Legislative Assembly of Ontario

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N^O 2)

CONTENTS

Thursday 2 October 1997

City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2), Bill 148, Mr Leach / Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto, projet de loi 148, M. Leach

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale ND)

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)

Ms Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister, greater Toronto area, MMAH

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Tom Prins

Staff /Personnel

Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Ms Cornelia Schuh, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N^O 2)

Consideration of Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.

The Chair (Mr David Tilson): Ladies and gentlemen, this is the standing committee on general government and we are reviewing Bill 148 in these clause-by-clause discussions. I assume all members of the committee have the package of amendments before you.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Chair, I just want to indicate, in the hope that the government is going to be supportive of the transition amendment for the third councillor for East York which comes up under section 118, that I will withdraw at this time the permanent amendments which are 1 and 2.

The Chair: Are you making that conditional or are you withdrawing them?

Ms Lankin: I'd love to; I'd surely love to.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Let's take a vote on it.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): We don't work that way.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Only the Liberals.

Ms Lankin: We surely are hoping for Mr Gilchrist's support on this.

The Chair: I accept that, Mr Silipo.

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll proceed. First is section 1. Is there any debate or discussion of section 1? Seeing none, shall section 1 carry? Carried.

I assume you have the same package as I do and that your pages are numbered. If not, please tell me.

Is there any debate or discussion on section 2? Shall section 2 carry? Section 2 carries.

Mr Silipo: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Transition team's proposed budget

"2.1 The proposed operating and capital budget for 1998 that the transition team is required to prepare and submit under clause 18(4)(f) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 shall provide for a level of services, in each old area municipality, that is not inferior to the level of services available there in 1997."

I'd be happy to speak to this. We believe this is a very important amendment. As you know, we haven't placed a lot of amendments to this bill, in part because essentially we think there are a couple of things that can be fixed and should be fixed, certainly the issue of the representation in East York, which my colleague will speak to in detail when we get to them, and a couple of other matters, but this is one of those things we think can and should be added to this bill.

That would be to make clear what the government has been saying, what the government has been claiming, that as we move from the six municipalities into one municipality, there should not be any reason for any reduction in services. We believe that's not going to happen. We believe that everything we have seen indicates that there will be reductions in services. That view is sustained by the fact that the transition team itself has, as you know, asked each of the departments and each of the different service areas to budget for a 15% reduction. They may have explained that as a contingency. It's one of the areas I was seeking to ask some questions on, but as you know, they didn't come back so we could do that.

I want to be on the record as finding it particularly offensive that they could not find time to spend the additional half-hour they originally said they would do with us. I think it's a real offence, certainly not to me personally but to this committee and to the Legislative Assembly, when a body that's appointed by the government of the day sees fit to ignore the legislative process and sees that they have no responsibility towards a legislative body that is looking into exactly the matters they are seized with.

This amendment is an attempt to put in the law what the government has been saying, that there will be no reduction in services. We have another amendment later on, but one of the ways to do that is to ask to ensure that the proposed operating and capital budgets for the year 1998 that the transition team would be preparing and submitting to the new city council would provide for a level of service that is the same as the level of service provided in each municipality in 1997.

We're saying if the government is true to its word, that the level of service will not decrease, then let's see that right in the recommendations, in the directions the transition team is given, to work out a budget proposal that will ensure that the same services are available. Then let's see the government live up to its word to make up any shortfall.

That's what the Premier has been saying; that's what the minister has been saying. I don't believe they're going to do that, but here's the opportunity for the members of the government to show that the minister's word means something. Here's a great opportunity for you to say to the people of Metropolitan Toronto that this is not about reducing services, that this is not about cutting back on the many good services the area municipalities now provide.

The words you can speak, the words I can speak and the words the minister or Premier can speak at the end of the day don't mean a lot. What does means something is what is actually in the laws and regulations of the province. This is an opportunity for you to put into the law that promise or that commitment you've made. I look forward to the government members supporting what their Premier and their minister have been saying will be the case.

Mr Gilchrist: The reason I'll be voting against this motion is that it's redundant. Clause18(4)(f) of Bill 103 already speaks to stability in property tax rates and service delivery levels. You'll recall, Mr Silipo, that those undertakings were in connection to Bill 103, and Bill 148 basically added on to that bill a number of technical areas. I don't think it's necessary to restate the concept in this bill.

More than that, I think it's quite presumptuous that at the same time that your party was very outspoken about the mere existence of Bill 103 and saw this as interfering with the municipal council, you now suggest that their hands be tied absolutely and that the new council shouldn't have the ability to make the decisions that affect the people of the city.

We think it's totally appropriate for the new council to be responsible, at the end of the day, for the budget they vote on and the services they deliver to the people of Toronto. While the transition team will certainly be making recommendations, you're well aware, I'm sure, that they are just recommendations, that they're not edicts. It will be the new council that makes all the spending and tax-raising decisions. We think it's appropriate to leave it that way.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Could I just clarify for Mr Gilchrist that this motion, this amendment, does not deal with the powers of the new council. It doesn't limit the powers of the new council. It deals with what the transition team is supposed to do. Everything Mr Gilchrist has said is true in so far as the new council should have those powers; I agree with that. This says that the work the transition team is doing should be done on the basis of its preparing and submitting a budget that indicates to the new council how they would maintain the same level of services in 1998 that exist in 1997. The new council could ignore, if they wish, those recommendations, as they could ignore any of the recommendations under section 18, as Mr Gilchrist has pointed out.

This amendment is not about what the new council should do or shouldn't do. I believe, obviously, that they should maintain the same level of service, but that's not what the amendment talks about. The amendment talks about the transition team. If Mr Gilchrist is going to oppose it, fair enough, but I would suggest, in fairness, not for the reasons he's given, because this does not tie one iota the hands of the new council. This directs the work of the transition team. That's what section 18 does in the City of Toronto Act and that's what we're amending.

Mr Gilchrist: Perhaps Mr Silipo didn't hear the first reference I made in my response. Let me quote precisely from Bill 103, clause 18(4)(f): "The transition team shall prepare and submit to the new council for its consideration a proposed operating and capital budget for 1998 that provides for property tax stability" -- I would submit to you that means staying the same -- "and continuity of service delivery." I would submit to you that means continuing to deliver.

I think it already achieves the goal you're proposing in this motion and there's no reason for a redundant second expression of those goals.

Ms Lankin: Just to seek some clarification from the parliamentary assistant, then, your interpretation of what exists in section 18 of the City of Toronto Act actually provides for the same level of service to be continued? That's your interpretation? You believe that the transition team is bound by that and that the budget it brings forward to the new city council must provide for the same level of services being continued in each of the old municipalities?

Mr Gilchrist: The guidelines set out for the transition team are that this is the goal they should strive for, absolutely, and that's the goal presumably the council will strive for.

In every year that council has sat, they've either raised taxes or changed service delivery. I think to suggest that an absolute 100% static situation year after year is achievable is totally unrealistic. However, if the goal is to maintain the existing tax rates, if the goal is to maintain in the case of North York its twice-a-week garbage pickup, we said back then and we believe now, and I'm sure the transition team will be taking these things all into consideration, it's totally achievable. In that context those are the guidelines that were set out for them.

Ms Lankin: If I may, I don't see how your argument and interpretation of the existing clause 18 is consistent with asking for a 15% reduction in the various budgets. In one way or the other you want tax stability, a 15% reduction and maintenance of service levels. I think that the clarification in the motion that has been put forward by Mr Silipo is very important in suggesting that this level of service not be inferior to the level of service that existed prior to the reorganization of the city of Toronto.

If you're saying that's the intent of clause 18(4)(f) in the existing act, this makes it much more explicit. I would like to know for sure if that's what you're suggesting, because it seems to me that would be important for those who will be watching, monitoring and critiquing the work of the transition committee and the proposed budget it brings forward. Presumably, if the budget recommendations they bring forward do not maintain service levels in each of the old municipalities, there would be an argument that they haven't complied with the existing law as you have interpreted it to us today.

I'd just like some clarity from you, because if that's what it means and that's what the directions are and they're bound by that, then this amendment would not be necessary. But if there is the doubt that in your second go-round you seem to be expressing, then I think this kind of amendment gives the clarity the residents would seek in this period of transition.

1020

Mr Gilchrist: I would simply say that they were established with certain guidelines, goals and objectives. They are, I'm sure, working very hard to deliver on their commitment to bring forward a report to the council in a timely fashion. It's my understanding that we're only days away from that.

At the end of the day it will be up to the council to make the decisions. It's not a question of whether the transition team has failed or succeeded. The bottom line is whether the newly elected councillors agree with what the transition team has brought forward. If in the course of producing that draft budget they have challenged the current city staff to find new savings, presumably they can be found through administrative reductions, ending duplication and waste.

It absolutely does not follow that if you want to save money in, say, parks and rec, it has to come from fewer people mowing lawns or fewer people maintaining the gardens. It could very well be from fewer people at the top. That has no impact on service delivery and it obviously has a mitigating effect on taxation.

Those are the guidelines. I just think that what was set out in Bill 103 is quite adequate, given that at the end of the day it's the local council that will be making all the decisions.

Ms Churley: It's my understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong on this -- that the transition team has some guidelines. They are certainly not accountable to anybody. That became clear when they refused to come back to this committee. I think that's partly one of the problems here: They are not accountable.

On the other hand, since they have been assigned by your government, Mr Gilchrist, to come up with recommendations, don't you think it's important that the recommendations they give to the new council -- in a way you're almost saying you don't need this transition team, that the new councillors can do whatever they want. There seems to be a bit of a funny contradiction here. The transition team doesn't seem to be accountable to anybody.

But let's suppose that part of their role is to try to have some kind of influence on the new council, because that's all they can do since the councillors aren't bound by anything they recommend. Don't you think that therefore, hopefully, if they have some good recommendations for the new council, it would be important to reinforce their role within this bill, having had some time to study the transition? God knows the new council will be thrust in there trying, for the first time ever in Canada, to deal with such a huge municipality that one would presume they are going to pay some attention to the recommendations that come from the transition team even if they don't have to.

Don't you think it would make sense in that context to reinforce within this bill -- given that you said that within another section of the bill the new council has to uphold this -- that it would be useful for the new council to really clarify and have the transition team recommend this to them? It just seems to me to make sense. They're going to be looking for the best advice they can get, I would assume, from this transition team, which has had a lot more time to study the implications of all this huge, gigantic amalgamation, don't you think?

Mr Gilchrist: No, I don't.

Mr Silipo: I have to say, as frustrating as it is, that Mr Gilchrist continues to reaffirm for me why it's important for those of us in the opposition to actually stay here in the room as opposed to taking the attitude the Liberals have taken: to take their marbles and go home when they don't like the game plan and when they don't like the rules.

I continue to be amazed at the kind of rationale Mr Gilchrist, on behalf of the minister and the government, puts forward on this. He says the present legislation, clause 18(4)(f) of the City of Toronto Act -- I'm staring right at it and I know Mr Gilchrist has already quoted from it. It says: "The transition team shall prepare and submit to the new council for its consideration a proposed operating and capital budget for 1998 that provides for property tax stability and continuity of service delivery."

Mr Gilchrist is saying that is more than sufficient to ensure there will be a budget proposed to the new council that involves the reduction of service. If the actions of the transition team to date had been consistent with that, I wouldn't be putting this amendment. If they had come back in front of the committee and answered the questions I would have put to them directly on this issue, and if they had satisfied me through those answers that they had now changed their minds from what I've seen them do so far, then I wouldn't be putting this amendment. But what I've seen them do so far involves asking each department to budget for a 15% cut, and they themselves have indicated that involves more than administrative restructuring; it's going to mean cuts in services.

How can Mr Gilchrist, on behalf of the government, continue to say that the present legislation is clear and tells the transition team what they have to do? I would have to ask him, then, what is the government prepared to do if the transition team persists in what they seem to be doing and sets up its recommendations on the basis of a 15% cut? Would Mr Gilchrist then say they are in violation of the obligation they have under subsection 18(4)? That's what you seem to be saying. If that's the case, what are you going to do about it?

Mr Gilchrist: Have you finished?

Mr Silipo: Yes.

Mr Gilchrist: I would submit to you that it would be no different a test from trying to interrupt your motion where you use words such as "that is not inferior." If I make a change, who is the judge of whether it's inferior or better?

For example, if the services in a particular department are coordinated out of one city hall now, is that inferior service to someone? How do you measure it? What are the yardsticks in here? The bottom line is, your wording is no more and no less precise than what's in Bill 103. The bottom line is, again, the transition team had those guidelines established. At the end of the day, they are responsible for their work.

Mr Silipo: I think, first of all, there is a clear difference between saying "not inferior" -- there's a big difference between whether they make a recommendation that says, "Services should be coordinated out of one city hall," as opposed to saying, "Take a 15% cut" of whatever area that might be of service delivery. There's a big difference there. If you don't see it, then we are obviously more than miles apart on this.

If the words "not inferior" are causing you problems, with unanimous consent we can come to an agreement on words that are more acceptable.

The point is that I'm interested in ensuring that this bill sets out very clearly, as clearly as can possibly be done in law, the obligation upon the transition team not to recommend significant cuts or any cuts in service delivery. You're saying you agree that they should not be recommending cuts in services and that 18(4) already does that.

I'm asking you to convince me by telling me what you and your government are prepared to do if the transition team persists in what seems to have been its attitude to date, which is to recommend budgets that would involve cuts in services. Are you prepared to step in and tell them, "That's not consistent with your direction; that's not consistent with your obligations"?

Mr Gilchrist: What we'd be prepared to do is have the council make the final decisions. It's not up to the province, Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: It is up to the province.

Mr Gilchrist: No more than the fact that your research department gets a budget of $3 million, more than the transition team, and at the end of the day you have rules on how they can and can't spend those dollars, but you're the final arbiter, not the Legislature, not the government.

Mr Silipo: But that's my point.

Mr Gilchrist: So there are any number of agencies --

Mr Silipo: That's my point.

The Chair: Mr Silipo, I've been allowing a fair bit of leeway here but we now have a list. Ms Lankin, please.

Ms Lankin: I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant, if the transition team comes forward with a recommended budget that proposes a 2.5% property tax increase, how would the government respond to that? Is that within the vagaries of what property tax stability may be or not? How do you define that, and what action would you take if they actually propose a property tax increase?

Mr Gilchrist: Presumably, hand in hand with that they're proposing an increase in services, so we would do nothing. It would be up to the new council to decide whether, in exchange for those increased services, they wanted increased taxes.

Ms Lankin: I think that presumption is a bit bizarre.

Mr Gilchrist: I hear that property taxes will increase.

Ms Lankin: No, I'm not --

Mr Gilchrist: What do we do if taxes decrease, then, Ms Lankin?

1030

Ms Lankin: Mr Gilchrist, let me put my question to you again and try and perhaps be clearer. Outside of anything to do with service levels, because we could debate whether or not service levels are even possible to be maintained at a constant tax rate at this point in time with downloading added -- that's another debate -- I simply want to know, in terms of the interpretation of subsection 18(4) as you have so far put it out, where it says the transition team must provide a budget with recommendations that provides property tax stability, what does that mean? And if they propose an increase, what does the government do about that? What actions do you take with respect to the transition team if they, in your opinion, do not abide by the guidelines that have been provided to them in statute?

Mr Gilchrist: I repeat myself, it's up to the council to respond to whatever the transition team brings forward. They are recommendations only. They are not bound by anything. The new council is not bound.

Ms Lankin: So the transition team is not bound by the statute, the laws, the clauses of the City of Toronto Act as passed by the Legislature of Ontario?

Mr Gilchrist: That wasn't the question you asked. Of course they're bound by the act.

Ms Lankin: Okay, if they behave in a way that is not consistent with the provisions of the act which bind them, what steps does the provincial government take?

Mr Gilchrist: We're going over the same ground here. Ms Lankin, I'm not going to get into hypothetical situations. They know the guidelines. Presumably they will operate to that. At the end of the day it's the new council, not the provincial government, that will respond to the recommendations -- not edicts; recommendations. Nothing the transition team does binds anyone else. So on the assumption that the responses they get back from the various staff who have been charged with the task of preparing the details that will then go into their budget are sufficient for them to produce the budget from the guidelines that have been laid out for them, then I have no doubt we're going to see a satisfactory report.

Even further beyond that, it's up to the new council to decide whether they embrace all, part or none of the recommendations made by the transition team. That's what 18(4) says in Bill 103 and that's the bottom line on the subject as far as I'm concerned.

Ms Lankin: Just a final comment on that. I have to say that I find your position strange in the extreme, Mr Gilchrist, because there has been a statute passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. There are clear directions that have been provided to the transition team. I think part of what we're trying to get at here is what those provisions mean, what the interpretation is, what the restrictions on the activities of the transition team are.

It seems to me, if the provincial government felt the transition team was not abiding by, for example, the recommendation that the direction the budget must come in providing tax stability, it would be bound to take response. It would be a violation of a statute passed by the majority of this Legislature. I guess all I'm trying to get at is an understanding that if that is a direction they are bound by, then your interpretation of the continuity of service levels, meaning that there would not be inferior service levels in the municipalities, is a direction they would be bound by. I am simply trying to get that clarified on the record so that if in the future the transition team's budget recommendations do not provide for that continuity of service levels or do not provide for tax stability -- let's go on either side of this -- we have recourse to come back through to the provincial government, asking that they take action to correct the situation.

The Chair: Further debate? No. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion fails.

The next amendment is on page 4. However, before we do that, I will ask whether there is any debate on sections 3 through 19.

Shall sections 3 through 19 carry? Sections 3 through 19 carry.

There is a government motion on page 4 dealing with section 19.1.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that part II of the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Waste and waste byproducts

"19.1. For the purposes of the power conferred on the city by section 208.2 of the Municipal Act, 'waste and waste byproducts' in clause 208.3(1)(c) of that act shall be deemed to include domestic and industrial sewage."

An exciting amendment. This basically continues to state, or restores in the wording of this act, the authority that Metro Toronto has under the existing Metro act to engage in energy-from-waste programs using domestic or industrial sewage. The municipal act, under which the city will be able to engage in energy-from-waste recovery programs, does not refer to the use of domestic or industrial sewage, and Metro is concerned that the authority of the new city to engage in an ongoing project will be open to question if its authority is not explicitly moved from the Metro act into this act.

Ms Churley: I think I just missed the clarification, what you said about energy from waste vis-à-vis the amendment. I missed what you said about that.

Mr Gilchrist: Metro currently has the power to engage in those sorts of projects and they're just asking that that power be continued in this act.

Ms Churley: I see.

Mr Silipo: Just fixing a mistake.

Mr Gilchrist: No, I guess the suggestion was made by Metro that even though there's a reference to their ability to handle waste, it didn't break it down into domestic and industrial. That's why we're clarifying.

Ms Churley: I just want to clarify further, and again it may be that I don't understand, but I want to be very sure of what my colleague, who's the only one who can vote on this committee officially -- before he supports it I want to be clear on something. Right now the city of Toronto, as you know, started by me in 1988, has a ban on garbage incineration within the city of Toronto bounds. What happens when the new megacity is created? I understand that all of the city's bylaws are thrown out.

Mr Gilchrist: No.

Ms Churley: Clarify that for me in terms of Toronto's historic position on energy from waste, or garbage incineration.

Mr Gilchrist: Ms Churley, every bylaw in the city of Toronto is continued, so if there is a prohibition that was put in place, it continues to be there. This would also include something like biomass, for example. It doesn't necessarily mean incineration. It could be a project, and it need not even be in the boundaries of Metro. If it's under the authority of Metro, the new city of Toronto, then again this could apply. In the leaf clipping program, if someone were to come up with a process through which leaf clippings could be used for energy recovery in some form through a biomass project, this would allow them to do it.

Ms Churley: So in other words --

Mr Gilchrist: In absolute terms it would not change the bylaw of the existing city of Toronto that would prohibit incineration.

Ms Churley: In other words, this just corrects a mistake, something that hadn't been dealt with. The powers already exist there and have been left out and this does not give or take away. It's just something they had and it was neglected to be part of the bill.

Mr Gilchrist: It just clarifies the existing situation as it applies to Metro, and they said they would appreciate just having the extra verbiage in there to make it very clear that they didn't lose the right to engage in those sorts of projects.

Ms Churley: I guess I can tell my colleague, who can vote here, that I suppose I can support this.

Mr Silipo: Chair, may I? I feel better now. We certainly know that on issues dealing with the environment, Ms Churley within our caucus is the overall resident expert, so I genuinely feel better supporting this one with her blessings. I did just want to underscore that I don't want to make a big deal out of this because we know there are mistakes from time to time. But I just think it's ironic that with all the work the government has done on this, even on something as straightforward as this, there is still in effect what amounts to something that was left out of the original drafting of the bill that has to be corrected by an amendment. Be that as it may, I think it seems to be a sensible one in the context of, if you're going to have these powers there, we had better clarify that they have all the powers we believe they should have, so that's fine.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? The motion carries.

The next amendment is on page 5. However, before we do that, is there any debate on sections 20 through 24?

Shall sections 20 through 24 carry? Those sections carry.

We are now on to page 5, which is an NDP motion. Mr Silipo.

1040

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 25(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "two-thirds" and substituting "a simple majority."

This amendment deals with the appointment of members to the Toronto Transit Commission. The present clause in the bill says that the appointment of members to the commission requires a vote of at least two thirds of the members of the council present and voting.

First of all, I don't think this question came up in any of the hearings, from the people who spoke to it. I just want to ask a question of Mr Gilchrist as to why. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the only one of the bodies where the two-thirds majority is being applied in terms of appointing people, as opposed to just a simple majority. I wanted to understand from Mr Gilchrist what the government's rationale for that was.

Mr Gilchrist: Actually, it did come up in the hearings.

Mr Silipo: Yes, it did, that's right.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Sewell made it part of his presentation, as did a couple of his supporters in their written briefs. That's quite ironic. I guess the rationale is very simple, Mr Silipo. We made it clear to the cities, as we've just talked about in the last amendment. The whole process behind Bill 148 was to move certain technical details from the existing legislation to the new City of Toronto Act unchanged.

In fact, it was quite ironic that Mr Sewell would sit here and suggest that it's very undemocratic, unfair and untoward for the act to talk about a two-thirds majority when that has been precisely the status quo since the TTC was set up in 1953 and during all the years that Mr Sewell was a councillor and a member of the Metro board. If he thought it was undemocratic, why didn't he change it back then?

The bottom line is, we're maintaining the status quo. This simply maintains the status quo, and it's totally inappropriate for us to be changing the membership in the various bylaws that cover the operation of the TTC. If the new council wants to change that, that's up to them to do, but this simply maintains something that has been there from day one.

The Chair: We were doing so well up until now. Mr Silipo?

Mr Silipo: Mr Gilchrist keeps doing it. I am thrilled at being here this morning to hear Mr Gilchrist defend the status quo. This will go heralded, I can tell you. I'm going to use this line in every single debate that I can for the next year and a half. Mr Gilchrist is here saying that he supports the status quo. I have to say I appreciate the clarification, Mr Gilchrist, genuinely I do. It doesn't change my mind on the need for this amendment.

If in fact it has been a two-thirds majority, I still don't understand. I didn't know it was, and I am prepared to say publicly that I didn't know it was a two-thirds majority. I don't understand why it has to be a two-thirds majority. I don't know if there's any historical rationale anybody can give us. I just would be, first of all, curious in terms of why. I do believe it must be the only one, or are there other bodies that have to be appointed with this kind of a majority?

Do staff know anything about the history of this in terms of why two thirds versus a simply majority from the time it was put in place? I just find it odd that this should be the case. I feel very, very comfortable in my belief that in fact, just like any other body that's going to function as a commission or a body reporting to the council, this one should be appointed on a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority.

I think there are problems that are created when you have to have a two-thirds majority. Again, I think it would be useful to know what the rationale is other than just maintaining the status quo. I think that's a fair point to say, "We're maintaining what exists," but I do think that here's an opportunity, and it's probably not going to come around for a while still, to look at changing this and making it consistent.

If people who have been active in this assumed that in fact this was a change, as obviously some of the presenters -- and I thank Mr Gilchrist for reminding me of them -- pointed out, then maybe it is the kind of thing the government should look at being prepared to change. I don't know, Mr Gilchrist, if your position on this is hard and fast or if there's some potential of us coming back to this perhaps later today. Is it worthwhile holding off on this, or is this just something you're hard and fast on, staying on this position of just maintaining the two thirds? I just don't see the sense of it.

Mr Gilchrist: I guess, Mr Silipo, a couple of observations: First off, it's possible that because it's a body corporate it really does operate as a quasi-business. There may have been some rationale to have a different standard back when it was first created; the sheer size of its budget may have been as well, that they wanted to ensure there was that much greater certainty when any significant decision was taken by its board.

More to the point, though, if your suggestion is, would we respond completely and in a timely fashion if the new council were to request by resolution from the council that that be changed, absolutely. I give you that undertaking right now.

Mr Silipo: But that's the only way?

Mr Gilchrist: You know full well they would be screaming just as loudly if we were to change that arbitrarily here this morning. They've had no input on it, and presumably the TTC and all of the councils that have served the people of Metro in all of its existence have looked at this and have decided it was appropriate to continue it. I don't think the eight or nine of us sitting here this morning should feel it's within our purview to rethink 44 years of history on that board.

But having said that, if you care to make those representations to the new councillors and it is their wish that be changed, I will absolutely give you an undertaking that we will respond to that change favourably.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate that. I personally have no problems whatsoever, notwithstanding what even the entire new council might think. I think a two-thirds majority is nuts, and I am prepared to hold by my amendment. I do think it is very clearly within our purview to say that this is the way we believe it should be done. There are many other boards that obviously are on a comparable level, the police services boards and the others that people are appointed to; the composition is different, obviously.

But particularly going into this new council, I can see that there actually would be logistically some problems in getting agreement, having two thirds of the members agree to the appointment of people on this. It may be, given what's coming down the line, more contentious than it might have been in the past. But that's fine. I'll stick with the amendment, Chair.

The Chair: Further debate? Ms Churley?

Ms Churley: At the risk of having to hand some Prozac to Mr Gilchrist, because I'm going to mention Mr Sewell's name here -- are you okay?

Mr Gilchrist: Oh, I'm fine.

Ms Churley: Some interesting arguments were made around this, and I'm not sure why they weren't taken into consideration. First of all, it's not clear to me from what you said that the city of Toronto or Metro has requested the status quo be kept here. I think we should hold off on this, because I think there could be some problems. We have a new makeup; we have a whole new situation. I'm not so sure that this is a status quo that was just kept in because it is the status quo or if actually Metro or the city of Toronto or whoever have really paid that much attention to it. Have you received any information from them on it? I don't think we know.

It's kind of silly, if it should be changed -- if there have been representatives from Metro saying it should be changed, or they don't care; we just don't know -- to leave it for the final council when it would make more sense perhaps if we could correct a situation. I think the two-thirds majority is nuts.

It would be interesting to know -- how many years ago? Forty years ago or whenever that was put in place -- why, because it is different from any other body. We don't know any of that. It seems to me this is an opportunity to not go with the status quo, to take a look at why that's there. I think it would make more sense at this time, from the deputations who were heard, from people who do know a lot about this issue, to actually change it now and not stick with the status quo. Unfortunately, it just seems to be stuck in there, and there has not been a lot of consideration or discussion around the deputants who came and gave some very good reasons why it's a problem. I would like to know what the city of Toronto and Metro in general think about this. I think it might be a good opportunity to correct it. Is there an opportunity to stand it down until we get some more information?

1050

Mr Gilchrist: Ms Churley, I can tell you that Metro gave us extraordinarily detailed comments about this bill, and they didn't mention one word about the TTC section, primarily because exactly the wording that is in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act has been taken out and put into this bill. There are no changes. So, again, if it strikes Mr Sewell as being inappropriate, it did not strike anybody who works for Metro or any politician at Metro or any politician in the city of Toronto or any of the other five Torontos as being worthy of mention. The TTC read it, and they did not believe it was appropriate to change. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, obviously the bottom line is, again, it is extraordinarily inappropriate when dozens, maybe hundreds, of other relevant people, the people who are affected by this --

Ms Churley: Are you saying I'm not relevant here,3 that I'm irrelevant?

Mr Gilchrist: I said, "Other people, relevant."

Ms Churley: I represent a city of Toronto riding.

Mr Gilchrist: Listen carefully, Ms Churley. Listen carefully.

Ms Churley: Okay. Now it's on the record.

Mr Silipo: Some are more relevant than others.

Mr Gilchrist: I said when hundreds of other people who are relevant in this process --

Ms Churley: A nice comeback.

Interjection: Also relevant.

Mr Gilchrist: Also relevant.

Ms Lankin: It's pretty bad when you have to get ministerial briefing on diplomacy, Steve.

Mr Gilchrist: All right. We can keep coming up with more synonyms all morning if you like, Ms Lankin, but the bottom line is that none of them thought it was appropriate to change. Not only is there history, there is undoubtedly a rationale in their minds.

Ms Churley: I'd like to know the rationale.

Mr Gilchrist: That's fair enough, but I guess the people to ask aren't around this table. If they believe it's appropriate for the operation of the TTC, and they are the ones who handle the day-to-day operations themselves, not us, then I think, at the end of the day, we must defer to their observations and their point of view. So if you wish to canvass them in the weeks and months to come and if they believe there is a change that could be made, that's fine. But it would have to be done by resolution of council, I would submit; otherwise all we're doing here is expressing the personal points of view of two or three members. I don't think that's what legislation should be all about.

The Chair: Shall the motion on page 5 carry?

Mr Silipo: I want to ask for a recorded vote. I want to see the members of the government on the record supporting the status quo.

Ayes

Silipo.

Nays

Froese, Gilchrist, Hastings, Munro.

The Chair: The motion fails.

Further debate on section 25? Shall section 25 carry? Section 25 carries.

Further debate on section 26? Shall section 26 carry? Section 26 carries.

We are now on page 6, which is Mr Silipo, a New Democratic Party motion.

Mr Silipo: I move that section 27 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Non-application of OMERS

"(3) The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act does not apply to the commission's employees."

This is just an attempt to clarify that TTC employees would get to keep their own pension plan. I believe this is one of the provisions that was asked for by Metro; I'm not sure of others, but I think it was in the Metro submission. As I say, it's just a way to make it absolutely clear that TTC employees would continue to have the separate pension plan that they have. There were some who thought there might be some ambiguity and they might be drawn into the OMERS plan. It's really an attempt just to be helpful on that score.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Silipo, but we believe the present wording does make it absolutely clear. In addition, the present wording reflects the status quo without interfering in the affairs of the TTC. It says at the outset that the TTC pension fund society is continued under that name. There is no possibility of an incorrect interpretation arising from that section. That's the advice we have from legal, and in fact Metro did not make any representation that should be changed.

Mr Silipo: I'm told they did, but okay.

The Chair: Okay? Further debate? Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion fails.

Shall section 27 carry? Section 27 carries.

Debate on section 28? Shall section 28 carry? Section 28 carries.

There is a government motion on page 7.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that clause 29(1)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "steam railways" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "railways incorporated under federal or provincial statutes."

This was requested by Metro. It provides more up-to-date language to describe railways which are exempted by this clause from control of the TTC, so of course this would be GO Transit trains that would be exempted. The term "steam railway" has long been used in the Metro act and obviously describes, aside from a couple of tourist operations, a completely outmoded mode of power. The revised language describes what are commonly thought of as railways by describing the basis for their incorporation.

Mr Silipo: I'm going to actually support this amendment. I believe that the following one was another attempt by us to achieve the same thing, so I certainly agree this is a useful amendment within the context of the bill.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? This motion carries.

We are proceeding with page 8.

Mr Silipo: I'm not sure whether we need to, in light of the other amendment. Perhaps I'll just withdraw it.

The Chair: That amendment is withdrawn. We're all in agreement. There is an amendment on page 9, a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 29(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "steam railways" in the seventh and eighth lines and substituting "railways incorporated under federal or provincial statutes."

This has exactly the same rationale as the last amendment discussed.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? The motion carries.

Shall section 29, as amended, carry? Section 29, as amended, carries.

Further debate on sections 30 through 32? Shall sections 30 through 32 carry? Sections 30 through 32 are carried.

We are now on to page 10. Mr Silipo, I believe there has been a typographical error. This should be subsection 33(3). The clerk informs me that is a typo.

Mr Silipo: Yes. I move that subsection 33(3) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(k) passenger transportation services operated by the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority."

I know there is a government amendment that follows. I think we're both here trying to do the same thing. I'm not wedded, quite frankly, as to which of the two is passed. If Mr Gilchrist wants to point out if his amendment is broader or better, I'd be quite happy to look at that.

1100

The Chair: Maybe we can just break for a minute. Do you want to get an opinion on this?

Ms Lankin: I think because of the typo, that it's subsection 33(1), it got ordered first.

The Chair: Let's try it again. Where do you want to go on this?

Mr Silipo: Why don't I just withdraw it to facilitate, then, and we'll just go with the government amendment.

The Chair: Okay, that's withdrawn. Mr Gilchrist, we're on to page 11.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 33(3) of the bill be amended,

(a) by striking out clause (c) and substituting the following:

"(c) railways incorporated under federal or provincial statutes;" and

(b) by adding the following clause:

"(k) passenger transportation services operated by the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority."

I certainly would like to recognize that the second half of that motion is identical to the NDP proposed amendment that has been withdrawn, and we've also just changed another reference to steam railways and would appreciate their support on this.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? The motion carries.

Shall section 33, as amended, carry? Section 33, as amended, is carried.

Further debate on sections 34 through 43? Shall sections 34 through 43 carry? Sections 34 through 43 have carried.

We're on to page 12, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 44 of the bill be amended by striking out subsections (2) and (3).

What this does, very simply, is remove uncertainty regarding the status of official plan amendments, including amendments which have been adopted prior to December 31, 1997, but are not approved until after that date. The reason for the amendment is that concern has been expressed that these subsections cast uncertainty on the status of official plan amendments and that their deletion will remove such uncertainty. Subsection (1) makes it very clear that whatever the official plan is on that day is the official plan the next day. The other sections, if anything, made it less clear, so to go back to its simplest form we think is an improvement.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? The motion carries.

Shall section 44, as amended, carry? Section 44, as amended, is carried.

We're on to section 45. There's a New Democratic Party motion on page 13.

Mr Silipo: This is one of the important issues that we heard from at least a couple of deputants that I recall.

I move that subsections 45(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Size and composition of board

"(2) The board shall consist of 23 members, of whom,

"(a) one shall be appointed by the public district school board or boards whose geographic area of jurisdiction includes all or part of the urban area;

"(b) one shall be appointed by the separate district school board or boards whose geographic area of jurisdiction includes all or part of the urban area;

"(c) one shall be an employee of the Ministry of Health, appointed by the Minister of Health; and

"(d) the balance shall be appointed by the council so as to include,

"(i) at least one member of the council,

"(ii) at least one member of each community health committee established under section 45.1.

"Conflict

"(3) Subsection (2) applies despite subsections 49(1), (2) and (3) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act."

As I was saying, this is one of the other important areas that we heard some deputants on, and that was with respect to the new board of health. As you recall, we heard from both the East York group as well as Councillor Tabuns, who spoke on behalf of the coalition of the health boards from across Metro, pointing out that the structure set out in the present bill in their view limited the board severely.

They weren't arguing, as you might have expected, for the government to keep the health board separate, which I think people could make a very solid argument for, notwithstanding the amalgamation of the municipalities. What they were saying was, "Have the body be large enough so that it can reflect the different constituencies that have to come together to set out good public health policy for the new city." So we have tried to reflect in this amendment and in the subsequent ones the structure they suggested, which was a broader health board with 23 members. In subsequent amendments, I'll talk a little bit about the community health committees they've also suggested.

I haven't heard anything from the government on this in terms of their inclination -- I suppose I could read by the fact that they didn't put an amendment forward that they won't support this -- but I'd like to hear, obviously, from the government members what their position is on this and why they wouldn't be open to setting up a structure that would allow for those different constituencies and those different points of view to be reflected on the new health board so that it can function and continue to do the kind of good work that many of the health boards across Metropolitan Toronto have been doing.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Silipo, for your comments. We are responsive to the suggestions. Our problem is that we've seen no resolution by council that 23, which seems to be just a number picked out of the air, is what they want. Again, this is the sort of decision that is quite appropriate, and if the member would like an undertaking that if the new council wishes to pass a resolution calling on the province to increase the membership and provides a rationale that obviously the councillors themselves agree with, then we will respond, and we'll respond favourably to that.

Our concern is that while 23 is certainly larger than what's proposed under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, there has been no rationale provided for why that number in particular seemed to accomplish the ends that you're suggesting are appropriate. I think this is the sort of thing the new council should, in a timely fashion, look at. Obviously they have the ability to respond very quickly. If they think that right while they're getting the new board of health up and running it's appropriate to add more people, they'd simply bring that resolution forward to us. But then it will be their decision, and maybe 18 or 23 or some greater number is going to be what they think is appropriate.

It's my recollection right now that the submissions made by the various groups picked various numbers. If my memory serves me correctly, they said from 17 to 23, even Mr Tabuns. That wide a range and, quite frankly, that degree of uncertainty as to what is the position of any council out there needs to be clarified by the new council. But I will tell you we will embrace whatever resolution they bring forward and make the change as appropriate. If they can come up with a rationale their own councillors buy into, then that will be sufficient for us.

Ms Churley: I see this as a really serious problem. On a lot of these issues, you respond by saying, "Let's leave it up to the new council to decide, and it's something they should act on quickly." Imagine this new council, just newly elected, and there's going to be issue after issue after issue and many of them are going to be urgent and important. It sounds very easy now to sit here and say, "We'll leave that up to the new council; we'll wash our hands of it and let them decide." In some cases that makes sense, but I don't think it does in this case. I really worry about the implication of so many problems the new council is going to encounter. You're going to have a limited number of councillors now for a huge area. They are going to have thousands of issues to deal with during the transition period. This one is such a serious matter.

We have a situation in Toronto -- and we know we have different issues in different communities. We have in North York a situation where the mayor of North York doesn't believe there are homeless people. There are homeless people, but they're having to be shipped down or come down or picked up from North York and brought into the city of Toronto because the city of Toronto has the services. That's largely through a very innovative, proactive board of health that has recognized these problems and has been dealing with them in a very proactive way. So there are different problems within different cities which are going to be amalgamated.

1110

We know that TB is on the rise among homeless people. We know that the government is downloading public health responsibilities to the municipalities and that there's going to be a huge shake-up in how these services are delivered and what the new council is going to be able to afford to deliver. I can guarantee you that there are going to be vast differences of opinion among the different municipalities. I think this is a really serious one, very serious, because we're dealing with public health matters. I don't think you as the government and we as the legislators of Ontario should be taking an issue this critical, this vital to the wellbeing and health of our population and saying: "Oh, well, we don't know what the right number is. We'll let the new council deal with it."

I would say we should accept this amendment as a threshold. If the new council then decides over time they want more or less, let them make that decision. But as the legislation stands now, it is fundamentally inadequate, and it is going to create some very serious problems.

This is not one to fool around with. We have a responsibility. We have been told by a spokesperson, Councillor Tabuns, for a coalition that is quite worried about the impact of this, that this is not adequate or sufficient enough, and they have asked us to change it. If we don't get the number quite right right now, yes indeed the new council over time can deal with it. But I don't want this new council to be stuck with not dealing with this, not getting to it because they have other things, more pressing matters, and then we start to reach crises in some of our public health issues. As we see more people going to food banks, we see more homeless people, we see the downloading of many services to young people, street kids, this is not adequate. I implore and I really advise us all as legislators to take this one very seriously and accept this amendment today.

Mr Silipo: I just want to be clear that I too am not wedded to the number of 23. On that point certainly I agree with Mr Gilchrist. What's magical about 23? He's right that some of the presenters when they talked about this in fact expressed the range. This is the way the amendment came across. If changing this so it would read, "The board shall consist of up to 23 members," if that would make it acceptable, Mr Gilchrist, I certainly would be very open to making that change.

As Ms Churley has explained, my concern too would be that while I appreciate the openness that Mr Gilchrist is expressing here, I think we heard very clearly from those folks who have been involved in the boards of health. Mr Tabuns particularly was speaking, I understood, on behalf of people who have been involved in the various health boards. That was probably as global a view as we could get, and there is a fair amount of consensus, as I understand it, on the need for this particular body to be larger than the present law allows.

I'm looking also for a way in which we can respond to this in a way that doesn't have to wait another year or two before that can be done, because while I can appreciate the new council can pass a resolution asking, I think we all understand that doesn't mean the government or the Legislature is going to be able to respond right away.

I'm concerned about the transition process as well. I think problems would come about if the boards of health have to go from the numbers we have now to the numbers prescribed under the legislation and then maybe at some point there will be some broadening of that.

I'm looking to see if there is a way here in which we could leave some flexibility. If it was worded to say, "The board shall consist of up to 23 members," that still leaves lots of room if Mr Gilchrist wanted to suggest other ways in which the government's perspective could still be left there. If you wanted to leave some level of approval that would have to be put in, I think that's probably something we could do as a way to sort of have the legislation allow for more representatives than the present draft allows but still not leave that completely open-ended. What I'm saying is, as there seems to be some openness here, perhaps this is one area where we could find a way to try to address this through the amendment, even if it means making some changes to what I've suggested here.

Mr Gilchrist: If I could --

The Chair: Could I just ask for the committee's indulgence for one minute. Ms Lankin is before you, Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: Oh, sorry.

Ms Lankin: Are we okay in terms of procedure here?

The Chair: I was raising the question just in my own head whether we can deal with this motion when we haven't -- I'm looking at the last couple of lines of your amendment, Mr Silipo. You're referring to a section that doesn't exist yet, section 45.1. But I think we'll just continue on and see how things go.

Mr Silipo: I see what you're saying.

Ms Lankin: If I may try to speak to Mr Gilchrist on this, I do understand the position you've taken with respect to the new council on this issue and a range of issues being able to determine the future of its committees and its issues. There is a persuasiveness to that argument in certain areas. But the time it will take a new council to prioritize the issues, to sort though the issues, to bring forward a series of recommendations, because I doubt the Legislature will deal with separate bills and amendments to an act on a one-by-one basis and we're going to want to see a collection of these things, means that certain issues can't be left to that kind of time frame.

I too want to echo the words of my colleagues on this. Particularly as a former Minister of Health, I want to speak to you about the importance, during this period of transition, of having the best advice and best voices from the various communities coming together to inform the composition of the new board of health and the programming of the new board of health. There are very significant and different programs that exist throughout the existing municipalities, and it's very much because the boards of health have been responsive to the population health needs of those communities, and we know that they do differ.

I can speak about a reason for the attention given to heart-healthy programs in East York in terms of the population composition of that municipality compared to some of the street health programs that are under the city of Toronto board of health dealing with the downtown and poorer populations. There are some very different programs and different emphases. Through a period of transition, it is critical to deal with these issues using the best advice.

I want to point out that others have said Mr Tabuns spoke on behalf of a coalition of the boards of health, that there was a consensus of opinion that the number in the Health Protection and Promotion Act was not satisfactory. When you talk about the concern that nobody knew whether it was 17 or 23 or in between, what they did know was that the existing number in the act was not adequate.

I want to point out that in addition to the voices of the boards of health and the public members on the boards of health who were represented in the submission by Mr Tabuns, we also had representation from the medical officer of health of the borough of East York. So there is not a difference of opinion between the paid professionals, being the medical officers of health, and the community members on the boards of health. I think it is an important voice to listen to and it is a crucial issue, as was very eloquently put forward by Ms Churley.

1120

I would hope that the friendly amendment that's being suggested of up to 23 members might give you more comfort and allow the council to actually make a determination of what the correct number is, but that you will not tie the hands of the new council until they are able to deal with this issue or until they are able to get a resolution passed and are able to get a package of amendments to the Ontario Legislature and then through the Ontario Legislature; you would not tie the hands of the council that in the first iteration of the new board of health for the new city of Toronto it starts on a very inadequate footing. I urge government members, and Mr Gilchrist in particular, to please see that there is some merit in the proposal that's been put forward.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, just for the record, there's been talk about friendly amendments. The time allocation order unfortunately precludes, even if there's unanimous consent, in my opinion, all amendments. The paragraph in the time allocation motion is that all amendments shall be tabled with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon on October 1. I interpret that as all amendments, which would include amendments to amendments. So at least in my opinion, even if all members of the committee agreed, and we haven't even asked that question, I don't think we can do that.

Mr Silipo: Surely we could, Chair. Surely by unanimous agreement we could do that.

The Chair: I wish I could say yes, but that's what the time allocation motion says. To clarify, the committee can't agree to do something that the House has not ordered. It's as simple as that. Are we on points of order here now that I've opened up a can of worms?

Ms Churley: I don't quite understand something here. You can only make amendments to amendments once you're in the committee during discussions. It's my understanding that's normally when amendments to amendments are made, in the process of discussion where it's felt that there needs to be a compromise. I've sat on other committees where we've done that, so how is this different?

The Chair: I would agree with you 100%. The problem is we're into a time allocation motion where a motion has been specifically set forth in the House. You're absolutely right, on other --

Ms Churley: It's crazy.

The Chair: Well, who am I to say? I'm sitting here as Chair looking at a motion of the House. I quite agree with you, on anything but time allocation motions it happens all the time. The problem is we've got a time allocation motion.

Mr Silipo: Two points, and it is on a point of order, Chair, on that: The first is that surely the overall intent of the time allocation motion, including that piece of it, is to guide the work of the committee as far as the time frames are concerned. This would not one iota impinge on the time frame, so I believe you do have some flexibility as Chair on that point.

Secondly, even if you were to conclude that you didn't, I would argue that there is another way. If it were of unanimous view, for example, that this was something we could agree to, I don't believe there is anything that precludes the committee, in addition to reporting the bill, to reporting in the subsequent paragraph in that committee report that the committee was of the unanimous view that this change should also be made. I think if there is a will, what I'm saying is I think there is a way for that issue to be put. Then obviously there would have to be agreement by the House leader to incorporate that in some way in the bill. What I'm saying is that there is at least that other route that's open, and I guess the bottom line here remains, first of all, is there agreement among the committee members that the kind of change that I'm suggesting would be useful?

The reason I press on it is because I think it allows for two things to happen, for both what I think the deputants reflecting the boards of health told us and also the kind of flexibility that Mr Gilchrist wants to give the new council. I agree that needs to be there, because if the new council decided that they just wanted to keep the number as is presently set in the legislation, the "up to 23" would allow them to do that, and yet if they wanted to increase that, they could do that without having to come back through the process. Since Mr Gilchrist is saying that the government would be open to whatever the new council wanted to do, this is just a way that would facilitate that to happen.

Mr Gilchrist: If that was a question posed to me, Mr Silipo, the topic is moot, because your arguments, while they certainly reflect the points of view of the people that came before us, I agree wholeheartedly, the status quo is that we're talking about the board. Not a single program, not a single front-line staff member changes on day one. So nothing changes on January 2 of next year. Presumably Mr Tabuns will lobby for, and may very well get if he wins the election, the position of the chair of that committee.

Obviously the council has a lot of tasks, but they will break that down into subcommittees, and if Mr Tabuns, as his first order of business, believes there should be more, then it's appropriate they bring it forward. The bottom line is he himself said 17, including a number of groups. I would remind you that every one on the board of health right now is appointed by the city. There are no people from school boards, there are no employees from the Ministry of Health, so you can take those three people off right there.

Interjection.

Mr Gilchrist: Excuse me, we don't get people from the Ministry of Health appointed by the Minister of Health. Forgive me, I should have phrased it that way.

So you start working backwards from that and we're talking a difference of three people from the low end of his range to the status quo. I don't believe that the difference of three people is going to make that big a difference in terms of reflecting different views.

Ms Churley, in anticipation of what you might suggest, the bottom line is that council is the one that should be making these representations. Mr Tabuns did not come before us and say 23; Mr Tabuns came before us and said a number between 17 and 23. He had no resolution of council. I take him at his word that he was reflecting the views of the other chairs of the boards of health, but that in no way can be suggested to reflect the views of the majority of all councillors.

We're talking about something where every other municipality is covered by the same act, every other municipality has the same challenges. Metro may have more people that they have to deal with, but the bottom line is that if the council wants to make that change, and in particular if they want to suggest some deviation such as adding the Ministry of Health, in the first place, this is beyond the purview of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Quite frankly, we just can't support it for those reasons.

Ms Churley: Its difficult to know what we're debating here, the points of order or the issue.

The Chair: We're debating the motion. I've ruled that you can't make amendments to amendments.

Ms Churley: I just want to respond briefly to Mr Gilchrist. He ended his speech with he can't support it, but I'm disappointed and saddened that Mr Gilchrist came back, I believe, in a very partisan way on this. I think that our party, all three of us did try to -- we're not talking about Mr Tabuns here. His name came up because he was the representative of a lot of people involved in this field from all walks of life, from all parties who really know the area. This is about that community health community coming forward and saying this is not adequate.

I honestly believe, Mr Gilchrist, that the three of us sitting on the NDP side came forward with trying to find some compromise because we think it's important, as the members of the government probably think, leaving aside perhaps what feelings they might have for Mr Tabuns, because I know there is strong -- in my view, I don't think we're approaching this in a partisan way at all. We made a submission that this one we take is very critical in the transition time and that there is a way to deal with it. Mr Silipo's compromise was a very good one. I think it meets some of your concerns about it as well. So I just don't quite understand really what the problem is. Nothing you said, Mr Gilchrist, changed any --

The Chair: Point of order, Mr Froese.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Are you allowing an amendment to the amendment?

The Chair: No.

Mr Froese: No. So what are we debating this for?

Ms Churley: The motion itself. That's all I have to say about it.

The Chair: You're finished? Further debate?

Ladies and gentlemen, I raised a question as to whether we may have a technical problem. I'm going to ask for unanimous consent that we set this motion down until we have dealt with the motion on page 14, which is section 45.1.

Do I have unanimous consent? Yes.

Mr Silipo, there's an amendment on page 14.

1130

Mr Silipo: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the way you're dealing with this.

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Community health committees

"45.1(1) The council shall, by bylaw, establish a community health committee for each part of the urban area that corresponds to an old area municipality.

"Functions

"(2) A community health committee shall,

"(a) make recommendations on public health matters to the council and to the board of health;

"(b) perform any other function that the council or the board of health assigns to it by bylaw."

Interruption.

Mr Gilchrist: Keep going, Mr Silipo. We can hear you.

Mr Silipo: I was just trying to figure out which group you've upset today, Mr Gilchrist, that is out there.

Ms Churley: It could be one of many.

Mr Silipo: I want to start by saying I appreciate your dealing with it this way because I agree with you that since this section is a new one that's referred to in the previous one, we need to know whether we want to incorporate this first.

I want to make the argument to the government members that even if they don't support the previous one, this is one that can stand alone and that I hope they will support, because what this does is establish within each of the current area municipalities a community health committee. It is certainly at least one way to ensure that the concerns in each of the present area municipalities don't disappear and are dealt with.

Particularly if the government isn't going to be agreeable to a broadening of the numbers on the new health board, at least this would add, in the structures of the new council, a way whereby the local citizens' voices and other people who are interested and affected by the public health policies and an application of public health policy in each of the parts of the new city would have an opportunity to continue to feed their input into the process.

I want to say, without belabouring the point, it's one example of the kind of issue that I think we haven't gotten into enough in this and it's one of the issues that I wanted to explore with the transition team around how, as they are looking at this, there's going to continue to be that kind of local input.

I appreciate that the community councils are going to play some role in that in overall terms, but I think the area of health policy is one where we know there has been great benefit by having, in addition to the health boards in each local municipality, the various area committees that are reporting to it and are able to get into the details, community by community, of the kind of changes that need to be brought about to continue to improve the delivery of health services across the city. This structurally would, at least at the area municipality level, continue that.

We think this is an important step that needs to be taken, whether or not the government agrees to the earlier proposal we've made that would broaden the membership on the health board itself.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

We shall return to page 13. All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.

I guess we haven't done 45 yet, have we? Shall section 45 carry? Section 45 carries.

Debate on sections 46 to 57, inclusive? Shall sections 46 to 57, inclusive, carry? Sections 46 to 57, inclusive, carry.

We are on to page 15, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 58(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority" in the second and third lines and substituting "the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority."

It simply reflects a request by MTRCA to change their name to reflect the new name of the city.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? This motion carries.

Shall section 58, as amended, carry? Section 58, as amended, carries.

We're on to page 16, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 59(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority" in the second, third and fourth lines and substituting "the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority."

Exactly the same rationale. We're just changing the name of the MTRCA.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? This motion carries.

Shall section 59, as amended, carry? Section 59, as amended, carries.

Debate on sections 60 to 64, inclusive? Shall sections 60 to 64, inclusive, carry? Sections 60 to 64, inclusive, carry.

We're on to page 17, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the bill be amended by striking out section 65 and substituting the following:

"Definitions

"65(1) In this section,

"'Board' means the board of directors of the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts; ('conseil d'administration')

"'Centre' means the land and building vested in the city known as the Hummingbird Centre, formerly known as the O'Keefe Centre. ('centre')

"Board continued

"(2) The corporation known as the board of management of the O'Keefe Centre is continued under the name the board of directors of the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts in English and conseil d'administration du Centre Hummingbird des arts d'interpretation in French; its purposes are the operation, management and maintenance of the centre as a theatre and auditorium and as a centre for meetings, receptions and displays.

"Application of common provisions

"(3) Subsection 66(2) applies in respect of the board.

"General policies

"(4) The council may, by bylaw, establish general policies to be followed by the board in the operation and management of the centre.

"Bylaw re composition of board etc

"(5) The council may, by bylaw, establish,

"(a) the size and composition of the board;

"(b) the qualifications that its members are required to have;

"(c) rules regarding their reappointment;

"(d) procedures for filling vacancies on the board; and

"(e) the circumstances under which a member's seat becomes vacant or he or she becomes disqualified from sitting as a member.

"Not a local board, exceptions

"(6) The board is not a local board of the city, except for the purposes of,

"(a) the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act; and

"(b) section 210.4 of the Municipal Act.

"Audit

"(7) The board's accounts and transactions shall be audited by the city's auditor.

"Pensions

"(8) The board may provide pensions for its employees, or any class of them, and their spouses and children, and may enter into agreements with any person for that purpose.

"Borrowing

"(9) The board shall not borrow money without the approval of the council.

"Taxation

"(10) The board's occupation, management and control of the centre shall be deemed, for the purposes of paragraph 9 of section 3 of the Assessment Act, to be occupation, management and control by the city."

Basically, this section clarifies certain issues regarding the Hummingbird Centre, in particular clarifying the change in the name from the O'Keefe Centre to the Hummingbird Centre, and gives the council authority to make further changes. It's essentially the same authority given to council elsewhere in Bill 148 to determine the size and composition of the historical board and the parking authority.

Mr Silipo: Could Mr Gilchrist or ministry staff tell us whether the provisions that are now in the bill, subsection (5) in particular, which says, "The board shall be composed of not fewer than three and not more than seven members, appointed by council" -- is that what currently exists in legislation?

Ms Elizabeth McLaren: That's not what currently exists. What currently exists is what we have changed it to in the amendment. That's why we did it. Because they had done it by bylaw and we had missed the bylaw that had made that change.

Mr Silipo: All right. The only question I have then -- because that was one determinant for me in terms of my support. The other is, is it clear -- and I probably have just missed it; I'm sure it is somewhere in here -- that it's the council that's going to appoint the members to this board?

Mr Gilchrist: Yes.

Mr Silipo: Where is that?

Mr Gilchrist: I think it's 5(a). Once the first board is due for replacement or reappointment, then 5(c) would apply.

Ms Lankin: I would just like to draw to the attention of committee members and place on the record that I find it interesting that an amendment is brought forward to give the council the flexibility to determine the size and composition of the board and a number of methods of appointment and reappointment with respect to the board of directors of the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts, which I believe is an important cultural institution, but I believe should not have more importance placed upon it by the government in terms of attention to the method of appointment and size and composition of the board than the board of public health, the matter that we just finished debating, a matter on which the government was totally inflexible in terms of giving the kind of upfront power to the council to make a determination without bringing it back to the Legislature, which was simply all we were trying to accomplish by the amendment put forward.

The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.

Shall section 65, as amended, carry? Section 65, as amended, carries.

We are on to page 19, which is a government motion.

1140

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 66(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the board of management of the Hummingbird Centre" in the second and third lines and substituting "the board of directors of the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts."

This reflects a recent Metro bylaw changing the name of the Hummingbird board from that contained in Bill 148 to the name that we're now proposing in this motion.

The Chair: Shall this motion carry? This motion is carried.

Shall section 66, as amended, carry? Section 66, as amended, is carried.

Any debate on section 67? Shall section 67 carry? Section 67 carries.

We are on to a New Democratic motion, which is on page 20.

Mr Silipo: Could I ask that prior to dealing with this motion we deal first with the motion that is on page 25 of the amendments package, which would amend subsection 69(1), because all of the prior ones, this one and the next three or four, would be consequential amendments. They come before because the sections come before, but they're consequential to that basic issue that's addressed in subsection 69(1).

The Chair: Unanimous consent? Agreed. We're on to page 25.

Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 69(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Toronto Reference Library Board continued

"(1) The corporation known as the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board is continued under the name Toronto Reference Library Board in English and Conseil de la Bibliothèque de référence de Toronto in French.

"Functions

"(1.1) The Toronto Reference Library Board shall,

"(a) provide a reference and research service that reflects the unique needs of the urban area;

"(b) maintain a comprehensive collection of books, periodicals, films and other material for the purpose of clause (a); and

"(c) provide library resources and services to the Ontario library community.

"Composition

"(1.2) The Toronto Reference Library Board is composed of,

"(a) the mayor;

"(b) one person appointed by the Toronto Public Library Board;

"(c) one person appointed by each English public school board whose geographic area of jurisdiction includes all or part of the urban area;

"(d) one person appointed by each English separate school board whose geographic area of jurisdiction includes all or part of the urban area;

"(e) for each part of the urban area that corresponds to an old area municipality, one person who resides there and who may be a member of a community council, appointed by the city council."

This amendment essentially would continue the Toronto Reference Library Board as a separate governing structure for the Metro reference library. I think government members have heard me make this argument before. Unfortunately, it was not one of the issues that in the process of the hearings we heard from people, but I hope people will take it at face value that this continues to be an issue within the library community.

While I think people have generally accepted -- not agreed to but accepted -- the reality that there will be one public library board in Metropolitan Toronto as a result of the amalgamation, there continue to be strong views about the need to maintain a separate structure for the Metro reference library. I think there is general recognition that this library is different from all of the other public libraries in Metropolitan Toronto and indeed in the province. It is a reference library that caters therefore to particular services that are not provided anywhere near in the same way in other libraries.

I think the argument has been made very clearly, when we went through Bill 109 in particular, the Public Libraries Act, that in fact there should be a separate governance structure. I want to acknowledge that the government, I think, has understood the point at least halfway in terms of acknowledging that there will continue to be a funding relationship between the Ministry of Citizenship and this library, unlike that which will exist between the government and any of the other libraries across the system as a result of the fact that government funding is being discontinued with respect to all other libraries.

But I want to say that's only halfway to recognizing the uniqueness that we have here and there continues to be a strong argument to be made that there should be a separate governance structure to deal with the unique needs of this library, a library which serves not only Metropolitan Toronto but the GTA and serves indeed people from outside the GTA, as well as the one main reference library that we have in the province.

The other point I want to make on this goes back to the transition team. People may not know that when we dealt with Bill 109, there was an amendment that I had put similar to this dealing with 109 and there was, I believe, a similar amendment by the Liberal caucus. The way in which the committee dealt with those two amendments as a result of some significant discussion was that -- and I think some government members may have been there for part of it, I'm not sure -- we agreed unanimously as a committee, obviously with the government caucus agreeing, that this was an issue that required further examination. We therefore agreed to forward the two amendments to the transition team, for them to take a look at the issue of a separate structure as they were doing their work and as they would be making their recommendations with respect to the transition to the new city.

I have to say I have never heard anything back from the transition team on that and it is one of the questions that I would have put to them, had they deigned to be present in the second half-hour they had promised that they would be here and then didn't show up. So I don't know if the transition team has simply forgotten about this issue or if they have looked at it and decided that there should not be a separate governance structure. Perhaps the government members know. Perhaps they have received some response, or perhaps they too are still in the dark about this.

But the bottom line is that I believe the arguments that have been made are still valid. My sense too from talking to various members of the government caucus is that there is, from any of those who have paid any attention to this issue, a fair amount of support for this notion that there is merit to the idea of the separate governance structure continuing for the Metro reference library, but what we don't have is an indication by the government that they're prepared to actually have the law reflect that understanding.

As I say, I regret that this is an issue that hasn't gotten the attention it needed during the hearing process. I don't know if the lack of an amendment here from the government means that they will simply ignore this issue, or maybe they'll surprise me and say that they're going to support this amendment. But I do believe this is an issue that is still significant out there, and I would say to the government members the fact that you have not heard from people during the hearings on this should in no way indicate to you that people out there are no longer concerned about this. There is still strong feeling from people in the library community that this would be the best way to continue to ensure that the Metro reference library continues to be reflective of its unique services and continues to deliver those, also in a way that would be reflected by having the separate governance structure continued.

I'll listen with interest to the reaction from the government caucus on this.

Mr Gilchrist: Very simply, we believe that the act very clearly lays out the requirement for the Toronto Public Library Board to continue to provide a reference and research service; it does it in great detail. As the member has already acknowledged, with the cooperation of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, we have assured the Toronto library board, and presumably anyone reading this act, that resources will be there to allow it to continue to maintain that function. We don't believe it's appropriate to set up a second body to oversee that.

1150

North York has had an excellent reference aspect to its library system. It manages to accomplish that with the same board. In fact, I think there's a very compelling argument that it is quite appropriate to have the same people charged with the task of maintaining all of the library resources in order to ensure that there is cooperation and efficiencies in the way the materials are purchased and then allocated throughout the various libraries of the city.

It also is appropriate to be tied into the same electronic listing of all the assets of the library. Anything that would complicate that, particularly if it means nothing more than creating a few more patronage appointments or another government body, is really inappropriate.

Quite frankly, North York is very concerned that, the way the amendment is proposed here, there is a possibility that their assets could be stripped. They obviously are very keen to make sure the books and other resources in their reference library remain where they are and under the control of a coordinated library board. We won't be supporting this motion.

Mr Silipo: I don't understand the concern around North York. Maybe I'm misreading this, but the only reference to resources here is to the resources that now exist within the Metro reference library. There is no indication or no interest in terms of the amendment to move or take any resources away from any other libraries, so I don't know what the latter part of Mr Gilchrist's comments are all about.

The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? This motion fails.

Shall section 69 carry?

Interjection.

The Chair: We're into it, we've got to vote on it.

Shall section 69 carry? Section 69 carries.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to return to section 68.

Before we do that, I would ask the clerk to distribute the subcommittee report to members of the committee. We have a few minutes before recess. I would ask agreement that we deal with the subcommittee report. There appears to be agreement.

Mr Silipo: We haven't dealt with this?

The Chair: No. We've got a problem if we don't deal with it too, so hopefully there is agreement.

Mr Silipo: We didn't deal with it at the beginning?

The Chair: No. Do you have the right document, Mr Silipo? There's a subcommittee report of September 24. This is not on this bill.

Mr Gilchrist: But it's an issue coming before this committee one week from now.

The Chair: The committee needs to deal with this if we're going to have people come before this committee on this bill.

Mr Silipo: I'm sorry.I just realized as you said that. I looked at it quickly the first time and wondered why the clerk was giving it to us, But you're right, this deals with another bill. Could I just ask that perhaps we deal with this at the beginning of the afternoon session?

The Chair: Fine.

Mr Silipo: I want to be helpful, but I haven't had a chance to take a look at it.

The Chair: Okay. We'll return to page 20, Mr Silipo, which is a New Democratic motion.

Mr Silipo: Chair, there isn't any point in having people just vote through all of these which, as I said, would have made sense if we had adopted the amendment on 69(1), so I'm going to withdraw.

The Chair: Further debate on section 68? Shall section 68 carry? Section 68 is carried.

We are on to page 26, a New Democratic motion. Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: Again, I will withdraw that amendment. That was part of the Metro reference library.

The Chair: Further debate on section 70? Shall section 70 carry? Section 70 is carried.

We are on to page 27, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsections 71(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Historical board continued

"71. (1) The Toronto Historical Board, incorporated by the Statutes of Ontario, 1958, chapter 160, section 5, is hereby continued under the name Toronto Historical Board in English and Conseil historique de Toronto in French.

"Objects

"(2) The objects of the board are,

"(a) the construction, maintenance, control, operation and management of the city's real and personal property of historic interest within,

"(i) the area of the former city of Toronto, and

"(ii) any other part of the urban area that the council fixes, by bylaw; and

"(b) any other objects of a similar nature that the council assigns to the board, by bylaw."

The reason for this amendment: The dissolution of the old and creation of a new historical board would most likely have led to a loss of its current charitable status under the Revenue Canada regulations. As the board relies almost entirely on gifts from individual or corporate donors to acquire material and objects of historical interest, the loss of its charitable status would have a tremendous, adverse impact on this source of material.

Based on the request by both the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and the museum boards in Etobicoke and Scarborough, we've also made changes to the objects of the board to ensure that there is enough specificity, particularly in (b), where it says "any other objects of a similar nature," that Revenue Canada would not be able at some point in the future to come back and change their interpretation of this board as a charitable institution.

Mr Silipo: Question: I was curious to see the way this was redrafted, particularly subsection (2)(a)(i) and the specific reference to "the area of the former city of Toronto." Is the reason for that the one that Mr Gilchrist just gave, around clarifying any ambiguities around the charitable status?

Mr Gilchrist: That, tied in with the fact that there are other entities that operate historical facilities under the control of the existing six cities right now, Todmorden Mills, for example. There are museums in Etobicoke and Scarborough. There were concerns expressed that, the way the bill was originally drafted, they would automatically be replaced by the new Toronto Historical Board, and they wanted the new council to be able to decide on their futures.

If at some point in the future it is the view of the council that it is appropriate to move control of the Guild Inn or some other entity in Scarborough under the Toronto Historical Board, then council will be able to do that by bylaw.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate that explanation because I just wanted to be clear that we wouldn't, as a result of this amendment, be seeing the minister stand up at some point and say that the government is now continuing the Toronto Historical Board. You're not going to try to couch it that way. You are saying that you are doing this specifically for the purposes of clearing up any ambiguities around the charitable question.

Mr Gilchrist: Yes. We're continuing the existing board, as opposed to scrapping it and creating a new one. The legal opinion was that if we maintained the current board expressly, it's charitable status remains intact.

Mr Silipo: You're continuing the present one, but then, in the next amendment, you're going to wipe out the North York Historical Board.

Mr Gilchrist: Go ahead, Liz.

Ms McLaren: In the original Bill 148 we had merged; we had gotten rid of the Toronto Historical Board and the North York Historical Board and created a new one. Two problems: In the North York board that was fine. It had been disbanded. It doesn't exist any more so we were just clearly up and getting rid of a piece of legislation. The problem was the way we had done it, by creating a new one, the existing Toronto Historical Board would have lost its charitable status. That's why we're continuing it, to make it clear that it, as a body corporate, is continued and therefore maintains its charitable status.

However, in Bill 148, we had extended the boundaries of the new historical board that we had created to the entire city. There has been some concern raised in the heritage community that that might prejudge how the new council would wish to deal with heritage facilities. So under this amendment we are saying the Toronto Historical Board is continued within the boundaries of the former city of Toronto, and if the new council wishes to extend its boundaries and its powers to include the entire new municipality, they may by bylaw do that. That decision has been left to council to take.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate that clarification because that's what I wanted there to be real clarity about. It's a more political point, which is that I wouldn't want to see the minister stand up and say that they now have continued the Toronto Historical Board without also saying that the new council can do what the government originally had in the bill, which was to append that new board to the new council. The jurisdiction of the historical board will not be limited to the current city of Toronto. It can, if the new council decides to, but the new council can also decide that it will be a board, the Toronto Historical Board, that will have responsibility and therefore the assets will be dealt with across the whole of the new city, which I think was one of the concerns that we heard about.

The Chair: All in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Shall section 71, as amended, carry? Section 71, as amended, is carried.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached the time. We must recess until 3:30.

The committee recessed from 1201 to 1537.

The Chair: We'll resume.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, could I ask if there's a quorum.

The Chair: There is not a quorum. Members of the committee, we will recess for 10 minutes.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I'd just like to point out to you that when we came in here at half past, I pointed out there was not a quorum and indicated at that time that there would be 10 minutes --

The Chair: I've just called the meeting to order, Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: The time allocation motion says the meeting be called to order at 3:30, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Well, I'm telling you the meeting was called just now, and it's the first time I've heard a member officially request whether or not there was a quorum. People keep coming and going out of here. We are recessed.

The committee recessed from 1538 to 1540.

I call the meeting to order. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have voted on section 71 and we are now on to page 28 which is a government motion, Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm sorry, the page number is?

The Chair: It's page 28.

Mr Gilchrist: Mine aren't numbered here, for some reason.

The Chair: Section 72.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 72 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Dissolution of an old board

"72. The North York Historical Board, incorporated by the Statues of Ontario, 1974, chapter 151, sections 1 and 2, is dissolved on January 1, 1998."

The effect of the amendment is to dissolve the North York Historical Board. The reason behind it is that the North York Historical Board, like the Toronto Historical Board, was established as a body corporate. However, it was to be dissolved originally under Bill 148. As noted in our discussion earlier on section 71, the Toronto Historical Board is being continued as an existing corporation.

We've been informed that the North York board no longer exists and that its duties have been taken over by the city's parks department. North York indicated they had no problem with this change, and as you will recall in the discussions we held earlier about the Toronto Historical Board, we indicated that in the future they would have the power to expand their control to any other part of the urban area that the new council might decide. They can do that by bylaw. This addressed the concern that there may be certain entities that currently exist outside the boundaries of the old city of Toronto that did not want to be subsumed by the Toronto Historical Board and it would be up to the council to make that decision in the future.

In my riding, we have entities such as the Guild Inn. I know that Todmorden Mills -- we have a number of other historical entities like Campbell House and a bunch of others that operate under separate boards.

Mr Silipo: As I'm sure you know, I'm going to vote in favour of this.

Mr Gilchrist: It's a great comfort to me to know that it has been a compelling argument. Given that, I have no further comments to make on this amendment.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 72, as amended, carry? Carried.

Any debate on sections 73 through 76? Shall sections 73 through 76 carry? Carried.

We are on page 29 which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 77(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "new historical board" in the second line and substituting "Toronto Historical Board."

This is a minor wording change arising from the continuation of the Toronto Historical Board rather than the creation of a new historical board. It merely permits council to dissolve the THB rather than what was to have been the new board, if that was its view at some point in the future.

The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 77, as amended, carry? Carried.

Debate on sections 78 through 94? Shall sections 78 through 94 carry? Carried.

The next motion is a New Democratic Party motion which is on page 30. Mr Silipo, I have a problem with this motion. This is an allocation of public funds and my understanding from the standing orders is that this type of motion can only be made by a minister of the crown, because of allocation of funds. Unless you wish to make some comments, I believe it's out of order.

Mr Silipo: Chair, if you believe it's out of order, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you otherwise. The reason we had put this motion in was to try to put into law what the minister has been saying which is that this was going to be an even trade and that there was not going to be a shortfall left in the hands of the new council and the property taxpayers, but if that's inappropriate to put into the legislation, then we'll just keep pressing the point with the minister and the government.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Silipo. Debate on sections 95 through 97?

Mr Gilchrist: Section 94 as well.

The Chair: I thought I included 94, but if I didn't -- Does anyone know? I thought I did. I have it written in my notes, so I must have. If there's uncertainty we'll do it again. Shall section 94 carry? Carried.

Any debate on sections 95 through 97? Shall sections 95 through 97 carry? Carried.

We're on to page 31 which is a government motion, Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Chair. I wonder, however, if pursuant to the rules I could ask for a 20-minute recess, please?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): You can just ask for a recess any time you want?

The Chair: Bear with me, Mr Colle. I have a problem with this, Mr Gilchrist, and I'm going to read you the time allocation motion, the pertinent paragraph, which I believe applies. I believe you can have that but it has to be at the end of the day. I'm going to read this to you: At 5pm on October 2, "those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a)."

It's been drawn to my attention that this applies to after 5 o'clock and so -- excuse me, Ms Lankin, perhaps you have a comment.

Ms Lankin: Yes, I was just going to indicate that the standing orders are unfortunately overridden by the time allocation motion, which says that we must proceed to debate and vote on each one. It does not provide for other aspects of the standing orders, like amending amendments or any sorts of things to be done during the course of a committee that's under time allocation.

The Chair: Could I just ask for the committee's indulgence for a minute?

I believe that the request is in order, and on further reflection that the section I just read applies only after 5 o'clock. The 20-minute recess would apply only after 5 o'clock.

Ms Lankin: It can't be.

The Chair: Well, that's what it says.

Ms Lankin: Sorry, Mr Chair, the time allocation motion guides everything that we do at this point in time, and from the time we began the process of clause-by-clause this morning, what we must do is provided for solely in that time allocation motion. It does not allow for a break by any of the caucuses until such time as you get past 5 o'clock, when you are allowed one break.

I presume the parliamentary assistant's problem has been resolved now, given that another member of your committee just arrived and that's what this was all about, but I would indicate to you that if you want to set a precedent with respect to how we treat time allocation motions, then continue with your ruling. It is most unusual, given the way chairs have ruled in the past, that we are absolutely bound by time allocation motions and cannot even do things with the unanimous consent of the committee unless it's set out in that motion.

The Chair: Just a comment, and then we'll be open for further discussion. You're right, we're bound by this motion.

Mr Gilchrist: However, we're only bound in the sections that are relevant to the motion. I don't think the member would suggest that the rules governing the fact each member gets 20 minutes to speak have been stopped. That's not spoken to in here. There are standing orders that specify what caucuses in committee can do in terms of -- you're precisely correct. That's been used many times by the Liberals and the NDP over the course of the last two years to ensure their members are here for votes on particular sections of bills when we get through clause-by-clause.

1550

The bottom line is that this motion talks only about what happens after 5 o'clock; it does not in any way interfere with any other standing order that speaks to other duties and responsibilities members have. Having said that, and not because I agree with Ms Lankin, I will withdraw the request for a --

Interjections.

Mr Gilchrist: Let me just put on the record finally that, having not sat in on the hearings, the Liberals have decided to show up here for the second half of clause-by-clause. I don't know for what other reason, but it's no less appropriate for us to wait for other members to join us.

Interjections.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I've had enough. I want to proceed. We're on page 31, which is a government motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 98(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Permitted levels of tax rate reductions

"(4) Tax rate reductions made under subsection (2) shall be set so that, when they are applied to the applicable assessment rateable for local municipal purposes within the boundaries of the old area municipality, the reduction in the amount of the general local municipality levy that applies within those boundaries does not exceed the product obtained when the following are multiplied together:

"1. The amount of the levy increase in 1998 that is due to pre-existing higher expenditure levels for services in one or more other old area municipalities.

"2. The percentage that is shown opposite the relevant year in the table to this section."

If I could speak to this, the effect of this amendment is it clarifies that the limit on the reduction in the amount of the general local municipal levy is calculated based on the increase in the levy in 1998 due to pre-existing higher expenditure levels in other old area municipalities -- and due to no other reason -- times the percentage set out in the table.

The reason for the amendment: It clarifies the intent of the subsection that already existed in the original wording of the act. Some concern had been expressed about whether reductions in the levy could relate to reasons other than pre-existing higher expenditure levels in other old area municipalities. This amendment was proposed by Metro.

Mr Silipo: There's a reference to a table that relates to the section. Could Mr Gilchrist or staff point me to which table they're referring to.

Mr Gilchrist: Page 54 of the bill.

The Chair: Further questions or debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 98, as amended, carry? Section 98, as amended, carries.

Is there debate on sections 99 through 108? Shall sections 99 through 108 carry? Carried.

We have a government motion on page 32.

Mr Gilchrist: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"1998 borrowing limit

"108.1 For the purposes of subsection 187(4) of the Municipal Act, the estimated revenues of the city for 1997 are the sum of the estimated revenues of the old municipalities as shown in the estimates adopted for 1997."

This amendment clarifies that the limit on temporary borrowing, pending the receipt of taxes and other revenues, is the combination of the estimated revenues for the seven old municipalities in 1997. Since the new city does not exist in 1997 there may have been some confusion about how to calculate the limit on the city's temporary borrowing without this provision.

The Chair: Debate? Shall this motion carry? All those in favour of this motion? All those opposed? The motion carries.

We are on to section 109. Is there any debate on sections 109 to 118? Shall sections 109 through 118 carry? Carried.

There's a New Democratic motion on page 33.

Mr Silipo: I'm happy to move this amendment which I think people know has been put together by my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine.

I move that part XVI of the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Composition of council

"Additional member from East York

"118.1 For its first term of office, the council shall include one additional member, to be elected for the ward of East York."

The Chair: Rationale?

Mr Silipo: Ms Lankin will speak to this.

Ms Lankin: We've arrived at the moment of truth here. I want to tell you that my colleague the member for Riverdale and I have been working with members of the community of East York flat out for some period of months at this point in time. You will recall the feeling of the residents of the borough of East York with respect to the government's Bill 103 and the creation of the new city of Toronto. You will recall that they began the Say No to the Megacity campaign. You will recall that they had the highest participation and highest percentage No vote in the referendum that was held.

The people of East York are a resilient lot, having lost on a battle that was important to them, dear to their hearts, in which much time and energy on the part of hundreds and hundreds of residents was poured into. They sadly accepted the government's decision and looked to the future. You will also recall that during the hearings on Bill 103 and then during the process of voting on amendments, the government brought forward an amendment to create community councils.

That was in response to the very strong representation that had been made from residents, in each of the former municipalities, of the need to have a continuation of local governance, of a way for neighbourhoods to relate to their local elected representatives and to deal with issues, the scope of which will be determined eventually by the new council but to bring that down to a level that corresponded to the historical boundaries of the old municipalities and that allowed for communities of interest, based on those old municipalities, to continue to work together and continue to have an influence on the new city council's decision-making.

Also, of course, in the bill was the composition of the new council. Members of this committee will know that Bill 103 provided for two councillors for the new ward of East York, that ward being identical to the existing boundaries of the borough of East York. Very quickly, upon the passage of Bill 103, people began to understand that the community council -- which again I would point out was not part of what was in the bill at the time of committee hearings, but came through amendment and response to public participation -- people in East York quickly understood two things about the representation.

One was that they would have a community comprised, in terms of its elected representatives, of two councillors. They very quickly saw a recipe for frequent deadlock and believed that didn't really give the community council an opportunity to get off the ground and to be viable to work in the interests of the neighbourhoods and the communities and the residents of East York.

Second, they understood, in looking at the representation, that on a councillor per resident basis, East York was at the high end. I think it is all true. We will acknowledge that someone's got to be at the high end, someone's got to be at the low end and someone's got to be in the middle. But for a community of people who once proudly held their heads high as Canada's only borough, as the borough of East York, who fought so hard to keep that identity, to look and see, for example, the city of York having four representatives on the new council, and a greater possibility of an effective community council, hit hard and hurt much.

The community responded in a very positive way. It was with energy to try and say: "Although we don't like what the government has done and we resent that our city has been taken away from us, our municipal government, we want, within the structure of the new city, something that will work." The call developed very quickly for three councillors for East York.

1600

At that point in time we began talking about it with our colleagues in the Legislature. It was clear at the beginning that the Minister of Municipal Affairs felt this was an item that should be left to the new council to determine. I want to simply say it is not fair to leave this matter for up to three years until the next election to be resolved for the people of East York.

As you know, I introduced a private member's bill. When it became clear to me that was not going to be dealt with, in consultation with my colleague the member for Riverdale I introduced a series of amendments, trying to deal with all the government's possible concerns about odd or even numbers on the large city council, about representation and the permanency of it versus what the new council might decide. Through a series of discussions and a series of amendments that I've put forward, I have come to ask you to support this particular amendment. It is to add one additional member to the council from East York so there would be three councillors to be elected for the first term of office of the new city council.

It is a transition measure. It is one in which the new city council can and will at some point look at its issues of boundaries and representation. But you know they won't do that in the first six months, you know they won't do that in the first year, maybe even the first two years. There are so many other things the council will have to deal with through that period of time. All the people of East York are asking for is some equity in representation and the ability to have an effective working community council.

The parliamentary assistant asked me to enlist support and I can tell you I have taken his instructions to heart. Both of the lead mayoralty candidates for the new city support this. My colleague from Riverdale got the signed declaration of all the candidates running in East York, who support this. I've talked to councillor-candidates in the areas around East York who support this. The transition team said clearly in East York that they support it. The chair of the transition team, Alan Tonks, says he has no problem with this amendment going through for the transition period. He understands it's important.

Mr Sutherland, who is the person who has been dealing with recommendations on community councils, says he recognizes the call from East York, how important it is. They're including recommendations in the transition committee report that they hope at some time the council will be able to deal with it, which might help alleviate the situation, but he announced no problem with respect to this particular amendment that is before us. I'm quite sure, based on the comments I heard from Mr Blair at the meeting in East York, that Mr Blair on the transition team is fully supportive of this as well. Of course you know he's a former mayor of the borough of East York.

There isn't anyone who is opposed to this. The minister has said he thinks the new council should deal with it. That doesn't give fairness to the people of East York over the course of the next three years, to wait until the next election. The only other way to deal with it would be on an interim basis by a by-election, which is costly and makes no sense.

I am sounding frustrated because I don't have a sense that I'm able to get government support on this. I'm hoping I'm wrong. I'm hoping that maybe what Mr Gilchrist told me before we came back in here, which was that there was no instruction being given to the government members, that they were free to vote their will on this, is true and that people will be swayed by the arguments and by the support of this from their colleague from York East, although I wish he were on the committee and voting, that he had got himself subbed on.

Be that as it may, I am hopeful you will listen to the call of the people from East York. There is no one who has expressed objection to this. There is no reason you can't do this, other than some obstinacy that I don't understand.

I will leave my comments for now at that. I implore members, the parliamentary assistant has said you've not been instructed, and the minister today in the House said you will vote your own minds and that you've not been whipped. If that is true, then I urge you to do that. You have heard the minister on the record in response to the questions today from the member for Riverdale and myself that he will not instruct the committee, that he's not even looked at the amendment and that he's leaving it up to you. I'm asking you to do the right thing for the people of East York.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I am a supporter of Toronto's amalgamation. I think it's the right step to take. I believe amalgamation will turn out to have been the right move for East York, the right move for Toronto, and I believe it will turn out to have been the right move for the greater Toronto area. I think the government was right to bring about Bill 103 and to bring about the amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto's municipalities.

It wasn't easy for me to say those things last winter when I was attending all those meetings and hearing from many people who seriously and vehemently opposed that suggestion. I told them at the time that I would vote my conscience on Bill 103 and would do what I thought was right. What I thought was right at that time and what I think is right now is that the government proceed with the amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto. I think it will turn out to have been the right thing to do.

That may leave some people dissatisfied with my decision. That may leave some people feeling I didn't vote the way they wanted me to vote. That's something I have to live with, but I voted my conscience at that time because I voted in a way I thought was right.

I was very pleased that in the final form of Bill 103 the original municipal boundaries were respected. That was a concern that was brought forward by many people, not only in East York but in other parts of Metropolitan Toronto. I think it's to the government's credit that this concern was respected and that those boundaries found their way into the final bill in the form of the boundaries of the community councils. I believe that the government was attempting to respond to a very serious concern by people across Metro on that point and that the government responded in a sensitive way, in a manner that was intended to show respect, concern and appreciation for that particular point of view.

The result of that measure, however, in the case of East York left the people of East York in a position where I believe remedial action is warranted. This causes me to come forward today in support of this proposed amendment in a manner that is equally sincere as my position in favour of the concept of amalgamation as a general proposition.

This support may cause me to suffer the disapproval of some others who may wish that I would speak in favour of the original proposal of two members for East York, but again I'm speaking as a matter of conscience, and when I speak on this matter I must not be concerned with who I might find favour with or whose favour I might lose as a result of speaking on this matter. I'm speaking as a matter of conscience on what I think is right and what I think is right for the people I'm here to represent, people I hold in great respect.

I have shared my thoughts at length with the minister. I have not been particularly public about this. I have not made a great deal of public waves on this matter. But I have been speaking with the minister and I'm pleased that the minister has always had time to hear from me on this point. I have detected -- I think people around this room have detected -- a softening in the position of the minister on this point. If my efforts with him have contributed to that, then I'm very pleased I've had that effect.

I've got to tell you, the minister's a tough sell. He doesn't roll over the first time you come at him with a proposal and he certainly doesn't back down if you come at him with a lot of threats and a lot of histrionics. He does appreciate good, sound, logical arguments, and I've tried to present such arguments to him. I haven't been successful with him yet. He hasn't come across and given me the response that frankly I've been looking for, which is to agree to this proposal and to sponsor his own amendment to it. But as I say, and as I think people around the room have detected, there has been a softening in the kind of position the minister has taken on this proposal and I am hopeful my efforts to that extent have had some effect.

I'll share with you the approach I have taken, the arguments I have made with the minister, which I think are sound in logic and which I think merit the support of the members around this room here today.

1610

Under the arrangement that's in the proposed legislation, East York will have just two city councillors to represent its population of over 101,000 people. This would amount to more than 50,000 residents for each councillor returned by the voters of East York. It would make East York the most underrepresented ward in the city's 28 wards.

Ms Lankin quite properly points out that someone's got to be the biggest. You're not going to saw it off at exactly the same number with everyone, but I make the point that the present formula leaves East York at the absolute bottom end in terms of representation per population, more than 50,000 residents for each councillor. By contrast, the residents of York-Eglinton and the residents of North York Centre South, which have populations of about 62,000 people each, will have virtually double the representation on the new council than will the residents of East York. The residents of Scarborough-Wexford, which has a population of about 63,000 people, and the residents of North York Centre, which has a population about 66,000, will not be far behind those other two in terms of representation. The disparity between these wards, with representation averaging one councillor per 31,600 residents, and East York, with one councillor per 52,000 residents, is very difficult, frankly, for me to reconcile.

By providing for a third councillor for East York, what would that do? East York would have one councillor for each 34,000 residents. This would leave four other wards in the new city more heavily represented than East York. I'll repeat that point. Even if East York is granted a third councillor, East York would still not be the most heavily represented population. There would still be four other wards that are more heavily represented in terms of constituents per councillor. Doing so would also reduce the disparity between the most highly represented ward and the least represented ward, because it would increase representation at the low end without increasing representation at the high end. That is to say, it would bring the two ends of the scale more closely together. It would be fair to the people of East York and it would be unfair to no one.

Adding a third councillor would also bring East York's total voice on the new council more reasonably into line with that of York, one of the six areas to retain its boundaries in the formation of community council districts in the new city. York, with a total population of about 138,000 people, has a population really just marginally greater than that of East York. However, York will have two wards, and that would give it four councillors on the new city council, which means that with about a third more residents than East York, York will receive fully twice the voice on the new council. That is a problem that could be rectified by the simple addition of a third East York councillor.

The further obvious benefit of adding a third councillor for East York would be to address the difficulty created by the prospect of a two-member community council. Having three members would make for a much more workable arrangement in many respects in terms of keeping a quorum, in terms of ensuring fuller representation and debate, and in terms of simply breaking potential voting deadlocks.

To summarize, adding a third councillor for East York, to my mind, would make sense for the following reasons: It would reduce the disparity between the most highly represented ward and the least represented ward in the new city. It would not increase East York's degree of representation beyond what would already be the case in at least four other wards in the new city. It would bring East York's voice at city council into a more appropriate balance with that of York. No disrespect to my good friends from York, but we're looking at fairness of balance in this case. It would bring East York more into balance with that of York, which has only a modestly greater population, but which under the format currently proposed would have double the representation. It would allow for a more workable community council. Finally, it would bring fairness to East York and it would bring unfairness to no other ward.

It is for those reasons that I have been urging the minister to accept the recommendation to amend the bill to add a third representative for East York, and I am hopeful that my remarks here this afternoon have been persuasive with the members of this committee.

Ms Churley I hope you can hear me from this mike. I am here today of course to speak in favour of our amendment before you today.

I want to start by saying how pleased I am to see that John Parker, the member for York East, is here today in support of this amendment. I have to say that he's been very loyal to his government on this issue, and yes, he's taken a lot of flak in local meetings. I attended several of them and witnessed that myself. He did remain true to his own convictions and his loyalty to his government through it all, and I think that should be taken into account.

I believe that today Mr Parker is here to stand up for his constituents, although I am sorry that he didn't get himself subbed in to the committee, because that would mean at least one vote over there. I don't know how people are going to vote. I really don't. I know that I talked to some of the members on the committee beforehand and I am sure Mr Parker has been doing so as well, or I hope. I have been assured by some of the members I talked to that it is a free vote, and of course Mr Leach, in response to my question and the supplementary by the member for Beaches-Woodbine today, was very clear that he was not going to ask the members or tell the members how to vote on this issue.

I think we all recognize that often that's how government, with the majority of government members, worked. Perhaps you could say that sometimes is a problem within all governments, all parties, that a minister has a particular direction he or she wants to go and it becomes very difficult sometimes for committee members to vote another way. But I believe Mr Leach gave us his word today, as he gave the members on this committee his word today in public in the House, that they should listen to the debate, listen to the local member who just laid out -- I'm not even going to repeat it. Between the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for East York, they have given very, very solid arguments as to why we should all support this.

From my understanding, since this began, before the member for Beaches-Woodbine made her amendments and during many discussions we've had with members from the government side, with the community, with all of the people the member for Beaches-Woodbine talked about, I don't believe there is any opposition to this. I have not found any. Previously in committee when we were discussing this and we were conversing with the parliamentary assistant, and also in the House, if you'll recall, about why we could not do this, there are two things that came out for me, and I think they've both been addressed. In fact, I know they have.

There was some perhaps legitimate concern expressed that it might set a precedent, that if you start making amendments for one borough in this case, for one region, that it could cause others to come forward, and you open up the dam essentially. I believe that very clearly has proved not true. It hasn't happened. Of course, today's the last day for clause-by-clause. Also, all of the other regions within the new megacity are aware of this and none of them has come forward and said, "If you do this, we also want something changed," so I believe now that's become absolutely moot. It hasn't happened, so it's no longer a factor.

1620

The second reason the parliamentary assistant gave to me in the House when I questioned -- no, actually, it was after he had made a speech in the House. He said at that time that he thought it was unfair to the councillors and other candidates who were running that they had their literature printed and their offices open. I thought maybe he had a point, actually; I didn't know, but I did go to check. I went to a meeting of Team East York. I talked to some of the candidates myself and they in turn went out and canvassed all of the candidates, including the mayor, and each and every one of them signed a declaration saying that this would not be a problem for them, and they in fact urged the government to move forward. So that's the second reason that was given which may have had some legitimacy but turned out to be not a problem.

At this point, given that it seems like absolutely everybody is in support of this, it cannot possibly at this stage cause the government any problems vis-à-vis other regions asking for the same treatment. I do not see any reason whatsoever why the minister -- he did say he hadn't read it. He's aware of the problem. I don't see any reason why the government members could not support this today. It's quite reasonable.

I recognize from having been in government that sometimes what looks on the surface to be simple might, if you vote for it, turn out to create a whole set of other problems that wasn't anticipated. We all know that and we all understand that. You have to look very carefully when you're in government at the implications of amendments, new laws, new regulations. It can have huge impacts. But we have looked very closely at this, as has the member for East York. There are no implications whatsoever really, except a positive one for the residents of East York. That's it.

That is the only implication to this, because the member for Beaches-Woodbine was responsive to the concerns expressed. She submitted an amendment which makes it transitional. We agree I suppose with the premise that this has happened; we don't like it, but it's a done deal. There's going to be a new megacity with one council, and they should be making the decisions. There are a lot of decisions to be made. That's one of the problems. When are they going to get at this?

It's our belief, and I don't believe anybody can argue with this, that East York will go for three years without proper representation. I can assure you, as I said in the House today, that I have been talking to a lot of people in East York from all parties, and they all indicate the same thing: It is the number one issue. People are not happy about the megacity but they recognize that it's a done deal, it's going to happen, and they've responded actually in a very positive way. They came forward when the transition team came up to talk to them. They've held their own ward meetings. They held a big meeting at the end. They've given very positive suggestions in a very positive way about how they can help make this work for them as a community. So they came forward in a very energetic and positive way: "Okay, we lost. We're not happy, but here are our suggestions as to how we can improve things, how it can work for us."

I think people generally feel satisfied to some extent that they've been listened to, but the biggest problem that people express over and over again is that they are lacking proper, equal and fair representation.

As the member for Beaches-Woodbine said, and I think the member for York East is hearing the same thing, people are hurt, including Tories in the riding who supported Mr Parker. It goes beyond feeling that they are just being treated unfairly and that that's government; that's the way it works. They're hurt, and they want this government to listen to them on this one issue.

I would say, in all good faith, the people of East York ran a very effective campaign against the megacity; there is no doubt about it. But after the decision was made, they settled down to try to work constructively with the government, with the transition team, with the local councillors and the mayor to make it work for them. This is a very important piece to all of the residents of East York. So I would really urge the government members to listen carefully to the arguments that are put forward today and take the Minister of Municipal Affairs at his word and support this amendment today.

Mr Silipo: I just want to add briefly a couple of comments. The arguments on the merits of why the amendment should be supported have been most ably made by Ms Lankin, Ms Churley and Mr Parker. There's nothing, quite frankly, that I could add on that level, but I do want to say something else.

Everybody understands the fight around the megacity. Everybody in this room understands the depth of that and at the end of the day the fact that we squared off as we did.

I want to pick up very briefly on one of the latter comments that Ms Churley made, which is to say that this is an opportunity for the government members particularly to show they understand that this concern is not about whether there will be a megacity. This concern is responding in a positive way to how to make this thing work for one major part of the new city in a way that ought not to upset anyone. It's not a situation where you have one group of people coming in here saying, "We believe strongly that this shouldn't be done," and another group saying, "We believe strongly it should be done." It's been mentioned that virtually everyone who would have an interest in this has said they either have no problem with this or they support this.

It's one of those rare opportunities where as parliamentarians, regardless of how we stood and voted on the megacity, we have an opportunity to say, "Yes, this is another way to make this piece work, regardless of how we felt and feel on the whole issue of the megacity," and to know that this is a transition measure that's being suggested, but one that will go a long way to buying a lot of good faith and ensuring that people feel there is still some ability by this Legislative Assembly to listen and to respond to the concerns of citizens and communities.

Mr Parker: I just want to comment on a few points that were made by Ms Churley in her remarks. She commented on my loyalty to the government during Bill 103. There are times when my loyalty to my government, it might surprise her, coincides with my own conscience. That was certainly the case with Bill 103, and I can't think of a case where it hasn't been the case. This is one instance where I am speaking out quite candidly in support of a proposal that the government has not yet indicated its support for, but when I supported Bill 103, I supported Bill 103 because I happened to agree with the principles of Bill 103. That was support in conscience.

I'll tell you something else: It didn't happen automatically. It took me a while to sort through all the various merits of all the different models and all the different proposals and all the different arguments before I was comfortable that amalgamation was in the interests of all of us, all things considered. But having gone through all of those considerations, my support for Bill 103 was one of conscience. I agreed with what Bill 103 was attempting to accomplish and, as I say, I still believe that it was the right thing to do and it will eventually be seen to have been the right thing to do on the part of many people who still currently have their doubts about it. So my support for Bill 103, although it may have coincidentally supported the government, was not motivated out of loyalty to the government; it was motivated out of my own conscience.

As to being subbed on today, frankly it was my wish to be subbed on to this committee today, but I had responsibilities elsewhere in this House through the course of the day and it just wasn't practical to have me subbed on. I've made arrangements to be here in any case so I can speak on this matter. I've been here as much as I have been able to today so I would be available when this issue came up. My failure to have been subbed on was not the result of any lack of effort on my part; it was simply not possible for me to be subbed on today, given other responsibilities that I had to respond to over the course of the day.

1630

Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate the comments made by all my colleagues here today. Let me just say at the outset that speaking personally, first off, I wrestled with this one far more than perhaps the member from Beaches-Woodbine would ever be prepared to concede, but I give her my sincere assurances that this was one that I recognized had a particular effect on a part of the city that I don't represent. I believe very strongly that part of the whole process that we're involved with is that at the end of the day we're responsible in the aggregate, yes, for everything that happens in the province, but our first responsibility is to the people in our specific ridings. I certainly accord you and Mr Parker and Minister Johnson that due.

Ms Lankin: And Ms Churley.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm sorry. Forgive me, Ms Churley. Don't take it personally.

So I would hope in the reverse, if we were talking about something to do with my riding, that there would be a similar accommodation.

I guess I looked at it from two viewpoints: first, the practical. There's no doubt that as we look at the number -- and by the way, a number of people today have talked about population. I should point out that the distribution has been on the basis of electors, and while that normally follows fairly closely, it's not an absolute correlation.

There's no doubt that adding a third person in East York takes you from the highest end to the lowest end of the scale, and without splitting hairs it's within about a thousand at the bottom. What it does not do -- and I appreciate very much that you have canvassed within the community, and even to some extent, the member has said, she has spoken to some other politicians outside. But it still raises the issue that, for example, just coincidentally, the ward that overlaps my riding the most, Scarborough Highland Creek, by the time this year's enumeration is completed I am very confident will show that it has surpassed East York and will have a greater number of electors as a result of the extraordinary amount of new home construction that's gone on in the last two years. It really does pose a philosophical and moral question: If respecting the need for a greater degree of representation in East York is appropriate, why is it any less appropriate to the people, the same population or greater, in another ward elsewhere in the city?

I think we would all agree that the perfect world would have been for Metro to have been doing on a far more regular and timely basis a review of the distribution and the boundaries of its old wards. Had that been the case, and if we were looking at a variance of perhaps plus or minus 5%, this debate would not be going on right now, because having gone to two councillors per Metro ward, we would be within that same range.

The problem is, and it's not the fault of anybody sitting in this Legislature, that Metro chose, for I think some fairly obvious reasons, not to go through that stressful exercise, not to dislocate anyone and not to make the tough decision of changing their boundaries as they should have. We have inherited that. We looked at a number of issues as we went through Bill 103. With the greatest respect to the member who is making this motion here today and has made it very forcefully and articulately, I remember that during Bill 103 you were just as outspoken about the need to preserve city boundaries, and that in fact the original proposal which would have had 44 elected councillors on the basis of two per federal/provincial riding did not jibe with your stated objective to have the boundaries of the old cities respected.

Purely and simply, and I can say again personally, after great debate at the highest level, the decision was made to increase the number of councillors by 30% and to do it in a way that would respect those boundaries. The only way that did that fairly, without the accusation of gerrymandering by this government, would be to take existing boundaries, namely the Metro wards, and simply put two councillors in each one.

I do not recall -- and I don't want to say this as an absolute, but I sat in on every minute of those hearings and many, many town hall meetings, as the member knows -- anyone raising the issue back then and proposing an amendment to Bill 103 that would have added a third or fourth councillor then. Yet there's no doubt that everyone realized that the one elected councillor would become two, and in effect, instead of having a councillor and a mayor represent East York at Metro council, you would have two elected councillors at the new Toronto city council. So we had an opportunity in Bill 103 to have accommodated this sort of thing at a time when everyone was in a position to debate.

We had representation being made by a lot of sitting councillors, not just from East York. You'll all recall that we had councillors from Scarborough and North York and Etobicoke who came before us. We would have had their views on whether or not making an exception for East York put them in an awkward situation with their electors and, quite frankly, put them in a situation where they would have demanded the same thing for, for example, Scarborough Highland Creek.

Had that been the debate and had we been able to ascertain that going to the Metro wards was as fraught with problems as having gone to the 44 federal or provincial wards, then I think we may have come up with a very different shape to the electoral map today. It may very well have been, with all-party agreement, that we would have said, "If Metro hasn't done it, let's equalize the population within all of those wards." We could have solved the issue very fairly back then. We didn't. That isn't the fault of any one person. I'm not attributing blame. It is the sort of thing that in the course of the debate, and there's no doubt there were many other issues on the table, nobody brought forward; no one made that specific recommendation.

The practical concerns are very legitimate because there are parts of the city that are growing at different rates than others. I think we would all accept, as has been the case with the redistribution that's just been done by the federal government and now copied by us, that the population will fall within a certain variable from a mean. We have not had an opportunity to do that. If we had, I would not have these practical concerns, because Scarborough Highland Creek would be treated as fairly as East York would in whatever change then took place.

But the thing that pushed me over the edge was a very legal issue. To the member, we had a number of discussions. I am not a lawyer, and had I known this, I give you my word I would have advised you. This was only pointed out to me literally earlier today by legal counsel: This bill of course does not come into force until January 1, 1998, so it doesn't matter what we do in Bill 148; nothing this election can put a third or fourth councillor in.

Interjection.

Mr Gilchrist: No. With the greatest respect, Mr Silipo --

Mr Silipo: You can change the subsection any time you want.

Mr Gilchrist: No. I'm sorry, Mr Silipo. You would have to make an amendment to Bill 103 and Bill 148, and also, I believe, you would have to make a change to the Election Act as well.

Interjection.

Mr Gilchrist: Well, that is the advice I am getting. Certainly just reading Bill 103 and the section that covers the composition of council, it really is relevant to suggest that nothing we do in this one act without opening up the Election Act and without an earlier proclamation of any one section would change the status quo. So what you would have on January 1 is a vacancy.

I don't deny that on January 1, when this act takes effect, you would then have the ability for more councillors to be put in place. The new council would then have to call a by-election to fill that. I submit to you that that is really no different than allowing the new council to consider the issue of representation and to make any submissions they want in terms of changes. I have some confidence that as a result of simply following the Metro ward system and now having it exposed that there is a variance, something that I don't think a lot of people knew about before the debate on Bill 103, and now this debate, took place -- I don't think a lot of people realized that some votes in Metro Toronto are worth one and a half votes in other ridings -- maybe we can have the confidence that the new council will put in place the steps to redistribute their wards.

1640

More to point, your primary concerns, as you've expressed them in debate earlier in these hearings and to me personally, were at the community level. I don't believe you've ever said to me -- and if I've misinterpreted anything, I certainly apologize -- or suggested to me that when we're debating the big-ticket issues, social services, the major roads and that sort of thing, there is a substantive difference between having two votes out of 57 or three votes out of 57. Your submissions were primarily in the area of what happens at the community council level, where having two members would obviously lead to a potential to tie votes or to a need for unanimity for anything to happen at all and for a logjam.

I am not privy to all the details. I had an opportunity, as Mr Silipo did, to hear from the transition team the first portion of their time here, and one of the questions did relate to this topic. I have not seen the details, but I recall Mr Sutherland saying that he had some exciting proposals that would deal, he believed, very directly with your concerns about issues relating to the community council level. I am prepared to take him at his word, knowing full well that the new council will have the power to make any changes it deems necessary to ensure that there is adequate representation and adequate numbers on any one community council to guarantee that the scenarios you've posited do not come to pass.

I'm comfortable with the idea that, by sticking to the status quo, by keeping their feet to the fire, Metro will have a greater incentive to make sure that there is a fairer balance in future elections and that there is adequate and appropriate representation on all community councils.

I am looking forward with great eagerness to the report from the transition team that I understand should be out next week that will include the relevant recommendations. I hope the member, when she has an opportunity to see that, will be similarly pleased and confident that the changes they are proposing will address her concerns fully.

But at the end of the day the knowledge that we've simply taken one ward, which coincidentally happened to be a separate city, and given them a particular treatment that has not been accorded to other wards with roughly the same or, in some cases, equal population, which didn't happen to be separate cities but are just as much their own communities, have just as much the same sense of shared values and shared interests -- I know it would be a slight to the people of Guildwood and Highland Creek and Seven Oaks to suggest that their neighbourhoods are any different than Leaside and that they don't have the same rights and responsibilities and that their elected representatives on Metro council don't have the same authority and the same relative power.

After a lot of soul-searching, I genuinely came to the conclusion that I could not support this amendment. However, I will join with her in commenting on the transition team report next week and making other suggestions. There is nothing cast in stone, as we've said many times before these hearings. If their proposals have not hit the mark the first time, we'll have lots of opportunity in the following 10 weeks to make sure that the recommendations that finally go forward, hopefully with the blessing of your party and the government -- but at the end of day, the new council won't be beholden to any of that, perhaps. But I'm sure they would be more likely convinced of the merits of the case if it came with your endorsements and those of Mr Parker and other affected members.

I'm just going on faith that dealing fairly with all of the wards within Metro is the appropriate course of action. The legal ruling we've had here today, that this bill would not accomplish the goal that you hope, was the final straw, and that's why I will be voting against this amendment.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair?

The Chair: On a point of order, Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: It's not a point of order.

The Chair: Mr Froese.

Ms Lankin: Oh, sorry.

Mr Froese: First of all, I'd like to commend all the members who work on behalf of their constituents in bringing their concerns forward. I think that's very important, and I would like to commend everyone for taking those concerns forward.

I have concerns with the whole issue in that this whole thing has been debated for quite some time. My riding is St Catharines-Brock, so you could say I have no interest. There's a good argument if somebody said that or that I don't have the same concerns on the issue. The concern I have is that if you make one amendment like this, then everybody else, when it has been done, can come and argue the case where we should have made others and it's just one big fiasco.

I've got to question the parliamentary assistant. He said this in his last comment, but I want to be sure that as far as the legal matter you brought up, as far as the advice you got from legal counsel, this amendment wouldn't make one bit of difference anyway, because it doesn't come into effect until after this election. The request is that the amendment goes through so that, as I understand it, there is one more councillor representing East York for this coming election for the next three years. I think the understanding was that it's a one-time deal except that the new council could determine that they could carry forward that representation. It's their decision after anyway, regardless. I suppose they could increase representation regardless.

As far as what has come forward, from the legal advice we've got now, the proposal or what is in the amendment, we couldn't even do that because as of January 1, 1998, this comes into effect. That's after, obviously, this November's election, and therefore this wouldn't help anyway.

Mr Gilchrist: To answer your question, yes, Mr Froese, that is the basis of the ruling, that it would not apply. Let me go further. We've certainly had no assurance from either of the two opposition House leaders that they are keen to cooperate in terms of third reading to this or any other bill. So it's fair for Mr Silipo to say a section can be proclaimed early, but I'm sure he would agree with me that you can't proclaim bills before they are passed through third reading.

If there is no third reading between now, for example, and the nomination deadline, which is next week, then you have another problem. I would have to say it would be extraordinarily unfair. It's one thing for people to look at the slate of candidates, think that there are two who will win and say to themselves, "I'm confident that Mr X and Mrs Y are the front runners, and I don't believe it would be worth my while to run." If in fact you knew today that the top three would win, it may very well change the decision that a number of people in East York have about throwing their hat in the ring, because they may not believe there is a strong third-place candidate in the current race.

If in fact we've now proclaimed the bill after the nomination deadline, if the suggestion is that that's appropriate and that no one in East York had the right to go in and run for, in effect, that third spot --

Ms Lankin: You're making up a suggestion here.

Mr Gilchrist: No. I'm saying in a very practical sense that because there is absolutely no guarantee and not even a suggestion that this bill will have third reading before the nomination date, that's another huge variable that throws into it. The bottom line is that this bill would merely create a vacancy on January 1.

Mr Colle: We're ready to give it all-party support.

Mr Gilchrist: I thought you weren't going to be part of this sham, Mr Colle. I believe, unless the Toronto Star reporter is incorrect, you said you walked out and weren't going to be part of this any longer.

Mr Silipo: Let's end this crazy zoo and get on with it. Let's get to a vote.

The Chair: Are you finished, Mr Froese?

Mr Froese: I'm a little bit confused. You bring something else, Mr Gilchrist, too. You're saying that if this doesn't even get to third reading and passed before -- when are the nominations?

Mr Colle: October 10.

Mr Froese: The cutoff date is October 10. If this doesn't get done by October 10, it won't work either.

1650

Mr Gilchrist: It would be another extraordinarily awkward situation that's created and I think would make it even less fair.

Mr Froese: So we've got two things. It's got to get third reading and passed and royal assent by October 10; and even if that happens, the bill doesn't come into effect until January 1. Again this whole amendment doesn't --

Mr Gilchrist: It may solve part of the problem, but as it stands right now it does not deliver on what Ms Lankin proposed.

Ms Lankin: I don't want to prolong this, because I think we've canvassed all the issues. I just have three quick points of response to Mr Gilchrist.

First of all, to suggest that one of the problems would be that people didn't come forward through the Bill 103 hearings with respect to this, I point out to you that the whole concept of community councils didn't exist until the amendments after the hearings and that people from East York in particular were much more focused on defeat of Bill 103 than they were on making it happen, and this is a suggestion in the context of making it work at this point in time.

Your argument with respect to other neighbourhoods in Scarborough, while I wouldn't at all denigrate the importance of those neighbourhoods and their sense of neighbourhood, I don't think it is appropriate to say that the ward of East York is only coincidentally a former borough. That's the very issue that we're talking about here in a period of transition and giving life to that identity.

I just want to address truly the legal issue and the issue with respect to third reading, because, Mr Froese, I don't think you're getting full information at this point in time. There is, first of all, a time allocation motion in place. Third reading is time-allocated. The government calls this bill Monday; we vote on it at 6 o'clock Monday. There's no way the opposition parties can stop third reading of this bill. Quite frankly, with respect to this amendment, if this is in there, you're going to get the cooperation of the opposition parties, because we want this to work. So that is not an issue, and I hope you will accept, understanding there's a time allocation motion, it is not an issue. It can be passed third reading. Royal assent is a signature, and that is done all the time.

The government has the ability to proclaim that section in advance. Even if they didn't, the fact is that the community would know and the announcements would be made that there would be three positions as of January 1, two who could take their seat immediately and the third who could take their seat as of January 1 through a process of resolution of the council approved by the provincial government.

You don't have to go that route, because it can be proclaimed in advance. This can be dealt with. Those are not strong legal arguments. I appreciate that you only received that advice today. I'm surprised in a sense, given that I provided the amendments weeks and weeks ago to avoid just that, but I do know from my time as a minister and having worked around problems like this with respect to bills when we get into the crunch, that this can be dealt with.

I would hope, Mr Froese, if you are inclined to support this on the basis of some fairness to a community that was once its own borough, it's not like every other ward in the new city, you will not take the arguments, the legal argument or the third reading argument, to heart.

Just before we move to a vote on this, I see that Mr Hastings has left and I would like to request unanimous consent for Mr Parker to be subbed in to be able to participate in the vote on this.

The Chair: Unanimous consent that Mr Parker be substituted for Mr Hastings. Agreed?

Mr Froese: I have a question.

Mr Flaherty: He's going to come back.

Ms Lankin: He can come back for the purpose of this vote.

Interjections.

The Chair: I'm trying to get unanimous consent here and everybody's talking.

Mr Froese: I guess I'm trying to understand unanimous consent.

The Chair: I heard a no.

Mr Froese: You can sub somebody on with unanimous consent in committee?

The Chair: Ms Lankin, I heard a no. There are a few minutes left. Are you finished, Ms Lankin?

Ms Lankin: Yes. I think there's nothing more to say, and quite frankly I would suggest at this point in time, given that the government just blocked the possibility of Mr Parker voting on this issue for his own riding, I don't know why we bother talking any more. Why don't we just vote?

Mr Gilchrist: The final point I would want to make on the record. I will assume the honourable member did not have a copy of the time allocation motion in front of her, but I would certainly want to correct the record on her behalf that the bill is not being ordered for third reading on October 6.

Mr Silipo: It can be.

Mr Gilchrist: That's not what she said.

The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, you can't correct Ms Lankin's statements.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm reading from the time allocation motion, if I may, "That the committee shall report the bill to the House on October 6." I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.

The Chair: Is there further debate? Mr Parker.

Mr Parker: Just briefly on the legal point, and I'm mindful of the clock, I would urge the committee not to allow the legal argument to influence their vote on the principle of this proposal.

First of all, I'm not suggesting that the legal opinion is wrong. I simply want to suggest that there's a possibility that it might be wrong, and it would be prejudicial of us here and now to assume that legal opinion is the be-all and end-all on this point. It may be that the opinion is subject to error or it may be that there is a mechanism for addressing the issue that is raised by the opinion. I just want to bring that point to the members of the committee to consider as they vote on this point.

I also want to suggest that even if the opinion is right, by putting forward the principle of this motion -- I want to say that I was just as surprised by this legal point as everybody else. I didn't know that argument was out there or that it was going to be brought forward. If we proceed on the principle behind the motion and it turns out that the legal opinion is correct, then maybe there are steps that could be taken to amend the amendment to address the objection raised by the legal opinion. It's important that we get the principle forward for further debate and possible further amendment at third reading.

Just off the top of my head, maybe an amendment could be made so that -- I guess the suggestions have already been made that the provision be put forward that whoever comes in third be brought in at the first of the year. Maybe that's one way of doing it. Just because there is a legal opinion out there that suggests that this particular amendment in its particular form at this time might not work, it should not discourage members of the committee from voting on the principle represented by the motion. If there are legal problems with that principle, let's work those out between now and the vote on third reading.

The Chair: We have two more minutes.

Mr Froese: There are all kinds of conflicting information now. Ms Lankin brings forward that this can happen, this can happen and that can happen. There's no guarantee that any of it is going to happen.

Ms Lankin: Or that he's not right either.

Mr Froese: That's the whole point. There's no point that it's going to get third reading to end on Monday. There's no point. There's an assumption that's being made.

Ms Lankin: It is in the control of the government.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, Mr Froese has the floor.

Mr Froese: But that's an assumption that it's going to make.

Ms Lankin: You control it; we don't.

Mr Froese: You're making an assumption that there's a resolution by the transition committee that effective January 1 they're going to make a motion that allows a third person to be on council. I don't know.

Ms Churley: Steve, this is a dirty trick you've played.

Interjections.

The Chair: Are we finished?

Mr Silipo: A recorded vote, Chair.

The Chair: We've got time for a recorded vote.

Ayes

Colle, Sergio, Silipo.

Nays

Flaherty, Froese, Gilchrist, Munro.

The Chair: The motion fails.

Ms Churley: What a sham.

Ms Lankin: This next amendment is withdrawn, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Silipo, you're the only one who can withdraw it.

Mr Silipo: I'll withdraw it, Chair.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we have now come to 5 o'clock. I trust you don't need me to read the sections in the time allocation motion. We all know the rules. We will therefore proceed with the continuation of the amendments pursuant to the time allocation motion.

Shall sections 119 to 123, inclusive, carry? Sections 119 to 123, inclusive, have carried.

There is an amendment on page 35. Shall that motion carry? It's a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? That motion carries.

Shall section 124, as amended, carry? Section 124, as amended, is carried.

Shall section 125 carry? Section 125 is carried.

A government motion on page 36 for section 126. Shall that motion carry? That motion is carried.

Shall section 126, as amended, carry? Section 126, as amended, is carried.

Shall sections 127 to 134, inclusive, carry? Sections 127 to 134, inclusive, have carried.

I rule that the government motion on page 37 which amends section 135 is out of order for the same reason that I ruled with respect to the two New Democratic Party motions at the outset.

Shall section 135 carry? Section 135 is carried.

Shall section 136 carry? Section 136 is carried.

Shall section 137, which is the short title, carry? Section 137, being the short title, is carried.

There is an amendment on page 38 which is an amendment to the schedules. Shall the government amendment on page 38, which is the amendment to the schedules, carry? That amendment to the schedules, as set forth on page 38, the government motion, is carried.

Shall the schedule, as amended, carry? The schedule, as amended, is carried.

Shall the long title of the bill carry? The long title of the bill is carried.

Shall Bill 148, as amended, carry? Bill 148, as amended, is carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? I will report the bill, as amended, to the House.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr Froese: The subcommittee report.

The Chair: No way. We'll deal with the subcommittee report next Thursday morning at 10 o'clock. I will adjourn these proceedings until that time.

The committee adjourned at 1703.