CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (NO 2)
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES (CONTINUED)
CONTENTS
Thursday 18 September 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
Statement by the minister and responses, G-4428
Hon Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mr Mike Colle
Mr Tony Silipo
Mr John Hastings
Ms Julia Munro
Mr Steve Gilchrist
Mr Alan Tonks; Mr Michael Gee; Mr Paul Sutherland
Municipality of Etobicoke
Mr Doug Holyday
Ms Bronwyn Drainie
Mr Sean Sloan
Ms Margaret Simpson
Mr Terry Godwin
Mr John Sewell
Subcommittee report
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)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Ms Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister,
Office of the Greater Toronto Area, MMAH
Mr David Spring, director, legal branch, MMAH
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel
Ms Susan Swift, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in room 151.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (NO 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): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a sitting of the standing committee on general government. This morning we are commencing proceedings on Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: Committee members, you have an agenda before you. There are other documents in front of you as well. I think Mr Silipo has given us a proposed resolution, which we will deal with at the appropriate time. We also have a subcommittee report. Maybe we could start with that. Someone perhaps could present the report to the committee.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I move the adoption of the subcommittee report as follows:
The subcommittee met on Wednesday 10 September 1997 and agreed to the following:
1. That the minister be offered 15 minutes in which to make a presentation. Each of the three parties will then have 15 minutes to ask questions and make opening statements.
2. That the transition team be offered 15 minutes in which to make a presentation. Each of the three parties will then have 15 minutes to ask questions and make statements.
3. That ministry staff will be in attendance throughout the committee's hearings to answer questions from the members.
4. That the remaining time for public hearings be offered to the seven municipal governments.
Each municipality will be offered one hour in which to make a presentation. Time slots will be offered on a first-come, first-served basis. The presentations of these municipal governments will be encouraged to encompass a number of different perspectives and that members of these different views be present to answer questions from the committee. These perspectives include the concerns of the municipality, as well as matters affecting municipal employees, local constituents, and those boards and agencies that will be affected by this legislation.
5. That an advertisement will be placed on the Ontario parliamentary channel.
6. That the deadline for written submissions will be September 30, 1997.
7. That there will be no opening statements during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
8. That the legislative research officer will prepare a summary for the committee by September 30, 1997.
9. That the Chair is authorized to begin the meetings even if there is not representation from all three parties.
10. That requests by witnesses to have their expenses paid by the committee will not be accepted.
11. That the Chair, in consultation with the clerk, will make any other decisions necessary with respect to the public hearings or the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
12. That the information contained in this subcommittee report may be given out to interested parties immediately, as opposed to after the committee has voted on it.
13. That the clerk has the authority to implement the decisions of the subcommittee immediately.
The Chair: A motion that this report be adopted. Debate? Discussion?
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Just a couple of quick questions first. I honestly don't want to take a long time on this, because I am eager to get on with hearing particularly the minister and the transition team this morning.
Could I just understand the latest situation we have, either from you or from the clerk, with respect to this afternoon? I understand that in addition to the municipalities, we have now managed to schedule in a number of citizens. Can we all be brought up to date on that?
The Chair: Mr Silipo, I'm going to let the clerk speak on that. It is my understanding that at least one of the municipalities wasn't prepared to speak at the time we offered and there was extra time available. I'll let the clerk indicate to you what we have done.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): Essentially that is correct. At about 10 to 5 yesterday I was informed that Barbara Hall wouldn't be able to attend today, nor would Mel Lastman be able to attend today. He may be able to take a half-hour slot on September 25. We had an amount of time to use and the decision was made that we would randomly select individual citizens who had requested to present on this bill from those who had called my office. We randomly selected 12 people and we've offered them 10 minutes. Right now we have one individual at 4:30, Ms Drainie. Messages should be coming back to my office and hopefully we can schedule additional individuals this morning.
Mr Silipo: That's helpful and I appreciate the clerk's proceeding with that. As you know, we've been discussing that concern that's come to our attention over the last couple of days. I just want to be clear, in my view, of the approach we took that I certainly agreed to as we discussed it, and I don't want to make any issue of that with respect to how we're going to schedule the time, albeit very limited, we have for hearings on this bill, the nine hours we have to deal with this: that we ask the municipal governments to pull together a one-hour presentation encompassing not just the concerns the mayors themselves might have but those of citizens as well as the various organizations within the different municipalities. That was the way we thought we would try to make the best of a pretty lousy situation, at least as I saw it, in terms of the time.
As you know, Chair, I've given you a motion requesting that the committee ask for additional time to hear citizens and organizations that wish to address the committee. I would like that dealt with still. I believe that there may very well be a need to do that. I am prepared to wait and deal with that later today, if you wish, because I don't know what the situation is going to be in terms of how many people we're going to be able to schedule. We're now in the situation where we are offering people a time, but unfortunately we're doing it at a fairly late point in time, so we may find ourselves in an awkward situation of not being able to fill the time this afternoon, yet knowing that there are a number of people who want to speak. My concern is that we need to have some flexibility in that, as I say, whether we deal with --
The Chair: I indicated at the outset that you can present your resolution. We now have a subcommittee report on the floor. Maybe you could restrict your comments to that. I have indicated that if you wish to make the proposed motion after that, you are quite welcome.
Mr Silipo: That's fine. I assume that it would have to be done by way of amendment to number 4 particularly, but if you want to deal with it separately, that's okay too. It's as you wish.
The Chair: It's your show, Mr Silipo. If you wish to amend the subcommittee report, that's fair too.
Mr Silipo: Maybe I'll do that just by adding to 4. No, actually let's deal with that and then I'll place it as an additional motion. Okay, that's fine.
The Chair: Okay. Further discussion?
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I'm not sure of the intention in terms of restricting the submissions just from municipalities and the representatives of the transition team. I wasn't part of the subcommittee discussions and I'm not sure what the goal was of the subcommittee in terms of formatting it this way, where individuals were not part of the original pattern of making deputations. I suspect, in a normal sequence of events, that usually individuals are allowed to make representations to the committee.
I am surmising, wasn't it the intention of the subcommittee to exclude individuals, given the time constraints, possibly? I would hope that the committee and the Chair agree to make some room, and I think some kind of meaningful room, so there can be individual deputations. I certainly, on behalf of my party, support anything that would allow for correcting the exclusionary approach of the subcommittee report. Whether it be intentional or not, you were probably constrained by the time situation. Being considerate of this would certainly help to ensure that everybody participated, that there are individuals who want to make presentations. I know some of them were phoned late last night, and that is just not adequate time for them to be involved in a meaningful way. I would hope, whether it be this day or in the next session of the committee, that there be a process whereby individuals be given notice and be given the opportunity to participate fully, if they wish, as individuals. That's what I'm talking about basically, individuals, not so much the organizations that have already been contacted.
The Chair: Mr Colle, I am bound by the House and I am bound by whatever process this committee chooses. The subcommittee has suggested a process and that process could be changed if the committee saw fit. Representatives from all three parties were on the subcommittee, as you know.
I'm open if anyone wishes to change the subcommittee report, but we're now debating the subcommittee report. Any further debate? All those in favour of --
Interruption.
The Chair: No. No. Here come the stunts.
Interruption.
The Chair: Mr Sewell, you have to be elected to talk on this resolution and --
Interruption.
The Chair: That's right, a hearing, not a talking. We're recessed for half an hour.
The committee recessed from 1017 to 1047.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll try this again. We have before us a resolution to accept the report of the subcommittee. Is there further debate?
Mr Silipo: Two things: As you've noted, I have a motion that I wanted to put. In addition, after we deal with this, I want to suggest to you that I'm prepared, in light of the way the morning has developed, to simply have that motion tabled. That motion, as you know, would ask that we seek permission of the House to schedule additional meetings in order to be able to hear citizens and organizations that wish to address the committee. Until we have a clearer picture this afternoon of where things are at, I'm happy to do that, if it's helpful, so that we can get on with the proceedings at this point.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, I appreciate your telling me all this, but I'm trying to dispose of this subcommittee report and you want to get on with your resolution. Perhaps we could deal with the subcommittee report.
Mr Silipo: I am going to deal with the subcommittee report.
The Chair: Mr Sergio.
Mr Silipo: Sorry, I'm not finished. On the subcommittee report, I'm just conscious of the time, as I'm sure we all are, in that we had two hours scheduled this morning. We obviously don't have two hours left according to our schedule. Before we vote on this, I just want to be clear about what you would propose we do with the time this morning. I appreciate that the minister is here. I'm eager to hear him, but I also want to make sure we hear the transition team.
The Chair: I guess that's fair, because that is referred to in the subcommittee report. My position is that we are now subject to the -- I am in the hands of the committee. We had set aside from 10 to 11 for the minister and his staff and questions from members. As you know, Mr Silipo, it is a proposal of the subcommittee to deal with representatives from the transition team and questions from the committee members from 10 to 11. The difficulty is that we're now at almost 11 o'clock.
Mr Silipo: That's why I asked the question.
The Chair: We will have a vote in the House at 12. The transition team -- we have a bit of a problem for them. We would have to reconvene. Hopefully representatives from that team would be available to reconvene with that this afternoon. I'd like to be Mandrake the Magician, but I'm not. We've lost an hour this morning.
Mr Silipo: I understand that. You chose to recess the meeting for half an hour and that's fine; that's within your prerogative as Chair to do. I just want to be clear that in adopting this motion we're not going to be precluded from hearing at some point from the transition team. That's why I raise the issue now before we vote on this.
The Chair: That's what the Chair is proposing. If members of the committee don't like what the Chair is proposing, I should hear from you now.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): What's your proposal again?
The Chair: My proposal is that we will hear from the minister from 11 to 12, and I know this amends the subcommittee report --
Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I have another --
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): He can't stay until 12.
The Chair: The minister is telling me and I think the parliamentary assistant is telling me he can't stay until 12, so we have a further problem. First of all, let's clarify it. Minister, how long can you stay this morning?
Hon Mr Leach: I have another commitment at 11:30. I could probably be a little bit late for that meeting but I have to be out of here by 20 to 12 at the very latest.
The Chair: Then, members of the committee, I would recommend that if the transition team is available, we start with the transition team at 11:30. Any objections to that?
Mr Silipo: And have them come this afternoon.
The Chair: We would ask them to come back. Hopefully they will. It looks like we will not have time for questions of the minister. Is that fair?
Interruption.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to recess and I'm going to clear this room if you continue to do this.
Mr Silipo: Could I just try to be helpful? If the minister is only available till 11:30, can we not just try to sort that time out and have the minister shorten his comments? We can all shorten our question time and deal with that, okay?
The Chair: Again, if that's what the committee wishes. Any objection to that? Okay. Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: I'll let Mr Colle go first, but I wish to make some comments.
Mr Colle: I'm just wondering whether first of all we can, as an amendment to the subcommittee report, direct staff to fill in those times, to be confirmed at the end of today, with people who are present if they wish to do so. There are some spaces.
The other thing is, is it possible that --
The Chair: Are you proposing an amendment, Mr Colle?
Mr Colle: Yes.
The Chair: Where are you proposing that to?
Mr Colle: That's to section 4: that people here today be asked to fill in those slots if they're willing to do so.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Colle: The second part of my amendment: As you know, we're constrained by the time allocation motion in terms of when we can end the day. I wonder if it's possible, to accommodate more individuals who want to make presentations, whether we can start next Thursday at 8 in the morning so that individuals who want to make deputations can make them. We don't have to go back to the House to get that kind of approval. It's something we can do that will give us an opportunity to hear from more people. If we get approval from the House for extension, fine, but at least we can start next Thursday at 8 am and have individual citizens given the opportunity to make deputation before the committee at next Thursday's scheduled meeting. Those are my two --
The Chair: We now have an amendment to the motion. Is there debate on the amendment? So the amendment is twofold: one, to direct the clerk, if there is time available this afternoon, to call individuals at his discretion, or is it --
Mr Colle: For the clerk's staff to contact even people who are here in the audience. Some of them may want to speak, to express an interest.
The Chair: Mr Colle, I've got to be clear as to what you're saying.
Mr Colle: If the clerk's staff can contact and ask people who are here present -- some of them have already written in to speak and they're on the list, so on a face-to-face basis, if they can be asked whether they want to fill in these slots that are open.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): How do we decide who's going to speak?
Mr Colle: Ask the first two or three who want to speak.
The Chair: So you're asking that the clerk ask people in this room today?
Mr Colle: Yes, who have already asked to speak to this committee.
The Chair: All right. The second thing you're proposing is that we commence the hearings next Thursday at 8 o'clock.
Mr Colle: At 8 am, and invite individual citizens who are on the list to speak in those time slots.
The Chair: From 8 until 10 o'clock?
Mr Colle: Yes.
The Chair: Further discussion on the amendment?
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I will be voting against the amendment because I have commitments next Thursday morning, actually every Thursday morning at 8 o'clock. I'm on other committees and I can't be here, so why would I vote for the amendment? It's in two separate sections now, I guess.
Interruption.
The Chair: I don't think I have enough time to warn the audience. There will be no more warnings. I'll make it clear right now that interjections, as you know, are not permitted. I am saying at this stage that if there are any further interjections, I will recess and I will ask the security to clear the room, with the exception of staff of members, staff of the ministry and media.
Further debate on the amendment?
Mr Silipo: Briefly, if it's going to be helpful, I wonder if Mr Colle might also accept as a friendly suggestion having the amendment dealt with as two separate amendments. I sense that there may be agreement on the first part and I for one wouldn't want to jeopardize that even if the government members are not going to oppose the second part that deals with the extension.
Mr Colle: I have no problem with voting on them separately.
Mr Gilchrist: We have a problem. Mr Colle may not have heard the clerk, or understood. We've already contacted 12 people who sent in their names and have requested to speak this afternoon. You have a bit of a problem in that we've already gone that route. The bottom line is that you would now be pre-empting them for others. It was done fair and square. I witnessed the clerk draw them at random.
Mr Colle: This has to be confirmed.
Mr Gilchrist: He has made 12 phone calls, even though there are only nine spots, to make sure that we had three extra names just in the off chance that three people couldn't attend. It has been done fairly. Seventy-one people had sent their names in, and from those 71 the clerk threw all the letters into a box and then drew 12 names out of there. He has satisfied exactly what you're asking for, but the phone calls have already been made.
Mr Colle: So these are incorrect, then. There should be names in there that have confirmed.
Mr Gilchrist: Yes, they've been phoned and told --
Clerk of the Committee: As of last night I'd only been in touch with one individual and left messages on the rest of the machines. My office now may have additional messages, additional people wishing to speak.
Mr Colle: Sorry, I'm not getting the same message. These two slots, 4:40 and 5:30, it says "To be confirmed." Are there people slotted in there, real, live people? That's all I ask.
Clerk of the Committee: No. I made the calls last night and I hadn't had anyone scheduled, but my staff is continuing to try to schedule people for those slots. As things stand right now, there could be --
Mr Colle: That's the opposite to what the parliamentary assistant is saying.
Mr Gilchrist: No, he has made the phone calls. He has made the offer already.
Mr Colle: There are people here who could fill those slots.
The Chair: Mr Sergio, I apologize for missing you before.
Mr Sergio: We are dealing with disposing of the next hour. We have the next hour to decide what we are going to do and it's unfortunate that we have just wasted half an hour. The recess could have been five or 10 minutes. I don't want to waste another half an hour debating about what we are going to do in the afternoon.
If there are any time spots that people have not confirmed, I believe we should call the odds and fill in those hours with whoever wants to speak instead of adjourning for the next 10, 15 or 20 minutes. But let's speak to the hour we have available here. I suggest that I don't think Mr Leach is going to be back in the afternoon; I have that gut feeling. I think he's a very busy man and he might not come back, and the members of the transition team as well.
I'd like to hear from Mr Leach this morning and from the transition team according to what we have said, 15 minutes each, and then the remaining half-hour or whatever is for the three parties to ask questions of Mr Leach and the transition team. We can table the motion with the amendment and then we can debate, if you will, how we are going to fill those spots. I think it would be very simple. I don't care if we're going to get people from Scarborough or North York or Etobicoke or if we hear from people who are here in the audience. If there are spots open, then we can invite anyone from anywhere present in the room to make a submission in that particular time slot. But at the moment I'm interested in employing the next hour. I think we should proceed accordingly with the minister, the transition team and the three parties. I would make that suggestion now.
Hon Mr Leach: I committed to spend an hour with the committee and I'm quite prepared to spend that hour with the committee. If we run short of time this morning, I would be prepared to come back and spend the remaining part of that hour, whatever it is, after question period this afternoon.
The Chair: Any further debate on the amendment? Mr Colle, just so I'm clear, we're splitting it. We're recommending that the subcommittee report allow the clerk to ask members of the audience if they wish to speak for 10-minute slots starting some time this afternoon, because we now have Mr Leach possibly coming back and possibly the transition team coming back. Do I understand, Mr Colle, that you're telling the clerk not to make further calls to individuals?
Mr Colle: Right, to try and fill with people who are here and wish to speak.
1100
The Chair: So he should discontinue those calls. The second amendment is to commence the proceedings next Thursday morning at 8 am.
We will ask for a vote on the first amendment, which is directing the clerk to -- if time permits this afternoon, after hearing from the minister, after hearing from the transition team and after hearing from the municipality of Etobicoke -- offer 10-minute slots to members of the public who are here this morning.
Mrs Munro: I just want to ask for clarification. Since the clerk has told us that he has made phone calls, I'm concerned about pre-empting people who have been asked to make submissions. I'm not sure that this amendment makes clear the principle of guaranteeing those people the first priority.
Mr Silipo: Just so that we're clear here -- please let's not mince words on this -- I take Mr Colle's amendment to be an attempt to try and make sure that we fill the time this afternoon with people who want to speak to us. Obviously the clerk has already made some calls. If those people reply and say they want to speak, then those people would be slotted in. In addition to that, there are people here who have indicated that they would be willing and able to speak this afternoon. I suspect that a number of those people are also on that list of 71 people.
The Chair: That's the Chair's understanding too. What Mr Colle's amendment --
Mr Silipo: I think the intent is, let's make sure, if there is time this afternoon, that we fill that with people who want to speak. The clerk can work out the details.
The Chair: I agree. That's my understanding of what Mr Colle's amendment is. Do we all understand? All those in favour of that first amendment? Opposed? That proposed amendment fails.
Mr Sergio: I believe we had one in favour, three, four --
The Chair: Mr Sergio, I have held that this particular amendment fails. We're now on to the second amendment. Any further questions on the second amendment, which is to start the proceedings next Thursday at 8 am -- from 8 until 10 -- to enable members of the public to speak to the committee at that time. Are we all clear? All those in favour of that proposed amendment? Opposed? That proposed amendment fails.
We are now on to the main resolution, which is accepting the reports of the subcommittee. All those in favour of that report?
Mr Sergio: Are you done with my amendment as well that we hear the minister, the transition team and then the three parties this morning?
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Sergio --
Mr Sergio: Actually, we would be following the agenda as it is.
The Chair: Mr Sergio, just so you're clear what my understanding is, obviously it was the assumption that these proceedings were going to start at 10; it's now 11 o'clock. There is a vote in the House at 12 o'clock. I will adjourn the proceedings at 12 o'clock to enable members to go and vote. We will reconvene at 3:30. The minister has indicated that he is prepared to come back this afternoon if available. I hope members of the transition team will be able to come back at that time as well. I hope that the municipality of Etobicoke will be available to push their time down. It's as simple as that.
All those in favour of the subcommittee report? All those opposed? The report has been accepted by the committee.
Mr Silipo, what are we going to do with your resolution?
Mr Silipo: I'm still willing to let that stand and hope that the members of the government will reflect on that. I think there will be a need for additional time. I don't want to spend more time dealing with that this morning.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
The Chair: Minister, thank you for your patience. We are now ready to proceed with you. Good morning.
Hon Mr Leach: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here for the start of hearings on Bill 148, a bill that will ensure the continuity of services for residents of the new city of Toronto. The City of Toronto Act, 1997, which was passed by the Legislature in April of this year, will create one strong, unified city in order to improve economic development, reduce waste and duplication, save taxpayers money and provide better accountability. That legislation provides a framework for the new city.
It was drafted with the understanding that a companion piece would be required to deal with the administrative, technical and specific transitional matters around the move to one city. Bill 148, the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2), is that companion legislation. It provides for the legislative changes needed to ensure the new city has the legal and administrative authority it needs to function. The bill serves a number of purposes: It maintains certain boards and agencies; ensures continuity of municipal services; and protects the pensions and benefits of municipal employees and retirees.
The first purpose, maintaining boards and agencies, would ensure for example that the Toronto Transit Commission, Exhibition Place and the Metro zoo continue to operate as usual after January 1, 1998. The second purpose, continuity of service, would ensure that the new city has the authority needed to provide the municipal services that people expect, such as public transit. People need to know that the services they use every day will continue uninterrupted when the new city of Toronto comes into being on January 1, 1998. The third aspect of this bill would protect the pensions and benefits of municipal and local board employees and retirees.
There is no question that these very important obligations should continue to be honoured by the new city. Bill 148 provides the legislative continuity required to ensure that they will. It is important for residents to understand that continuity of service is a priority. Bill 148 is needed to ensure that the transition to a unified city is smooth and seamless. That priority is reflected in the content of the bill itself. This legislation would ensure that the new city of Toronto is legally authorized, as its predecessors were under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, to provide many services residents take for granted as well as some others that they may not think of very often.
The responsibilities the new city would be authorized to carry out are worth considering as we start this important process. I think everyone would agree that none of them are that surprising: Ambulance services would continue; policing and lifesaving services for the Toronto harbour would carry on as usual; homes for the aged would operate without disruption; conservation authority lands would continue to be maintained; the new city would take over the operation of the licensing commission; the Toronto Islands ferry would continue to shuttle residents and tourists across the harbour.
The new city would be given the authority to plan and act in case of an emergency. It would also take on the authority to enter into water supply and sewage treatment agreements. The new city of Toronto would have the authority to properly dispose of liquid and solid waste. The new city would continue to establish and operate controlled access roads.
As you can see, none of these are new or controversial powers. They are simply a continuation of powers currently afforded to Metro council, powers which will allow the new city to carry out the day-to-day responsibilities that residents expect it to undertake.
The bill before you also deals with some specific transitional issues. For example, it provides that the current official plans of the Metro area will continue until the new council repeals or amends them. The bill confirms that there would be one public health board, one library board, one historical board and one parking authority to ensure a cohesive structure is in place for the unified city.
Last but not least, this bill would allow the new city council to develop an area rating system which would help sort out any financial imbalances or service level disparities in the various municipalities. The new council could, for example, examine a former municipality's total financial picture and make adjustments to tax rates which would reflect its findings. In other words, if a former municipality had substantial reserves and very little debt or liability, the council could lower tax rates in the area of that municipality and could do so over an eight-year period. That seems to be very fair to me, as I'm sure it does to everyone else.
Bill 148 brings us one step closer to better government for the residents of the Metropolitan Toronto area. A unified Toronto will capture the imagination of business investors worldwide, and that means we will stand a better chance of attracting investment and strengthening both the local and greater Toronto area economy.
1110
The new city structure will mean better political accountability. Taxpayers won't have to deal with different levels of government, and one unified city will end waste and duplication. The new city structure will permit the establishment of one fire department to replace six, one roads department and not seven, and will mean a cohesive integration of many services.
In conclusion, one strong city will help create a solid greater Toronto area core. A unified Toronto will have the population, political representation and clout to ensure that the greater Toronto area and Ontario continue to be the economic engine of this country.
The City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) will ensure that the new Toronto council has the authority needed to continue to carry out its responsibilities as of January 1, 1998. It will also reassure residents that the transition to their new city is well under way and that a more efficient, effective and less costly government structure will result.
I know everyone will agree that the services Metro area residents have come to expect should be the same the day before and the day after the new city is born. Bill 148 helps ensure that continuity and should be passed quickly to provide a smooth transition and demonstrate that the best interests of Metro Toronto residents are a priority for this Legislature.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We have about 15 minutes, because I understand you're leaving at 11:30. Do I understand that you're prepared to come back this afternoon?
Hon Mr Leach: Yes.
The Chair: We had agreed that each caucus be allowed 15 minutes to either make a statement or question the minister. I will therefore give the 15 minutes that remain to the Liberal caucus. We will then reconvene with the New Democratic caucus and the Conservative caucus this afternoon. Is that agreed? Okay. Mr Colle.
Mr Colle: Thank you, Minister. One of the questions I have is about the ability, under this act, of the new council of the megacity to impose local levies on different parts of the new megacity. Let's take, for instance, the city of Toronto, where there are very few user fees for recreational services and library services. What if they wanted to continue that? Would that be considered a special service, and would a special new local levy be placed on the old city of Toronto because they continued to provide those services at no charge?
Hon Mr Leach: That would be up to the new council to determine. What we're trying to do is ensure that any municipality that has reserves can be assured that the reserves they have can be spent in that particular area of the city, and that would be for the new council to decide.
The last thing I think we need is for municipalities to be out scrambling, spending money on projects before they're required, just to ensure that the reserves are spent. That doesn't make any sense to me. We've put in legislation that allows those reserves to be spent, in the community which built the reserves, on projects in that area, which I think is fair.
By the way, it's not unique. It happens with just about every amalgamation that takes place around the province.
Mr Colle: I'm not talking about reserves here. I'm talking about user fees. As you know, the other municipalities have user fees for recreational services. The city of Toronto does not.
Hon Mr Leach: That will be up to the new council to determine. Whether they want to impose user fees for certain services, that's solely at their discretion.
Mr Colle: You're saying it doesn't prohibit the megacity council from imposing a special levy on the old city of Toronto because they don't have user fees for recreational services.
Hon Mr Leach: It will be the responsibility of that duly elected council to make decisions.
Mr Colle: So they can, in other words. They can impose a special levy because they don't charge user fees for library services or recreation service.
Hon Mr Leach: Or they could not. That would be at their discretion.
Mr Colle: It's permissible. It allows that to happen.
Hon Mr Leach: Or not to happen.
Mr Colle: Right. What happens, for instance, if the city of York, which has one garbage pickup a week, decides to go to two?
Hon Mr Leach: Again, that's at the discretion of the new council. They would have the ability to maintain the service levels in one part of the community that exist now, or have it unified, or phase it in over time. These are decisions the new council will make.
Mr Colle: Getting back to the special local levies and area taxes: Under this legislation, if you get a service you didn't have before, or one that another area doesn't have, the megacity council can impose a special tax on one of the older municipalities because they have what you consider in this legislation an additional service.
Hon Mr Leach: That would be at their discretion. They could either decide to do that or decide not to do that. This legislation is permissive. It gives them the responsibilities and powers to make those decisions, as they should have.
Mr Colle: The other thing is in terms of the reserves: You talk about a city that has a lot of reserves and doesn't have a problem in terms of its debt load, that they can have their taxes lowered. What about a city that doesn't have any reserves? The city of York basically has no reserves. What happens to them?
Hon Mr Leach: In what respect?
Mr Colle: In terms of their taxes. You said you can lower taxes if you have a lot of reserves in that area; you can use the reserves to lower taxes in that municipality.
Hon Mr Leach: You could use the reserves to do the projects that the reserves were established to carry out. You'd have reserves still.
Mr Colle: You specifically said that taxes can be lowered if you have substantial reserve funds, "very little debt or liability, the council could lower tax rates" in that area. Let's say the city of North York has large reserves. They could get their taxes lowered because they've got large reserves.
Hon Mr Leach: They could have a lower mill rate in that area to take into consideration the reserves they had. That's correct. That would be a decision --
Mr Colle: Therefore, let's say a poor city like York with no reserves -- what would happen to them? Their taxes could not be lowered, then.
Hon Mr Leach: They would have the standard mill rate, but if the new council decides to do that. This is permissive legislation to ensure that the new council has the ability to make that type of decision if it chooses to make that type of decision.
Mr Colle: In essence, you're going to have a pretty checkerboard tax rate across what is supposed to be a unified city.
Hon Mr Leach: They may or they may not. But we've also said that whatever it is, they have to phase that through within a period of eight years so that over that period you would get to one uniform tax rate right across the entire new city. But I think it's only fair and I think most people would agree that if a municipality has been prudent and has built reserves, the money that has been put into those reserves for certain projects should be spent in that area. I think that's a responsible thing to do. It's quite a common thing when amalgamations take place across the province and I think it's appropriate for the new city.
Mr Colle: Don't you see that there is another problem? There are disparate areas in Metro that through no fault of their own, because of lack of assessment, don't have an industrial-commercial base whereby they --
Hon Mr Leach: That's something --
Mr Colle: Let me finish, please. They could not build up reserves because they're basically trying to survive. Now, all of a sudden, when this is supposed to be a way of helping them, they're still being punished in those areas because they don't have reserves and they've never been able to build them up. Doesn't that punish the weaker municipalities or weaker areas?
Hon Mr Leach: You're recommending that the reserves for the city of North York be taken and spent in the city of York? Is that what you're recommending?
Mr Colle: No. I'm saying, won't you stop and consider the fact that there are areas of Metro where you have disparities, through no fault of their own, where they could not build up reserves? How do they get helped? Remember, the whole idea of this megacity was to even out the playing field and help the less fortunate areas.
Hon Mr Leach: That's exactly right.
Mr Colle: How does this help, for instance, cities like East York or York, which are low in reserves?
Hon Mr Leach: The council would have the ability to phase it in, if it chooses to do so, over an eight-year period or up to an eight-year period -- they could do it in a shorter time if they choose to -- to make sure those municipalities that did have reserves have the opportunity to spend them.
If you're suggesting that those communities that built reserves, like North York, should take those reserves and spend them in your community of York, you can make that recommendation to the new council. It would be their prerogative to either accept that or reject it.
Mr Colle: So there's no funding available in this transition to ensure that the poorer areas of Metro are helped through this?
1120
Hon Mr Leach: Again, it's the responsibility of the new council to determine what tax rates and what levies are applied across the whole city. They could start off on day one by having a uniform tax rate if they so chose. What this legislation does is give them the options and the ability to deal with the reserves if they choose to do so.
Mr Colle: Again in terms of services now, let's say one of these cities decides they want to have additional day care services, or let's say localized recreational services, and another area didn't have them. The megacity council could impose a special tax on them because they wanted a service that didn't exist, let's say, in another part.
Hon Mr Leach: All those decisions rest with the new council. If the council wants to have a special service in one area of the new city and they want to apply an increased mill rate to pay for that, that's their decision. I don't think they would do that, but they would have the ability under this legislation to do it if they so chose, or they could choose not to do that, and that's in their realm of responsibility.
Mr Colle: I have just one final question: In this compendium legislation there's not a word mentioned about your highly acclaimed community councils.
Hon Mr Leach: Because it's not necessary. Community councils were covered in Bill 103.
Mr Colle: Yes, but if you've got a compendium piece of legislation which basically puts teeth to Bill 103, which is essentially a dismantling bill, and if community councils are important, why are there no mechanisms in here that recognize their legitimacy and importance so they can carry out their functions as they relate to all these boards, agencies and commissions? For instance, how does a community council relate to the TTC?
Hon Mr Leach: What we're saying is that the new, duly elected council will have the ability to determine the roles and responsibilities of the community councils, not by legislation and not by government but by the duly elected members of the new council.
The Chair: Mr Colle, you and your colleague Mr Sergio have about five minutes left. Whatever you wish.
Mr Colle: Okay. Go ahead.
Mr Sergio: Minister, municipalities have been calling on you, on the government, to provide them with the cost of the downloading. Up to today you have not done so. I wonder if you will, and when? You're telling the municipalities and you're here today telling us that this will save taxpayers money, that this transition, this bill, this change to one city will save taxpayers money and provide better accountability. Can you tell me on both counts how municipalities are going to save money and how, with a council of 57 people, we're going to get better accountability for the people of the new city?
Hon Mr Leach: I think that's probably a better question to address to the transition team, which is working at the present time putting the draft 1998 budget together. In my conversations with the transition team and with politicians throughout Metro, I'm advised that they are quite confident that they can produce a budget that will not have any tax increase whatsoever, perhaps some tax savings. In fact, Mayor Lastman of North York, your community, has indicated that he's confident there won't be any need for any tax increases.
Mr Sergio: I know. But Mr Leach, with all due respect, this is your bill. It's not the transition team's bill. This is your bill. This is what you're doing. This is what you're imposing on the local municipalities. Even this morning in your presentation you were telling us that the TTC will continue to operate as usual, as well as the zoo and Exhibition Place and the nursing homes and the care homes. Can you please tell us, the municipalities, the people of Metro Toronto, how we can accomplish that when the downloading is going to cost municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars?
Hon Mr Leach: Well, it won't.
Mr Sergio: It's not the transition team. It is your doing, so please tell us how municipalities are going to accomplish that.
Hon Mr Leach: Perhaps if you had listened to the statements that have been made by the Premier and by myself on numerous occasions, at public meetings and in the House, that the change of service delivery between the municipalities and the province will be revenue-neutral -- there is no major increase in funding.
Mr Sergio: Give us the figures. What are the figures?
Hon Mr Leach: The figures are with the implementation teams now. There is a series of meetings planned to start, I believe, on October 6 throughout the province where each municipality will be presented with the exact figures they need for the separation of service deliveries.
Mr Sergio: One more question, Mr Leach: You did say and the Premier did say, "If there is a shortfall, we will cover that." If there is a shortfall, will you cover it?
Hon Mr Leach: We know that we have $570 million. We know there are certain municipalities that will incur costs that are going to take a transition team time to sort out, and we have a fund of $570 million to cover those additional costs.
Mr Sergio: That's a drop in the bucket. Supposing that next year and the year after --
Hon Mr Leach: It's an ongoing fund.
Mr Sergio: It's an ongoing fund?
Hon Mr Leach: Yes.
Mr Sergio: If there is no tax increase this year, next year, the year following but there is a shortfall, are you planning to offer to cover that shortfall year after year?
Hon Mr Leach: I'm quite confident that the municipalities throughout Ontario would have the ability and the skills to ensure that they can carry out the services they have to provide and not have tax increases. You have to remember that we're taking $2.5 billion in costs, that are at present on the property tax, off for education costs.
Mr Sergio: Yes, and you're downloading $4.5 billion on to municipalities.
Hon Mr Leach: No. As we've indicated --
Mr Sergio: My last question, because my time is running out: When will you be able to provide the local municipalities with the actual cost of the downloading?
Hon Mr Leach: I think I just said that a minute ago. October 6 is when the series of meetings will take place throughout the province.
Mr Sergio: You also said to ask the transition team. So the transition team, under your direction, should be able to answer that question.
Hon Mr Leach: The transition team, with the help of all the existing municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, is constructing a draft budget for 1998 for the new council to consider.
Mr Sergio: I see. So the transition team is already working on a budget on behalf of the new city, on behalf of the existing municipalities.
Hon Mr Leach: Yes.
Mr Sergio: How are the present local municipalities going to continue to offer the same services that you're saying will be offered as usual?
Hon Mr Leach: All the existing cities and all the financial officers in each of those cities are now working with the transition team to develop a draft budget which would be presented to the new council of Toronto for its consideration.
The Chair: The time has expired. Minister, I thank you for coming this morning and bearing with us. You've indicated that you would be prepared to return this afternoon. We've spoken to your staff, I might add, and we hope you'll be available to return at 4:30 for half an hour, if that's possible.
Hon Mr Leach: I was looking at right after question period, but let me see if I can --
The Chair: We can try to be flexible on that. The difficulty is that we've scheduled the municipality of Etobicoke at 3:30.
Hon Mr Leach: Do they have an hour?
The Chair: They have an hour. If the two of you can get together and work something out, that would be fine with the committee.
Hon Mr Leach: I'll go out right now and try to rearrange my schedule to be here at 4:30 and I'll certainly get back to you as quickly as I can.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes for this morning the presentation of the minister.
1130
ALAN TONKS
MICHAEL GEE
PAUL SUTHERLAND
The Chair: We now have the transition team representatives. Mr Tonks is with us, and some other people whom I trust he will introduce to us. Good morning, Mr Tonks. We've had some difficulty this morning and we're running a little out of time. I understand that you're available for half an hour this morning.
Mr Alan Tonks: Yes, we are, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: If you could proceed as soon as possible and if other members who are with you could identify themselves when they speak.
Mr Tonks: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, first of all thank you for giving us this opportunity to appear before you today. I'd like to introduce my two colleagues on the team: Michael Gee on my right and Paul Sutherland on my left, not necessarily in that part of the political spectrum, but none the less they are very flexible.
We are also appreciative of the opportunity to serve on the transition team. I'd like to bring to your attention, if you are not aware -- I'm sure everyone is -- that there's a very ambitious program of consideration before the team and that the team has a mandate to help give an orderly and efficient transition to the new, unified city. Before we legally dissolve the city as of January 1, there are a number of things we have to recommend to the new council.
Over the past summer, I don't think anybody has been busier than the members of the transition team, perhaps with the exception of you and maybe some of the people in the audience. I want to tell you that the public consultation we have had, while it has been exhaustive, has really invigorated democratic discussion of the new city and the form the new city is going to take. It has been an inclusive discussion; in fact, so inclusive that this morning we met with some of those who felt they had been excluded. I think that's a good illustration that we are really trying to reach out -- not pleasing everyone, but I can assure you we're trying.
Just to give you a sense of the level of interest, we've heard in public deputations from over 1,000 people. We've listened to them mainly on the focus of community councils and neighbourhood committees, but we have not just constrained ourselves to that. We've also invited written deputations and so on, on more broadly based concerns that people may have. We've involved over 800 municipal staff and we've had extraordinary cooperation from the staff. We have needed their expertise and their experience to figure out the intricacies of the governance and the recommendations we will be making.
We have also gone literally out on the streets, as you may know and be aware, asking people about their concerns and we have been surveying them. I'd like to say that you're damned when you do and you're damned when you don't. If you don't go out there and try to survey people and so on you're accused of not trying. Then when you try, you're accused of asking the wrong questions and so on.
The only defence I have, if it needs a defence in terms of asking people what they think, is that we've attempted to be open-minded and we have attempted to be inclusive. We've used university students. We haven't programmed them to ask dastardly questions. We're simply going out and asking people what they think. For the most part, the responses that have been coming back have been revealing and they have been public; so the process is public, and I think we're willing to take any criticism, if it comes, in the defence that we've attempted to be as open as we possibly can.
In the near future the team will be releasing an interim report. I think it's important that we understand the process with respect to the kinds of questions you're going to be asking. What we've attempted to do within a very short time frame is to go out, listen to people, do some surveying, set up focus groups, try to attend as many meetings of those focus groups as we can and listen to what the area municipalities are saying. On the basis of that intake, we are going to put together an interim report.
Then in the next 10 days we hope to have our report with its recommendations available to go back out and say: "We've listened to you and we've tried to address the issues that you said -- there's what we've come up with. What do you think of that?" Then we'll attempt again to amend that report. I think it's important that we understand that process.
The team's mandate does not include making decisions other than those related to hiring key executives. We are embarked on and engaged in doing that right now. All final decisions, if it hasn't been clearly defined before, are subject to the new council that is elected to implement them as it sees fit.
In addition to these activities, under the City of Toronto Act the team is also mandated to consider further legislation for implementing the act and make detailed recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is because of this section in the act that we are here before you today.
The details of the transition team's comments on Bill 148 are contained in a letter from myself on behalf of the team -- I have been authorized to sign same this morning -- that will be forwarded on to the minister. I'd just like here with the team to summarize some of the contents of that letter.
Bill 148 deals mostly with housekeeping items to enable a smooth transition to the new city of Toronto. We believe that the bill essentially accomplishes that goal. There are, however, several recommendations the transition team would like to make to the government that we believe will improve Bill 148. Mr Chairman, these are a synopsis of the letter we have sent to the minister and we are going to give them to you now.
At this point I'd ask Michael Gee if he would make the comments with respect to some of the areas he has been working on.
Mr Michael Gee: These comments I'm about to make may seem extremely technical in nature, but I assure you they are very important particularly to the initial operation of the new city. There does not appear to be included in Bill 148 any provision for what municipal treasurers call interim levy and instalment due dates. What normally happens in any given year is that the due dates for property taxes are settled some time in November or December. There are practical problems here to do with printing of tax bills and preparing them for distribution.
Normally the due date for the first instalment of taxes is anywhere from February 1 to February 15 among the six municipalities that send out the tax bills. This means that the tax bill must be received at least three weeks before, which would put it somewhere around the end of the first week of January. In order to do that and keep to that schedule, it is necessary to set those due dates for the 1998 interim levy some time in late November or early December. There is no provision in the bill for that to happen, and we would appreciate an amendment to the bill that would give the authority to the chief financial officer of the new city, who will be in place by that time, to set those due dates and do the necessary preplanning, that is the printing of the tax bills and that sort of thing, so that that can get out.
Any act of the chief financial officer, if such an amendment were available, would subsequently have to be confirmed by the new council. But if we were to wait until the new council is in place, it is likely and probably unavoidable that it would be at least a month's delay in the tax bills going out and the due dates being established. Every month of delay, I am told by various finance commissioners and treasurers in the city, would involve a loss of approximately $1 million for every four weeks of delay.
There is a corollary to that also in that there is no provision in the bill to permit interim borrowing. This is really a cash flow problem. Many of the municipalities are getting very low in cash at that time of year because the last bill has gone out with a due date of somewhere around September 1 to September 15. To tide them over that period, quite often it is quite necessary for some of the municipalities to borrow in the interim period. There is no provision for that in the bill. Once again, we request an amendment that would permit the treasurer and chief financial officer to do that, to borrow on an interim basis in order simply to pay salaries and keep things going, which subsequently would have to be confirmed by the council.
1140
There's another problem also in the fact that Bill 148 does not provide for insurance coverage by the new council. There is no one who can arrange for and enter into any contract for insurance until after January 1. There is a problem, therefore, that at the end of December 31, the existing contracts of the seven municipalities that cover their assets and their protection against liability will expire. Even if they don't expire, those municipalities no longer have an insurable interest in the asset they previously owned.
That asset has become, by virtue of Bill 103, the asset of the new city of Toronto. It will probably involve several weeks, I would think, of delay because generally insurance is done on a tender basis and that involves time. We would appreciate an amendment that would permit the new chief administrative officer, who will be in place by that time, or the chief financial officer, to make the arrangements for insurance coverage in the interim period until the council has an opportunity to take care of it itself on a more permanent basis.
That's the extent of the recommendations that it's in my bailiwick to make. I'd like to pass it over to Paul Sutherland to deal with some of the remainder.
Mr Paul Sutherland: Thank you, members of the committee. Because of time being a little short, I'll try to go through these fairly quickly, in the sense of recommendations, so there will be a chance for questions. One of the areas we've looked at is the preservation of heritage forms, which is very important for a community's identity and the quality of life for its residents. It looks in the existing legislation like the Toronto Historical Board may lose its charitable status for tax purposes and it might be difficult for the board to get that status back again. We would recommend a change to the legislation, that the bill be amended so the new Toronto Historical Board will be able to issue tax receipts for charitable donations.
I'd also like to draw your attention to some other issues in the scope of the bill which are important. They have to do with the need to have a seamless direction from the old cities to the new city, particularly in the zoning areas. Right now a number of councils are hearing many applications that are coming forward to deal with it. It involves zoning amendments and official plan amendments and it may not be possible, because of legislation parameters, to get them all heard in time. We are going to suggest to you today that we allow the old councils to come back in November or December, after the election, to deal with zoning, secondary plan or official plan, amendments from applications that were already in process.
We are not suggesting that anybody come back to deal with money matters or anything to that effect. The actual recommendation is that the government consider an amendment to Bill 148 that would exempt the old councils of Toronto, Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York, York and East York from section 107 of the Municipal Act specifically for bills to adopt amendments to zoning bylaws, secondary plans, official plans and site plan applications. This even goes, for example, for simple backyard decks that might be in the hoop, or even multimillion-dollar projects. That's a recommendation we make.
The transition team also supports recommendations by the boards of health to increase the number of board members in order to accommodate broader diversity of interests. The number would be greater than what is currently allowed under section 49 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. We would recommend an amendment to Bill 148 that would exempt the new Toronto board of health from those provisions of the Health Protection and Promotion Act which limit the number of board members. There is a suggested range that is coming in from the service teams of what those members would be. We're not suggesting right now what that number should be, but we believe it should be more than what's in the legislation right now.
In other matters, the transition team supports a resolution by the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to rename itself the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority. We recommend that change.
We also recommend that the guild board of management, which is currently covered under section 59 of Bill 148, be made a department of the new city. The board has not met in a couple of years and the guild staff are already municipal employees. We're recommending that change.
We're also aware that recommendations by Metro Toronto and other councils will likely be coming forward to you at another time. I heard Etobicoke earlier. I'll leave those suggestions. We haven't addressed those suggestions here. That's it, Mr Chair.
Mr Tonks: I'll just conclude by saying that on the whole, Bill 148 will assist the transition team and the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and their elected representatives in having an orderly, efficient and effective transition into the unified city. The way we see the challenge is to create a sense of solidarity to keep us on track with respect to creating that new structure together. Our best advice to you is the same advice we've been given. We've met with residents, business people, municipal staff, community organizations, agencies, lawyers, consultants, and all of them have provided their experience, their expertise. We will be using their suggestions to put our recommendations together. The best advice we can give you is that you too should listen and take their experience and their recommendations in terms of amending the bill as appropriate.
I think that's all we have to say. We'd be pleased to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming and making a presentation to us this morning. The clerk informs me that you're unable to return this afternoon, members of the team?
Mr Tonks: We've scheduled a pretty tight appointment this afternoon.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I understand that if people are scheduled and they're not able to come, but we have another time slot next week. I hope that we will be able to schedule the transition team back next week to be able to complete the presentations and questions. There are some important issues that I certainly think we should all get an opportunity to address.
Mr Tonks: What day is that, Mr Chairman, if I may just get a clarification on that?
Mr Silipo: It's next Thursday.
The Chair: Excuse me just a minute. Mr Tonks, one of the municipalities has indicated to us that they may or may not need the full time for next week. At this time I'm unable to tell you, and you too, Mr Silipo, whether or not we have a time available next week. I suggest that when that has been confirmed with that particular municipality, perhaps the clerk could confer with you and, if it's convenient for you, you could return at a convenient time for all of us.
Mr Tonks: I'll certainly do that.
The Chair: We have a few minutes left, not much. We've got time for about one question per caucus, assuming it's reasonable, and we'll start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Colle: Mr Gee made an interesting comment. He said, "the chief executive officer." You've hired him already?
Mr Tonks: Or her.
Mr Colle: No, he said, "him."
Mr Tonks: But I'm saying "or her."
Mr Gee: He or she is not yet hired, is not yet on board, but we're in an interview process.
Mr Colle: Will you have a clause in the contract that says that his or her hiring is subject to the approval of the new council?
Mr Gee: There will be a clause in the contract very similar to that. There would be a provision for the new council to remove that person in certain circumstances.
Mr Colle: I'm talking about approval of his or her contract.
Mr Gee: I think it's the same thing, with respect, Mr Colle. There will be a clause in the contract which would enable the new council, if it wished to do so, to end the contract.
Mr Colle: But there's no provision there for it to approve the hiring of that person.
Mr Gee: I don't mean to dance around the subject, but there is clearly --
Mr Colle: Old lawyers never stop dancing.
Mr Gee: There is clearly an opportunity in the new council to disapprove and to do something about it if they wish.
Mr Colle: In other words, they have to go through quite extensive legal proceedings.
Mr Gee: No. They would buy out the contract. It's as simple as that.
The Chair: Mr Sergio, you've got a very brief moment for a question.
Mr Sergio: I'll take a very brief moment for a very short question. I was asking Mr Leach one question this morning. In his presentation he said that the new bill would provide the new city with lower taxes and better accountability. He said that question should be directed to the members of the transition team. So there you go, the question to you: How will the new city come up with less tax and better accountability?
Mr Tonks: I know this has caused some concern with respect to the general reaction. The transition team has looked at what potentially will be increased cost regardless of whether there was a transition or not, whether there was an amalgamated city or not. In order to adjust to even holding the line -- and I think everyone would agree that regardless of where you come from, you'd like to hold the line on taxation -- the transition team has had to look at areas where there could be savings. We have simply done what councils have done, and Metro is no exception, or the individual municipalities, one of which I come from: We have given priority reduction guidelines and we're saying, "Could you hit them, and what would be the implications?" We're not saying here that we're going to implement them or recommend them. I will be very candid.
In the area of the assessment loss, in the area of the losses that have come with respect to firms closing down and all those kinds of things, there's still going to have to be some funding made up. That's the kind of thing the transition committee is attempting to take into consideration.
If the new council doesn't agree with those premises, they can obliterate them and try and find ways of coming up in reality with adjustments. We're going to try and do our best in advance of their consideration, then they'll have an opportunity to consider what we've done.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Silipo has a number of I think very important questions, but he has graciously allowed me to put one question to the team.
When you appeared in East York I was able to make a presentation before you, and you know that a number of people from the community spoke about the issue of the effectiveness of the community council and about equity and representation in the councillor-per-resident ratio. East York, in the current iteration of the megacity council, has the highest resident-per-councillor ratio and they, I think, have put forward a very forceful case to have a third councillor elected in East York.
We all understand that the megacity council will be able to deal with that issue in the longer term in terms of boundaries, numbers of councillors, community councils and how they operate. I think from your comments that night that as a group you're actually supportive of what East York was looking for, and maybe we'll see it become one of your recommendations to the new megacity council. Some of us have been looking at a way to try and influence that representation without waiting for the megacity council to make those decisions and for them perhaps not to be implemented until a further election, which would be three years down the road.
To that end I have submitted a number of amendments to this bill. One of them, which I think might be the one the government could find the most support for, would provide a third councillor for East York as a transition member for the first term of the megacity council. That would allow the megacity council to make its determinations about East York and all sorts of other areas of the city for the longer term and to implement down the road.
So far the two lead mayoralty candidates at this point have indicated support for that, all the candidates running for council in East York have indicated support for that, and I'm in the process of surveying councillor candidates around the area. So far no one has not supported it. I just haven't reached them all.
Do you see any reason not to proceed with something? Is there a negative to that? Could you see that work and allow the council to make its decisions for the longer term, but in the shorter term, at least the first term, ensure more equitable representation for East York?
Mr Tonks: I just missed the thrust of what your recommendation would be.
Ms Lankin: The amendment would, as a transition measure, add one additional councillor for East York, so they'd have three instead of two, for the first term only of the megacity council. Then it would disappear at the end of that, but by then presumably the megacity council would have dealt with this issue themselves and made their own determination.
Mr Tonks: I had an opportunity to talk to the member just prior to coming in here. I personally haven't any problem with that, barring implications that may be there. Councillor Sutherland has been working with Willis Blair with respect to that particular issue. I'm going to ask him just to make a response to it. But I would like to just say in passing that the three other members, John Wimbs, Lois Griffin and Willis Blair, are not able to be here because they are holding meetings right now. I'd ask Paul Sutherland if he could just respond to that.
Mr Sutherland: Certainly. I was involved with the public meeting there in East York and appreciated your coming out as well as the other members in the community. It's a big issue, it's an important issue for people there, but there are complications with the legislation that go beyond even this particular bill, which I guess you're aware of, and who is coming in.
Having said that, we expect, in the recommendations we come out with in very short order, by the end of the month, that within there are the possibilities for the new council to address this issue in a very positive way and quite an exciting way, we think. Although it's an issue and it's an important one, once we move on into the new city and how we feel this can function in terms of access to the new city and how people will relate to the city, you may find those recommendations address the issue as well in a positive way.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Lankin. Mr Silipo, the time for your caucus has unfortunately expired.
Mr Newman: I just have a quick question to Mr Sutherland. You spoke about reconvening the councillors to deal with certain issues. My question is: There's a private bill before the Legislature that has gone through first reading and gone through the committee process. It's private Bill Pr78, An Act to amend the City of Scarborough Act to prohibit leghold traps because it's a major issue in my community. If for example that bill doesn't get called before the last council meeting of the city of Scarborough, which I guess is anticipated to be at the end of September, if it were to receive approval in the House, would you see the city of Scarborough council being able to reconvene to pass a bylaw to ban leghold traps in Scarborough?
Mr Sutherland: I think that's a good example. It's something in process, so they wouldn't be there to start something new. They wouldn't be there to expend funds. They'd be there to really houseclean. It will take one, two or even three months for the new council to get into the full process of the application, zoning etc. This will give that opportunity to finish up that business and then carry on in the new year with the new council.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you all for coming before us here today. I just wanted to let you know that we were aware of the Toronto Historical Board situation and we will bring forward an amendment to rectify their charitable status. We appreciate your other submissions. Having just got them, we'll certainly take them all under advisement. We appreciate the detail.
I just wanted to clarify again, Mr Sutherland, and I'm sorry -- just as you were answering Ms Lankin, you were talking about other recommendations. What's the expected date that you hope to be making these recommendations?
Mr Silipo: It sounds like it's after these hearings are over.
Mr Sutherland: We're looking at about 10 days. As you realize, these are the full recommendations for the whole corporate structure, community councils. The whole package will be out and we're actually meeting every day on that right now, day and night, just to get those ready to go out and be printed. The plan right now is for 10 days.
Mr Gilchrist: Good luck.
Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I suppose it's a question. The letter that has been sent to Mr Leach from the transition team which details these, I wonder if you could check with the minister's office to make a copy available to the committee so that we could have that in writing and see the detail.
Also, I think there must be accommodation made for the transition team to come back. Clearly, there are significant questions that must be answered.
The Chair: Ms Lankin, I quite agree and I'm in the hands of the committee. We've run out of time, unfortunately, but I quite agree with you that --
Mr Sergio: Do we have a commitment when the transition team may come back?
Ms Lankin: You'll try?
Interjection: Next Thursday afternoon.
The Chair: Gentlemen, our time has literally expired because the members of the committee have to go to the House to vote. I thank you very much for coming and making your presentation to us.
Ladies and gentlemen, this committee is recessed until 3:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1159 to 1604.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene this committee. We're already again behind schedule. I'd like to tell you what, in my view, we are doing this afternoon. First, Mr Silipo put us on notice that he wished to deal with a motion first thing this morning, and we can do that first thing this afternoon. We will then proceed with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for half an hour with questions from the New Democratic and Conservative caucuses. We will then proceed with the presentation from the municipality of Etobicoke. If time permits, the clerk has spoken to a number of people. There may be a vote in the House at 6 o'clock, and we will go in 10-minute intervals, whatever number we can get, before 6 o'clock.
The only other thing I wish to advise the members in the gallery and members of the committee, we did have a flurry this morning of a problem from the gallery. There will be no further warnings. If there are any more outbursts from the audience, the public will be asked to leave, with the exception of members of the media, members' staff or members of the ministry staff. All others will be asked to leave for the remainder of the day.
Having said that, that is my understanding of the process this afternoon. We have a lot of work to do.
Mr Silipo: I will try to make this very brief, because I do want to get on with hearing the deputants this afternoon.
I move that the general government committee request the permission of the House to schedule additional meetings in order to be able to hear citizens and organizations who wish to address the committee on Bill 148.
Let me just say briefly I appreciate the fact that we are able to schedule a few people this afternoon. I guess whether we get to them or not will depend on what happens during the course of the afternoon. But I do believe that in addition to that accommodation, it still is necessary for us to provide an opportunity for other people who wish to speak to do so.
What I am suggesting, although the wording in this motion is fairly broad, if there is support at all from the government side, I would be quite happy to look at amendments that would restrict it, if that would make it acceptable, because I'm not seeking here to simply have an open-ended process; I'm looking to have some additional time. I've couched it in this way because we would require the permission of the House, given the time allocation motion, to schedule additional time. I would be quite content with doing that in a way that still allows the committee to finish clause-by-clause on the date that it's scheduled to do so.
I want to be very clear on the record that I'm not seeking to try to extend that time, although there are very good arguments that could be made to do that. I'm not seeking to do that and would really ask members of the government to support this, because it is one way, I think, to indicate that you take with some seriousness what people have to say in terms of the implications that Bill 148 has. While I know that many on the government side see this as simply a technical bill, there are many issues in this bill that people are still very concerned with, and I think it behooves us to give people an opportunity to address those.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, all in favour of this resolution? Opposed? This resolution fails.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES (CONTINUED)
The Chair: We will now proceed to the minister. Mr Minister, you have returned. Thank you very much. I think we had agreed that there would be two 15-minute question periods or statements from two of the caucuses: the New Democratic caucus and the Conservative caucus.
Mr Silipo: Minister, thanks for coming back here this afternoon. There are a number of questions that I am going to try to get through in the time that we have.
I want to talk first about one of the issues that you were dealing with this morning, and that is the costs, in two parts of it. First of all, the transition costs: As you recall, your own KPMG study estimated the transition costs of moving to the megacity at somewhere between $150 million and $220 million. Is that a fair assessment of your sense of the transition costs? More important, are those costs that are still going to be borne by the municipalities, or are you going to ensure that some of the transition money that you claim that you set aside is going to be available for the megacity?
Hon Mr Leach: I think the KPMG report said there would be savings of about $300 million a year after the first three years. In the first year they could foresee perhaps $150 million in savings, because they would need $150 million for the transition process. That is my recollection of that report. So, yes, there is a cost of about $150 million, in that neighbourhood. I don't think that was a precise estimate; it was a --
Mr Silipo: It was a range.
Hon Mr Leach: Yes, a range. But I believe it's in that magnitude.
Mr Silipo: Can I take what you're saying to be that you're not anticipating providing or having to provide any additional revenues or any additional moneys to the municipality to pick up the transition costs?
Hon Mr Leach: We don't believe it will be necessary.
Mr Silipo: You don't think it'll be necessary?
Hon Mr Leach: No.
1610
Mr Silipo: Okay. What about with respect to the actual shortfall of the download, or whatever of the many titles one wants to put? I'm sure you are up to date with respect to the latest figure that we've seen. I appreciate that there have been different figures on this, but the latest one from the Metro treasurer, Louise Eason, is that there is a shortfall of $208 million to $260 million. That's not including the transition costs; that's just in terms of looking at when you do the shifts upwards and downwards of the various costs.
You've continued to claim that this is going to be revenue-neutral. I would like for you to reiterate for us here today on the record how far you're prepared to go to ensure that your promise of revenue-neutral is going to be maintained, because people out there don't believe that's going to happen.
Hon Mr Leach: We continue to maintain that it will be revenue-neutral. We've said that we will ensure that it's revenue-neutral. The numbers that we provided to Metro -- on August 6 we provided all of the upper tiers with their estimates -- showed Metro being either $13 million short or a couple of million dollars ahead depending on which decision was made on how the education tax was calculated. I don't know where the number of $280 million comes from; it's a number that I've never heard before. As far as I'm concerned, Metro is going to come out, and the new city of Toronto will come out, as close to even as possible with the magnitude of dollars. You're talking about $5 to $7 billion in budgets for the new city. It'll be within a million or a few million one way or the other.
Mr Silipo: I don't have the document in front of me, but that's the figure I understand is there. Again, I don't want to quibble about the exact number because I don't expect that there would be agreement on that. I want to come back to the basic point, because you'll recall earlier on, and I appreciate this is before you made --
Hon Mr Leach: Just something came to mind. That may have been a number that was around prior to pooling.
Mr Silipo: No, the number that was around prior to pooling, if you recall, was $450 million, and that was from your transition team. I appreciate that the number obviously would have changed as a result of your decision to have the social services costs pooled across the GTA. But even taking that into account, if you go back to the transition team costs and their numbers, there would still be a shortfall, perhaps close to the $100-million figure.
What I'm getting at -- I don't want to get into a numbers dispute with you. We can continue that debate. But what I do want to get at is this basic principle. If there is a disagreement about numbers, there has to be a way to sort that out so that at the end of the day we're all talking from the same fact sheet and from the same numbers. I would like you to address, first, are you committed to ensuring there is that kind of a process that will ensure that we're talking about the same numbers -- I don't mean me as a member of the opposition and you, but primarily between you and the municipalities? Second, and most significantly, if there is a shortfall at the end of the day, are you saying you will use provincial dollars to make sure that there is no shortfall left for property taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto?
Hon Mr Leach: What we've said is that we know that it's revenue-neutral on a province-to-total-municipality basis. Where the disparities come in is when you start to look at individual municipalities. We know there are some municipalities that are going to have shortfalls and some are going to be ahead of the game. We've set up a fund of about $570 million which would be ongoing to ensure that those municipalities that are faced with a shortfall would have transition moneys to look after that.
Some of those subsidy payments will be ongoing forever because there are some municipalities, particularly in rural and northern Ontario, where we know the assessment base that they have just can't pay for the services they have to deliver. But in Metro we're confident that will come out as close to even as we can forecast at this point in time.
Mr Silipo: Again, what you're saying is that you're confident that there won't be any need for you to do anything. But what I'm asking you to do is to give a guarantee here today that if there is a shortfall, you will cover it.
Hon Mr Leach: We've repeatedly stated that we're going to ensure that this process is revenue-neutral for every municipality in the province, not just Metropolitan Toronto. I've just been provided with a copy of the numbers that we provided to Metro on August 6 showing the two alternatives for education tax, and depending which one you choose, with one option, they're $4.8 million ahead and with the other option, they're $13.6 million in the hole. That's a very, very minor amount of money when you look at the total budget of the municipality shown here at $5 billion. That's as close as anybody's going to be able to calculate at this point in time to breaking even.
Mr Silipo: I would be interested in seeing some of those numbers, because while we obviously have access to some I think, if the numbers keep changing almost on a daily basis, it would be useful for us to have those before --
Hon Mr Leach: I believe you do have them. I released them at a press conference in the next room to this one.
Mr Silipo: What I'm getting at is the disparity between those numbers and the numbers that we are now getting from Metro. When we get to the other presentations I'll be interested in hearing from some of the mayors and others about how they come up with different numbers and how we reconcile that.
Hon Mr Leach: I can tell you that we intend to sit down with all of the municipalities right across Ontario over the next several weeks, through the end of September and into the middle part of October, to go over the numbers, not only at the upper tier but all of the lower tiers, so that everybody will know exactly what the numbers are and reconcile them with their numbers.
Mr Silipo: I want to move to a couple of other areas. One of the concerns, and this is one of the regrets I had this morning in not being able to get questions to the transition team, and I do hope that they will be able to come back next week and we'll be able to get to them. But in terms of the work they have been doing as it relates to the various boards which you are amalgamating under this legislation and the role that will be played by the community councils, where is that issue in terms of any kind of ongoing role that the community councils will play, for example, vis-à-vis the health board, vis-à-vis the library boards, just to mention a couple of them?
Hon Mr Leach: As you stated, we've asked the transition team to look at that and report back on it. My understanding is that they intend to have a report ready to issue within the next 10 days and they're going to be dealing with precisely that issue: What is the role of the community councils and how will they relate to the various boards, agencies and commissions? They will have recommendations that they will make to the new council when it's elected, and the new council will either accept, reject or modify those recommendations that are given to it by the transition team.
Mr Silipo: You may recall that one issue that was left dangling when we dealt with Bill 108, the libraries bill, was the question of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library. I appreciate that this isn't primarily within your domain, but I do want to seek your position with respect to something that I think we heard support for, even from some of your government colleagues, when the argument was made that, even if you were going to amalgamate the various library boards in Metropolitan Toronto, there was a logic to maintain the separate structure of the Metro reference library board, given that its function is very different than the other library boards. Is that, in your mind, still an open question, because we have to address it, it seems to me, legislatively through an amendment to Bill 148.
Hon Mr Leach: My understanding is that we're going to expand the Toronto board to include all of the other boards, which will include the Metro reference library. There would be a Toronto library board which would include --
Mr Silipo: That's what your bill says now, but what I'm asking is, will you still consider the possibility that many in the library communities who appeared before us on Bill 108 said very clearly that what should happen here in Metropolitan Toronto is, if you want to amalgamate the area library boards -- okay, people disagreed with you on that, but they realized that your mind is made up on that, but notwithstanding that -- you should still maintain a separate governance structure for the Metro reference library, given that its mandate and its function are very different than the other library boards?
Hon Mr Leach: That's not our intent at this point in time, but I would certainly be pleased to take that under consideration and we can deal with it. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of that request being made. Was it made under 108?
1620
Mr Silipo: We sent the motions that would have done that on Bill 109 to the transition team. We haven't heard back. Again, it's a question that I didn't get a chance to ask and hope that we will, but I've asked your colleague the Minister of Citizenship a couple of times in the House on this. She quite frankly hasn't shown -- she showed some openness on some aspects of this in terms of funding, maintaining the funding relationship between the province and the Metro reference library, but not on the governance structure. It seems to me that is one place where you can at least show some willingness to understand that there is a difference here between these different bodies that warrants a separate governance structure continuing.
I want to come back to this question of services, and again I hear what you're saying, Minister. I'm not convinced, but I hear what you're saying, that you don't think there will be a shortfall at the end of the day. I can understand your answer being that the problem won't arise, but clearly people out there believe, not just the politicians but the people who are providing the services, people who are in any way affected by the services, that what we're going to see in Metropolitan Toronto as a result of the megacity is either or both of a reduction in services or/and an increase in property taxes. I want you to tell us that your notion of an even trade at the end of the day will mean that, for example, we're not going to see fire stations close, as some people are telling me is going to happen.
Hon Mr Leach: The transition team has informally advised me that they are quite confident that they can bring in a budget that will maintain all existing services and have no increase in taxes, and there are a number of notable politicians within the Metropolitan Toronto area -- Mayor Lastman, who is running for mayor, has publicly come out and said that he has examined the numbers and he is confident that the services can be maintained in the new city of Toronto without any increases in taxes for the next three years.
Mr Silipo: I have a fair amount of respect for Mayor Lastman, but he also said -- I mean, again, he's not scheduled to appear. We invited him to appear, and I would have been interested in him addressing this issue among others. But he also said that that would have to be done by reducing by some 3,000 the number of people who now provide services.
Hon Mr Leach: That's always been well known. We knew that there would be about a 10% reduction in staff. I think the original estimate that was put forward by the consultant was a 4,500 reduction in employment as a result of getting rid of all of the waste and duplication and overlap that exists at the current time. That can be done through the normal attrition rate and with severance packages.
Mr Silipo: That may very well be, Minister, but surely if you have 3,000 fewer people, those are people are now providing services. We're not talking about a nice, clean kind of situation here where you can say, "Yes, you can do it because you can do it through attrition," as if somehow those people are expendable. If you don't want to think about the individuals, then think about the services that those people are now providing. At the end of the day, it comes back to that equation: You are either cutting services or you're increasing taxes.
Hon Mr Leach: You obviously haven't grasped what we're trying to do here. We're trying to get rid of the waste and duplication that currently exists. We're saying that if you amalgamate the cities that currently exist in Metro, you can provide better services at less cost.
Mr Silipo: Yes, I've heard the rhetoric. I think I've grasped the rhetoric very well, thank you very much. I'm trying to have a conversation with you on this.
Hon Mr Leach: Well, others have grasped it.
Mr Silipo: Spare me the BS, quite frankly.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, before this gets out of control, I'm afraid you've run out of time.
Mr Silipo: All right.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Minister, we're now on to the Conservative caucus.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I guess my first question to you, Minister, would relate to the concern some of my constituents have in Etobicoke-Rexdale, now Etobicoke North, who are working in varying municipalities that will be amalgamated into the new city. Their primary concern relates to pension benefits.
To what extent can you give assurances that when they are amalgamated into the new entity their pension rights are protected? I've looked at the act and it would seem that is assured. But there seems to be an impression in the public that somehow or other some of these employees may end up getting the short end of the stick if they were in one of the old pension plans of the city of Toronto; for example, the old city of Toronto fire department that goes back into the 1950s.
Hon Mr Leach: This legislation ensures that all the existing pension plans that will be there on December 31, 1997, will continue to exist on January 1, 1998, and would continue to exist thereafter. That's why we require this legislation, quite frankly: to ensure that existing pension rights and existing official plans and any number of things are there to ensure that we have a smooth transition to the new city.
Mr Hastings: The other side of the coin -- this came up and I had two different conversations last weekend on different sides of the same issue -- is ratepayers who are looking at the efficiencies, potential savings, that can be achieved out of the amalgamation. They would like to know whether, when OMERS announced that they would be reducing the amount of contributions per municipal employee, whatever agency, board, commission or municipal government they were in, would there be any potential savings coming out of those reduced contributions, even if you hardly reduce the number of employees in the new amalgamated entity?
Hon Mr Leach: The last report I saw from OMERS was that they were going to reduce the contribution both for the employer and the employee, and the total saving by doing that was $300 million; $150 million of that was saving to the employees and $150 million of that was to the employers. A percentage of that would obviously apply to the OMERS pension plans in Metro, but I don't have them. I don't recollect the --
Mr Hastings: That's over about a five-year term, if I recall?
Hon Mr Leach: I believe it was three, but I'm just giving you that number by memory. I don't have it here in front of me.
Mr Hastings: Okay. The next issue I'd like to deal with is the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library board. Folks have said to me, in fact they asked way back, why it was necessary to have a separate Metro reference library board. I'd give them the history of that and how it arose out of being connected to various institutions in the past, including the Toronto Central Reference Library etc.
They pointed out to me that they believe there ought to be one board covering the whole amalgamated city, even though you could have somewhat of a provincial mandate in it because there are a lot of people from outside Metro Toronto who come and use it for business or research purposes. My concern is, if we think about a separate governance proposal, would we not be going against our own message of reduction, duplication etc? Why isn't there an elegant logic to having one unique library board for the whole city of Toronto, the new city?
Hon Mr Leach: That's what we're proposing in this legislation; that there be one board and the reference library be part of that board. The transition team, as I think I mentioned earlier, has been asked to review the option of having a separate board for the reference library because many people feel it is unique and different and should have its own governance structure. The transition team is reviewing that. I'm sure that will be included in their report, which will come out in the next several weeks.
Our belief, when we drafted the legislation, was that there should be one board and the reference library should be part of that board, but we're quite willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.
1630
Mr Hastings: Do you think the mandate that it has now would sufficiently justify a separate governance structure?
Hon Mr Leach: I think they should have the opportunity to put forward the arguments as to whether it's unique enough or whether it should be part of one total library board for the city of Toronto. As I've said, when we drafted the legislation and when we looked at it, we felt it was more practical and more efficient and more effective to have one board which would be responsible for all the libraries in Toronto, including the reference library. But as I've said, we're quite willing to listen to arguments to the contrary, and if those arguments can be made positively, we would be prepared to consider an amendment. The transition team has been asked to look at that very specific issue, and I'll look forward to getting their report on it.
Mr Hastings: Do you expect -- my final question, Mr Chair.
The Chair: One more, Mr Hastings. You have some other colleagues waiting.
Mr Hastings: Do you expect the transition team to deal with the issue of severance of existing employees in terms of costs etc, and will these costs be covered out of any of the restructuring funds we have?
Hon Mr Leach: The transition team will provide an estimate. They're going to provide an estimate on the number of employees who are affected and an estimate on what the total cost of the transition would be. But I think it would be up to the new council to determine the type of severance package that they want to offer to their employees. There will be some suggestions and recommendations made to the new council, but they would have to sit down and make that determination themselves.
Mrs Munro: Minister, I just have one question that relates to much of the discussion we heard earlier in the year, and that is the fact that people see their communities defined by the planning process and by the unique qualities that go into any kind of planning. My question then is, are people to have some assurance that those features of official plans will be maintained?
Hon Mr Leach: Yes. That's also included in this legislation, that we're going to maintain all the existing official plans for each of the current municipalities and they will remain in place until such time as the new council chooses to create a new official plan. As I think everybody in this room recognizes, the creation of an official plan can be a long process. It requires a lot of public input. They can be several or more years in the making and it's a major undertaking for any council, let alone it will be a major undertaking for the new city of Toronto council. As a result, in this legislation we have stated that the existing official plans would continue to be maintained until the new council changes them.
Mr Gilchrist: Minister, a couple of questions. Let me just start off, when the subcommittee met, the question came up whether the transition team would be a better choice this morning than a technical briefing, and that's fine. We were happy to go along with that. They clearly have a role to play in all this. But in the absence of a formal technical briefing, I think a lot of people probably could be excused for having the wrong impression about what this bill is exactly. We've heard Mr Hastings talk about pensions and Mr Silipo and Mr Hastings mentioned library boards, but I wonder if you could explore in further detail exactly how technical and how detailed this bill is and exactly what its overall intent is.
Hon Mr Leach: The intent is to ensure a smooth transition to the new city, and it's primarily an administrative bill, a technical bill, to make sure that those services that everybody has grown accustomed to having every day when they go out in the city -- the Toronto Transit Commission, the ambulance service, the Toronto Island ferries -- that all of those services will continue to be maintained when the new city is created. Bill 103 calls for the elimination of the existing municipalities and Metropolitan Toronto, so this bill is absolutely essential from an administrative standpoint to ensure that all of those services can continue to be maintained and operated in an efficient manner when the new city comes into being on January 1, 1998.
Mr Gilchrist: You talk about how this is an extension of Bill 103. I certainly recall having sat through all those hearings, and many of our elected colleagues and many other people who spoke at the hearings dealt with all of the subjects that you've just mentioned. I mean, we had people who talked about the TTC and people who talked about health boards and talked about the rights of the employees and all of those things. Would it be fair to say that everything that's in this bill has already been covered in that context, the Bill 103 hearings and the overall debate that was held about the amalgamation?
Hon Mr Leach: Yes. All of the policy issues, I think, were covered in Bill 103, and I think the debates that went on on Bill 103, which were extensive and comprehensive, covered the rationale and the policy determinations behind what we're doing. This bill is putting in the administrative and technical requirements to ensure everything that was done in Bill 103 can be carried out.
Mr Gilchrist: If I can just ask you about one specific we heard back in 103, and I'm sure my memory is not failing me, and again many of the members of the opposition parties and many others who sat where you're sitting and had a contrary view about the goals and objective of Bill 103 suggested, in fact accused the government, that we would be raiding the reserves and that we would be beggaring the parts of Metro Toronto that had been good stewards, that had perhaps been charging higher tax rates but from those higher tax rates had been able to put aside the dollars.
Have you had any correspondence from any of those critics or from any of the mayors who have reflected, now that Bill 148 has put on paper what we said would be our goals, that we would not be taking the reserves from one part of the city to another?
Hon Mr Leach: There may have been, but not to my recollection; I haven't had any correspondence from anybody on that matter. But we said at that point in time that we had no intentions of touching the reserves of any of the existing cities, and this legislation confirms that.
As a matter of fact, it gives the new council the ability to ensure that the reserves of any of the existing municipalities are spent in those municipalities. I mean, the last thing we wanted to see was a council go out and recklessly spend its reserve dollars on projects before they were required, and this legislation allows them to carry on with their normal five-year capital plan under their current official plan, using the reserves that were set up for those projects in a proper, timely fashion.
Mr Gilchrist: You had a good back and forth going with Mr Colle this morning. I don't think it was his intention to suggest that East York or York or some other part that does not have reserves should be profiting from North York, but the question, I think, tangential to that is the whole issue of services. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the position we heard from many of the critics was that North York likes twice-a-week garbage pickup and that some other parts of Metro Toronto like the fact that there is free use of hockey rinks, and there are different fees that have been set by the different portion. Are all of those individual characteristics of the city maintained and reflected under Bill 148?
Hon Mr Leach: Yes, they are, and again, that was the intent, to ensure that if the new council in the city wants to have different levels of service in different parts of the city they have the ability to do that. That's not new. When Metro was formed in 1954, I know in Forest Hill, for example, there were different services than there were in the city of York, and there were different services in the community I happen to live in, in Moore Park, than in other parts of the city. There were different mill rates struck to ensure that the people who were receiving the higher levels of service paid for that higher level of service, and this bill will allow the new council in Metro to do that as well.
Mr Colle: That's not true. That's not correct.
The Chair: Minister, one last question. Mr Colle, you had your turn. You know the rules.
Mr Colle: Forest Hill had the same --
The Chair: Mr Colle --
Hon Mr Leach: Not an issue.
Mr Colle: Well, back in 1954, but for the last 20 years, Forest Hill's mill rate has been the same --
Hon Mr Leach: Well, that's what we're saying here, Mike, that this is a phase-in over eight years, over the next eight years. Within eight years they have to come to a common mill rate, but over the next eight years they would be able to have varying mill rates to ensure that different levels of service can be provided in different parts of the city and that reserves in certain areas can be spent in those areas.
Eventually, you have to move to a uniform mill rate right across the city, and we're saying that we believe an eight-year time frame is appropriate for that.
The Chair: Minister, thank you very much to you and your staff for coming this afternoon again and listening to questions from members of the committee.
Hon Mr Leach: My pleasure.
1640
MUNICIPALITY OF ETOBICOKE
The Chair: The next item on the agenda is Mayor Holyday, who is speaking on behalf of the municipality of Etobicoke. Mayor Holyday, welcome to the committee.
Mr Doug Holyday: It's nice to be here.
The Chair: We've had some delay. Thank you for cooperating. I think you were originally scheduled at 3:30.
Mr Holyday: Well, it was rather short notice to even appear here and I didn't really plan on appearing, but when we were invited, I thought I would check with our staff out in Etobicoke just to see if there were any concerns they would like me to come down here and express. The concerns I have here have been prepared by our staff, and really there's only about four of them. I would like to put their concern and then hear your thoughts. If anyone has any questions of me, I'd be pleased to try to answer them.
The Chair: We appreciate your coming sir, and your indulgence. Thank you.
Mr Holyday: Thank you. I don't think I'll need all my time. The first question they have is on section 107 of the Municipal Act, which severely limits the powers of the outgoing council between November 10 and December 31. I guess under the system we've been operating on, the lame duck situation only exists maybe for a couple of weeks. They're concerned that this November 10 to December 31 is a rather long period of time not to really have anyone in actual authority there. They're suggesting, I think, that an exemption from section 107 would enable either old councils to continue functioning or senior staff to conduct business.
I can't really elaborate on what their concerns are there, but I think they're just concerned that there will be some matters that would come up that would need looking after that the old council particularly wouldn't be in a position to deal with, whether there would be some authority for city managers or senior staff to handle things that could occur during that period. I would like to know if anyone has previously discussed this or if this concern has been raised elsewhere.
The Chair: Mr Holyday, we don't have any set rule as to how we're going to proceed with your presentation. You can give your presentation and questions can come from members of the committee, or I have no problem if you want to stop for a while. Again, the floor is yours.
Mr Holyday: If I can read the concerns that the staff has given to me, and then following that, maybe through questions, we might get some dialogue and some answers here.
Pensions and benefits: I know you were speaking about that earlier here. Bill 148 deals with pensions and benefits but does not specifically refer to continuity of accumulated service and participation in OMERS. An amendment could ensure that participants in OMERS are protected against interrupted service claims. The status of pension bylaws in existence but not passed under the Metro act should be clarified. The bill only addresses those referred to in the Metro act, section 4, subsection 1. Bill 148 states that the assets and liabilities of the old municipalities are vested in the new city on January 1, 1998. As pension assets may be argued to be the assets of the beneficiaries, they should be specifically referenced in the legislation for investing in the new city.
I have a section here on local boards. Sections 91 through 93 and 129 deal with non-specific local boards. Council is afforded the ability to merge two or more local boards into a new board. However, council does not appear to have the ability to terminate any of the existing local boards. An amendment is required in this regard.
Then they have a miscellaneous section here, where they are saying private-public partnerships are not addressed in Bill 148. In Etobicoke we have several of these in our parks system where we've gone out to propose a call and develop golf courses and some other things that are usually built with private money on public land, but we're partnered in some respects. In the end we own what has been built, but after a period of time.
Anyway, the new city should be given the power to incorporate companies or own shares in companies subject to provisions established by regulation to permit the municipalities to decrease the cost of municipal services or to raise revenues.
Those were the matters that were brought up by our staff out in Etobicoke. In view of the fact that we were offered the opportunity to come down here and have a word, those are our comments.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Holyday, if that concludes your comments, we have a substantial amount of time for members of caucus. Let's see how we go with Mr Colle.
Mr Colle: I guess we could ask that question of staff. What happens with the lame duck period where you've got a council that's elected November 10, yet the new city doesn't take effect until January 1? Who runs the shop during that month and a half?
The Chair: Ms McLaren. Perhaps for the record you could identify yourself.
Ms Elizabeth McLaren: Certainly. Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The existing councils are continued until that time and so they can sit, and under the Municipal Act some of their powers are restricted under the lame duck provisions. But they do still sit as council and can certainly take action in any sort of an emergency. The transition team did raise this morning the issue that perhaps there needs to be an amendment to facilitate some decisions made in the lame duck period. That will be something that the minister will be looking at as we move towards clause-by-clause in the amendment stage.
Mr Colle: So November 10 you have a newly elected council. The former councils of the seven municipalities traditionally used to go to December 1, I think.
Ms McLaren: Yes, that would be normally when the new council would take effect.
Mr Colle: In this case here, we're saying that those old councils are continuing to function?
Ms McLaren: Yes, they are continued. The legislation, Bill 103, continued the existing councils past the normal date of December 1 to January 1.
Mr Colle: So they can continue to meet and make decisions. Are there any restrictions?
Ms McLaren: The standard restrictions under the Municipal Act will continue to exist throughout that period of time. But yes, they can meet, and Bill 103 also empowers them to make any emergency decisions that might be required in that period of time.
Mr Colle: Oh, so it's just emergency decisions they can make?
Ms McLaren: And anything else that's not prohibited. I'm sorry I don't have my Municipal Act. This is David Spring from our legal branch. Do you want to answer that?
Mr David Spring: Mr Chair, section 107 of the Municipal Act is entitled "Certain acts not to be done by councils after polling day," and councils are prohibited from passing "any bylaw, except a bylaw with respect to an undertaking, work, project, scheme, act, matter or thing that has been approved by the municipal board, or resolution for, or that involves, directly or indirectly, the payment of money other than that provided in the estimates for the current year."
They may not: "enter into any contract or obligation on the part of the corporation; appoint or dismiss from office any officer under the control of the council; or do any other corporate act, except in case of extreme emergency, or unless the act is one that the council is required by law to do or is one that the council is authorized to do by a resolution or bylaw passed before the day the poll is held or the day the members of council are declared elected."
Mr Holyday: Our concern I think has to do with these contracts that could come up in that almost month and a half or over month and a half period to keep the municipality in operation and who is going to enter into those contracts. It's not going to be allowed that the lame duck council would do that, so who would?
Mr Spring: The terms of the Municipal Act, as I understand them, would forbid the entering into that contract unless you could justify it as a case of extreme emergency.
Mr Holyday: So we just quit buying anything for six weeks.
Ms McLaren: No, the onus is that you couldn't expend any money unless that had been provided for in the budget. If this was part of your budget and part of your normal expenditures, than you can carry on and do that. It would be a contract that had not been thought of, did not form part of the municipal budget or had not been dealt with by council beforehand.
The Chair: I think that members are starting to put up their hands. What I'm proposing on doing is simply dividing up the time among caucuses. If Mr Colle is finished, we'll move on to the New Democratic Party.
Mr Silipo: We may not need all the time.
The Chair: That's true.
Mr Colle: I think it might be helpful if perhaps there is a written response to the mayor's concern on how to deal with this interim period so that there is a clarification. It seems that if something has been budgeted for in your budget, then you can go ahead and expend those moneys, and I guess get into agreements or contracts, because it's already in the budget. That's what I read into it. So I think it might be helpful to get a written presentation.
Mr Holyday: I think one way to handle it might be if there was some requirement that came up in the municipality they would contact the ministry and seek permission to do what it is that they have to do and the ministry can judge whether it's necessary and then grant permission if required.
1650
Mr Colle: I think it might be helpful if they put that in writing in terms of process perhaps, because it's never happened before, this length of period. It used to go for a week or two. There was an interim period. But now this is quite lengthy. Especially when you're dealing with such a large entity, it's not like before, so there's going to be things that are going to come up.
Mr Holyday: There's definitely a concern by our staff in this regard, so I just bring it to your attention.
Mr Colle: That's all I have.
Mr Silipo: Just on that point first, you may know, Mayor Holyday, that the transition team also addressed this issue, though they were talking more about the Planning Act applications, I gather. They were suggesting that changes be made to section 107 of the Municipal Act to allow the old council to have those powers to deal with applications that might be ongoing, which quite frankly at one level I can understand and at another level I have to say this is part of what comes when you put a piece of legislation in place like this without thinking through these kinds of implications. So now you're going to have the interesting situation where you have a month and a half, rather than the normal two-week period, of transition and we have to deal with this. I guess it's just something people have to reflect on.
I appreciate the other concerns that you've outlined. I think we'll certainly take a look at what that involves, whether it requires amendments to deal with those. But I was just curious, quite frankly, that I didn't hear anything from you with respect to what is going to happen in the new city as it relates to the whole issue of the download. Is it because you believe what the Premier and the minister are saying, that this is all an even trade, or why? I would have expected to hear something from you on that and I'm just surprised that I didn't.
Mr Holyday: I think that when you're dealing with figures, of course, they can be presented in various ways. I'm sure that's what's going on. I also think that you're into a process of negotiation when you're dealing with figures. But the government has stated that this will be revenue-neutral, that the amount added to the municipal tax burden will be taken away in another area, in the education area. I'm counting on that happening. I've been supportive of this government, as you probably know, but certainly I'm expecting that they're going to live up to their word here. I expect to be a member of the new government and I'm going to see that that happens.
Mr Silipo: You're not looking then for anything beyond that kind of guarantee? You wouldn't, for example, say, "It would be nice to have this in legislation, thank you very much"?
Mr Holyday: I think it would be nice, as the minister was suggesting when he was here earlier, that they would be coming out to the municipalities and dealing with the individual figures and the individual municipalities to actually show us how they see this breaking down.
You were wondering whether there are savings involved here. I think that there's no doubt that there are savings involved here if you're going to start to merge, say, fire departments. You don't need six chiefs any more, so you're going to have one. Certainly there are the artificial borders that are out there now that probably call on us to have stations in positions we wouldn't have if it weren't for the artificial borders. I think once we take a look at that picture from the broader perspective, we'll probably have the possibility of relocating or becoming more efficient. I think that will apply throughout the whole system, where you just won't need as many things in place as you have when you're operating six or seven different departments.
So I'm counting on this being more efficient and working. I think the fight over this has taken place. It's over now and we're charged with the responsibility of making it work. I'm hoping that the people will elect people who are determined to make it work and will try their hardest to do it.
Mr Silipo: But is it fair to say, notwithstanding that, that one of the bottom lines has to be that it is up to the government to ensure that it is revenue-neutral?
Mr Holyday: Yes, it is. I don't think they could expect us to go into this new situation with all these changes occurring and then put one of our legs in a hole. We can't have a foot in the ground somewhere and have more expenses to deal with than we started with. First off, that's not going to solve the problem. It's not why we got into this in the first place. The meetings have been going on for many years now as to how to get rid of the duplication and how to improve efficiency and how to reduce our taxes so that we're more competitive with Mississauga and we don't lose our businesses to them any more. Certainly that would be very counterproductive if all of a sudden we got more property tax for these people and we drive more of them away. So I can't see that happening. As I said, I'll be on there and certainly speak my mind to make sure that it doesn't happen.
Mr Silipo: So we shouldn't see a situation next spring, when people get their final property tax bill, where it has property tax increases?
Mr Holyday: I'll certainly be working to make sure that doesn't happen. That's the goal I have. I'll be running on that platform too, no tax increase.
Mr Silipo: That's fine, but no property tax increases because there won't be a need, as opposed to property tax increases because the new city may have decided to spend more money on something? But no property tax increases because it will be an even trade?
Mr Holyday: Right, no property tax increases for any reason. Now, having said that, within the reassessment there are going to be some changes occur. I don't think either you or anybody else can alter that. We're getting fairness out of it; that's the aim there.
Mr Silipo: I'll look at my own property tax bill with a lot more interest this coming year than I have in the past, as I'm sure many others will.
Mr Holyday: Do you live in Etobicoke?
Mr Silipo: No.
Mr Holyday: Too bad.
The Chair: I'm glad to see a politician always looking for votes. Mr Silipo, you've concluded?
Mr Silipo: Yes.
Mr Hastings: Mayor Holyday, in your conversations with staff, have you been able to identify what specific areas of activity or responsibility they are concerned about in that dead-end time frame between mid-November to the first of 1998?
Mr Holyday: No, they didn't specifically say this or that, but I guess they just recognize that it's an extremely long time, something that's never happened before, and that there are things that might well come up that there's no one really in charge to deal with over that month-and-a-half period, six-weeks or better. They put that down as a concern and I said I'd express it.
Mr Hastings: Would these be contracts that are possibly expiring in that dead-end time frame?
Mr Holyday: Could be. Could be something coming up, could be something that's needed. Who knows? Things hit town once in a while that we don't expect.
Mr Hastings: A question to Ms McLaren then: The city of Etobicoke has entered into a contract for a private sector sports medicine clinic to be established at the start of this year, or it could have been even late 1996. I'm wondering whether that sort of specific situation would warrant the government looking at an amendment, not necessarily for that specific item but for similar, like-minded items that we haven't thought about that could be investigated in other parts of Metro, the other Metro cities or Metro itself.
Ms McLaren: I'm not totally familiar with the issue, but I think as we've been saying, if the decision has been made by the council to enter into an agreement, then the existing council can carry on with that agreement. If the council has already entered into the agreement, then Bill 103 provides that all of those agreements carry on for the new city and are binding upon the new city. If the council has already made the decision and the agreement's in place, then there's not a problem.
Mr Hastings: The question I'd like to ask you, Mayor Holyday, is regarding how you anticipate the new city council would deal with garbage contracts, because the city of Etobicoke has an outsourcing arrangement, whereas the other municipalities, as far as I know, do not have that situation.
Mr Holyday: I fully expect on January 2 things will operate much the way they do January 1 or December 31. We will pick up our garbage in the city of Etobicoke as part of the overall new city, and North York will do the same and Scarborough and so on will do the same. The way that we've chosen to pick ours up is with a contractor. We save $1.5 million a year by going that route. We've got a contract for five years; it's about two years old now with a two-year extension that, at our option, we might want to take advantage of. I'm pretty sure that that's exactly how the garbage is going to be picked up, which is exactly the way that it is right now.
1700
Mr Hastings: Your staff also mentioned something about section 4 of the act regarding pensions. What would you like to see as a proposed amendment or what would you suggest that is not included, that you mentioned earlier, that ought to be included in terms of continuous service of employees? Is it section 4?
Mr Holyday: I guess there are two or three concerns under pensions here. The one was, Bill 148 deals with pensions and benefits but does not specifically refer to continuity of accumulated service and participation in OMERS. An amendment could ensure that participants in OMERS are protected against interrupted service claims. Now, that may or may not be a real concern. I don't know. I guess your pension authorities down here who have helped with your wording could take a look at that and if there isn't a concern, I'd be pleased to pass that on.
Also, it says that the status of pension bylaws in existence but not passed under the Metro act should be clarified. The bill only addresses those referenced to the Metro act. That's subsection 4(1).
I guess their other concern was that Bill 148 notes that the assets and liabilities of the old municipalities are vested in the new city on January 1, 1998, but as pension assets can be argued to be the assets of the beneficiaries, they should be specifically referenced in the legislation for vesting in the new city. Again, your lawyers might take a look at that and say, "Well, that is not needed."
Mr Hastings: My question would be to the assistant deputy minister or to the legal counsel. Do you think section 6 under the pension arrangements sufficiently deals with continuity of service and beneficiary ownership of the pension assets? That one I don't see covered at all in any of those areas.
Ms McLaren: We'll certainly make every effort to look into that. The intent under Bill 103 was to continue the employment and the employment status of people who are moving from one of the existing municipalities to the new city, and their pension rights in OMERS would be continued. We have had a ruling that there is not going to be a break in continuity of service, so they will be employed in an OMERS pension plan and they'll continue in an OMERS pension plan. We didn't think that there was a problem, but if the staff in Etobicoke have raised that, we will certainly check that. We will certainly check with OMERS, and if it's deemed that another amendment is necessary, we will discuss that with the minister and see what has to happen.
Mr Hastings: Okay, thank you very much.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Holyday, for coming back before us again. I know at times you were a voice in the wilderness in terms of the overall principles behind the amalgamation, and you are to be applauded for that. The bottom line is that this act, I think, proves a lot of the submissions that we made and the comments that we made addressing some of the criticism of those who thought that we really weren't serious about preserving the unique services, that we weren't serious about preserving the reserves -- and the liabilities. We have to stress that, because certainly the suggestion was made back in Bill 103 that all of the component cities were flush. They talked about assets, but some of them very conveniently left out the fact they have liabilities that exceed their reserves.
I guess I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments you made. Ms McLaren has talked about the pension issue. Not to belabour the point, but there is no interruption in service. You might suggest that because this is the companion piece of legislation, which is very expressly stated right in the introduction to the bill and in part 1 of the bill, it must be taken in concert with Bill 103. Because the new employer is deemed in fact to be the same employer, there will be no interruption in service.
I would remind Mr Colle, I think it was who raised the issue, that the whole point of the delay -- forgive me, Mr Colle. In response to your comment about the hiatus or the interregnum between November 10 and December 31, the whole reason it was moved back from December 1 was the public input and the input from councillors saying the December 1 transfer was just too tight. So it is somewhat ironic that they are now coming back here and suggesting that it's a sin that we listened to the people and the councillors then and responded.
Mr Colle: No, it was the mayor that brought up the concern. I did not bring that up. The mayor presented that.
Mr Gilchrist: You are just about the rudest person that's ever sat in council, Mr Colle. I know you suffer from verbal diarrhoea, but maybe you could get treatment, okay?
Interjection.
Mr Gilchrist: Well, the bottom line is he had his turn, and he doesn't seem to understand the concept.
The Chair: Gentlemen, let's try not to provoke each other. Let's proceed.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Silipo's comment: There's a very good reason that Who Does What and other issues wouldn't be part of your presentation. It's not part of this bill. Is it fair to say, Mr Holyday, that the three points that you addressed are the sum total of the comments that your staff had on this bill?
Mr Holyday: Actually, I guess there are four.
Mr Gilchrist: Yes, forgive me. You're right; four.
Mr Holyday: That was it. That's what they've given me --
Mr Gilchrist: So in a 64-page bill --
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, let's let Mayor Holyday speak.
Mr Holyday: No, that was it. Those are the four comments they've given me, and I just wanted to clarify that we did not suggest there was a sin involved here. We just simply wanted clarification on how we were going to be operating.
Mr Gilchrist: Oh, no. My point was going to be, Mr Holyday, that we have a bill that's 64 pages long, 137 sections if you count the short title of the act. I'm sure you've had a chance to look over it. The overwhelming majority of this bill simply takes verbiage out of the City of Etobicoke Act, the City of Toronto Act, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, and repeats them in here.
I just want to ask you: Is it fair to say that your staff have had a chance to appraise the whole bill, and the three comments that you've made are the sum total of their suggestions?
Mr Holyday: Yes.
Mr Gilchrist: Would you agree with me that that would tend to support the argument that this is purely a technical bill that addresses the need to put, in effect, meat on the bones of Bill 103 and to address the concerns in terms of the technical aspects?
Mr Holyday: Well, I might see it that way; others might not.
Mr Gilchrist: It's your views that we're -- you have the floor right now.
I guess the only other point I would like to ask you: Are there any other unique aspects of Etobicoke that you see addressed in a way that -- for example, in Scarborough we have the Guild Inn, we have the Metro zoo. The way that all of the assets of the component cities flow into the new city: Are you satisfied that any of the park lands, any of the other holdings in Etobicoke have been dealt with in a way that will guarantee your citizens -- are you certain that all the aspects of the various services in Etobicoke have been dealt with in such a way that on January 1, all of your citizens will continue to enjoy the benefits of all of those assets and all of those services?
Mr Holyday: Well, I'm not expecting any changes in services. I'm actually supportive of and will be working towards making sure that there are no service reductions whatsoever as a result of any of these changes that are occurring here. I don't expect any changes. We have good service in Etobicoke -- in my opinion the best -- and we want to keep it that way.
Mr Gilchrist: If the majority of councillors on the new council share your concerns, I guess we have no surprises coming up. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Holyday. Unless you have some concluding comments, that appears to be --
Mr Holyday: No, I don't. Maybe you can use my time in another way here.
The Chair: That appears to be the questions of the committee. We appreciate your coming and making your comments to us.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have some time now for members of the public to speak. There is an agenda. We are going in 10-minute blocks and we will proceed until 6 o'clock, so hopefully all people on the agenda will speak. It doesn't look that way, but we'll do our best.
BRONWYN DRAINIE
The Chair: We'll start off with Bronwyn Drainie. Good afternoon, Ms Drainie. You have 10 minutes.
Ms Bronwyn Drainie: Thank you. My name is Bronwyn Drainie. I've spoken before this committee before on Bill 103.
Ladies and gentlemen, many citizens of this province are strongly opposed to the specifics of all of the legislation your government has been inflicting on Ontario for most of the past year. I will leave it to others to pick apart the specific flaws in Bill 148. My concern from the beginning of this horrible year, 1997, has been more generally with the process you have employed in attempting to get this legislation passed.
You have refused meaningful consultation with the citizens. You have ignored a legitimate referendum that expressed the will of the people. You have changed the rules of debate in the Legislature so as to seriously curtail the ability of the opposition parties, the media and the public to understand the substance and impact of your bills. You have put in place illegitimate, appointed authorities such as the transition team, the Education Improvement Commission and the health services restructuring board to ride roughshod over our democratic right to decide how we should be governed through our elected representatives.
1710
You have a master record of arrogance, deceit and contempt for the public. You will perhaps remember the one word Judge Stephen Borins used to sum up your attitude when he regretfully ruled that you have the constitutional right to push through the hated legislation known as Bill 103. His word for your government's behaviour was "mega-chutzpah." None of us could say it better.
The circumstances of my speaking to you today are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with this government's method of dealing with the public it is supposed to serve. First of all, you only grudgingly agreed to allow two days of public hearings on this bill, and only very recently, although you have had letters on file for months from dozens of citizens asking to speak to the bill. Of course you didn't want public hearings. You knew that they would only be a repeat performance of the five weeks of public hearings you held on Bill 103, 90% of which came from citizens vehemently opposed to the legislation. But finally you had to give in on Bill 148, as you had on Bill 103.
Second, you decided to divide up the 10 hours to speak on this bill as follows: the first hour to Mr Leach, the minister responsible for the legislation; the second hour for the transition team, that illegitimate body created and appointed by your government to oversee our transition from six municipalities to one megacity; and then an hour apiece for each of the six mayors involved in this ill-fated amalgamation, none of whom, I understand, had requested to speak to this committee, although there were 70 other citizens who had. This would have allowed exactly two hours at the end for the citizens to speak to Bill 148.
You may say that as long as we had our six mayors speaking for us, the views of the citizens had been heard. This of course is balderdash under the current circumstances since we are in the run up to the first municipal election for the megacity and each of these mayors is positioning himself or herself for maximum advantage after January 1.
You may also say that you expected those mayors to bring some citizens with them to speak. With respect, ladies and gentlemen, that is not good enough. The key relationship we're discussing here is between you as representatives of the province and us, the citizens. We don't want or need third parties setting up our opportunities to talk to you.
In any case, your timetable, your latest end run around the citizens, got foiled yesterday when Mr Lastman and Ms Hall withdrew from their speaking slots. I don't know why Mr Lastman withdrew. I understand that Ms Hall withdrew because she was unhappy about this whole process, for which I thank her. Suddenly your committee was faced with an embarrassing two-hour hole to fill, so your clerks began madly shuffling through the letters they had received months ago from citizens like myself asking to speak at these hearings. I received a phone call from your clerk, asking me to come in and make this presentation, at 5:35 yesterday evening. Since I could not instantly drop everything else in my life, I ended up writing these remarks between 1 am and 3 am this morning.
I don't wish this to come as any kind of criticism of your clerical staff; they have acted with exemplary professionalism throughout this entire period. This is a political problem and this is the kind of respect your government holds and shows towards the citizens of Ontario, particularly the citizens of Toronto.
Another example of your government's mega-chutzpah is the completely bogus Toronto Together polling that is being conducted by students in purple shirts on the streets of our six municipalities. Mr Tonks referred to it this morning. One of your leaders -- it was either Mr Leach or Mr Gilchrist, but I'm afraid I didn't have enough time since last night to actually track down the clipping, so I'm not sure which one it was -- was quoted in the newspaper as saying how good it was to get this polling of the real views of the citizens, as opposed to all the representatives of special interest groups who had turned up to give deputations on Bill 103.
As one of the hundreds of concerned individuals who gave deputations on Bill 103, I need hardly tell you how offensive that comment was, or how untrue. Most of us who came were simply here to express our attachment to Toronto and our fervent wish that you would consult with us about change instead of vindictively destroying the city we love.
As for the Toronto Together polling, Mr Tonks puts out his PR sheet every couple of weeks in which he insists that the survey is consistent with all industry standards for public opinion research intended for public release, whereas in fact I had a private conversation with the head of one of the top polling firms in the country last month who assured me that this kind of on-the-street polling has been thoroughly discredited for decades as an accurate sampling of public opinion -- for decades, ladies and gentlemen.
In the last several months, since April 21 I believe it was, when your government rammed through Bill 103 against the express demands of the citizens, I've met quite a few Torontonians who wonder why so many of us are still fighting this fight: "Of course we hate the legislation," they say. "We don't want a megacity. We know it's going to cost us more and give us less. But what's the point of fighting any longer? We put up a good fight but we lost, and they" -- meaning you -- "won." Some days I ask myself the same question, but not very often. Most days I know exactly why I continue to fight and to meet with my fellow citizens and to plan for the future and to wait your government out.
One of my friends read out a passage from Vaclav Havel, the president of the Czech Republic, at last Monday's meeting of Citizens for Local Democracy. I will close my remarks today by reading that same passage, in which Mr Havel explains the kind of patient waiting he and others had to practise for years before they were rewarded with freedom from the hated Communist yoke:
"For us," said Mr Havel, "this waiting was based on the knowledge that it made sense on principle to resist by speaking the truth simply because it was the right thing to do, without speculating whether it would lead somewhere tomorrow, or the day after, or ever. This kind of waiting grew out of a faith that repeating this defiant truth made sense in itself, regardless of whether it was ever appreciated, or victorious, or repressed for the 100th time. At the very least, it meant that someone was not supporting the government of lies. It also, of course, grew out of the faith" -- but this was of secondary importance -- "that a seed, once sown, would one day take root and send forth a shoot. No one knew when. But it would happen some day, perhaps for future generations."
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Drainie.
Ms Drainie: Are my 10 minutes up?
The Chair: Yes, they are.
SEAN SLOAN
The Chair: Next we have Sean Sloan. Good afternoon.
Mr Sean Sloan: Good afternoon, Mr Tilson. My name is Sean Sloan and I am a resident of the city of Toronto. I was called at 11 o'clock this morning, so my remarks will be somewhat brief and a bit disjointed.
To continue with what was said -- I didn't have a great deal of time to put this together -- I'd simply like to note in the same pointed fashion that Bill 148 and its antecedent legislation and most of the other bills this government has passed lately represent legislation for the industrial age on a production line and to deadlines. It is probably unnecessary, because I don't see that the megacity is really going to last. As it exists or will exist, if it exists, it will resemble, to use a famous simile, the mule. It will be without the pride of the ancestry of its constituent elements and without hope of posterity. It's not really a form that is going to be useful to the future of this region.
First of all, what do the elements of the megacity have in common right now? Not a great deal. What will they have in common in the future? Probably not a lot. The megacity is the wrong way to go. You propose for the disparate cities and municipalities that will make up the megacity one library board, one parking authority, one board of health, one historical board -- one size fits all.
1720
The presumed goal of all this is saving, presumably through economies of scale. That makes a certain amount of sense. In the future we are supposed to be more ecologically aware. It will be a less opulent future.
To this point, it should be noted -- I'm certain it has been noted before -- that the city of Toronto has a somewhat disproportionate number of people who are less well off, more ethnic, more this, less that. Why is that so? Some people might maliciously say the welfare is better there, though I doubt that's really the point. There may be something to do with discriminatory zoning in other areas not like the city of Toronto.
Beyond all that the essential point is, the city of Toronto has certain advantages of scale. It makes a lot more sense economically than a lot of other places. It has a higher population density and a denser infrastructure; that is to say a lot of things have been provided in the city of Toronto that are not provided elsewhere on the grounds that, as in the old saying about marriage, "Two can live as cheaply as one." At the very least there are economies of scale and everybody doubles up. For example, I don't have a car but I have the TTC, which means I don't have to park a street car.
Essentially the city of Toronto has a lot of things suited for the future as it is likely to be, a place where people can have a decent standard of living in an ecologically responsible manner.
Every great political organization, every great polity is founded on some great principle. For example, Canada is based upon the idea of peace and good government; the US exalts "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; France upholds "liberté, fraternité, égalité." A lot of the outlying portions of what is going to be the megacity assume that gasoline will never rise above $4 a gallon. That's their basic raison d'être; that of course and the cheap serviced land will be infinitely available. All these regions, the city of Toronto and the surrounding conurbations, will be jammed together under Bill 148. If the mores and habits of the numerically preponderant outlying regions prevail -- and they probably will; they'll have the votes -- the megacity will be established on a basis better suited to the 1950s than the new millennium; that is to say a sort of a spread-out, wide-open, disorganized place. That's my first point.
As far as economics is concerned, the city of Toronto would be better as it is, and I'm certain the megacity will tend to submerge what are the excellences of the other regions. I'm speaking from a city of Toronto point of view. I'm certain these outlying regions have many good things about them, but it's not something I'm really well acquainted with.
The second point is that as Jane Jacobs observed recently, the megacity is likely to be a one-size-fits-all government. To inject the thoughts of George Orwell, in such a situation, the principle that all are equal becomes instead the principle that all are identical. To realize savings using an urban planning model that probably is not going to provide much saving, the tendency to treat all as interchangeable elements resembling ball-bearings will cause all special needs to be ignored. This will be an inversion of what usually happens in the more exotic restaurants, where I'm sitting at a table, I look at the table opposite and I say, "I want what they're having." What's more likely to happen in the straitened circumstances of the megacity is that someone will say: "I don't have that. Take it away from them."
To conclude, I would say that the government that wishes to pass Bill 148 is not warranted in its confidence of having found the answer. In the 1920s people of a certain frame of mind went to the Soviet Union where supposedly it was all happening and they came back to say, "I've seen the future and it works."
In the 1930s people of another turn of mind who came from visits in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany where supposedly it was all happening said, "I've seen the way things were 1,300 hundred years ago, and it works."
The hot spot in the 1960s was Haight-Ashbury. People who came back said, "I saw some really good pharmaceuticals and they worked so well, I don't care what happened."
The framers of Bill 148 are in a somewhat worse case, I'd say. They don't know what's happening. It's not going to work now. It didn't work in the past, and it won't work in the future.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sloan.
MARGARET SIMPSON
The Chair: The next speaker is Ms Margaret Simpson. Good afternoon. Thank you for coming. You may commence.
Ms Margaret Simpson: My name is Margaret Simpson. I am here today to speak as a very concerned East Yorker. In fact, I'm wearing a T-shirt that East Yorkers on their own initiative recently have produced which shows our corporate seal, which is very meaningful to us as East Yorkers, and we have earned and worked with our corporate powers well over the many years. We sadly see them go for the time being, but wearing our T-shirt we can look down and see that those powers will come back. We believe in that; we believe in reclaiming our corporate powers back.
However, over the many years I have realized that sometimes one has to look at transitions to these other times ahead. I realize now that in living in the now, as a concerned East Yorker I am coming to you today to comment on the fact that East York does not have a fair or workable representation or a representational reality to look forward to on the new city council.
I was here this morning to hear the exchange between Ms Lankin, and I've been in the House to hear Ms Lankin, and the minister, and also an exchange between Ms Lankin and Mr Sutherland of the transition team. He spoke of his conversations with Mr Willis Blair on this very big issue that I refer to. He said we could look forward to the new council, and the transition team would propose, in a way the new council could address, a resolution to the unfair representation for East York, that they would propose an exciting and positive way for resolving this issue.
I was indeed encouraged. However, I have been in this issue since November, the second week of November of last year, as many East Yorkers have. Right from the beginning we have asked that this representational issue be resolved prior to the municipal election. This is very important to us. I am repeating the voice and the request of East Yorkers. We have been consistent about this. We have a history of appearing at all public consultation levels. We will continue to appear, as today, when given the opportunity. We have asked not only for an increase in elected representation, but one prior to the municipal election on November 10 this year.
I also realized this morning that there's a terrific opportunity here for all of us to work towards this together. Not only the transition team, the government's appointed team, but also this committee here have within their mandate the ability and the opportunity to suggest that it could be put forward that an increased representation and a just, workable representation answer the needs of East Yorkers, and also to have it prior to the November 10 election. This is under the section of part XI of Bill 148, "Transitional provisions." I feel that this is a good position and an area where this amendment, or your motion to amend, or your referral to such an amendment, whatever within your process it takes, could find a place and an opportunity, so that not only would this be a process for the transitional stage that is coming from the standing committee, but it also supports your appointed transition team advocacy. Plus, it hears the very definite words of East York that have been consistent, that we need to know prior to the election.
1730
We want to go in talking to our candidates as we are going to talk to candidates with a fair and just increased representation. Last Thursday, Team East York, a group of citizens, appeared in the House. We had submitted to the minister a declaration written by the citizens, myself and co-chair Colin McLeod of Team East York, asking all our candidates, in response to a concern of Mr Gilchrist that was stated in the House, that they state their position on this very question, and they are supportive. In that declaration they signed, all the candidates, they agreed that this should occur before the November election so East Yorkers can walk into the November election voting for an increased representation, one that is proportionate across the board with the other cities that are being amalgamated.
I'd like to say just very briefly to this committee, take this opportunity, work with us together and we can all walk towards this and into this transitional period. I do that because in my past I was once given some very good advice by a man named Joe Sylvester. Joe Sylvester was an Nishnawbe man, and in this city, on Queen Street, is a clinic dedicated to the work of this man. He was an Nishnawbe elder on Cape Croker. He took the time to answer a question of mine. I said, "Joe, when do you know when you've given all the reasons you need to give, when you've looked at all the ways you gotta look, when you've explained as clearly as you can what you are talking about when you see and know you are right that there needs to be a change?" a change as I'm talking about today, that we have a change so we can say we can have an increased representation to work for prior to the November election.
His answer was very interesting. He said to me, "Margaret, the last request you make is that you ask the people you are talking to to walk half a mile in your moccasins." That is what I've come to say to all of the committee today: that it can work, the timing can work if we package this together, the committee taking to the House the recommendation or a motion or a wording of the amendment that is inclusive with the voices and the needs of East Yorkers, that they have this settled prior to the November election. In that way we can walk together for that half-mile. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Simpson.
TERRY GODWIN
The Chair: The next speaker is Terry Godwin.
Mr Terry Godwin: Thank you for allowing the public to speak on Bill 148. This is an important bill and it gives a further indication of the direction in which the current government is proceeding.
First I would like to make an observation and a suggestion to the government: Initially the public was not to be allowed to speak on this bill. Some people felt it was not fair to shut the public out of the process. Now a very few from the public are to speak on Bill 148. They have been given about three to four hours' notice to prepare. We all know that this is tokenism. We all know that our pleas will be ignored.
Who won and who lost this round? Has the government neutralized criticism by providing a hollow forum to the public? My answer is, watch the evening news. My suggestion to this government is that they might consider consulting a bit with whomever they see or hear criticizing this process tonight on TV. The government will of course ignore this advice, and as a result it will not be long once again until you provide your opposition with free prime-time media coverage.
One advantage to having such a short notice to prepare this presentation is that I have been able to include an analysis of the speech given by Mr Leach just a few hours ago. I will make one comment on Mr Leach's presentation and one comment on his exchange with Mr Colle, which followed his presentation. This was around 11 o'clock this morning.
"The new council could, for example, examine a former municipality's total financial picture and make adjustments to tax rates which would reflect its findings. In other words, if a former municipality had substantial reserves and very little debt or liability, the council could lower tax rates in the area of that municipality and could do so over an eight-year period. That seems to be very fair to me, as I'm sure it does to everyone...."
This bit of advice sounds optimistic. I suppose the statement is meant to lower fears in the old city of Toronto, but how does this statement sound to East York? Put on your East York hat for a minute and let's look at the statement again.
"The new council could, for example, examine a former municipality's total financial picture and make adjustments to tax rates which would reflect its findings. In other words, if a former municipality had no reserve funds and had debt or liability, the council could raise its tax rates in the area of that municipality and could do so over a period of eight years. That seems fair to me, as I'm sure it does to everyone...."
I've substituted a few pertinent words there. While municipalities with reserves drain their reserves to offset the effects of downloading, municipalities with no reserves face tax rate increases to offset the effects of downloading.
Let's examine a little of the question-and-answer session that occurred earlier today between Mr Leach and Mr Colle. Mr Colle inquired about services in individual municipalities. If a service is treated uniquely in one municipality, eg, it's free in that area but in other municipalities they either do not offer that service, or if they do, they charge for it, then the question was, will that service continue to be offered under the same conditions in that area under the megacity?
Let's say, for example, if North York provides free sidewalk snowplowing to its residents while other municipalities do not, will the new council offer this service under the same conditions to North York? Mr Leach's reply was that that decision will be up to the council as a whole. Think about that. Since the majority of the new council will not be from North York, I think you can figure out whether this unique service would remain free. The effect of having a whole new council vote on whether one area can keep its unique services will be to lower all services to the lowest common denominator. Services can only become worse.
Last, let me reflect on what I call economic religion. I'm sure that to the Harris government, the NDP has their brand of economic religion. Similarly to the NDP, I'm sure the Conservatives have their brand of economic religion. True believers of opposite faiths cannot begin to find agreement.
Just a little reflection on the Conservatives' economic religion, which seems to be in the direction of laissez-faire free enterprise, whose tenets are: Lower taxes to stimulate the economy. Taxes are lowered by cutting support for the most needy. Taxes are also lowered by firing people who are on the public purse.
This whole drama has been and is being played out in the USA, with the result that although unemployment is lower, there is a widening gap between the rich and the middle class; the percentage of workers without benefits has increased, I believe, from about 19% to 24%; and one quarter of the population in the US is one paycheque from the street.
Where does this lead? Take a walk in almost any downtown US city. Feel the desperation, feel the fear. Please think carefully. No, please feel carefully in your hearts whether this is the environment you want your kids to grow up in. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Godwin.
1740
JOHN SEWELL
The Chair: The final speaker this afternoon is John Sewell.
Mr John Sewell: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Bill 148 has been called a housekeeping bill by Minister Al Leach, but it is nothing of the sort. It is a house-wrecking bill and a bill that rationalizes highway robbery. People in Metro did not ask that a new form of municipal government be imposed on them. They did not ask that their house be rearranged. In fact, when they were asked their opinion on the megacity issue, as you know, they rejected it overwhelmingly.
To say that Bill 148, which confirms the havoc unleashed by Bill 103, is housekeeping is to continue the politics of lies. To say it makes good financial sense is to deceive. Worse, government members on this committee have participated in an attempt to hijack the public process. Imagine allotting a mere 9 hours to consider this complicated legislation, and then to do it in a way that doesn't give a single citizen a chance to speak. Shame on you, and then for the Chair to peremptorily adjourn the meeting for 30 minutes because the public asked to speak, as happened this morning. It's extraordinary. I think these are the darkest days democracy has seen in Ontario for 140 years, and it's because of you on the government side and your refusal to stand up for the basic principles of the importance of informing the public of what is intended, engendering public debate and then taking your direction from that public debate. You refuse to do any of those three things.
I hope you'll make arrangements to hear all the people who have requested to speak to you because I believe you might learn something from them. That's why you have public discussion, public debate and public input. You might actually learn something from them, that you don't know everything, and some public might help you.
I want to address a couple of aspects of the bill that to my understand have not been addressed so far and you might not be aware of them. First, two in regard to the TTC: Subsection 25(6) says that TTC members can be appointed only by two thirds of the members of the new council. Why is this section here? What's wrong with a majority? Why legislate that a rump minority, a third of the members present, can prevent the majority from appointing someone on the TTC? What's the reason? Al Leach didn't give any this morning. He has never given any publicly. What is the reason? Why? It would be nice to hear. I think that section is absolutely crazy. I have no idea why it's there. It stands against the basic ideas about how you take votes.
Another subsection, 29(1)(a), gives the TTC power to "consolidate and coordinate all...local...transportation" in Metro Toronto. This means the TTC is obligated to take responsibility for GO Transit. I think this is absolutely crazy. I think you should be amending the section to make it very clear that is not the intent, unless indeed it is your intent.
Second, I want to talk about assets. The bill does not protect existing municipal assets but puts them under severe threat, and there are a number of examples. The first example is parking authorities. There are two parking authorities at the current time in Metro Toronto. There's one in North York that's exceptionally small, runs one or two parking lots as well as collections from the meters, and there's a very large parking authority in the city of Toronto that has been established for about 40 years. The city of Toronto established a parking authority to try and ensure that it had some say and some control over parking rates. In fact, the parking authority has operated in an extraordinary fashion of discouraging commuter parking coming downtown by charging very high rates for commuters and lower rates for people who are parking for an hour or two at a time. It has been an extraordinarily good public investment and now has assets of about $150 million.
What are you doing with the parking authorities? You're creating one great, big parking authority that's going to be run by the new council. That means it's going to be run by representatives from municipalities that have never had any interest in even establishing a parking authority. I believe that the first thing they'll do is change the rate structure to encourage commuter traffic downtown and then they'll sell those assets off. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents that. That's what the intention I think of the legislation is, and it's dead wrong. That's not the way to protect public assets.
I think you should be changing the legislation to ensure that the spectacular asset that returns about $10 million a year to the city of Toronto is protected. This legislation does not do that. It strips the citizens of Toronto of their asset.
The same is true in respect of historical boards, where again the city of Toronto has a very powerful and strong and wealthy historical board compared to the other municipalities because it has made the investment. What are you doing? You're stripping those assets from the citizens of Toronto and giving them to this new council. That's wrecking those assets, and I think that's wrong. You should be protecting those assets.
The same is true in respect of libraries and boards of health. They're assets we've developed in the city and they are being given away to a new council that has no concern for them, and I think that's wrong. I've suggested in my brief how you might actually move to protect those assets.
In regard to reserves, I don't believe a word Al Leach says about protecting those reserves. Protecting those reserves means you use them for the inhabitants of those municipalities for capital purposes. That's not what is happening here. The legislation requires that they be used for operating purposes, to lower taxes, presumably because of the downloading. As you know, nobody believes it's going to be revenue-neutral and I'm sure you'll find that out next time you try and run for re-election.
The fourth point I wanted to make is in regard to planning approvals. I was here this morning when the transition team asked for this extraordinary power, namely that councillors who have been superseded by newly elected councils continue to make important decisions. This is asking people responsible to no one to make the important decisions. Quite frankly, this is shocking. We know it's shocking because the current law does not permit this to happen. People recognize that this is a perfect situation for corruption, and we shouldn't allow it to happen. It shouldn't even be talked about here.
I can understand the transition team, which is not elected by anybody, not responsible to anybody except maybe Al Leach, saying, "This would be a good idea," but from a democratic point of view it is shocking to actually hear such a suggestion made. If you're worried about the long time between when the election happens and the new council's taking office, change the time the new council takes office. Change it to December 1. That's when all the other councils take office. You guys have arbitrarily changed that time. You've created a problem. Get it back. Let's have democratic rule as quickly as we can in Toronto. That would be a good idea.
Is this something you're going to do that the transition team has suggested? I fear you will do it, that you've lost your sense about the basics of democracy. I hope you won't.
In conclusion, one of the things I've been thinking about is what I can do for you people that might help or might indicate the kind of approach you're taking. It hit me today that the appropriate thing to do would be to give you a gift. So I went out today to look for a gift that I thought you would admire and like and probably value and I found it. I found two good brown shirts that I thought would be entirely appropriate. Chair, in conclusion, these are the kinds of things that symbolize the politics you stand for. Wear them with pride.
The Chair: This meeting is adjourned until Thursday, September 25, at 10 am.
The committee adjourned at 1750.