following methods that were determined by provincial legislators, including some committee members, I presume, who are sitting in this room.

I'd also like to point out that even though the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, does not make provisions for municipalities to conduct so-called referendums or plebiscites, it does allow the municipalities to put questions forward to the electors. It even allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs to submit a question to the electors of a particular municipality, and according to the act, the councils are required to abide by the results.

There are only two systems in place at this moment for the citizens of Metro Toronto to respond to Bill 103 in a directly democratic way: One is through a municipality-run by-election, and the other is through a provincial government-led referendum.

When asked why this provincial government has not held its own referendum on a unified Toronto, the answer is that referendums are suited to yes or no answers and that despite years of debate on what to do, no clear consensus has emerged.

This government claims that listing a number of alternative suggestions would only complicate the matter and confuse people. I say that if no clear consensus has emerged, I agree with Mayor Hall that we should slow down and get it right. I also say that tonight's results will be the closest thing yet to a sense of consensus. If this government is still not convinced, then perhaps it is time it initiated its own referendum.

Finally, I want to remind this committee that during election campaigns, citizens are asked a multitude of questions. Some are local, some province-wide, some personality-related. The election of a particular party to power, we all agree, is only a first step. The next day, discussions begin on individual policies and actions. Then the citizens try to clarify their precise opinions issue by issue. It should be a slow and complex process.

1620

The Common Sense Revolution's objectives to reduce government, eliminate duplication, cut costs and strengthen municipalities does not automatically give this government the right to reduce the number of local elected officials and amalgamate six municipalities into one. For this government to make that conclusion without the consent of the people would not only be deceptive to those who elected them, but it would also be breaking their commitment to direct democracy.

This government is telling us that a referendum is a very special thing and that a referendum refers to public participation in a voting process on a particular question where the outcome is binding. Seeing as how this government has not yet enacted legislation to ensure a fair and open referendum process led by citizens and is not willing to lead one themselves, this Metro-wide process is the only option the majority of the people in Metro Toronto have in getting their voices heard.

This referendum is, in my opinion, by far the most directly democratic process to be administered on Bill 103. It would be hypocritical of this provincial government, which says its party "doesn't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to promoting direct democracy," not to abide by it.

I urge this government to honour the results of tonight's referendum and, if the outcome is negative, to withdraw Bill 103.

Mr Hastings: Thank you for coming in. Can you clarify in the top paragraph of page 3 whether you are a tenant or a homeowner?

Ms Lazar: I'm a tenant.

Mr Hastings: Have you read anything about the proposed assessment reform?

Ms Lazar: Are you talking about tax?

Mr Hastings: Yes, property tax assessment reform.

Ms Lazar: Yes, I've read a little bit about it.

Mr Hastings: Since you're a tenant, do you appreciate that there are specific provisions within the legislation that would have a positive impact on what tenants are paying in their rent as a portion of taxes?

Ms Lazar: I don't know that I can answer this question because I don't know enough about it. I also feel that my arguments today don't really relate -- you're asking personally as a tenant if I'm aware that my rent might decrease or something? Is that what you're asking me?

Mr Hastings: Yes, there is that possibility.

Ms Lazar: Whether they do or they do not, I don't care either way. What I'm concerned about is much bigger than my rent.

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

BAIN APARTMENTS HOUSING COOPERATIVE

The Chair: Would John Sharkey please come forward? Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make a presentation.

Mr John Sharkey: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to address the committee on the issue of Bill 103. I am speaking to you today as president of the Bain Apartments Housing Co-operative Inc, a community of 500 adults and children in the Riverdale area of the city of Toronto.

I am speaking against Bill 103 for three reasons: the negative effects on the democratic process; the increased administrative costs of a larger municipal structure; and the effects on my community of the proposed downloading of essential social services and housing to the municipal government.

By way of beginning, I'd like to take a few moments to describe the community I represent.

Our historic property was built in the early part of this century by the Toronto Housing Authority. It was one of Canada's first publicly supported housing projects for low- and middle-income working people. By the late 1960s, after passing through the hands of several private owners, the property was becoming quite rundown. In the mid-1970s the residents, with the help of city politicians and the CMHC, purchased the property and turned it into one of the first cooperative housing projects in the city. I am particularly proud of the fact that the Bain co-op continues to provide safe, affordable housing to Canadians, in the tradition of the founders of the property.

As a federally created housing cooperative, the Bain is a non-equity cooperative run by its members. The residents' council, our board of directors, is elected by the membership at an annual general meeting. All major decisions regarding policies and bylaws, large contracts, our annual budget of over $2.4 million etc, are debated and approved at regular community meetings held throughout the year. Close to a dozen volunteer committees, elected by the membership, administer various aspects of the co-op, from the finances to the property to our pets. With our annual street festival, the oldest in the city of Toronto, our Christmas craft fair, youth job creation projects and other community events, we make a important contribution to the overall wellbeing of the Riverdale neighbourhood of which we are a part. In many respects, we are a small municipality -- a village within the city.

As you can probably tell, we are thoroughly committed to the democratic process. One of the founding principles of the co-op housing sector is that each member has a vote and, as well as rights of tenure, each member has a responsibility to engage in the decision-making process of the community. Democracy in my community is not restricted to a secret ballot every few years but is an ongoing, almost daily process. The community supports this process because the decisions we make have an immediate and direct effect on how we live and relate to each other.

Members of the Bain co-op cherish democratic principles. We are convinced that a reduction in the number of municipal governments and a dramatic reduction in the number of municipal councillors will result in reduced access to local politicians and reduced services. This will lead to a decrease in the participation of citizens in the democratic process and an increase in disinterest and alienation about matters of vital interest in our lives.

We do not have faith that the three-line section 5 of the act that creates the volunteer neighbourhood committees will fill the gap left by dismantling the present system. We are also not convinced that amalgamation will produce the cost savings claimed by the government. The experience of large Canadian and American cities that have amalgamated suggests that administrative costs go up, not down. Contrary to received wisdom, above a certain size, large municipal administrations cost more to operate than a group of smaller municipalities. Large municipalities are also more bureaucratic and certainly more distant from their citizens.

The third reason we are opposed to Bill 103 is the proposed downloading of essential services that we believe are integral to the introduction of this legislation.

The Bain co-op provides affordable housing for people with low and moderate incomes; 50% of our apartments qualify for a rent-geared-to-income subsidy funded equally by the federal and provincial governments. Many of our members survive on various kinds of social assistance, fixed pensions and low-incomes wages.

My community is the first to suffer the effects of recessions and of cutbacks in social assistance. The 22% cutback to social assistance implemented by this provincial government is causing considerable hardship to people, particularly women and children, throughout my community. People who have very little money live particularly stress-filled lives. Their stress is being exacerbated by the current climate of uncertainty. Many are waiting for the other shoe to drop, expecting that housing subsidies will be cut or discontinued, that further cuts to social welfare will be made and fearing that the co-op could go bankrupt if the downloading goes through and our property taxes are forced to go up. Quite frankly, we are experiencing the agenda of the provincial government as a war on the poor and on the disadvantaged.

To sum up, our community is against the imposition of Bill 103 because we believe it will curtail the democratic process and will not be cost-efficient. We are also convinced that the proposed downloading will lead to further hardship through a decrease in essential services and increased taxes.

In closing, I would urge members of the government to take seriously the results of the various referenda that are ending today. The insulting and high-handed manner which the leading members of the government have shown towards the democratic process is deeply offensive to many people. There is an opportunity here to regain some credibility by responding to the legitimate concerns of many concerned citizens of all political persuasions.

Thank you for listening to me today and thank you for providing me with the opportunity to exercise my right and responsibility to engage in the democratic process.

Mr Colle: Thank you, Mr Sharkey. I appreciate your pointing out another part of the fabric which makes our cities in Metro working cities, cities that accomplish a great deal. The co-ops we have throughout Metro are certainly an integral part, and I appreciate your coming forward to remind us of that.

An interesting thing that caught my ear was that you said there was a three-line reference to neighbourhood committees in the legislation. It does bring to light the fact that in all this talk about Bill 103 and all the pages in it and all the references to it and all the jargon, and despite all the lip-service the government gives to neighbourhoods being strengthened, all they can afford is three lines, sort of as a throw-in, to the establishment of these neighbourhood committees by bylaw after the fact. I wonder if you'd like to comment on the possibilities of neighbourhoods and this legislation, considering the short shrift they've been given by the legislation itself.

1630

Mr Sharkey: I was very impressed by that fact, that it was so short. Given the weight that a lot of people had placed on the neighbourhood committees, I was expecting there would be a larger section in the bill when I read it. I was quite shocked to see there were only three lines. I expected it, as I say, to be much more, considering the roles of the trustees, which was a page etc. It was quite shocking. Admittedly, it would be up to the new megacity to determine what those committees would be. It's difficult to speculate what that might be. But what is the intent, to try to recreate the cities on a smaller local level? It's just very vague.

Mr Colle: In fact, as you can see in the legislation, it's page after page about the powers of the trustees.

Mr Sharkey: Yes, exactly.

Mr Colle: Page after page about the powers of the transition team, powers that are above the law. Neighbourhoods, what about their powers, what about their jurisdiction, what about their influence, what about their part in the overall megacity? One reference, three lines. I think you really pointed out a real contradiction in the whole spin the government's been giving about how it feels neighbourhoods are important, and I thank you for bringing that to my attention.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sharkey, for being here today with us.

BETH KAPUSTA

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Beth Kapusta. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Beth Kapusta: Thank you very much. My name is Beth Kapusta. As a citizen, as a member of the architectural community and as one of the editors of a national publication on architecture and urbanism, I am deeply distressed at the speed and lack of consideration with which this bill was tabled and its potentially devastating effect on the city that I make my home.

The process by which amalgamation was proposed was inherently anti-democratic. No attempt has been made to consult the citizens who would be directly affected. The provincial government has continued to display contempt for its citizenship through its actions, including its attempts to appease Torontonians with anonymous faxes, its deceptive propaganda campaigns and its attempts to place the responsibility for municipalities into the hands of appointed, not elected, trustees. The government should be ashamed of such behaviour.

Mr Leach has bombarded our city with the bombs of amalgamation, downloading of social services, educational reform and taxation changes in order to, and I quote from Mr Leach, "scramble the opposition." With all due respect, we are not the opposition; we are the citizens. To create a massive constituency of confusion and anger simply in order to appear to solve it will not win many friends in this city. As citizens, the only restructuring we have approved is the abolition of Metro, for which we voted in a majority of 58%. The government has no mandate to create a megacity, and if it disregards the results of today's referendum, as it has promised to do on numerous occasions, it will once again be in flagrant violation of democratic process.

As someone trained as an architect, I am deeply concerned for the health of my city. Like many of my contemporaries, I was raised on the wise words of Jane Jacobs, who has pointed out that innovation does not happen under large, unwieldy, uncompetitive government structures. Another great urban theorist, Lewis Mumford, has also observed that it is difficult to have a responsible and creative local government with more than 30,000 people. At a time when considerable creativity is required to resolve the complex problems of ecology related to the growth of cities, it's hardly the time to change to a form of government that is not attuned to the specifics of local conditions.

At a recent gathering of an organization called Architects for Urban Values, which is an organization that I was partially responsible for founding, a renowned Toronto structural engineer by the name of Morden Yolles presented what he viewed as an alternative model to the model that we've been bombarded with in the media of Mike Harris somehow working out the short-circuited system of government that now governs our city. But Morden's model basically said that instead of rationalizing systems rife with redundancy, he maintains that the government is proposing to pull the columns of civility out from under the city, leaving it to stand on one big column, and in the view of a structural engineer, a structure on one column is doomed to collapse. To undertake such a major restructuring without sufficient study and due consideration is simply not rational.

I'm not personally convinced that any of the pressing problems of local government are going to be solved by creating a megacity. In fact, I would be more inclined to say that we're attempting to solve problems that largely don't exist. For architects, the bigger problems of urban sprawl and the health of the urban core are issues that will be made very much worse by the megacity, not improved. Amalgamation goes against the spirit of urbanity that makes Toronto such a great and livable city.

Amalgamation also flies in the face of contemporary business wisdom. More and more companies are realizing that small, manageable and accountable groups are necessary to remain competitive. The possibility of receiving competitive bids in a megacity is much reduced, and the level of service that people are quite happy paying for now will be seriously diminished.

As an editor and someone who writes regularly on issues about the city for a national magazine on architecture, it concerns me deeply that the city is seen as some sort of new Gomorrah. It is as if we are being punished by the province for our prosperity and health. A city is fundamentally different than a suburb or a town. It is a fatal oversimplification to assume that one can apply the same structure of government to all places. As urbanites, why should we be subjected to a level of local representation that is much lower than that of our rural counterparts?

The argument that six fire departments are less efficient than one big fire department, that only really makes sense until you actually have a fire. By amalgamation logic, why would we, then, not have fire departments administered at the provincial level? We've got to be very concerned about the common sense of issues of scale that we're being fed here. Sometimes bigger is just not necessarily better.

There's a point of diminishing return at which no level of government will address fundamentally local issues under the megacity reforms. Community groups will not move in to fill this function because they will have neither the funding nor the legislated power to act.

No one is denying that there is a need for change, but change must happen in a reasoned and considered way and with the input of experts. There's no shortage of expert opinion that has passed comment on the follies of creating a megacity, even commissions associated with this very Conservative government, such as the Crombie commission, counsel against it. The Golden report also provided further insights into useful models for restructuring, recommendations that have largely been ignored.

Instead of looking at the city as a complex organism, the government has chosen to see this issue only in terms of one highly contested economic statement. Even KPMG's own authors would not say that the financial benefits could be guaranteed, and would only be realized through more efficient management not necessarily brought about by the efficiencies of size.

Furthermore, the cities of Metro aren't particularly wasteful as financial entities. We all have adequate reserves, we run without deficits and we provide local service that is acceptable and desirable to most citizens. We don't want another big government, one that governs more people than any other provincial government except Quebec.

1640

My final objection surrounds the propaganda that has come from the province regarding the megacity and the other attendant mega-bombs that have been dropped on us in the last few months. Instead of providing us with information, we are barraged with false platitudes and feel-good messages. Mr Harris's promise of a system that will "work smarter" is not just condescending, it's grammatically incorrect. This government should slow down, go back and do its homework before it turns our city into a mega-mess that serves nothing more than myopic political interests.

An individual's concern for their neighbourhood is still the fundamental building block of the democratic process. Small government is better suited to consider and act upon these micro-concerns than a megacity structure. My fear is that this loss of contact between individuals and the instruments of democracy will result in the gradual decline of the city as a collection of livable neighbourhoods. Members of the committee, I beseech you to reconsider this hasty and potentially devastating legislation.

Mr Martin: I really enjoyed your presentation, and you certainly make reference to, in my experience, what makes Toronto special: liveable neighbourhoods, communities, and your piece, then, obviously from a professional standpoint, the architecture. I know that's another of the reasons that a lot of us from outside of Toronto come to visit Toronto, and we want that preserved too because it's valuable to us.

The argument is made that if we don't have local government that's sensitive to some of that kind of thing, it won't happen, it won't be preserved, we'll lose it. Can you help me make the connection?

Ms Kapusta: Local government represents a lot of urban issues. There are issues of density and of scale and of appropriate building that may apply in the downtown core of Toronto that don't necessarily apply in the suburbs in Scarborough. There are also issues of taxation, which are another ball of wax, but I think that in terms of maintaining the health of the urban core, there's a great deal of concern that megacity amalgamation paves the way for market value assessment -- actual value assessment, as it's being called now -- which privileges suburban development over urban development.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, we've gone past time. Thank you very much for coming here today.

MICHAEL KOHN

The Vice-Chair: Is Michael Kohn here? Would you come forward, please? Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Michael Kohn: Dear members of the committee, my name is Michael Kohn. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I believe Bill 103 and related legislation will be destructive to Toronto and neighbouring municipalities and will ultimately fail to fulfil the promise of greater efficiency at lower cost.

First, the plan to offload areas of provincial concern such as welfare on to the municipalities will disproportionately burden an amalgamated Toronto. As you well know, Toronto is the largest city in the country. The Toronto area attracts those who are seeking employment from across Ontario and indeed all over Canada. Those who fail to find sufficient work in our tight job market often come to depend on welfare. Thus, our city ends up with a higher-than-average number of recipients of social assistance. For Toronto, the passage of Bill 103 and the downloading of welfare on to the municipal level of government will no doubt contribute to significant increases in property taxes. Consequently, many residents and businesses may be forced to vacate the city.

Above all, this will create a very divisive atmosphere within Ontario at the very time our nation is struggling to hold itself together. Those municipalities whose welfare costs are lower than their education costs will welcome the Harris government's plan to swap the provincial responsibility of welfare for the municipal responsibility of education, while larger cities such as Toronto will come to resent it.

In my opinion, such resentment would be quite understandable. Many people commute to work in Toronto from Oshawa, Barrie and Guelph, among other places. They use our municipal services and infrastructure on a daily basis, they earn their living here, and as much as they generate wealth, they also generate expenses. Under these circumstances, it would seem quite unfair if Toronto were forced to supply a disproportionately high share of welfare costs for the large numbers of insufficiently employed people who have settled here from other communities in Ontario, while their communities of origin benefit from decreased property taxes. Perhaps Toronto would be forced to adopt a minimum-term residency requirement similar to the one imposed in British Columbia after the Harris government's 22.5% cut to welfare benefits resulted in an exodus of impoverished Ontarians to that province. Perhaps Thunder Bay, London and Hamilton, other sizable cities that draw job-seekers from beyond their boundaries, would be forced to do the same.

In effect, the passage of Bill 103 and the downloading of welfare, a responsibility that for good reason has traditionally been provincial, could turn Ontario into a fractured province of feuding neo-feudal regions and city-states. This is hardly an appropriate path to be taking when the unity of Canada at large is in question.

Of course, this would be all the more damaging if Bill 103 and associated legislation failed to deliver, as promised, more efficiency at less cost and greater prosperity. The Harris government has been making such promises, especially in its advertising campaigns, on the notion that government can and should be run like a business. I will reserve my opinion on this philosophy for last.

In the meantime, I would like to test the idea that business, and by extension government, can achieve greater prosperity and eliminate inefficiencies and unnecessary expenses by reducing the input of those who work for them at the local level.

I have been involved in the reforestation industry for 11 years. Last spring, I planted my millionth tree. I can tell you from experience that successful forestry service companies leave much of the decision-making to their field staff, those who are closest to the problems and challenges that arise in administering silviculture contracts in remote wilderness sites.

To give an example, several years ago, my crew was working on a contract in Kapuskasing. The wet terrain and rainy weather were making it extremely difficult to deliver trees over land to the planters. Bob, our crew supervisor, wanted to rent a helicopter and pilot for the tree delivery, but head office refused. Their bottom line was that it would be far cheaper to rent a muskeg carrier than a helicopter, which costs $600 to $700 per hour. So we settled for the muskeg carrier and promptly sank it in the swamp. Next, we rented a skidder. Unfortunately, the skidder also sank. Fed up, Bob finally rebelled. He hired a helicopter pilot and we moved 80,000 trees in two and a half hours. For the first time in the five years that we had been working in Kapuskasing, we completed the spring contract a week before the deadline, instead of a week late, and turned a healthy profit. Our early finish also enabled us to beat a competing firm to the next job.

The point of my analogy is this: If a government is to be run as efficiently and economically as a business, then it needs more local input, not less. First, the front-line workers and local representatives of an organization, be it public or private, are bound to be more intimately familiar with its problems, inefficiencies and waste than those attempting to run the show from a distant office. The opinions of these local experts should be sought and heeded, not scorned and ignored.

Second, an organization whose head office is so overly concerned with the bottom line that it mistakes a wise investment for an unnecessary expenditure is more likely to bleed extra red ink than work like a well-oiled machine.

Highway 407 is a case in point. To the provincial government it may have seemed more cost-effective to eliminate such features as medians from the highway's design, but as the Ontario Provincial Police noted, such corner-cutting compromises road safety and leads to higher accident rates. By extension, higher accident rates lead to higher costs, increased insurance payouts, a greater need for police, fire, ambulance and hospital services, and worst of all, the human costs of injury and death. Had the OPP, an authority closer to and thus more familiar with our roads, been consulted during the final planning stages for the highway, it would have opened on schedule and the citizens of Ontario would have been spared any costs associated with the delay.

1650

Here lies the greatest problem of Bill 103: It reduces local representation and public access to it to such an extent that it is hard to imagine that the government of an amalgamated Toronto can be responsive to localized problems and needs as effectively and efficiently as the governments currently in place. Despite some of their inefficiencies, the governments of Metro Toronto have helped to make our city the envy of the world. I am confident that they are more capable of reducing any unnecessary duplication of services without severely damaging Toronto than an amalgamated government whose every decision may be vetoed by an unrepresentative and unaccountable appointed board of trustees ever could be.

In closing, I would like to remind the committee that although government can to some extent be run as efficiently and economically as healthy businesses are, there is at least one vital difference between public administration and the private sector: Businesses are obsessed with maximizing the profits of their shareholders whereas governments are non-profit organizations that should be concerned with maximizing the prosperity of our society as a whole. Good governance is not based on the monopolization of a province's or a nation's agenda by any one interest, but rather on the judicious balancing of a broad spectrum of interests in such a manner that all members of our society stand to benefit.

Canada's federal and provincial governments have for too long allowed the interests of big corporations to monopolize the public agenda. Despite all the measures we have taken to reduce government deficits and the record profits our banks and export industries have been making recently, well-paying jobs have not returned to this land. In fact, every time increases in North American unemployment rates are reported by statisticians, the stock markets soar to new heights.

Canadians will not tolerate such profiteering at the expense of their long-term survival for much longer. Before this or any other government asks us to sacrifice yet more of the services and infrastructures that have traditionally made our quality of life distinctly Canadian, it had better call the private sector and its economists to task for not delivering the greater prosperity and increased employment they have repeatedly promised in exchange for massive public spending cuts. Clearly, higher employment and better incomes are required to make Canada the healthy, prosperous and vibrant democracy it has been in the past. The demand for such change starts at the local level. Thank you.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Kohn. I appreciate your coming before us here today. Let me just pick up on one point that you made in your presentation. You said you were confident that they -- "they" being the existing politicians and presumably their spokespersons, the mayors -- are more capable of moving the city forward than one amalgamated government would be. How can you reconcile that with the fact that here we sit 28 months into their 36-month term and they haven't taken even the smallest step to consolidate services?

Last night on CITY-TV, as part of a panel discussion, the mayors admitted that the only reason they moved at all to prepare a report called Change for the Better last fall was because the province had announced it was bringing forward a bill. When the mayors themselves say there is $240 million that could be saved today by consolidating services, why would you believe they should be trusted to take another year or five years or 10 years to come to the conclusion that they've already said, that the dollars are there and they haven't found them yet?

Mr Kohn: I think any significant change to streamline services between municipalities takes time. I don't think it can be done overnight without the proper studies --

Mr Gilchrist: Excuse me. The mayors in their report said that the time to do it was right now. No further delay.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr Gilchrist, but you only had time for a quick question there and it was a little longer than quick. Thank you very much, Mr Kohn, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

BLAIR WILLIAMS

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

Mr Blair Williams: If there's one word that sums up the debate about Bill 103 it might be "adversarial." There's no question that the issue has raised the passions of both those in favour and those against the idea of amalgamation. The fervour stems in part from the growing feeling of those opposed to the bill that this issue is not so much a question of political differences as of ideology. We all agree that we're in a financial crisis, but we're seeing more adversity than we have in this province for years because the response to that crisis is in danger of destroying the very society we share.

In your response to this crisis, the government is showing a frightening lack of imagination, and so of responsibility. You're telling us that these ongoing cuts to the province's public infrastructure, and more specifically the creation of the megacity of Toronto, are to save money by eliminating the inefficiencies of Ontario's public, democratic system. Let us recognize that to do so is nothing less than to eliminate democracy itself.

In cutting the funds the government spends on public libraries, hospitals, schools, universities, housing, broadcasting and the arts, indeed governing itself, we are literally privatizing our world. The public is in very great danger of becoming "them," while those who either operate or can afford to patronize the private world become "us."

Government subsidies, that is, public participation and support, are meant to ensure everyone equal access and opportunity. Public funding of the arts, television and radio provide the public a voice, a voice society needs to communicate with itself without the ultimately selfish, profit-driven motives of private enterprise. A true democracy encourages this. In fact democracy was invented to ensure this, that we have a collective voice in the affairs of society and that we have equal access to the benefits it provides.

The programs currently under siege and the political vision they embody are not what we can no longer afford. What we can no longer afford is a government that kowtows to that biggest of special interest groups: the market. What we can no longer afford is taxation without representation, the currency being our potential as a society and the cost being incalculable.

In this mad rush towards what you are calling fiscal responsibility, as we are told the government is getting out of the housing business, that public education will be funded by partnerships with business, that health care must be privatized to save the system, that corporate sponsorship is the best way to fund the arts, that fewer elected representatives will save the taxpayer money, you must remember that as the government withdraws from the public sector, it is inevitable that the public will be excised from the government, though I begin to believe you know this and in fact have that in your sights as a goal.

With the passage of Bill 26, this government has literally changed the law to allow it to do what it is doing with no debate.

To have this government tell us that our concerns will be ignored, that our protests will go unheeded, that the will of the people is of no consequence is to be literally told that the democratic process is irrelevant to this government. I'm sure you've heard this many times during these depositions, but it is a point well worth repeating: The democratic process by it's very definition is inefficient. It requires debate, discussion and doubt. It cannot be sure. It cannot present an inevitable crisis that dictates only one response. In a democracy, nothing is inevitable.

This is, in the end, an imagined world. What comes into being -- our social order, our financial system, our systems of governance, the world as it is -- is the result of thought, planning, imagination and dreams. But having created it, we cannot be its servant. The world is too small to pursue any longer the dream of profit at any cost. The world is too small to cater any longer to the financial addiction that now governs it. The world is too small to escape the brutalization and barbarism that comes with unfettered, unregulated and irresponsible self-interest.

We are not helpless in the face of the global economy, nor should we be victims of it. It's time now to pursue an economy of the imagination. It's time to define profit and expense in other terms.

1700

If our job on earth, our time here is to find out who we are, to actually discover who we are as individuals and then to explore our collective potential, then the public has a responsibility to ensure that everyone who shares its society has equal access to his or her potential. How else can a society grow?

You, Mr Gilchrist, Mr Harris, Mr Leach, Ms Ecker, Mr Johnson, Mr Eves and the rest of the jackals that are tearing at the not-yet-dead body of public potential, were elected to represent that responsibility, the responsibility of the public to itself. Surely we can't be told that it's asking too much of you to know yourselves, to consider your actions, to represent the greater good, which is all we're doing when we say, "Excuse me, we doubt...." To hear Mike Harris say in the Legislature the other week: "How dare you question this government? How dare you?" was highly disconcerting.

Yes, our governments and our cities and our society need to reorganize, but we will have to reorganize ourselves in a system that works honestly in the public good rather than self-interest. That may require lots of people working for the public. It may require watchdogs and concerned parties ensuring that there is day care for single mothers and health care is available to everyone, and bodies that seek to prevent crime rather than merely punish it. We need to ensure that there are the public checks and balances that maintain a civil society.

This means there should be more access to smaller government rather than less access to larger government. Six municipal governments do not make big government, and one large government does not make smaller government. Amalgamating power does not create a smaller, more accessible government; it creates a large, inaccessible one. The idea that fewer politicians means smaller government is just as specious. Removing representatives from a representative democracy to save money is absurd.

This is only the reiteration of an idea that is thousands of years old: that humanity's collective potential should be respected, and being invaluable, should never be wasted for what amounts to official, institutionalized avarice. As long as we worry that everything costs money, money will cost us everything.

There is an economic war being waged against the public of this province and it is as deadly as any conventional war. Public potential, democracy and freedom itself are its casualties. To think that the changes that are being imposed upon us will have no consequence is to ignore history and invite disaster.

In pursuing so aggressively a program of political and social restructuring that imposes often unbearable economic hardships on the least able to cope, and by refusing your obligation to govern in the best interests of those least able to fend for themselves, by ignoring your responsibility to take the will of the people to the government rather than the will of the government to the people, you have lost the moral authority that peace, order and good government require. You should resign.

The Chair: We have about a minute for questions.

Applause.

The Chair: We're losing that minute for questions as we go on. You have 30 seconds, Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: Thank you very much, Mr Williams. Again, a superb presentation, as a lot of them have been. I continue to be impressed with the quality of the intelligence that we have in this province.

Richard Tindal, in that very left-wing magazine called Municipal World, I think echoes your sentiments. Let me quote from him. His reference is about democracy and what he basically concludes about democracy is that it is imperfect, it isn't always efficient, but it's the best darn thing we have.

Mr Williams: Winston Churchill said it as well, and great minds think alike. Not to say that I'm a great mind.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Williams, for coming forward.

JOSEPH MCALLISTER

The Chair: Would Mr McAllister and Mr Oleson please come forward. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr Joseph McAllister: What I'm doing is I'm ceding part of my time to Mr David Oleson. He's the chair of the Toronto Society of Architects. As so many people who are concerned about this issue have not been allowed to talk to their members or talk to this committee because of the way this thing is being pushed through, I want to give him a little bit of my time, because there are so many people who need to have their voices heard.

I think you've got a copy of my presentation but I'm just going to go through a small part of it before I give over the time to Mr Oleson.

I want to tell you about the reactions I received from some of my neighbours when I canvassed them to get out the vote for the referendum, which we will hear the results of tonight.

I live in the Bloor-Dufferin area. It's an area of hardworking families where both mom and dad have to work to make ends meet. It's an established neighbourhood, with Portuguese and Italian families and now a sprinkling of other nationalities. It's representative of Metro Toronto as a whole, yet I met no one who was willing to say she or he supported the Tory plan. I met no one who thought there was any saving to be made by amalgamation, no one who said amalgamation was acceptable if it meant there would be a tax cut. People were more concerned about the quality of their daily lives and the quality of their children's lives than they were about the money when it came to this issue, and these are people who can't help but worry about money.

There's Maria, my next door neighbour, who said she accepted living in a small house downtown because it was convenient for her and her husband to get to work. But, she said, if it meant a huge tax increase and worse services, she might as well follow her friends and move to a big house in Mississauga.

Frank, a retired man down the street, wants his daughter to take over his house when she gets married this summer. But she's too scared about what is happening in downtown Toronto, so she and her fiancé are looking for a place in York region or even further north. Frank wonders what he will do when his family moves so far away.

There's Diane, the high school student, who I think is eligible to vote in her first election. Even at that age she's concerned about politics and wonders why the Tories keep saying they won't pay any attention to a democratic vote which expresses the will of the people.

There's the Italian grandmother who doesn't speak English but understood well enough when I mentioned "megacity." She kept saying over and over, "Megacity no, megacity no."

There are the two punks in the apartment building on the corner, rings in their noses, who were glad to get information on where they could go to vote, and the young professionals in the condo building who wanted more information on the proposal but said they thought they'd vote against it.

One of the most despicable tactics that the Harrisites have used to defend their megacity proposal is to marginalize their critics, to claim they are only NDP supporters still unhappy about losing the last election, or just a bunch of Iranian or Iraqi protesters.

It should be clear to you now that Torontonians from every walk of life, from the board room to the shop floor, from Rosedale to Parkdale, from Queen Street West to Steeles Avenue are opposed to the megacity. They are not opposed; they are fighting mad.

If an election were held today, the Tories would return no members from Metro Toronto, Mr Gilchrist. The tide has turned strongly against them and the tide is turning against every other Tory member of the Legislature.

TORONTO SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS

Mr David Oleson: I appreciate the indulgence of the committee and particularly the assistance of Mr McAllister in allowing me to come and speak with you today.

I'm the chairman of the Toronto Society of Architects and I'd like to express our concern about the serious disruption to well-established and generally well-functioning structures of governance.

The Toronto Society of Architects is a non-profit, volunteer organization originally formed in 1887 as an architectural guild, and operating as the local society of the Ontario Association of Architects for the last 100 years. The Toronto society is committed to presenting informed opinions on issues affecting architecture in the greater Toronto area. We represent the interests of all the architects in the GTA, and have approximately 400 active members.

Many of our members are concerned about negative changes to policies and processes which have led the Toronto region to being recognized as one of the most livable urban areas in the world. The recent distinction by Fortune magazine, which I'm sure you've heard lots about over the last few weeks, reinforces this reputation, with emphasis on this city as a place to work and a place to live.

1710

The issues in this debate are many and complex. This city, Metro and the GTA have grown substantially since the last large reorganization, when Metro was formed over 40 years ago, and the governmental structures must keep pace. When attempting to make improvements, though, it is important to appreciate what has worked and is working.

One can make several observations, by example, about the benefits within the current governmental framework. Responsiveness to the local context is an important quality of effective government. Innovation is one of the key opportunities in smaller-scale governmental structures. Over the last 20 years the city of Toronto, by example, has been quite innovative in its planning and development policies.

In the 1970s the city put in place policies which recognized the value of incorporating existing, and often historic, buildings into redevelopment projects. Early infill housing prototypes were developed. The city's policies reinforced the importance of maintaining strong residential neighbourhoods within the downtown area.

In the 1980s the city's central area plan recognized the importance of public transit usage through lessening parking requirements in the downtown core and encouraged mixed-use -- primarily commercial and residential -- development through new zoning policies.

In the 1990s the city enacted new policies to reinforce and encourage the redevelopment of the main streets. Toronto is again setting the pace by innovation, through reinvestment policies in the King-Spadina and King-Parliament areas, as well as a renewed commitment to the healthy redevelopment of Yonge Street.

The city has also convincingly shown commitment to design excellence for public projects, by conducting design competitions and constructing the winners. Winning designs for the Trinity Square Park, the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre, the Bay-Adelaide park and the Village of Yorkville Park have all been completed over the last 15 years, and Courthouse Square Park is under construction.

The most outstanding example of the city's commitment to architectural excellence is the city hall itself, resulting from a highly publicized international design competition in the mid-1960s.

Recently the city was able to reconstruct St George Street as the important public space it should be in the heart of the University of Toronto campus through a generous private donation coupled with public initiatives. In any proposed municipal structure it is important that there be local responsiveness to ensure that innovative solutions like those illustrated can succeed.

Creative initiatives by the city have influenced and shaped policies in the other municipalities which make up Metro. In turn, Toronto has benefited from the growth of the surrounding communities. Individual governance has stimulated a healthy competition between municipalities.

Judging by details released so far about the proposed amalgamation structure, innovation is likely to suffer. A smaller number of councillors will be overwhelmed by the day-to-day business of running the city and will have no time for extra attention to special projects. The proposed neighbourhood committees have been described as composed of volunteers, and will likely have no professional expertise and little clout. Centralized, bureaucratic organizations are typically averse to small-scale, innovative solutions. The quality of civic life and of design in the public realm will suffer if current proposals are enacted.

Several recent studies -- the Golden commission and the Crombie group as two to refer to -- have identified better alternative municipal structures. We strongly urge you to reconsider current legislative proposals, and to ensure that any new policies strengthen the opportunities for innovation.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. You've effectively exhausted all of the allotted time, but I want to thank you both for coming forward to make your presentations to the committee today.

CATHY KOZMA

The Chair: Would Cathy Kozma please come forward. Good afternoon, welcome to the committee.

Ms Cathy Kozma: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and good day, honourable members. My name is Cathy Kozma and I'm a member of the board of health of the city of Toronto and a citizen representative representing the northeastern portion of the city. I'd like to raise some concerns today from the board of health regarding the threat that amalgamation poses to a cornerstone of our work, and that is community participation in shaping Toronto's public health agenda, policies and programs.

We know that if public health services are to be effective in reaching Toronto's very diverse population, they must be built through meaningful dialogue and partnerships within the community. This is integral to our mission statement and it reflects the culture of participation which has helped make Toronto one of the world's healthiest cities. We are very concerned with the rapid sweep of amalgamation and that it will destroy the extensive structures and channels for participation unique to Toronto and that this culture of participation, developed for over 25 years, will either be swallowed up and forgotten or rejected as a frill.

First, I will give you a thumbnail sketch of the role of public health. Ironically, when people think about health, they tend to think about illness, that is, hospitals, doctors' offices, clinics and that sort of thing, but the focus of public health is the enhancement of good health and the prevention rather than the treatment of disease.

The mission of Toronto public health is to enable all the people in our city to be as healthy as they can be physically, mentally and socially. This includes protection of disease through programs such as immunization, communicable disease and infection control and the development and enforcement of tobacco control bylaws, as you're all painfully aware of today. It also involves health education on issues such as substance abuse, nutrition, sexual health and HIV-AIDS.

More recently, public health, and particularly in Toronto, has developed an expanded commitment to identifying and challenging social factors negatively affecting health. These determinants of health include housing, income, social supports and social influence. For example, public health educators can provide excellent information to low-income mothers regarding the importance of a nutritious diet to children's development. However, thousands of families living in poverty are unable to cover the costs of basics such as rent, food and clothing, and are unable to act on what they may know to be healthy choices. Thus Toronto public health sees community development and advocacy for healthy public policy as key strategies in improving community health. This is reflected in our work on issues such as child poverty, ethnocultural access, woman abuse, food access, and homelessness.

That's a sketch of public health's work in Toronto, and we do it rather well. In 1992 the United Nations World Health Organization granted Toronto special status as the only honorary member of the European healthy cities network. As well, in 1988 Toronto was the only non-American city visited as a model site when American public health experts were examining the future of public health in their nation. We know that a deep commitment to community participation has been key to the efficacy of our work and to Toronto's reputation as one of the world's healthiest cities.

Community participation is a process of involving people in the institutions or decisions that affect their lives. In public health it serves a dual purpose. First it ensures that our policies, plans and programs are what the community wants and will use. Of equal importance is the central role of participation in building the social health of those who have lacked power to influence decisions which shape their lives. Thus, Toronto public health has made a major commitment to work in meaningful partnerships with populations such as the homeless, street youth, immigrant and ethnoracially diverse communities, people with AIDS, and low-income communities.

1720

Toronto's diverse population presents special challenges to achieving citizen participation. As many as one third of the city's residents could experience barriers to participation in relation to a range of factors such as socioeconomic status, linguistic and/or ethnocultural background, or disease status in the case of HIV and AIDS.

As of 1991, 23% of Toronto's population was living in poverty. Currently about 30% of Toronto's children live on social assistance, and thousands more live in households with a minimum-wage income. Over 25% of Toronto's population is racial minorities and over 40% of the population was born outside of Canada; 35% of Toronto Board of Education students do not speak English at home. While the city of Toronto has 6.3% of Ontario's population, it has 50% of Ontario's AIDS cases, including 80% of all people with AIDS in Metro.

Overcoming these challenges to equitable participation has required public health's commitment to multi-faceted and long-term approaches. In addition to traditional channels such as boards, committees and task forces which gather input through deputations, polls and community forums, the department has established specialized ethnocultural outreach and community development programs, as well as community grant funding in areas such as HIV, AIDS and drug abuse prevention, food access and homeless initiatives.

Supports for community input, participation and partnership permeate the work of Toronto public health. Five of the 16 members of the board of health are community representatives, and four community health boards represent the public health interests of local geographic areas. The board regularly seeks broader community input by inviting deputations or holding special meetings. Board subcommittees and task forces invite community participation to explore current issues such as long-term-care reform, AIDS and health and work. Accessible channels for community input are essential to developing policies and programs relevant to our communities.

Toronto public health has a unique commitment to supporting community development, a long-term practice which strengthens the capacity for participation by less powerful groups. Over the past 15 years these specialists have worked in partnership with hundreds of marginalized communities to identify, challenge and change factors undermining health. Examples include the development of local support networks and services for groups such as street youth, homeless adults, immigrants and refugees, and low-income families.

Let me tell you about one initiative undertaken by Toronto's public health department in the past, and that is in Regent Park, a community well known for the challenges it faces, many of which are related to poverty. The department of public health worked with the community on delivering fresh food to families who could barely afford the basics.

Staff, through both research and a community consultation, worked with the community to define the problems and ultimately some solutions. The problem ended up being defined as lack of affordable fresh vegetables and the solution became a community garden where all who participated received a share of the produce; a simple thing really.

Why this was significant is that the department of public health was accessible to the community, held the value of community ownership for both problem identification and resolution, and was able to act in partnership with this community to get something going that was really tangible and specific. At the end of the day we could look back and say that we, with this community, made a difference; and we did so without much money, just a lot of hard work.

At this point I would like you to consider whether a board of health representing 2.3 million people and a large bureaucratic organization, one likely to emerge as a result of amalgamation, will be as innovative or as responsive in ensuring the basics for health for all communities. I think not. It's not because the people won't care or be skilled or whatever. It is because they will not be steeped in a culture of participation and will not likely be able to establish the relationships required for this process to unfold. They won't have the mandate to work on a community level and won't have the resources to be effective.

In our years of work in communities lacking the basics for health we have found that health can be promoted and achieved. It does not happen by making things bigger. It more often happens by making things smaller, more accessible and more disposed to partnerships with those who feel the issues most.

It's this knowledge based on years of experience which raises our apprehensions about the creation of a megacity and a mega-bureaucracy. The city of Toronto has worked so effectively to establish a healthy, safe and livable environment which is the core of a vibrant regional economy. It is frustrating to think that what has worked so effectively may be destroyed and replaced with a model which planning experts have identified as fiscally unnecessary and as an erosion to democratic decision-making and community participation.

We say to you that as it stands, Bill 103 threatens the maintenance of Toronto as an internationally acclaimed healthy city, one that's considered the jewel in the crown of Canada, and it will result in the reduction of resources for marginalized communities that bear the greatest threats to health among Toronto's residents.

I'll personally add that I'm afraid that although mandatory programs will still exist and communities will have to provide a minimum level of service, every community will come down to providing a minimum level of public health service and not reach to achieve the high standards in innovative programs that we have in the city of Toronto public health.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Kozma. Unfortunately, you've exhausted your allotted time, but I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation today.

FRANÇOIS ROULEAU

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

Dr François Rouleau: I am Dr François Rouleau. While I was conducting post-doctoral research in physics in Europe, the Harris government swept to power in Ontario. The more I read about government cuts to social services, education, health care and housing in Ontario, as well as talk of massive deregulation and privatization, the more I got the sinking feeling that my world back home was crumbling. All the fundamental institutions our parents built seemed to go out the window, one at a time.

Funding for research was also cut, and the opportunities to pursue research in Canada dwindled. I thus decided to spend a few months trying to understand and fight what can only be called the new state religion -- neo-liberalism -- that seems to have swept the nation, if not the whole world. The term "religion" seems appropriate here because of neo-liberalism's fanatical and irrational dogmas about globalization, free trade, trickle-down economics, deregulation etc; its strange rituals like mergers, downsizing and outsourcing; and not forgetting its own form of God -- profit. All this without any regard for its destructive impact on societies and the environment.

Then came talks about a megacity and Bill 103, tabled just in time for the Christmas break. Like most people in Metro, I received the pamphlet "One Toronto for All of Us" in December. This corporate propaganda -- there is no other word for it -- tried to spin off the idea of a megacity using glaring omissions, as I found out when I finally got a copy of Bill 103 in January, and misleading statements, if not downright lies. The omissions were especially about the authoritarian nature of the powers given to the board of trustees, the transition team and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, like the now infamous clause, "decisions are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court."

A list of reports with the comment "Below is a sample of recent reports that consider local governance matters and service delivery" gave the misleading impression that most favoured the position adopted by the government. In fact, most turned out to be mostly about reforms to the greater Toronto area, which is left untouched by the Tory government reforms, and about advocating a strengthening of local governments, not amalgamation.

Pervading this propaganda pamphlet was a nauseating corporate Newspeak about "competing globally," meaning a downward pressure on Canadian wages by big corporations using a cheap labour force in Third World countries led by repressive regimes, or "new ways of doing business," meaning downsizing workers for short-term profits etc. The more unsavory clauses of Bill 103, like the sweeping and authoritarian powers of the minister, the board of trustees and the transition team, were left out.

The pamphlet stated that the transition team "will determine ward boundaries," giving the impression that there will be a public consultation on this matter. But there is no explicit mention of this in Bill 103, only that clause 16(4)(c) says, "The transition team shall establish the new city's basic organizational structure." Explicit, however, in Bill 103 is paragraph 4(1)2: "The minister shall, by order, fix the boundaries and name of each ward." If the minister cares about local democracy and public consultation, why is this clause in the bill? How can we expect a democratic structure responsive to the needs of citizens to emerge from this transition year when the man controlling the process has shown time and time again utter contempt for public input?

1730

Compromises have been extracted from Mr Leach only through displays of massive public outrage. The propaganda pamphlet tried to be reassuring that neighbourhood committees will play a role in maintaining strong local democracy and gave a possible outline of their structure and role. But the bill only says, in 16(4)(e)(i), that the transition team shall "hold public consultations on the functions to be assigned to neighbourhood committees" and, in (5), "The city council shall, by bylaw, establish neighbourhood committees and determine their functions." That's it.

Why is Bill 103 so vague about the role and organizational structure of these committees if they appear to be so pivotal in the eyes of the minister, as implied by the "Nurturing our Neighbourhoods" section in this pamphlet? The powers of the minister, like those of the board of trustees and the transition team, are sweeping yet ambiguous and arbitrary.

Bill 103 says in clause 24(1)(c) that the minister may, by regulation, "deal with transitional matters in connection with the 1997 regular election and the new city." What prevents the minister, for example, from unilaterally deciding to privatize water and sewage? There is only this half-reassuring clause, 2(5)(b), that "all the assets and liabilities that the old municipalities had on December 31, 1997 are vested in and become assets and liabilities of the new city on January 1, 1998, without compensation." Does this clause mean that the minister can liquidate municipal assets if he wants to, as long as he does it before December 31, 1997?

A lot has been said about the KPMG study, completed in a matter of weeks, if not days. Its mandate was not to consider different scenarios of municipal reform of Metro but to speculate on how much could be saved through amalgamation and efficiency savings, assuming that the transition is "properly managed" using the numbers provided by the government. It assumes "continuation of the present overall availability and quality of public services," an assumption dubious at best, considering the massive re-entanglement exercise the provincial government is imposing on cities, including the municipalities of Toronto. The government knew this was coming but did not bother informing KPMG, making its study all the more irrelevant.

Changing the accounting practice as this transition is implemented will further make any assessment of its impact impossible. The KPMG study says on page 11 that "adopting public sector accounting standards as established by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants...will make it difficult to compare the level of expenditures of the new entity (assuming adoption in January 1998) with those of the predecessor entities, which have prepared their accounts on the old basis." All this is a recipe for chaos.

Tonight we will find out what the citizens across Metro think of amalgamation. But it is a mistake to think that Bill 103 is only about amalgamation. It is also about getting rid of local democracy, silencing the voices of citizens and implementing a campaign of organized corporate looting of our municipalities, especially the downtown Toronto core.

Bill 103 contains so many clauses giving sweeping and arbitrary powers to the minister, the board of trustees and the transition team and so many vague statements about democracy and due process that no amount of amendments could actually protect local democracy from the destructive impact of this bill. I demand nothing short of a complete withdrawal of this bill. The minister has already caved in to the pressure by considering some amendments to Bill 103. Why not go all the way? Simply withdraw and admit it was all a mistake.

The Chair: Unfortunately, you've exhausted all the time allotted to you, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward today to make your presentation.

BARBARA STERNBERG

The Chair: Would Barbara Sternberg please come forward? Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Barbara Sternberg: I'm here as a citizen. I was born in Toronto and have lived here almost all my life. I have taught at both the high school and university levels, and for the last 20 years I have been making experimental films.

I am concerned about a government that doesn't listen. This is not the first bill that has been rushed through the House. There was the omnibus bill and Mr Harris's response to the Days of Protest: "I'm not listening." And now this.

I want a government that consults, discusses and makes informed long-term decisions. I have come to speak here in good faith. I hope the government is also operating in good faith and is listening and considering what people who have been speaking here are saying.

I am concerned about the way Mr Harris communicates with the public, by ads. Mike Harris was elected on a slogan and, seeing that that worked, is now using advertising to sell ideas. Advertising is not an appropriate form of communication between a Premier and citizens. It is one-way only; there is no dialogue, no questions from the press. Advertising can lie by omission. It oversimplifies. Advertising convinces, it sells; it does not inform. Amalgamation is more complex than a 30- or 60-second ad.

I'm concerned that mega is messy, the opposite to the impression the ad gives. I've been wanting, since the ad came on, to run an ad of my own using the exact same visuals. You'd see the grid of wires all jumbled up and shorting out, and the voice-over would be saying: "Megacity is too large and unmanageable; it overburdens and is overtaxing." Then the neat, functioning grid comes on looking all effective and the voice says, "Whereas small governments run effectively and are less taxing to us all." Even though ads work -- we know, unfortunately, how powerful they are -- I want a government that knows it is not right to use them.

I'm concerned that with amalgamation there will be a silencing of the voice of the people: only 44 councillors and, of those, only 14 from Toronto. Why will Toronto have so few representatives? Fourteen does not seem sufficient to represent the population nor the diversity within the population. Why will there be a smaller percentage of reps to population for Toronto than for North Bay, for example? Will only 14 councillors be able to deal with the problems, large and small, requiring different areas of expertise? Will diversity in perspectives and the whole spectrum of political thought be represented in this new order? I'm concerned that in questions where there are differing priorities and values, such as density, public transit, expressways, cultural production, 14 out of 44 gets outvoted. I've been to Los Angeles and I don't want to live there; I want to live in Toronto.

I am not afraid of change when something needs changing, when the change improves existing conditions, when change is made with due process and thought. Don't you be afraid of change either: To change your mind, to reconsider, is a sign of intelligence and strength.

I am afraid of a loss to the arts. The cultural life of the city serves an area beyond its boundaries and even serves the country as a whole. By culture I mean not just pre- or post-Broadway theatre and Hollywood or Disney movies; by culture I mean indigenous, independent, innovative Canadian views and values. Culture is not only good business and good for business, and it is both of those things, but culture is a good in itself. What would life be like without it? Empty, grey, barren -- unimaginable, really. Why would anyone go to New York if it weren't a cultural centre?

But cultural life doesn't come from nothing. Will the level of support for the arts -- the 1% now in Toronto -- and its arm's-length system of distribution be adopted for the megacity?

1740

I'm concerned that amalgamation is not the only thing to be concerned about, but small potatoes, or even a red herring while the government has other fish to fry. I knew this would be close to suppertime.

Other things to be concerned about: the omnibus bill; loosening of environmental regulations; the cuts to health and education that sparked the Days of Action protests; privatization of university education or parts thereof; privatization of health care, or parts of it, and possibly of water; and now downloading of welfare, and amalgamation.

Canadians want and are willing to pay taxes to support a safe, ecologically sound, culturally alive, just, equitable and caring society, a society with a social conscience, universal access to health care and accessible quality education.

Our system of government is based on trust. This government has shown up the potential danger in the system when there is a majority government that takes that majority as licence to dictate. We trust governments, even with a majority, to consult, to listen and to represent the interests of the province as a whole and all its inhabitants, not only the interests of those who voted for you and whose contributions financed your election.

I plead with Tory MPPs to regain lost trust. I challenge Tory backbenchers to live up to the trust of the citizens of Ontario. I call upon Tories of good sense and integrity to vote your conscience. Make this a vote of no confidence in Mike Harris. Please use the power you have for good. Thank you.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Ms Sternberg, thank you very much for your presentation. As we've been anticipating what's going to happen tonight as people complete the voting in the referendum and the results become known later this evening, I and many others have been suggesting that the referendum process is the one vehicle that's left to the government to find a way out of this mess they're in.

The Speaker has found against them in terms of the process they've used; the courts have found against them; the people will presumably find against them, by all the indicators we have. Would you agree that this is now the time for Mike Harris and Al Leach to say: "We made a mistake. We're prepared to withdraw the bill and seriously engage people in a discussion over what the alternatives are and should be?"

Ms Sternberg: Yes, I think so, but they also have to do that on a number of other issues which I have mentioned. Amalgamation is just one of many things that -- you're shaking your head. I think so, and that's why I called for the Tory members to vote against it.

Mr Silipo: I think you're being overly optimistic in terms of asking for non-confidence by the members of the government in their government, but we could start with what they're doing on Bill 103 and some of the other pieces around downloading, because people understand the connection between those two.

Ms Sternberg: This has been the only opportunity for someone like me and all the other people who have spoken to speak to this government.

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

Ms Sternberg: Is there time for me to ask a question?

The Chair: Not really. Thank you very much for coming forward.

MARYBETH MCKENZIE

The Chair: Would Marybeth McKenzie please come forward? Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Ms Marybeth McKenzie: My name's Marybeth McKenzie. I am a part-time student at the University of Toronto and I am currently working full-time to pay my student loan. I am a Toronto resident. My family's been in Toronto for five generations, and I am currently an Ontario citizen too.

I don't have a handout, because I would tend to read it too much; I am really nervous. When I wrote to the committee to say, "Hey, I have something I am interested in speaking about," I wrote because I was upset. It was just before Christmas; we'd found about amalgamation and it wasn't the greatest Santa Clause present ever.

The reason for me was because I didn't know where this was coming from particularly. I had known about the Golden report. I didn't quite understand the process that had been involved in consulting the municipalities, Metro, nor the residents of these municipalities in Metro. For me, I felt like there had been a secret out of the dark. I was nervous and I was surprised.

As someone said: "That was then and this is now." Now I am angry and this is why I am here. I am angry about the speed Bill 103 has taken. I do not understand why something so important must be pushed for fall elections and why we couldn't have a more consultative and lengthy procedure to make sure that all parts fit together.

I am also upset and angry about the process itself. We've heard mention of advertising. I work in advertising. I find that we haven't had all the information. I am still confused as to what information the provincial government has provided in support of this bill. I don't really know what kind of studies have been performed to that effect. I know there's an 18-page report which I forget the title of -- I'll admit that -- but it doesn't give me a lot of security when I know that there has been the Golden report and also the Crombie report.

I am also angry about the secrecy about this legislation, specifically the secrecy about what's being proposed. You've heard about the trustees, and people are upset. People are upset, I think, because this idea of trusteeship and not having accountability -- which I know will be debated -- gives us a fear. People on community radio have likened this to Nazism. I'd like to think this is not the case. I certainly voted in the last election and I am hoping that's not the case.

The other reason I'm angry now is because of last week's comments where the government is saying they won't listen to the citizens about what we have to say. The problem with this is that in the end the citizens are the employers of the government. Al Leach has been very clear about this. As to the referendum happening right now, we've been told it's not going to be heeded or listened to. To me, this shows utter contempt for the residents of the Toronto region and for the citizens of Ontario.

For example, for me in my entry-level position, if I were to tell my employer: "You know, I really don't care about your opinion or what you want to do; I have my own opinion and this is what I want to do, even though you might ask me to do something else," I probably would be fired, as should this government be fired for contempt if this is to happen. You do not respect local democracy because I do not think you understand the word "democracy."

As much as I am a taxpayer of Ontario, I am a citizen of Ontario. I am angry and confused that something so important as the amalgamation of six municipalities and Metro needs to be rushed and information has been so scattered. I am upset that the government has not been forthcoming with its studies recommending amalgamation. I do not understand why the Golden report and the Crombie report are being put away on the side. Why hasn't the GTA idea been given more thought and value?

I do not understand why the provincial government is interested -- I'd like to think it's not because of the money -- in the power grab over the Toronto region. I've always thought the provincial government was busy enough dismantling environmental regulations, rent control, women's shelters and the hospitals.

I do not understand how downloading social services, welfare and transportation will not increase property taxes. I am angry because in effect what you're doing is passing the buck to the municipalities, saying, "You have to be responsible for such services." What this means is you're really turning your back on Ontarians, that people who are living in poor municipalities will be made even more poor. You are in effect saying that standardized social welfare for every Ontarian is no longer acceptable.

With regard to education, I believe that if children are hungry and living in substandard living conditions, they will not be able to learn, no matter what you're proposing with education. These are serious contradictions to your education plan. I am outraged that despite your assurances that there will be no increase in property taxes, the government will not put it in writing. Why not, and what are you afraid of?

I am afraid you have not given sufficient consideration to the bill, that my rent will increase on my 160-square-foot apartment due to property taxes. And not only will I be affected by these increased costs but also by the removal of rent control.

As there has been strong opposition to Bill 103, it is important to note what people are contesting. They are contesting the process. They are angry because they feel they're losing their community, that the appointment of trustees and the reduction of councillors will mean a reduction in democracy. The dumping of social services will mean increased taxes. There is a lack of confidence in the Progressive Conservative plan. We do not have confidence in your reports or your studies. There is a distrust of and anger with the government because there has not been a more inclusionary process, as well as because of the speed.

I would suggest that amalgamation in itself is not the problem. Many people you've heard have said, "I don't think getting rid of duplication is a bad thing." The problem is losing democracy in the process and not caring about our communities and the people who live beside us. I am here expressing my anger and my confusion, because I care about my city, my province and the democratic process. I'm here because I want to see equality for all Ontarians.

Mr Parker: I'm interested in your closing comment. Correct me if I've got it wrong, but I think I understood your point to be that you believe amalgamation itself may not be the problem, but the problem is that democracy is being lost in the process.

Ms McKenzie: Yes.

Mr Parker: Are you saying that you personally do not have a concern about the concept of amalgamating the municipalities?

Ms McKenzie: I don't think, from a lot of the public speakers, that people have a problem with the concept, no. They have a problem if their communities are going to be at a loss and if they don't have proper representation to have community issues addressed sufficiently.

Mr Parker: Is the issue then with the process of achieving amalgamation, or is the issue with the details surrounding amalgamation?

Ms McKenzie: I think both. The problem is that people have not been informed. It's too fast and we're losing democracy.

Mr Parker: Do you have any recommendations as to how your concerns might be addressed within an amalgamated city?

Ms McKenzie: If we still had fair representational government where our voices would be heard, I wouldn't have as much of a problem. I have serious doubts that a megacity would be able, efficiently and affordably, to answer my concerns in my community.

Mr Parker: Do you have any specific recommendations to bring forward?

Ms McKenzie: I think you should slow down, take some time; get as many opinions as possible. In advertising when I see mega-companies come together, amalgamation of two companies will take usually two years. You're trying to push this through in eight months so you can make fall elections.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, before we recess for dinner I just want to remind you that research has provided a second edition of the summary, which should before each of you. I want to thank research for that.

The committee recessed from 1754 to 1906.

TREVOR PAGE

The Vice-Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to begin. I'd like to ask Trevor Page to come forward. Good evening, Mr Page, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Trevor Page: I wish to use this opportunity to speak in favour of the proposed amalgamation of Metro Toronto and its six municipalities. My comments will be divided into two parts: the benefits of amalgamation and then some thoughts on the criticisms of the government's process and the giant void, as I see it, of coherent opposition to Bill 103.

First, as I understand the debate on local government in Metro, there's one nearly unanimous premise: The current system is broken. The government has said so, the opposition parties have said so, the mayors have said so, Golden has said so and David Crombie has said so.

I suppose Mr Sewell and some of his colleagues have spoken up in favour of the status quo. I know they want the diversity of our downtown protected and I know they don't want to see the deterioration of downtown as a place to live. I agree with them. Everybody agrees with them. But keeping things as they are will accomplish so little and undermine so much.

If change is truly necessary, what are the options available to us? We could somehow refine the current two-tier system, get rid of a direct election to Metro, redistribute responsibilities somehow, reduce the number of politicians, but in and of itself this sort of tinkering doesn't solve any of our problems. There would still be overlap and duplication and there wouldn't be any meaningful savings.

We could eliminate the Metro level of government and strengthen the local municipalities by keeping the existing six or creating four. Seemingly, this is the only viable alternative to amalgamation. There could be cost savings and there would be greater accountability, but to eliminate Metro would be to eliminate the coordination of something like three quarters of the delivery of municipal services to Metropolitan Toronto. There would be fragmentation, not unification. It would mean the creation of six or four police departments, six or four transit departments, six or four social services departments. This does not make sense to me.

What are we left with? The creation of a new, unified city in Toronto with fewer politicians; an end to overlap and waste and duplication; a single voice for the region to speak with to attract jobs and investment; protection of our neighbourhoods and protection of those services like transit and police which already serve all 2.3 million of us. Practically speaking, doesn't it make sense to have one planning department instead of seven, one parks department instead of seven, and one fire department instead of six?

One transit system works, one police department works, and one social services department works. Doesn't it make sense to have 44 politicians with a clear mandate, rather than 106 who keep tripping over one another? Doesn't it make sense to have a mayor with a national and international profile who can make a pitch for investment or even something like the Olympics?

On a more emotional level, people have expressed fear that our neighbourhoods will die, that the diversity so integral to who we are will somehow disappear, that the arts community, the gay community and the multicultural communities will all suffer. To those sceptics I respectfully submit that what makes Metro Toronto great is not its municipal governments, nor its municipal boundaries, nor its public servants; it is the people who live here. Politicians and bureaucrats will always come and go, but Toronto remains great.

Leaside, Forest Hill and Weston still all have a civic pride, notwithstanding the fact they were all amalgamated decades ago. On an even smaller scale, the Beach, Willowdale and West Hill are neighbourhoods which still thrive irrespective of where their city hall is or who works there.

You want an example of a successful amalgamation? Try Toronto. Since the 19th century there have been myriad amalgamations, from something like 30 municipalities down to six, and the world has not ended. In fact, this region has grown and flourished because of a history of growing together. Everybody in Metro Toronto shares a common history. Our city has evolved from having a strong core that is the city of Toronto with growing suburbs. The suburbs flourished, and they flourished because of downtown Toronto. By joining the downtown core with the suburbs our strengths and weaknesses become everybody's responsibility. Welfare and immigration were not just downtown's problems. Creating infrastructure was not just a suburban problem.

Now Metro is the strong core within the growing greater Toronto area and the government is working towards sharing the good and the bad between the 416 and 905 regions. But all this depends on a strong, vibrant core like the city of Toronto was for the suburbs so many years ago.

People make a place great and what is great about Torontonians is our civility, our diversity, our abilities. Of this everybody agrees. I have no idea how changing municipal government can possibly make neighbourhoods less diverse. It's an absurd argument, to be quite honest.

On another point, the opponents of amalgamation do not have a monopoly on affection for Toronto or an understanding of its merits. If Barbara Hall loves Toronto more than Al Leach, why has she created a debt for that city far in excess of any of the other cities? If Mel Lastman loves North York more than Charles Harnick, why is it only now that the mayor has found savings for his ratepayers by way of municipal restructuring?

This is a time for vision and optimism, for grabbing this opportunity and creating the greatest city on the planet. To pass this up, to vote against amalgamation in the various plebiscites, is necessarily to endorse the status quo, and that could mean the death of one of the most diverse, prosperous and healthy urban centres anywhere.

I would like to comment now on the criticisms made against the government's attempt to move forward with amalgamation. "It wasn't in the Common Sense Revolution," the critics say. "The government is ignoring the will of the people," they say. "It's too draconian, it's undemocratic."

How has this bill, Bill 103, differed in any manner from the previous thousands of bills to pass before the Ontario Legislature? This bill was introduced by a duly elected government. It passed first reading. It was debated after second reading. Now it's at committee hearings. After this, I suspect there will be some amendments and then it will go on to third reading. If it passes, it will receive royal assent. That's the process for creating laws in this country and in this province.

People have argued that the government is doing it to spite the city of Toronto because they're too drunk on power. What did they really do? They introduced a bill which reduced the number of politicians, a bill which reduced overlap and duplication between and among governments, a bill which actually removed a level of government. I'm sure I've heard ideas like those from Harris and Leach -- I'm almost positive. I also read that during the parliamentary debate after second reading there were two hours and 45 minutes of debate and five hours and 25 minutes of opposition filibustering. How is it that the opposition parties can stifle debate on the issue, but the government is accused of being undemocratic?

As an aside, had the government got rid of Metro, had they created four cities, then the criticisms would have been that the Harris Tories had opted for a fragmented Toronto because a megacity would be so powerful that it would challenge the authority of the provincial government. Harris has it in for Metro, they would say, so he's keeping it down. As it is, the government chose to unify Toronto, so now he's crushing local democracy.

Now we are nearing the end of 105 hours of public hearings. So many people have spoken, but how many different ideas have really emerged? From what I've read and heard, there's the "This government is undemocratic" speech and the "Neighbourhoods will die" speech, two absurd arguments based on some other-worldly reality. In short, the government has followed the parliamentary system to the letter.

What has been lacking is any meaningful discussion on the substantive issues contained in Bill 103, which leads me to my third point. Those groups and individuals who do not like Bill 103, and I've noticed quite a few, have been loath to articulate an alternative vision. The Liberals don't like amalgamation, but what do they like? The NDP don't like amalgamation, but what proposal have they put forward?

The opposition has been loud and varied: mayors and city councillors, unions, ratepayers' groups, architects and planners, authors, and John Sewell and company. But none of those groups, not one, has articulated a substantive alternative to the government's plan. Rather than bell-ringing and points of order, wouldn't the public have been better served if Mr Silipo or Mr Colle, Mr McGuinty or Mr Hampton had stood in their place and debated the issues?

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt. You're going to have to wind up. You're coming to the end of your allotted time.

Mr Page: Just a few words on the referendum, then: The question, as biased and morally corrupt as it is, deals only with the amalgamation issue, but the propaganda from the opposition parties, the municipalities and the Citizens for Local Democracy refers to education reform and property tax reform and downloading. Those questions aren't being asked, so how can a referendum be binding if it asks a bad question on the wrong issue? The government would have had a much harder time dismissing the overwhelming negative results if there had been an honest question and an honest No campaign.

Democracy is every bit as much about building consensus and debating the issues as it is about protesting and whining about process. The government says amalgamation is the best idea for Toronto, so prove them wrong. To the opposition members I say only this: Offer us an alternative. Engage the government in a debate on the issues. Show us with ideas and concepts and vision that amalgamation is wrongheaded. This is my challenge to you.

Likely it is too late now, as the hearings wind down and Bill 103 becomes a step closer to becoming law. You blew it. You are bankrupt for ideas and creativity, so you rode the political coattails of such misguided individuals as John Sewell, Michael Prue and Barbara Hall.

The Chair: Mr Page, I'm going to have to cut you off at that point. We've gone a little bit beyond the allotted time.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): No time for questions? That's a shame.

Mr Newman: Give him another 10 minutes.

The Chair: I want to thank you for coming forward and making a presentation today.

Mr Gerretsen: I think he should be allowed to finish.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, the rules of the Legislature apply in a committee room and audiences are not to participate with catcalls or boos or whatever else, so I'd appreciate if you'd keep those to yourselves.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Chair, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent so the Liberal caucus can ask a question of the last presenter.

Mr Gerretsen: I'd agree with that.

Interjection: No.

The Chair: No unanimous consent.

ONTARIO CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABILITY

The Chair: Would Chris Winter please come forward. Welcome, Mr Winter. You have 10 minutes tonight to make a presentation. If there's some time left at the end, the Liberals will --

Mr Bisson: Did we have unanimous consent?

The Chair: I asked and the indication was that no unanimous consent was going to be forthcoming.

Mr Winter, go ahead.

Mr Chris Winter: Thank you for the opportunity to address you on the subject of the future of Metropolitan Toronto. My name is Chris Winter. I have been a resident of Metro Toronto since 1973. Professionally, I am currently setting up the Ontario Centre for Sustainability, an information centre on environmental strategies and sustainable development in Ontario.

While I have personal experience with the impact of downsizing and budget cuts, it is not on my own behalf that I speak tonight. I'm a well-educated white male; my prospects for creating my own employment are good. I live in Parkdale. I can see around me many of the people who are poor and with few, if any, opportunities for improving the quality of their life. These are the people who will bear the brunt of downloading and cuts in welfare and housing assistance.

This past weekend I attended a conference of the Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition. Its membership includes many of the agencies and non-profit organizations that work to improve the quality of life in communities across the province. At one point, a delegate from an anti-poverty group was nearly in tears as she spoke of having to resort to prostitution to feed her child.

1920

This is the reality that lies outside these walls: a crumbling social infrastructure and hundreds of personal stories of hardship. These, I believe, are the issues Bill 103 should address. So when I speak to you now of healthy communities and government responsibility, it is with the desire to find a solution that is both fiscally responsible and community-sensitive.

I would like to present two simple concepts that underlie my analysis of Bill 103.

The first is the healthy communities model, first introduced to Ontario by Dr Trevor Hancock and later adopted by the Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition. The model is made up of three interconnected circles representing environment, economy and society. Like a three-legged stool, a healthy community depends upon the health of its environment, economy and society. Strengthen one sector at the expense of the others and the long-term health of the community is in jeopardy.

At the centre of the model is a healthy community, which can be defined as being sustainable, prosperous and with a high quality of life. Sustainability, livability and prosperity are subjective terms, true enough, but in the debate to define them we begin to find workable solutions that meet the needs of each sector. I hope all of you will be able to agree with me that Bill 103 and its changes to Toronto's governance should support the goal of a healthy city.

The second concept I wish to place before you is the responsibilities of good government. They are to set and enforce standards, regulations and laws on issues of concern to society; to ensure the provision of essential services and infrastructure; to stimulate the healthy and sustainable development of our economy and society. I hope you will agree also that the government of Ontario should strive for constant improvement in each of these three areas of governmental responsibility.

The above principles for healthy communities and good government can be applied equally to any political philosophy -- Conservative, Liberal or NDP. They are separate from the left-right spectrum and therefore provide us with independent criteria against which we can judge the actions of a government. It should be clear too that there is tremendous flexibility for meeting these criteria. Therein lies the constant tinkering of successive governments.

But it is also possible to go too far, which brings us to the current government's record of activities and proposals. At the provincial level they include removing all major policy advisory bodies, deregulation, cuts to enforcement, cuts in support to Ontario's social infrastructure, privatization of essential services such as the Ontario Clean Water Agency and Ontario Hydro, downloading of responsibilities and costs to municipal governments, and the introduction of workfare.

Specifically, in Bill 103, the government proposes to replace local elected councils with appointed community advisory committees, download social assistance and welfare responsibilities, and implement a radical change to the tax base.

Taken together, these changes will have serious repercussions on the social and environmental health of Toronto and the province as a whole. They point to a decline in all three of the responsibilities of a government: to provide a strong regulatory framework, to provide essential services and to promote healthy and sustainable development.

They are made from an economy-centred model and the belief that less government and a free-market economy will lead to greater efficiencies and a healthier community. In ecological terms, we call this the survival of the fittest. I would like to think that as a society we have adopted a more compassionate model.

Over the years, Canada has developed strong values with respect to health care, social security and environmental protection. The current support for economic efficiency and debt reduction should not be interpreted as a mandate to relinquish government responsibilities in these areas. My advice to you is to bury your pride, set aside the Common Sense rhetoric and ideology and get down to the business of being a government -- not just a party in power -- that is responsible and responsive to the needs of all its people.

Bill 103 and the associated measures of downloading and privatization will have a profound impact on the quality of this city over the next century. That's a tremendous change and a tremendous responsibility. Therefore, I recommend the government should withdraw Bill 103, and in its place establish a Ministry of Municipal Affairs task force to develop options that will: (1) increase efficiency in governance and the delivery of essential services; (2) maintain local democracy; and (3) enhance community health and wellbeing.

I think you folks have started the debate, whether you really wanted to or not, but now it's time to pull back, reflect and see if we can do it in a logical way. What I have offered is a logical approach, but as I have seen so many times over the past 12 years of my career, logic plays only a small role in politics. So if logic will not sway you, we must resort to passion.

I wish to conclude my presentation by entering into the record of these committee hearings the lyrics of a song I helped write that will be sung later this evening at Massey Hall. It is written to the tune of Barrett's Privateers and, with apologies to Stan Rogers, it is called The Last Democracy Pamphleteer.

In respect for the formal nature of these hearings, I will not sing it at full voice, but ask instead that you all imagine a chorus over a thousand strong calling on you to stop your narrow-minded and senseless attack on the people and communities of Metropolitan Toronto.

Oh the year was 1997 --

How I wish I was in Scarborough now --

When a bill came down from the Queen's Park crowd

With a mighty voice we shouted aloud.

Damn them all, I was told

This city was worth its weight in gold;

They'd fire them all,

Amalgamate,

Now I'm a homeless soul on the Harbourfront pier,

The last democracy pamphleteer.

Bill 103 was a sickening sight --

How I wish I was in North York now --

With a list of things that they would do

To save themselves a buck or two.

Damn them all, I was told

This city was worth its weight in gold;

They'd fire them all,

Amalgamate,

Now I'm a homeless soul on the Harbourfront pier,

The last democracy pamphleteer.

The people came out both young and old --

How I wish I was in Toronto now --

On Monday nights we'd congregate

and shout to the rafters, "It's not too late!"

Damn them all, I was told

This city was worth its weight in gold;

They'd fire them all,

Amalgamate,

Now I'm a homeless soul on the Harbourfront pier,

The last democracy pamphleteer.

Feel free to join in, Mr Newman.

The Chair: You have a minute remaining for questions.

Mr Winter: Let's skip it and go to the minute remaining for questions, then.

Mr Hastings: You'll never get an agent.

Mr Winter: Sir, neither would you.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much. You certainly make much more beautiful music than the government has over the last couple of years, so I'll give you full credit for that.

I like your model that you've set out and the two-step approach to that, because I believe that's how government traditionally has dealt with the change that's taken place in Ontario. That's not happening here.

Could I have your comments? The bigger problem I see outside of this amalgamation, megacity stuff that's going on right now -- I don't think that's where the real problem is -- the government really hasn't focused on it. It's really, how do we coordinate all the various services in the GTA? Do you have any comments on that at all?

Mr Winter: Yes. There are two things I'd like to say on that. First of all, in theory it would seem possible to coordinate better the services in the GTA. In practice, I'm not convinced and I have not seen any of the studies and the hard science that comes up to back this up. What I'm left with is the common sense, shall we call it, that amalgamation of services will result in greater efficiency. To a large degree, we're going to be facing the cost of amalgamation and the cost especially with planning departments and so on of harmonizing various codes and standards within the different municipalities, so in the first few years we're going to be facing a tremendous cost for a perceived and potential saving that may come down the road.

I'm not convinced that a unified service is the best way to go. I'm prepared to accept it if the studies are there to back it up, but so far, from what I've heard, the financial analysis is not there.

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

1930

CONFEDERATION OF RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER ASSOCIATIONS

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

Mr Dale Ritch: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I represent the Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer Associations in the city of Toronto and I'm speaking on their behalf tonight. I'm glad to take this opportunity to make a few remarks about the megacity legislation.

First of all, this issue boils down to one thing, really: accountability in democracy. I'm giving you a handout here which some of you might be familiar with, which I'm basing most of my remarks on. It's Your Ontario, Your Choice: A Preliminary Look at the Referendum Alternative. It was published last summer by the Conservative government. I think the referendum issue is very important in the context of accountability in democracy.

Last summer your government, the Conservative government, said: "We're looking at the possibility of government-initiated, opposition-initiated and citizen-initiated referendums. We also feel -- unlike other politicians -- that referendums are a good idea and do not limit the ability to manage a government. We don't think it's unreasonable for people to have those alternatives." This was a quote from Mike Harris in the Financial Post, February 4, 1995.

Last summer, the Conservative government published this paper. From the overview, I quote: "The Ontario government is firmly committed to using the referendum as a tool of increased accountability and improved public participation in the decision-making process....

"For many years, Mike Harris has made clear his support for direct democracy. He was one of the first Canadian political leaders of this era to argue forcefully that the referendum must play a greater and more significant role in our decision-making process....

"Further, for many years Mike Harris has said that certain questions of public policy," including new provincial taxes, "are so fundamental that they should be decided using referenda....

"Some have negatively suggested that the referendum mechanism is an abrogation of a government's responsibility to govern. This Ontario government believes otherwise."

On January 24 of this year, the member of the government responsible for referenda, Tony Clement, said, "The new process would enable the people of Ontario to go over the heads of the elected élites and cause a referendum to be held on any issue."

Mike Harris, quoted this week in the Toronto newspapers: "It is so flawed" -- this is the referendum in Metro he's talking about, held by the six cities -- "so misleading and so confusing that it borders on irrelevancy." "The vote number in percentages doesn't matter because it's not based on anything that any pollster or anyone who knows anything about referendums believes is logically sensible."

Contrast Mr Harris's remarks with this excerpt from Your Ontario, Your Choice: "Many people tell us they feel disenfranchised by the process of modern government. Many don't believe government can work for them. The manner in which important public policy issues are decided often appears to be dominated by special interest groups." Sadly, it appears that Mike Harris and the Ontario Tories have themselves become nothing but another special interest group.

I would ask the Tory members of this committee, in what sense is this real referendum that we're now experiencing in Metro Toronto, as opposed to the paper referendums that you support on paper -- in what sense is this referendum flawed? I'd like to know. Are you suggesting that the residents of Metro do not know what they are voting for or against?

What did the question on the ballot say? "Are you in favour of eliminating the city of Toronto" -- this is the ballot in the city of Toronto; slightly different wording in the other cities -- "and all other existing municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and incorporating them into a megacity?" This is misleading? This is confusing? This is flawed? Prove it to me that this question is misleading, confusing or flawed. I challenge you.

What has been misleading and confusing and flawed from the start has been the government's approach to this entire megacity issue and the other related bills, including downloading. Absolutely not one shred of evidence has been produced to demonstrate a cost saving of even one cent that will result from amalgamation. Not one study has shown that even one cent will be saved by amalgamation.

All published studies, with the exception of the KPMG report, have pointed to the opposite: an escalation of costs and a loss of efficiency. KPMG, of course, hedged on the cost savings, saying none was guaranteed. They said it's a possibility, but there are no guarantees here. So there's not one study, not one shred of evidence, that has demonstrated that there will be a saving of even one cent from amalgamation.

Furthermore, disentanglement has turned out to be its opposite. According to the Globe and Mail: "Disentanglement just doesn't make sense. The tongue-lashing has been well-earned. This scheme is deeply flawed." Members of the committee, members of the government, I say to you: Welfare, social housing and other social services should not be dumped on to the property tax base. This is not disentanglement.

Property taxes should be used only to provide services to property, and this is the view of most of the ratepayers, activists in the city of Toronto, members of our organization. Downloading of social services on to the property taxes adds to the existing entanglement and becomes even more tangled and confused. This government is moving in the wrong direction.

With regard to the social housing aspect of the downloading, we're very conscious of this in the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto has 45,000 units of social housing alone. We have one quarter of the social housing stock in the entire province here in the city of Toronto. We in the ratepayers movement don't like that. We've been arguing that there's too much social housing, that we can't afford it. We're winning that argument in the city of Toronto.

There's a realization coming now that we've reached the limit. The non-profit housing sector itself has published articles and statistics that have stated the government is understating the real cost of running social housing in Metro. The government says it will cost $369 million. The social housing institutions themselves say their actual cost is double that. Add on another $380 million, to bring the total up to $750 million per year, double what the government says, because of the run-down status of the existing social housing stock in Metro.

To download the costs of social housing alone on to the property taxpayer would bankrupt Metro Toronto and result in tens of thousands of units of unlivable, crumbling social housing stock. Is this what the government is trying to achieve?

In conclusion, what should we now do with the mess on our hands? I say, let's call a time out, to use a basketball analogy here. We haven't gone over the precipice yet. There is still time. Let's take a time out for a few months.

I would only mention in passing that two of the most prominent boosters of the Yes side in Metro, Alan Tonks and Tom Jakobek, are on the bottom of the pile in the recent poll on potential mayoralty candidates for megacity mayor that was published in the Sun today. Alan Tonks is at a 3% rating; Tom Jakobek is at a 2% rating. Even the notorious radical ex-mayor of Toronto, John Sewell, is ahead of Tonks and Jakobek. John Sewell is at 4%, ladies and gentlemen. Mel Lastman, by the way, is leading the pack with 37%.

Mel Lastman has been the most vociferous, the most active, the most voluble opponent of megacity. He's been the leader of the No forces. This poll by the Sun has got nothing to do with the referendum, folks. This is an independent poll published by the Sun. The Sun, by the way, has been editorially wholeheartedly in support of megacity, right from day one. The opinion poll of the Toronto Sun shows Mel Lastman is leading the pack with 37%, Barbara Hall is in second at 12%, Alan Tonks is at 3% and Tom Jakobek is at 2%.

I also want you to remember what Hazel McCallion is doing regarding amalgamation in Mississauga. She's launched a pre-emptive strike. She's saying: "The hell with Peel, we're getting out before you guys can fold us into them. We're getting the hell out."

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr Ritch, but you're going to have to sum up. You've come to the end of your allotted time.

1940

Mr Ritch: I'm just summing up right now, sir.

In conclusion, I think Mike Harris and the rest of the Tory caucus would do well to heed the advice of Paul Pagnuelo of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation gave a lot of support to the Tories in the last election. They've been very militant advocates of fiscal responsibility at the level of property taxes. What Paul Pagnuelo and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says makes a lot of sense and it gives us a way out. I'd like you to consider it, in concluding here.

What Paul Pagnuelo said was: "Go ahead with the uploading of education from residential property taxes. Go ahead with the downloading of the hard services, roads etc, on to the property tax that's left, and cancel all your municipal grant programs, but forget about downloading of welfare, social housing, and these other soft services on to the property tax." In other words, transfer the remaining half of the income tax cut to a property tax cut. Simple and effective. We're all going to benefit from that. As for Mike Harris --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ritch. I apologize, but we're well beyond your allotted time.

Mr Ritch: Mr Harris, prove to us that you're not just another prevaricating politician, another member of a special interest group that enjoys preferred access to the media. Now's your chance to make some changes. Thank you very much.

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

CANADIAN UNITARIANS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

The Chair: Would Doug Rutherford please come forward. Good evening, Mr Rutherford. Welcome to the committee. I wonder if each of you could introduce yourselves at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of Hansard, please.

Mr Doug Rutherford: Good evening, Mr Chairman. Perhaps I could introduce Mrs Eileen Smith and Mr Maurice Smith who are with me. We're all members of the Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice.

Mr Chairman and committee members, I would like to draw the committee members' attention to the statement attached to this brief, which is a statement of purpose of the Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice.

We are here this evening to express our outrage over this government's blatant effort to ram this bill through the Legislature without the consent of the citizens of greater Toronto, and without adequate consultation with those affected by it. This violates one of the basic principles of our faith, that of respect for the democratic process in human relations. We are dismayed that the government sees fit to place the duly elected municipal governments within Metro Toronto under the interim control of a provincially appointed transition team and a board of trustees with unprecedented arbitrary powers.

This bill would deprive the citizens and municipalities affected of their democratic rights that form the core of our political institutions in this province. It would deprive them of their right to challenge the authority of the trustees and the transition team in the courts, and give the members of both, and their employees, personal immunity from civil liability. The decisions of both the team and the trustees are specifically exempted from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. That act was passed in the 1960s to give effect to the recommendations of a royal commission set up to safeguard civil liberties in this province by ensuring that any decision by a tribunal is made in accordance with a fair hearing to those who may be affected.

Although both the team and the trustees are described as transitional, their dissolution on or after January 31, 1998, is at the discretion of the minister, leaving open the possibility that the powers of these groups may continue for an indefinite period. Under this bill, both the team and the trustees can, by regulation, be given unlimited powers, which could be made retroactive and could override not only other regulations, but any other act of the Legislature.

Here, I digress to explain to those who may not have a legal background that a regulation is legislation enacted by cabinet without the concurrence of the Legislature. Mr Chairman, on a personal note, in all my 20-odd years as a former legal adviser to this government, I have never seen such a provision as this. I find it shocking beyond belief. It is something that only a banana republic would enact.

The interim powers given to the trustees to police municipal funding display a lack of faith bordering on contempt towards the existing municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto which have faithfully administered their own finances over many years, and in the case of the city of Toronto, for more than 150 years.

Why has this government seen fit to give the provincially appointed transition team sole authority to hire permanent department heads and other employees for the new municipality without regard to the wishes of the new body?

Seen together with last year's omnibus bill and Bill 104 currently before this House, this bill forms part of a disturbing pattern of arbitrary government that is alien to our democratic tradition in this province. In our view it shows a step-by-step move towards totalitarianism and dictatorship which the citizens of any democracy cannot tolerate and which they must resist with all the resources at their command.

In framing this bill, the government has ignored the advice in the Golden report, the Crombie report, and indeed from most of the acknowledged experts in municipal matters. We believe that the consequences of this bill, if enacted, will be devastating for all the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto.

We share the view expressed by most of the experts that offloading the costs of welfare, social housing, public transit and other services on to the municipal tax base will add to the already unconscionable burden of poverty that the poorest and most vulnerable residents of our local municipalities now carry. We are surprised and distressed by the callous disregard shown to date by the government towards this segment of our population. This attitude violates our belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person which we share with other faith communities.

Already there are signs that this government has not given enough consideration to the negative consequences of its unwise course of action. We read press reports of recently discovered additional costs to the municipalities that will be generated by this offloading of services and that do not seem to have been made available when this bill was before cabinet.

We say to the government:

Amend the bill to delete the offensive provisions referred to.

Slow down the process of creating the new municipality.

Delete all the arbitrary powers given to the trustees and to the transition team.

Show your good faith by allowing your staff to negotiate directly with the elected representatives and the staffs of the municipalities to be merged by this scheme, to bring about whatever changes in the municipal structure will benefit the whole greater Toronto area on the basis of the advice in the Golden report and the Crombie report.

In short, we urge the government to heed the mounting tide of citizens' protest to this legislation and take seriously the results of the current municipal referenda and allow those citizens to have meaningful input into this bill. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to hit on the one point which I think responds to what we heard in a presentation earlier, that those people on the Yes side are accusing the opposition and others like you in opposition to this bill of not being willing to come forward with some sort of process or ideas that would see some ways of trying to find efficiencies about how the municipalities in Metro are run. First of all I disagree with that comment. We're saying in the New Democratic Party -- and I can't speak for the Liberals but I imagine it's the same -- that we need to find ways to make change, we need to make sure that we find ways of making government efficient, but we're certainly not convinced that this is the way to do it.

When you come forward and give a proposal such as you have here, your second bullet, "Slow down the process of creating the new municipality," why do you think the government is so opposed to the idea of giving the process some time so that we can get it right rather than trying to do something that is like a quick fix and in the end may give us a bigger headache than we need? Why are they opposed?

Mr Rutherford: I can only speculate that the government really doesn't want people to look too closely at this bill. I've had some experience in legal drafting and I was absolutely appalled at the provisions that are here. I think if they can get it through without too much examination, it will be a done deal and there will be nothing anybody can do about it. That's what concerns us tonight.

Mr Bisson: I agree with you, because a lot of us who have read the bill in some detail -- and I think you were right to bring Bill 26 into this, because you can't look at Bill 103 and say, "This is what it's all about." It's about Bill 26; it's about Bill 104; it's about the downloading. It's about all of those things, which is what you speak to.

That brings me to the third bullet point. You're asking the government to "delete all the arbitrary powers given to the trustees and to the transition team." I agree with you. That is really an undemocratic body that is being created by the government, not only in Bill 103 but also in Bill 104. Why do you think the government is unwilling to do away with this whole notion of trustees? Why do you think they don't trust that the newly elected Metro council -- if they think that's the way it should be, why don't they give them the power to do what has to be done?

1950

Mr Rutherford: It seems to me that the government wants to control the new municipality. As well, they're making sure that people who agree with the government are going to be in a position of power in the municipalities. I think that's what's disturbing us when we examine this bill. There's something unprecedented going on here. I recall back in the early 1950s, when I was a legal adviser for the city of Toronto, right after Metro was created, there was a lot of direct consultation with the province. It wasn't an antagonistic thing. Both sides were anxious to make improvements and it was done in a spirit of give and take. I think after it was completed there was a feeling that everybody had gotten the best arrangements that could be done. That's not happening this way. It's the process that we're objecting to.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Rutherford, for making your presentation this evening.

NORTH YORK PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Would Ken Bray please come forward. Welcome to the committee, Mr Bray. Would the gentleman beside you perhaps introduce himself at the beginning for the benefit of Hansard.

Mr Kenneth Bray: This is Jim MacIntosh. He's the secretary of the North York Professional Fire Fighters Association. I'm going to read from a prepared statement. I believe you all have a copy.

On behalf of the 640 men and women who are members of the North York Professional Fire Fighters Association, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee this evening. The purpose of our presentation is to express to you the concern our members have with the proposed amalgamation of the six municipal and Metro levels of government into one large megacity. As professional firefighters, our concern is for the safety of the citizens whose lives and property we protect. We are not a special interest group with no vested interest in this issue. Our association is not opposed to change. However, change for change's sake concerns us.

When government initiates change, it must be based on a demonstrated need, solid research and thoughtful consideration of the outcome. Options must be explored; public consultation and stakeholder input are paramount. When firefighters are battling a fire in North York, the public often views our operations as disjointed. This is because they are not aware of the training, research and development that are required to maximize our operational effectiveness on the emergency ground. In developing our policies and procedures, we leave no stone unturned. Firefighters operate under a very defined command structure that allows for quick size-up and analysis of a situation. Everyone understands their role and the rationale behind the operational objectives and tasks which they have been asked to perform.

We have a strong sense that this government has not adopted this philosophy as it pushes forward with this legislation. In fact they also appear disjointed. However, unlike firefighters, their decisions are being made without thorough analysis and research. Consequently it appears the government is flying by the seat of its pants and has adopted a "Let's do it and see what happens" attitude towards amalgamation.

The proposed amalgamation will have a direct impact on the lives of 2.3 million people who live in Metropolitan Toronto. This legislation, if passed, will create a municipality with a population larger than our five smallest provinces combined. Decisions of this magnitude should not be made in haste.

The three Metro daily newspapers have campaigned in favour of amalgamation from the outset. The provincial government sponsored the KPMG report and its Estimate of Potential Savings and Costs from the Creation of a Single Tier Local Government for Toronto. The Metro level of government sponsored a report by Ernst and Young in December 1995 which addressed in part the amalgamation of the six Metro fire departments into one.

The provincial government has relied heavily on these reports. This causes us great concern as we believe this reinforces our position that they are pushing this legislation through without a complete understanding of the ramifications, particularly in regard to public safety. What other reasonable conclusion could you come to when you read the disclaimers contained throughout the KPMG report? I'll read those:

"Although the limitations of time and access did not permit a detailed examination or verification of the components of spending in the seven municipalities...." That's on page 2.

"Our analysis concentrated on operating expenditures. We did not try to estimate new capital requirements or the returns available from the disposal of assets made redundant by amalgamation" -- also on page 2 of the report.

"A consulting assignment's focus is determined by the terms of reference set by the client. Recognizing the limited nature of these terms of reference is essential to understanding the report's contents and how our conclusions were reached." On page 4.

"We have relied upon the information provided to us by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and have performed no original data collection or verification against original sources. Our findings are qualified by the limited time available for this study and by our reliance on the information available to us."

The KPMG report, by its own admission, has been done with time constraints, restrictions on terms of reference and no opportunity for verification of data.

The Ernst and Young report has been referred to by the government to support its contention that combining the six Metro fire departments will generate savings of between $29.5 million and $45.4 million, and this with a one-time transition cost of between $34.9 million and $40.9 million. There are also disclaimers contained in the Ernst and Young report which echo the same lack of solid statistical information on which its cost analysis was formulated:

"We were requested not to and did not have direct contact with any of the six municipalities' officials. We did not conduct any interviews or working sessions with these municipalities to verify or clarify the public information we used.

"In the case of fire services, our approach was to use the information available to build a `future state' system by estimating what the level of service would be if it was delivered on a Metro-wide basis. The amount of information available and our ability to create an expert panel with individuals who have experience in fire service amalgamation provide the opportunity for this kind of approach."

Clearly, with regard to the fire service, there has been no input from either the Metro fire chiefs or union representatives. Rather, the government is relying on unnamed experts with no vested interest in the process. These biased reports have polarized the municipalities in clear opposition to Bill 103 simply because they were not able to corroborate or validate them. Armed with these reports, in the face of clear public opposition to amalgamation, the government is determined to press forward with this legislation. The government has clearly tried to discredit the referendum despite its own Common Sense Revolution promise to hold referendums on issues of significant concern to voters.

This legislation already suffered a significant setback when Mr Justice Lloyd Brennan shut down the trustees appointed to oversee spending during the transition period. Certainly it would make one pause to contemplate the motives of a government that would try to impose such sweeping powers as the trustees enjoy even before the legislation becomes law.

As employees of the city of North York, we find it difficult to see any benefit for ourselves or the citizens we serve in your proposal. Our municipality over the last five years has held the line on expenses in spite of $17.6 million in provincial grant reductions and the loss of $40 million in tax appeals. North York residents have not had a tax increase for five years. They enjoy the best services in Metro including garbage pickup, libraries and snow removal, along with many improvements in its infrastructure. Our city is virtually debt-free, with over $200 million in reserves, not to mention maintaining an adequate level of fire protection second to none in Metro. Mayor Lastman has been accused of trying to save his job in the debates on amalgamation. We're asking you, why shouldn't he? He is the mayor of the best city in Canada and I think that is a duty and an obligation he has to the citizens.

Specifically with regard to the amalgamation of the fire departments in Metro, we have several points to clarify. The level of service Metro residents currently enjoy for fire protection is set by the local municipality. In fact fire protection varies considerably, with each municipality able to manage its own needs.

The KPMG report indicates, "If any change in the municipal government results in increased levels of service (possibly as a result of pressures to match the services in the jurisdiction with the highest level) cost could rise." The report goes on to indicate it's working on the premise that service levels will remain as they are now.

It is reasonable to expect that someone living in the former North York would not want their level of fire protection reduced. Is it reasonable to expect that someone living in the former city of York would be content with their lower level of service when they would be paying the same taxes as all other people living in the municipality?

2000

There are a number of factors at play that lead us to be concerned that what the KPMG report has described as best benchmarking practices will reduce services to the lowest common denominator. As well, coincidentally, the government is proposing changes to the current Fire Departments Act in Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, which will allow municipalities to hire part-time firefighters, contract out fire protection services or privatize those services. If these two pieces of legislation are passed, one will be used to complement the other in establishing the new city's fire department organizational structure. If the lowest common denominator is used to establish a benchmark for service delivery in the new city, this will have an immediate negative impact on public safety.

It is no mystery to anyone that over 90% of fire department budgets are for salaries and benefits. The cost savings proposed by this legislation are not realized by efficiencies of service delivery such as centralizing firefighting communications or combining training, mechanical and fire prevention divisions. They are realized by reducing the number of full-time professional firefighters. This correlates to a reduction in the level of fire protection and fire prevention services currently provided to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto.

Simply using the six-fire-departments-into-one rationale as a reason to amalgamate into one large department does a disservice to the 3,000 professional firefighters employed by the municipalities that make up Metropolitan Toronto. Ours is a multifarious yet structured emergency service. The superficial examination of our service undertaken by KPMG and Ernst and Young does not even begin to address the complex issues that would be raised by your proposed amalgamation.

The Boychuk report in 1987 looked into the amalgamation of the fire service in a report submitted to them by Mr T.A. Wedge. He indicated the political feasibility of amalgamation seems questionable in spite of the overall saving which seems theoretically possible. This study on amalgamation was initiated in November 1984 and completed in November 1987. This report took three years to complete and had input from fire officials in the municipalities.

In conclusion, we ask that you re-examine this matter, scrutinize all your options carefully, solicit and heed stakeholder advice and above all move cautiously. This legislation will have a dramatic impact on the GTA, the province and Canada, and we believe the onus is on the government to act responsibly in addressing this issue.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Unfortunately you've gone a little bit beyond your allotted time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward and making your presentation today.

EILEEN SIMMONS

The Chair: Would Eileen Simmons please come forward. Good evening. Welcome to the committee.

Mrs Eileen Simmons: Thank you for inviting me to speak.

I concur wholeheartedly with most of the criticism of Bill 103. I would like to explain exactly how this amalgamation plan will destroy my neighbourhood and to propose some alterations to the plan.

My neighbourhood of north Toronto reaches right up to the boundary of North York, to what is called the city limits. This neighbourhood is privileged and affluent and conservative, both large- and small-c.

In addition to a magnificent physical setting we are also fortunate in having an abundance of public facilities. We have libraries, skating rinks, tennis courts, and most recently we got a lovely new community centre.

These facilities are well used, and I believe that they contribute to the physical and mental health of the people in this area. But these facilities did not simply happen. We were fortunate in having a city councillor, Anne Johnston, now a Metro councillor, who met with us, listened to our concerns and worked with us to make this happen.

As a neighbourhood we met, in the best spirit of democracy, to discuss these developments and to express our views. We have been very fortunate in having city councillors who live with us, raise their children here and share our values. They are responsive and they truly represent us. I cannot tell you how many times these councillors have been at my door and at meetings and how thoroughly accessible they are, each with a very small staff indeed. My point here is that these ward councillors represent us both effectively and economically. I do not expect mega-ward councillors to be either accessible or inexpensive.

It would be a mistake to think that my lovely neighbourhood, which was built in the 1920s and 1930s, would still be here if we had not fought to keep it. Many times since I moved to Toronto from Don Mills 28 years ago, I have joined ratepayers' groups and city councillors to fight against development that would have destroyed the neighbourhood. Despite the fact that we are affluent, articulate and well organized, we would not have been successful in any of these struggles without the help of our city councillors, who have gone to great lengths to help us.

Thus, I resent greatly the use of the term "politician" in the derogatory sense and the further implication that city councillors are lazy and self-serving. I ask you to note the irony here, in that we were able to have the maximum amount of democratic discussion and representation on relatively minor issues such as sports facilities, while we have been told by the provincial government that we will have no input whatsoever into plans for amalgamation, a scheme that will cause radical changes in our lives for a very long time.

Under the current amalgamation plan, this neighbourhood as a social and political entity will be dismembered, fractured and destroyed. I will find myself in one of two wards carved out of the federal riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, a large rectangle that overlays both the city of Toronto and North York. Most people in the ward will be from North York. Like any forced marriage, this amalgamation plan completely ignores the distinct needs and the deeply held values of the partners.

Toronto is a city, and although North York calls itself a city, it is suburban in character. It has different planning and zoning and different values and priorities. I and the people in my North Toronto neighbourhood who do end up in one of these wards will comprise only a tiny fragment of the electorate, and we will have very little influence on the ward councillor. Thus, how can this mega-ward councillor possibly be counted on to advance our local interests? I do not like the idea of neighbourhood councils as a substitute for an elected, accountable representative, and, anyhow, a neighbourhood council is quite meaningless, isn't it, when your neighbourhood no longer exists?

The remainder of my neighbourhood, not falling into these two wards, will fall into perhaps two other wards. I want to make it very clear that the fact that we will now have to appeal to about four councillors in extremely large wards where we form a tiny minority does not, as one Conservative MLA contends, increase our representation; it decreases our representation and undermines our effectiveness.

I expect that we will no longer be able to defend north Toronto against, for example, monster housing, increased high-rise building and expanding parking lots. Suburban planning, zoning and values will eventually win out and north Toronto will not look the way it does now.

The dismemberment of my neighbourhood will mean that everything I and my neighbours and successive city councillors fought for, for decades, will be lost. We will be anonymous and atomized and, most likely, will not even bother to vote for a councillor who neither knows us nor represents our interests. The vital connection between us and our elected representatives will have been severed. The bonds of trust and affection built up over the years in a common struggle to preserve and enhance this neighbourhood cannot be replaced. It is not difficult to conclude that this is precisely what the government wishes to accomplish.

Finally, the downloading of social welfare and other services, the inevitable increases in property taxes to pay for these and for amalgamation itself, pitting homeowners who want to keep their taxes down against the needy and the elderly, will cause social conflict. Maintenance of public and private property will deteriorate as funds prove inadequate. We will see user fees and perhaps closure of libraries and recreational facilities. Public transportation will deteriorate further with the loss of the provincial subsidy.

2010

I vigorously oppose amalgamation above all because of the undemocratic process, poor research into costs and the failure to show any concern about destroying the social fabric of a city that really is better to live in than most in the world. However, if you are at all willing to listen -- and I have to hope that you are -- please begin to make changes in the plan first by keeping Toronto intact. Draw the boundaries so that they do not sever existing wards. Do not blur the boundaries between Toronto and North York or between any of the existing municipalities. This will, to some extent, protect the integrity of existing neighbourhoods. Do not insist on cutting federal ridings to form wards, and think again about the wisdom of limiting elected representatives to 44. Finally, promise that the city can keep its own planning and zoning. In this way, you might be able to create something without destroying everything.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Simmons. Mr Hastings, we have about a minute and a half.

Mr Hastings: Mrs Simmons, you're opposed to amalgamation, yet if I recall correctly, your Metro councillor Anne Johnston voted for it at Metro council.

Mrs Simmons: I'm not responsible for Anne Johnston.

Mr Hastings: You cited her as an example of a politician who is accessible.

Mrs Simmons: Not now. I cited her when she was my ward councillor, at the time when we had two ward councillors. She then went off to Metro, and she has her own rationale for supporting amalgamation, and I am not about to venture on that.

Mr Hastings: In your presentation you did not mention anything about assessment reform or the level of taxes that people pay for services. I'm curious as to what your own and your residents' association's position is on actual value assessment.

Mrs Simmons: I'm not a representative of my residents' association. May I speak for myself?

Mr Hastings: Sure.

Mrs Simmons: I think my property taxes are high, and I want to tell you I'm very happy to pay them. I come from the United States; I'm a Canadian citizen, and I've lived here for 35 years. I'm very happy to pay taxes here, because I get something for my taxes. I get schools --

Mr Hastings: Do you believe that your taxes are fair and equitable?

Mrs Simmons: Just a minute. I get schools --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we have run out of time.

Mrs Simmons: May I finish?

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Simmons, for being here this evening.

HARVEY SIMMONS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Mr Harvey Simmons, please.

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: The pot calling the kettle black.

The Vice-Chair: Order, people.

Mr Bisson: I've got a question to the Chair. Is it parliamentary for the member of the government to call the Liberal member a clown?

Mr Gerretsen: Did he call me a clown? I demand an apology.

The Vice-Chair: Order. We're going to hear our deputant.

Mr Gerretsen: I demand an apology. That's a point of order. I don't think any member here should be called a clown by anybody else. I'd like him to apologize.

Mr Bisson: Chair, you do have a responsibility.

The Vice-Chair: We'll ask for our deputant.

Mr Gerretsen: Well, could you ask him to apologize?

The Vice-Chair: No. I want order.

Mr Simmons, welcome to the standing committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation. Please begin.

Mr Harvey Simmons: For the last 32 years, I have taught political science at York University. I give a course called Introduction to Democratic Politics. I must say I've been appalled by the way this government has handled Bill 103. It's not the substance of the bill so much, although I'm bothered by that, but rather the way the government has handled it reveals a lot about the way this government thinks and acts.

In the Common Sense Revolution, and then later in government, the Harris Tories attacked "special interests." Early in its term, however, this government served the special interests of the snowbirds by ensuring complete provincial coverage of health care; it served the special interests of speeders by eliminating photo-radar; it served the special interests of developers by attacking rent control; of polluters by reducing environmental controls; and of a myriad of other groups to which it is beholden.

Certainly governments have an obligation to serve the interests of those who support them -- I have no problem with that -- but this government's continuing use of the derogatory phrase "special interests" to characterize opposition, and the sheer hypocrisy involved, denigrates the political process and contributes to declining respect for that process. Taking their cue from American politics, the Harris Tories have done everything they can to lower the tone of government in Ontario to the same abysmal level as in the United States.

When a government constantly uses the term "politician" in a derogatory sense and when it passes a bill called the Fewer Politicians Act, its intention clearly is to undermine respect for politics and politicians. The Harris government not only attacks the democratic process by word, it also attacks it by deed.

The Common Sense Revolution says, "It's time for us to take a fresh look at government...to make it work for people." How did the Tories make government work for the people? By reducing the number of our provincially elected representatives from 130 to 99, thus reducing the weight of my vote by one third. Does this make government work for the people?

Bill 103 will increase the size of municipal constituencies in the megacity by about 30%. Right now there's about one councillor for every 40,000 citizens in the city of Toronto; under the government's proposal, there will be one councillor for every 52,000 citizens. My vote will count one third less than it does now in the city of Toronto. How does that help government work for people?

Not content with reducing the power of my vote at the provincial and local levels, the government also intends to sharply reduce the number of school trustees. Once again, my vote will weigh less in the balance than before. How does that help government work for the people?

I understand what the government is doing. It said it quite explicitly. "Working for the people" is calculated exclusively in dollars-and-cents terms, and I suppose there's a rationale for that, and so the government can cut costs, clearly, by reducing the number of elected representatives. But the absurdity of that logic should be obvious. Why stop at 44 councillors for the megacity when you could cut costs 50% more with 22 councillors?

Interjection: You could reduce it further to zero.

Mr Simmons: And you could reduce it to zero. Under the Tories, democracy is a commodity to be discounted and sold as cheaply as possible.

Under the heading "Less Government," the Common Sense Revolution says: "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.... But by the end of our first term, taxpayers deserve a restructuring of these cumbersome bureaucracies. Resolving the issue of efficient local government will take a great deal of hard work. It is rare that politicians and bureaucrats voluntarily surrender power. But it must happen. It's time to stop government growth once and for all." That's from the Common Sense Revolution.

Note that the term "bureaucracies" or "bureaucrats" appears three times in one paragraph, always in a negative sense. Note that the terms "entanglement" and "bureaucracy" are linked to "government." Note the slighting reference to politicians and bureaucrats, who, according to the text, rarely voluntarily surrender power. Obviously, in the Common Sense Revolution, government is bad because government means entanglement in, one presumes, red tape, and government means bureaucracy. Again, this is a deliberate and cynical attempt to denigrate government, our government, our representatives, in the eyes of the public.

The Common Sense Revolution says, "We will sit down with municipalities." This conjures up a picture of Mike Harris and Al Leach sitting down by the fireside in a chat with municipal politicians. It implies respect, reciprocity and a willingness to listen, but these words turned out to be empty rhetoric.

At a small municipalities meeting in Stratford in May 1996, Mr Leach is described as "tirelessly repeating the chorus of the Common Sense Revolution: Restructure yourself or have it done for you" -- I'm quoting here from a newspaper account -- "As the minister said in his luncheon speech: `I have repeated the message over and over. Ontario municipal officials know that only too well.'"

2020

This does not sound to me like a fireside chat; it sounds more like a threat. It sounds like blackmail: "You do what we want or we will do it for you." Where is the democracy in that?

Let's look at what happened in Canada 136 years ago. In 1861 the total population of Canada was 3.1 million people. It took the Fathers of Confederation two years of discussion, debate and meetings to work out an agreement. By contrast, the Harris government tried to steamroller Bill 103 through the Legislature, without serious public discussion and before opposition could mobilize. Everybody has already talked about what's being created here: a city with a population bigger than that of the provinces of Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; a megacity which will have the combined population of Manitoba and Saskatchewan -- all that to be produced in five months.

The proposals for the megacity first hit the newspapers in October 1996 and the bill was introduced six weeks later. Mayor Michael Prue of East York stated before this committee that he first learned about the megacity proposal from a "tiny column" in the Toronto Sun. It was only after massive public outrage that the government agreed to these public hearings.

I thought, and I teach, that governments in parliamentary democracies, especially those that win a majority, have a special responsibility to listen carefully to opposition, to use their power prudently and to avoid the temptation of overbearing or authoritarian actions. I thought that governments in a parliamentary democracy, and I so teach, had a special duty when preparing major legislation to carefully marshal their facts, to provide time for public discussion and consultation and to take relevant objections into account. Apparently this government does not share this view of parliamentary democracy.

When another PC Premier, Bill Davis, a man of much greater political stature than the current Premier, realized the extent of opposition to the Spadina Expressway, he stopped it. He might have ignored the opposition but he didn't.

In the face of opposition which, in my opinion, is even greater in size and more unified in nature than during the Stop Spadina campaign, what does the current Premier do? He denigrates the Metro referendum as a slam dunk. His Minister of Municipal Affairs claims, against all evidence, that there is support for amalgamation in Metro.

The sad fact is that a government which in the Common Sense Revolution said it wanted government to "work for people" has held government and politics up to contempt and it's ill-prepared as well. I attended Bill Saunderson's meeting in North Toronto, my MLA. He told the assembled citizens that the crime rate in American cities was as low as in Toronto, which is sheer nonsense. He said people would be as well represented in local constituencies even if their vote counted 30%, which is nonsense. At 9:15, at what he called a town meeting, he said he had another appointment. When people asked, "What appointment?" there was no answer and he ran from the room.

This is the way this government treats the public: It denigrates our representatives; it dilutes democracy; it tries to ram through radical and extraordinarily important legislation without consulting the public; and then, when hundreds of citizens express their despair and dismay, the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs denigrate their views.

What do I propose? I think the government has two choices: It can push the legislation forward, ignoring protests, and then reap years of sullen resistance and discontent; or it can admit that the issue is important, that it needs at least a year or maybe even two years, like the Fathers of Confederation, for further study, discussion and debate. If the government had the courage of its convictions, it would give the public a chance and follow the example of the Fathers of Confederation and set aside some time for public debate.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, sir, for an excellent presentation. I too share with you the same concerns about the whole denigration of the political process and politicians as well, as if the politicians cost all the money. Particularly outside of a place like Metro Toronto, most politicians at the local level serve for very little remuneration. This whole notion of, "If we just do away with a third of them, we'll all be better off" is something that I think most people find very appalling.

You may be interested in knowing that not in all amalgamation situations has the government acted quite the way it has here. In my own situation in the Kingston area, for example, they appointed three trustees as well. Who did they appoint as trustees, in the same situation as the trustees we're talking about here? The three local mayors and reeves. They in effect were going to be burdened, saddled or given the job to make sure the assets wouldn't dissipate and that sort of thing, which is of course exactly what their function is as leaders of the municipality anyway.

The question I have of the government members is: Why wasn't that kind of model followed here in Metro Toronto? I wonder if you've got any comments on that?

Mr Simmons: I think it's a get -- I shouldn't say it's a get Toronto movement. Obviously, they felt there would be a lot more resistance in Toronto to what they did. Let me just return to the point that bothers me terribly, and that is the denigration of politicians. I must be the only person now in Toronto who thinks politicians don't even get paid enough. I don't like even the reference to gold-plated pensions. I used to think it was a public service to be a politician. What this government I think will bring about is a situation in which only the rich or those at leisure will run for politics, and everybody else will be unable to serve. I just don't understand the logic behind this because, as I say, what it leads to is a denigration of the very office these people are supposed to fulfil, and I assume try to fulfil, to the best of their ability.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Simmons, for making your presentation this evening.

ANDREW SPENCE

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

Mr Andrew Spence: Thank you very much for allowing me to appear tonight to speak with regard not only to Bill 103, but in the broader context to all the other bills that are involved in this wide legislative effort.

As the senior economist for a major international investment bank, I was heartened to read on the back of the last budget document that the mission of the current government was to restructure provincial finances with a positive view to the future: "The people of Ontario want to know that tomorrow will be better than today -- for themselves, and for their children."

I find it unfortunate then that the same provincial government could not pursue legislation with regard to restructuring local government consistent with those same objectives. My analysis of Bill 103 suggests to me that tomorrow in the city of Toronto will be considerably worse than it is today.

The objectives of Bill 103, to streamline government in the hopes of cost and efficiency savings, has in my opinion not been proven to be of sufficient magnitude to offset the downside of government proposals, namely, to diminish the relationship and contact between local communities and their elected officials. Future decisions taken on a multitude of local issues will increasingly reflect the views of the bureaucracy and their interests, rather than those of local residents.

I foresee the quality of life in central Toronto to be irreparably harmed and depleted as a consequence of these proposals, and in the absence of any mention of these objectives in the Conservative manifesto in the last provincial election, I feel the government has deliberately misled me as to what course its actions would take upon assuming power.

This compels me then to appear before you today to voice my opposition, if it's not obvious, to Bill 103. In the absence of any rigorous preparation or consideration of the bill's future consequences, no proposal is perhaps more misguided or ill-considered than the swap of education expenditures for the costs of welfare, long-term health care and social housing, which Bill 103 in its current form enables, along with Bill 104.

The government's objectives in such a swap are not clear, but I see them as directly related to the rash and ill-conceived promise to reduce provincial income tax rates by 30% before provincial finances were healthy enough to absorb such a dramatic erosion of the tax take. Having cut social expenditures radically in 1995 and undertaken to hold health care costs stable, the government needs the perceived fat in education expenditures to pay for the next leg of the tax cut.

Downloading welfare costs also has the convenient characteristic of stabilizing provincial finances horribly destabilized by an eroded tax base. It removes a highly cyclical item of spending from the expenditure side of the provincial income statement, so that in any future downturn only the revenue side of the income statement will suffer slippage. This allows future deficit targets to be met even with the serious erosion of the tax base from an estimated, by some, $6 billion worth of tax cuts. When the next downturn inevitably arrives then, the contingent liability of higher welfare costs will become a municipal responsibility.

Through Bill 103 the government of Ontario then proposes to download huge liabilities on to municipalities with a very narrowly defined, highly mobile tax base. The rate at which taxation is levied will not be based on ability to pay, nor will it be progressive. While property taxes in some way increase with property values and in some way amount to an attempt to tax wealth, they are more properly geared to services provided -- or taxation proceeds according to the benefit principle.

Taxation for welfare expenditures, by contrast, normally proceeds according to the principles of income redistribution and is paid for according to ability to pay, which is both equitable, progressive and efficient. The current proposals enabled by Bill 103 allow a new regressive tax regime where provision will take the form and shape of private insurance.

2030

In the absence of any ability to borrow on a large enough scale to smooth the lumpy nature of such contingent liabilities, skyrocketing expenditure on welfare programs will force municipal officials to face the dilemma of either hiking taxes on a base that can simply get up and walk away to competing jurisdictions, or to reduce the per capita welfare benefit to the point where it will be virtually worthless.

The decision to fund highly cyclical items of public spending from such a narrow tax base defies rational and careful analysis and is simply arbitrary. Arbitrary taxation that was based not on ability to pay but on where one chooses to reside has in the past proven to seed unrest. It has also, I might add, unseated leaders who push on arrogantly with little regard for the political consequences.

I would remind Conservative members of this committee, and perhaps they need no reminder, that it was the inequitable poll tax that finally undid former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who had previously commanded respect and support on many controversial issues across a broad swath of the electorate. In the final analysis, it was decided by the UK government that local government would be funded over as large a tax base as possible to minimize local distortions not only in service provision but also in local levels of taxation. The UK ultimately hiked the VAT rate by 2.5%, but not before the former Prime Minister was sent scurrying from office. We in Ontario, in our wisdom, are proposing to do exactly the opposite.

How then will Bill 103 play out in local terms? Let us assume that the provision of welfare is a compulsory insurance scheme, where those with higher incomes pay higher premiums for a benefit they will in all likelihood never receive. Under these circumstances, the inequalities and failures of private insurance in matters of welfare and health care are widely known and explain why just about every major industrialized country outside the United States has chosen not to make the principles of insurance the cornerstone of public policy.

Insurance distinguishes between good and bad risks. Both Metro Toronto and the surrounding suburbs, popularly known as the 905 belt, have a mixture of good and bad risks. The good risk is the individual who is very unlikely to claim welfare, and the bad risk is somebody who has a higher probability of doing so. It's well known that Metro Toronto has a far larger proportion of these bad risks than competing jurisdictions and certainly has more the number of good risks who will be forced to pay for it.

In an economic downturn then, the line between success and failure becomes very fine and the demand for such services goes up. Some good risks cross the line and become bad risks who go on to make claims on the system. The new higher cost of claims falls disproportionately on a diminishing tax base between the new city of Toronto and the existing 905 area.

Faced with the probability of higher taxes to cover the rising welfare burden, the disinterested, affluent and mobile individual will choose to head for the 905 belt with its smaller pool of bad risks and lower tax base. Here what we call adverse selection will drive out the good insurance premium base, leaving only bad risks whose rising demands on the city will threaten the local government with both bankruptcy and accelerated urban decay.

What I feel Bill 103 offers people in Ontario and people in Toronto in its current incarnation is self-selection of welfare coverage on the basis of residency. It switches taxation regimes from ability to pay, which embodies notions of fairness and equity, to the benefit principle of taxation, namely, "I don't use welfare; I'm not going to pay for it."

The reason governments are in the business of welfare and health provision in the first place is that the private market will accurately predict who is a bad risk and it will exclude that individual from coverage. Private insurers seek to identify and avoid moral hazard, to promote self-selection to exclude those who need the services most.

Not only will Bill 103 undermine the vitality of downtown life, in my view it will also threaten the financial viability of our city. It will also create a private insurance market for claims against ill luck and the destruction of private wealth that the invisible hand of the economic downturn deals.

Bill 103 will effectively isolate welfare programs which are seen, in the current meanness of the times, as undesirable transfers to the undeserving poor. We will therefore punish the poor. We will make their programs the responsibility of the level of government that is most ill-equipped to deliver them, to push them to the outer limb on the vine we call government, where they will wither through drought and ill-husbandry.

Neither the amalgamation of the city of Toronto nor the ill-conceived plan to download welfare and health costs was spelled out in what seems to now be an Orwellian-entitled Common Sense Revolution, which in my view substituted assertion and dogma for a respectable election manifesto. As a consequence, the citizens of Toronto and the citizens of other municipalities across Ontario have yet to be consulted on the propositions embodied in Bill 103. I humbly suggest the government of Ontario has no popular mandate to proceed with this extremely damaging legislation.

But if we must proceed and if we must restructure local governments through amalgamation, then why create an artificial division between the 416 and 905 areas? Why not do so and push ahead in the greater Toronto area under the authority of governments that have been duly elected, not under quangos appointed by the current government?

Don't download welfare costs. If the province wants education, then increase income taxes to pay for it. If the objective is to make common standards across the province, this can be achieved that way. If you still want to deliver tax cuts to individuals in the province, members of the government, then I suggest you cut property taxes to do so, and maintain welfare spending at the same level as it is today, not only to protect the integrity of the tax system but also to maintain the integrity of our current cities.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Spence. You've basically used exactly 10 minutes in your presentation. Thank you for coming forward this evening and making your presentation to the committee.

ANNE STEPHANIUK

The Chair: Would Anne Stephaniuk please come forward. Good evening. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Anne Stephaniuk: I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to make this deputation regarding Bill 103. Just as an introduction, I am a businesswoman who works on Bay Street, so let's say money is important to me. I have been actively following this issue since the announcement by the Harris government last December that it would force through legislation creating a megacity. This is an issue that I feel affects me deeply, so I have followed this issue closely.

I have attended these hearings three times -- this is my fourth visit -- have a stack of newspaper articles at home, have followed the information presented on the Internet and attended various meetings about Bill 103 all over the city. I even went to hear Mr Leach speak in his riding.

There has been lots of information floating around about this issue. However, I am not convinced that the government has presented any solid evidence that amalgamation will save taxpayers' dollars, preserve our neighbourhoods and not result in people fleeing the downtown core, or that it is inevitable.

My first concern is with the assertion by the Harris government that amalgamating Metro and its six municipalities into a megacity will save the taxpayers money.

Let me take you back to December 1996 when I first heard about Bill 103. On December 17 the lead article in the Globe and Mail stated, "Ontario's Conservative government has decided to merge the six municipalities that make up Metro Toronto into one large city." The article went on to state further that Mr Leach argued that the amalgamation would produce tax savings. This statement was supposedly backed up by a study the government commissioned by KPMG. This study cost the taxpayers $100,000, by the way.

However, in the same article, Mr Ron Hikel, a KPMG partner, stated, "There has been no amalgamation, of which I am aware, in the current fiscal environment that would demonstrate the certainty of savings in Metro Toronto." The warning bells started to go off, especially when I turned to the inside pages and saw the title "Amalgamation Savings not Guaranteed."

Since that time the government has insisted, "Trust us, amalgamation will save money." However, it seems that given enough time, the real facts have a habit of emerging. The assertion by Mr Leach and the Harris government that amalgamation will result in cost savings has been revealed to be wishful thinking. Even if Mr Leach continues to insist that there are savings to be had, and the experts seem to say the opposite, amalgamation will cost the taxpayer more.

I thought it rather ironic that the KPMG study was refuted and disproved by a competitor, Deloitte and Touche, in the battle of the chartered accountancy based management consultants, and they only charged $3,000.

On February 26, the results of the study by Deloitte and Touche commissioned by East York were written up in the Globe and Mail. It stated:

"The Deloitte and Touche review disputed the assurance of savings of $865 million in the first three years and $300 million annually after that.

"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."

In a lovely example of professional courtesy, the critique also pointed out that the KPMG auditors were forced to make a number of assumptions that may not hold true, including that there would be no changes in existing collective labour agreements, that service levels would stay the same and that there would be few cases of employee termination and severance packages.

The Deloitte and Touche report also went on to state, "It is difficult for us to accept that amalgamation of local governments will allow for many efficiencies that cannot be attained by the governments currently in place."

As I mentioned previously, many others have shown that amalgamation won't produce cost savings.

Just thinking about how much it will cost to amalgamate the computer systems across the new megacity makes me cringe, and then they would have to get the new computer systems to work -- no small feat.

2040

Probably the only people who would benefit from amalgamation would be consultants. Actually, I know quite a few consultants who are now willing to work for food, so maybe they'd welcome the work. I know, I've been there. But seriously, I haven't been convinced that amalgamation will benefit the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto.

At a minimum, every citizen deserves a detailed accounting of what the proposed amalgamation would cost. I would like to point out that it is our money the government is foolishly spending.

I think megacity will cost more money. I'd like to point out that Mr Harris thinks so too. In Fergus, Ontario, Mr Harris spoke these words: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger municipalities."

I think he was in opposition at the time.

So what's the answer to megacity? The government only needs to go as far as the Crombie panel and the Golden report for a sensible alternative.

However, the government's cooking of the books is not the only reason I oppose Bill 103. I expect, at least, the government to present us with the facts; instead, this government insists on perpetuating untruths to bolster its assertion that amalgamation will be beneficial. I find this insulting.

In a speech on February 26 to the Canadian and Empire clubs, Mr Gilchrist, who has left the room, stated that "60 studies done just in the past five years" have recommended consolidation of services to save money.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but where are those 60 studies, the proof? I haven't heard anyone else quoting any of these studies. If there were 60 studies, why did they commission the KPMG study?

Mr Gilchrist also stated in the same speech that the Metropolitan government delivers 72% of local services. I have also personally heard Mr Leach make that statement. I think these two gentlemen hope to give people the impression that since most spending is already consolidated, we'll just upload the other 28%. It's nice and simple.

This is another example of creative bookkeeping. I have yet to see how the government arrived at this figure. I was further amazed at the audacity of Mr Gilchrist to continue perpetuating this impression six days after it was effectively dismissed in an article by John Barber in the Globe and Mail. On February 20, Mr Barber gave what I thought was a clear explanation of how the government came up with the 72% figure -- they pulled it out of the air. According to Mr Barber's analysis, if you make a fair comparison of spending, only 54% of spending occurs at Metro and 46% at the local level. He goes on to state that if you incorporate the recommendations of the Crombie and Golden groups into the equation, Metro's share of total spending falls to 44%. The result is a lean regional government and strong local municipalities. I'd go for that.

Further in his speech Mr Gilchrist also stated that no widely supported alternatives to the megacity proposal exist. I bet Anne Golden's ears were burning.

Might I remind the government that Anne Golden's vision, which is based on broad-based regional co-operation, is not only a clear alternative; it enjoys the support of figures as diverse as David Crombie and Hazel McCallion.

Anne Golden has stated: "If amalgamation solves the problem, that problem has yet to be identified. The main point about the megacity for Metro is that it misses the point."

Here we have another example of the government trying to manufacture consent.

Mr Gilchrist and Mr Leach are loyal lieutenants of Mr Harris. They really have a tough job trying to sell this to the populace. Blind loyalty is one thing, but please don't continue to make claims when there is evidence to dispute your assertions.

As long as this is still a democracy, I think Mr Harris should abide by the wishes of the people, not just in Metropolitan Toronto but in all the municipalities across the province.

Mr Harris has said, "Leadership and reflecting the will of the people must go hand in hand." If this referendum is not a wakeup call, I'm certain Mr Harris and Mr Leach will be listening when the people speak at the next election. I don't know what the results of the voting on this issue of creating a megacity will be, but all the polls say it will be a majority No vote.

Mr Harris, that is no -- no amendments or any other tricks with smoke and mirrors can make this plan acceptable to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto. What this bill will do is destroy one of the finest cities in the world.

Wendell Cox, the US expert, spoke in a recent article:

"If you implement megacity, you are going to remove democracy, services are going to decline, taxes are likely to go up, and you are going to see businesses scatter to 905, to 604 and 403 and any number of other places.

"The bottom line is that you are looking to pay $200 million to $400 million in transition costs to dilute democracy and to create a structure that will be more expensive for you in the future."

Megacity may be a revolution, but it's not common sense.

Mr Harris, keep your hands off our municipalities. The real issues are regional issues. Go back and read the Golden report and the Crombie panel's recommendations. Both of those reports identified the economic and administrative fractures across the entire urban region, not just within the city, as by far the biggest problem facing Toronto. Deal with the real issues. You have our attention. We are ready to help you make this province the best place to live in the world. In short, I believe this bill cannot be amended and must be thrown out.

I'd like to thank the members of this committee for listening so attentively to the individuals who have come before you to present their views on Bill 103. I would also like to thank the individuals who took the time to come before this committee to present their views. I found their comments to be well thought out, insightful, full of common sense and offering many creative alternatives to the megacity.

I urge everyone in Ontario to become a little bit more active in the political process. If you do not safeguard your right to have your voice heard and listened to, it will be taken away. And believe it or not, politicians are just people too. Our MPPs are voted into office to present the views of the people, their constituents, to the government. The government should not abuse its power to present the ideology of the government to the people.

The Chair: Ms Stephaniuk, we've gone a little bit beyond your 10 minutes. I wonder if you could really quickly wrap up.

Ms Stephaniuk: Okay. I guess it was kind of funny because I was spellchecking this document and when the word "megacity" came up, the spellcheck said "Not in the dictionary." So I think maybe the gods have spoken. Thank you.

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

Mr Bisson: Not according to Webster.

DELROY REID

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

Mr Delroy Reid: Members of the committee, I'm happy to make submissions before you today on Bill 103. First, I'd like to congratulate all the committee members who have taken part in the process of these hearings on the bill. You have demonstrated, in my opinion, equanimity and fairness. Over the past few weeks, I've watched quite a few hours of these hearings on the Legislative Assembly's television service and I know of times when the goings were tough.

My name is Delroy Reid. I'm a citizen and resident of ward 6 in the city of Toronto. I have lived for more than 23 years exclusively in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

I'm trained as a political scientist at York University here in Metro Toronto. I'm not a member of any of the political parties in Ontario, and I do not believe that I come before you as a member of any so-called special interest group, which in my opinion is just a terrible catchphrase to sanction discrimination against minority groups at the level of employment and the distribution of social services in this province and elsewhere.

I do come before you as a citizen concerned about the fundamentally undemocratic nature of Bill 103 and the atmosphere of intolerance underlining the passage of the bill. My own position on Bill 103 was shaped only after reading reports on both sides of the issue in the local press and after viewing and listening to many hours of debate on the Ontario Legislature's television service.

Today I voted no to the amalgamation question in Toronto's referendum on Bill 103. It is my contention that if this unpopular bill is not withdrawn by Ontario's Conservative government, the six municipalities extant in Metropolitan Toronto will be amalgamated into a single unit to be called the city of Toronto effective January 1, 1998. Of course this is also the contention of others.

By now, the clauses of Bill 103 are widely known. Suffice it to say that the bill will create a single municipal council to govern more than two million residents in the current Metro Toronto. It will put the present seven municipal councils in Metro under trusteeship. It is my understanding that if and when Bill 103 receives royal assent, it will give three trustees appointed by the Tory cabinet and reporting to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Al Leach, the power to approve or disapprove of almost anything elected officials wish to do in the interests of Metro residents. Astonishingly, the 1997 municipal election due in November will be conducted by Al Leach himself and not the traditional civic personnel who normally do this kind of work.

2050

Finally, the structure of the new city of Toronto, including its staffing, will be determined by a transition team appointed by the Tory cabinet and reporting to Al Leach. It is provided in Bill 103 that the elected members of the new megacity may not overturn decisions made by the transition team; neither may any of these said decisions by the provincial appointees of the transition team be challenged in a court of law.

It is precisely because of the dictatorial and autocratic nature of this bill that there has been so much political commotion in Metro of late. Some critics of Bill 103 and certain other bills announced by various cabinet ministers during the mega-week blitz suggest that their harshness and rigour are more reminiscent of the work of Draco, the Athenian lawmaker, than of a responsible government in an industrial, multi-party-type democracy such as Canada.

Ordinary local citizens right across Metro have developed a grass-roots movement that is sending shock waves throughout the Tory caucus at Queen's Park. I have seen media reports before February 25 of local citizens chasing after Bill 103 trustees in the corridors of the assembly itself to have words with them. It is believed that the trustees had been instructed by Al Leach not to speak to members of the public on municipal matters.

Demonstrations by members of the public are beginning to break out in the galleries of the Ontario Legislature during question period. Metro Toronto residents calling themselves Citizens For Local Democracy have marched on Queen's Park in their thousands in an attempt to symbolize the William Lyon Mackenzie-led rebellion of 1837 against the Family Compact, a small élite group made up of bankers, bishops and property owners here in Ontario. Some opponents of the current Tory legislative agenda believe that the Family Compact of 1837 has been replaced by the Corporate Compact of 1997.

Even right here before you at these hearings on Bill 103 there are moments when a circus atmosphere has prevailed. I know, for example, that a group of senior citizens known as the Raging Grannies did make their deputation before you in the form of a song entitled "Mr Harris, Give Us a Break," which they rendered to the tune of "Mr Sandman."

Like some other observers of Bill 103, I have come to appreciate that it is linked inextricably to the Tory announcement during mega-week that the costs of certain provincial responsibilities will be offloaded to the municipalities. Under these conditions, recent public opinion polls are showing that a majority of respondents across all the demographic groupings in Metro believe that property taxes will increase as a result of the download.

There exist representatives of various racial minorities and immigrant groups who believe that the provincial download will create even more havoc in their communities. They know generally that in the field of employment the so-called visible minority member is typically the last to be hired and the first to be fired, as the saying goes. It is believed that when property taxpayers in megacity are required to pay for services, such as welfare and public housing, hate crimes against non-whites and racism will increase in Toronto.

Others believe that the Tory government in Ontario is directly responsible for the prevailing mood of racial hostility towards non-whites in Toronto at present. They point to the repealing of the Employment Equity Act as one of the first legislative actions taken by the Harris government. The opponents of the legislation, led by the Tory cabinet, have argued that employment equity was about quotas and giving people jobs for which they were not qualified.

Of course the act called for no such thing. It was a deliberate misrepresentation by the government designed to stir up feelings of hatred against minorities and to drum up support --

The Chair: Mr Reid, you're going to have to sum up because you're getting to the end of your allotted time. I apologize.

Mr Reid: -- for the Tory 30%-tax-cut agenda, which according to many observers will benefit only the wealthiest of persons in Ontario.

I'm sorry, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: You're going to have to sum up. You're just about at the end of your allotted time.

Mr Reid: How many minutes do I have left?

The Chair: You're at 10 minutes right now.

Mr Reid: I'll conclude by saying this, and I do thank you for reminding me. I think Ontario's present course of closing hospitals and slashing their budgets simultaneously is a national disgrace. I read the one media report about an 82-year-old man who was found alone and dead on a stretcher in a hospital hallway here in Ontario when relatives arrived to visit him less than three weeks ago.

I respectfully submit that the Tory cabinet at Queen's Park is out of control. It is not too late for the government and its partners to slow down and consider some of the recommendations of the Who Does What panel and the Toronto board of trade on the effects of downloading certain soft services on to municipalities.

Finally, because the Tory amalgamation scheme has very little to go on in terms of successfully amalgamated cities anywhere in North America, I suspect there will be a substantial no vote in today's referendum on the megacity. In this regard, if a strong majority of voters votes no to Harris's megacity and the Tories persist in passing Bill 103, I think municipalities will have no choice but to launch a legal challenge against the government, if such grounds exist. They may also choose to continue to organize protests and other forms of resistance against the Tory agenda to provide a 30% tax cut to some of the wealthiest persons in Ontario.

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

PATRICK MCCARTNEY

The Chair: Would Patrick McCartney please come forward. Good evening, Mr McCartney, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Patrick McCartney: While I thank the committee for providing me with an opportunity to speak on Bill 103, I must confess that I very much resent being here. I, and presumably most of you as well, have much better things to do than to devote time and energy to this transparently flawed legislation.

Permit me to start with a vignette. My provincial representative is Mr William Saunderson, PC MPP for Eglinton, Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. In a fit of political naïveté, I began writing him letters in the spring of 1996 objecting to several Harris government policies. I even visited him on two occasions at his office in an attempt to get my message across, of course to no avail, and while I haven't been able to achieve anything, I have learned something about the mindset of the Harris government through the exercise and I would like to share this insight with the committee.

Consider the letter that Mr Saunderson wrote me dated June 14, 1996. It is only three sentences long, so I have decided to read it in its entirety:

"Dear Mr McCartney:

"I trust you have received my letter of May 22. As you noted in your letter dated May 15, it does appear that we `remain divided in our assessments of the most desirable way to govern Ontario.' Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

"Yours sincerely,

"William Saunderson."

In other words, it seems if you don't agree with our government, you are a nuisance to be dispensed with. There is no point in consultation or dialogue: "There is no point in providing arguments to support our policy. We believe we are right. We will endure some of the trappings of democracy, such as public committee hearings, we will ignore a firestorm of political criticism and then we will steamroll our legislation through the House with our majority." Sound familiar?

2100

How else can you can you explain the fact that the Tories did not include references to amalgamation in the Common Sense Revolution or campaign on the issue during the 1995 election? How else can you account for the Speaker's ruling of contempt of the Legislature in respect to (a) the failure of the pro-amalgamation pamphlet sent out in January to acknowledge that the legislation for the megacity had not yet been passed, and (b) for using $300,000 of government money for partisan purposes?

How else can you explain the fact that several trustees were appointed and given extraordinary powers prior to the passing of the relevant legislation? Mercifully the courts voided these appointments, but not before the Tories went to court and argued -- and I'm not making this up -- that their extra legislative actions constituted an allowable use, in the judge's words, of "royal prerogative." Yes, the government was actually resorting to the centuries-old powers of the king, an incredulous position that would be comical if not farcical in other contexts.

What will happen once 103 is bulldozed through the Legislature? By my calculations -- 2.3 million residents divided by 44 councillors -- there will be one city representative for every 52,272 people. Politicians are not a popular breed these days, but I really think this is going too far. Many fear, I believe correctly, that this will favour well-heeled interests such as developers and big business lobby groups. Who else could afford the army of lawyers, consultants and lobbyists it will take to penetrate the new megacity bureaucracy? How will the average ratepayer go about catching the interest of a high-rolling mega-councillor?

Who is going to finance the estimated $1-million campaign cost for taking a run at the mega-mayor's chair? Not too many poverty-line grannies or Metro Housing dwellers, to be sure. In short, from a democratic perspective the megacity is fatally flawed, and for this reason it should be vigorously opposed.

If that wasn't enough, it seems equally clear that the megacity should be rejected on financial grounds as well. This is perhaps the most puzzling feature of Bill 103, since cost savings appear to be the government's main reason for forcing Metro to amalgamate. I realize that others have advanced elaborate conspiracy theories for this. I'm not so sure the government is as devious or intelligent as some of the theorists assume, but I won't rule this out.

I will emphatically rule out the possibility, however, that the Tories will be able to sneak their secret civic agenda into the operations of a newly minted megacity. Their horrendous mismanagement of this issue has spawned a furious public response to their scheme, and as a result their every move in relation to the megacity will be closely scrutinized.

But back to the question of cost savings. I could devote some of my strictly limited time here to skewering the embarrassingly flawed KPMG report, but that would be too much like shooting fish in barrels. Instead, I would like to pose a number of questions to the committee.

There is no question that the tab for integrating the bylaws, municipal codes and operating systems of the seven current Metro governments will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Is there a better way to spend that kind of money? The seven Metro governments have done an impressive job rationalizing their operations and keeping tax increases in check in the last several years. Is it really the case that there are millions of dollars of additional savings out there, especially when transition costs are factored in?

The amalgamation of Halifax-Dartmouth has been, by most accounts, a financial nightmare, as has been the case in numerous other jurisdictions in North America. How likely is it really that the proposed megacity can avoid this fate? The last time the Tory government tried its hand at bureaucratic rationalizing, it created havoc and chaos with the family support plan, not to mention some hefty expense bills that I doubt were foreseen at the outset. Has enough thought and study gone into the megacity planning to avoid this type of bungling? How are the unions going to respond to the prospect of major changes in salaries, benefits and workloads effective January 1, 1998? Will rates have to be standardized, and if so, at the higher or lower levels? How much will this cost? Will residents of the new megacity tolerate varying levels of service based on previous electoral boundaries? Have all these details been properly thought out?

I just have a few more things to say here and then I'm going to Massey Hall to hear the referendum results. I predict they'll clearly show that the majority of people in Metro Toronto are opposed to the megacity and that these results will be ignored by the Tories. I further predict that they will pay dearly for their hubris. The people of Metro Toronto will remember this legislative thuggery, this high-handed dismissal of the public's will. They will not be fooled by a handful of cosmetic amendments to Bill 103 that leave its major provisions intact. When the true costs of amalgamation begin to hit the press they will remember that they clearly voted against this white elephant. When something goes wrong with their garbage pickup or with their local library or their tax assessment, they will remember that this government had a flood of information and opinion at its disposal but chose to ignore it. There will be another provincial election, and I guarantee the people won't forget about amalgamation before then.

Yes, it is possible to behave arrogantly and govern without consensus -- let's just agree to disagree -- but it's exceedingly difficult to do so in a sensible manner. My message to this committee is to dispassionately consider the overwhelming evidence presented here, most of it highly critical of the megacity, and do the right thing: Recommend the scrapping of Bill 103 and the beginning of consultations with the seven existing municipal governments of Metro Toronto to find possible cost savings through administrative efficiencies, pooled purchasing, coordinated service delivery and the like. While you're at it, read the Golden and Crombie reports, which emphasized the importance of rationalizing municipal government operations at the GTA level. You just might end up salvaging something from this otherwise diversionary and unnecessary exercise. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr Bisson, you have a minute to ask a question.

Mr Bisson: I have one minute, so I am going to try to do it as best I can. There's an old saying that it takes a long time to build a democracy and it takes a lot of effort and due diligence to keep it, but democracy can be taken away. Your presentation echoes what we've heard in a lot of other presentations, which is that if people are upset about what this government is doing, one of the key reasons is that they feel the democracy we've fought for and built over the past number of years is in jeopardy.

It's referendum night. We're going to find out shortly what the people in the Metro area have to say about this particular legislation. The Premier is on the record as saying: "It doesn't matter a heck what people have to say. I'm just going to go ahead and do this." The vast majority, 90%, of presenters who have come to this committee are saying to the government: "You're wrong. You're going in the wrong direction. This is not the right thing to do." Yet they say they're going to go forward, they're going to do it. What do you say to this government? What plea can you give to this government to get them to recognize that this is a democracy and a democracy is about listening to people and doing the public's will?

Mr McCartney: I don't have a lot of confidence in the provincial government, to be honest with you. I thought there might be some hope. I went to see my political representative, as I noted here: Mr Saunderson. I was completely stonewalled. By most accounts, he is representative of the current provincial government. In the short term, I don't hold out very high hopes for a sensible resolution of these matters.

The people have spoken against this at these committee hearings and the government is clearly going to lose across the board in all six of the municipalities tonight -- I could safely predict that -- yet I think they will steamroll ahead. We heard that Harris himself voted today in the referendum; that's a bizarre and hypocritical stance, I would think. I think he is going to put through a few cosmetic amendments in the next few days, which will not change substantially the amalgamation bill you're considering here, and then they're going to forge ahead.

I think they're going to make a grievous mistake. It's very insulting, as other people who have submitted to this committee have said, that they're behaving in this way. It's not a part of the Ontario political tradition. I am not from Ontario. I'm from BC, and we're used to --

The Chair: Mr McCartney, excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we're well beyond your allotted time. I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee tonight. Thank you very much.

2110

DAVID FARB

The Chair: Will David Farb please come forward? Good evening and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes this evening to make your presentation.

Mr David Farb: Thank you very much. I'll take a seat on the right side of the room. After having been here approximately an hour and hearing the five previous speakers, I feel a little isolated, but perhaps I can give you a little different perspective on my views of the question.

I want to thank the committee for allowing me to speak this evening. My name is David Farb. I was born and raised in Toronto and have lived here for over 50 years. I am a past president of the Bloor West Village Businessman's Improvement Area, which was the first BIA in Canada. I am also a working lawyer.

My philosophy is based on the concept that less government is the best government. In the same vein, I believe that people themselves know how to spend their money better than any government or bureaucrat. As a result, any piece of legislation that results in a significant reduction in the number of politicians at various levels of government must in and of itself be of tremendous benefit to the general populace.

I felt that I had to speak out in favour of this legislation when it became obvious to me that many of the opponents of Bill 103 consisted of those people to whom I refer as "the usual suspects." The main opposition to Bill 103 is led by the following: Politicians who stand to lose their jobs if amalgamation goes through; the multitude of bureaucrats who work for the aforementioned politicians; and finally, unionists who philosophically oppose the present government. These groups in turn are supported by the John Sewells of the world, whose record as mayor of Toronto speaks for itself. Here is a man who never held a real job and by whom, if you disagreed with his political philosophy, you were regarded as an enemy.

To add insult to injury, many of these opponents to the bill are using my tax dollars to flood the mails and media with their biased views in opposition to the bill. The vote that's taking place today already has been shown to be full of fraud. There are multitudes of ballots stacked. There is no way of identifying the ballots. I am sure the results will be as the previous speakers have said, but I think it's a very flawed process. I also know that I must be on the right side of this issue when Colin Vaughan and his ilk oppose the legislation.

To put it succinctly, it is ridiculous to maintain seven parks departments, seven planning departments and six fire departments in one city. The duplication and waste inherent in the present system is almost without parallel. We can do better. The tax dollars must be spent more efficiently.

What we have now is chaos -- Metro roads, city roads, sidewalks governed by Metro or cities, six mayors, Metro government, city councils -- in sum, layer upon layer of politicians and bureaucrats. The average taxpayer has no idea of who represents him or her. This chaos is reflected in voter turnout for municipal elections of less than 35%. The average taxpayer is numbed by the complexity of the system. What is needed is fewer politicians elected by more voters rather than more politicians elected by a few voters. Special interest groups run rampant when only 35% of the eligible voters turn out to vote.

I strongly support this government in its efforts to end the waste and overlapping present in the existing system. Previous governments have been too timid in tackling the difficult issues of property valuation, education, spending, rent control, and the idea of one Toronto. They have conducted numerous studies at great expense, but even when it was clear what the right road was, they retreated for fear of upsetting the status quo. Previous speakers have said, "Let's study the matter for a few more years." The matter, for instance, of property valuation has been studied ad nauseam for many years.

Well, let me tell you, the status quo as it presently exists is not good enough. We citizens are overtaxed and overgoverned.

The people who oppose this bill are the same people who oppose any reduction in provincial income taxes. Canadians save less today than they ever have. Taxes at all levels have skyrocketed, and with the ever-increasing tax burden, unemployment levels have reached, and have stayed at, extremely lofty levels.

All levels of government are still carrying a tremendous debt load, which could crush us all if interest rates were to increase. All these taxes come out of the same taxpayers' pockets. Governments do not create wealth or high-paying, permanent jobs. In fact, they usually stand in the way of wealth creation and employment.

I urge you, let's get rid of a whole mess of these politicians and the bureaucrats needed to support them. Bill 103 is a small step towards having less government and less red tape. It is not an answer to all that ails us, but it is a move forward and it does make sense. All the fearmongering from those with vested interests in keeping the present system should be viewed with great cynicism, as clearly these people have a blatant conflict of interest.

When we travel, when asked where we come from, most of us always say Toronto, not East York or York. This bill will create one Toronto; will reduce the size of government from 106 municipal politicians to 44; will save hundreds of millions of dollars annually and help eliminate the duplication and overlapping that exist today.

I would suggest to you that you should pass the bill; let us make Mel Lastman supermayor, and let's get on with our lives. Thank you very much.

Mrs Munro: Mr Farb, thank you very much for coming here this evening. I just have one question to ask you. Many people who have presented here have commented on how important their neighbourhood is to them; we have heard over and over again how Toronto is a community of neighbourhoods. I'm wondering if, in your review of Bill 103, you saw anything in this legislation that would be a threat to this tradition of community life that we value in Toronto?

Mr Farb: I would say that, for example, when Etobicoke took over the villages or communities of Long Branch, Mimico and New Toronto, these didn't disappear. The people living in those communities still regard themselves as living in Long Branch, New Toronto and Mimico.

My office is in Swansea; the people there regard themselves as being part of Swansea. It is part of the city of Toronto which was taken over. When these amalgamations occurred previously and they reduced down to the number they are presently have, it was just part of life and it was regarded as a more efficient way of doing things. We have one police department. It's ridiculous to consider that having reductions in the number of communities is going to eradicate the community. The community is going to be there. The people living there are going to be there. Their neighbours are going to be there. We're just going to have a lot fewer politicians governing us and less bureaucracy. I don't think it will affect the quality of life.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Farb, for coming forward this evening.

Mr Bisson: May I ask a quick question, Mr Chair? If the government members allow me, I have a quick question.

Mr Newman: I think it would be great to hear from Mr Bisson.

The Chair: You have a minute left in your time, Mrs Munro, so if you want to give it to Mr Bisson --

Mrs Munro: Certainly.

Mr Bisson: Thank you. It's a very easy question. You and others who have come and presented have a different view. I respect that. In any democratic system, we make ourselves strong by building off our diversity, different ideas, and progressing from there.

What troubles me is that you said what I heard others on the Yes side say, which bothers me, that the people opposed to this are the politicians, the bureaucrats, the firefighters, the nurses, the trade unionists, the planners, and the list goes on and on, naming all kinds of people who are opposed to this. All these people are wrong?

The problem I've got is that it's almost as if you're saying: "We need to dismiss that whole sector of society. We've got to dismiss anybody who is a public servant, anybody who is a trade unionist, anybody who comes from a minority group. We have to dismiss them all because they're all wrong." Do you think that's correct?

Mr Farb: Mr Bisson, first of all, I didn't name all those groups; you did. Second, I don't think you can paint a brush over all people. I pinpointed three groups: politicians, bureaucrats and unionists. I didn't name all the others --

Mr Bisson: Well --

Mr Farb: Let me finish my response, sir. I don't think all these people are against or for the legislation. As a matter of principle, frankly there are some things in the bill that do concern me. But any time there's an opportunity to reduce from 106 politicians -- with no disrespect to you, being a politician -- down to 44, I am all for it because I think inherently it's better for the people.

Mr Bisson: A very quick question.

The Chair: Mr Bisson, we passed the remaining time to you. We've gone beyond that. I want to thank you, Mr Farb, for coming forward this evening.

We are in recess until 9 on Wednesday morning.

The committee adjourned at 2121.