CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (NO 2)
CITY OF YORK COMMUNITY AND AGENCY SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL
SYME WOOLNER NEIGHBOURHOOD AND FAMILY CENTRE
WILLIAM PHILLIPS
METRO TORONTO BOARDS OF HEALTH LIAISON COMMITTEE
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
CONTENTS
Thursday 25 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
City of York Community and Agency Social Planning Council; Syme Woolner Neighbourhood and Family Centre
Ms Yasmin Khan, Ms Liz Bonanno
Ms Doris Bradley
Ms Liz Rykert
Ms Heather Brooks-Hill
Ms Anne Redpath
Mr William Phillips
Metro Toronto Boards of Health Liaison Committee
Mr Peter Tabuns
Borough of East York
Mr Paul Robinson, Mr Michael Prue, Mr Norm Crone, Mr Doug Taylor, Ms Maureen Lindsay, Dr Sheela Basrur
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Mr Scott Cavalier, Ms Louise Eason
Mr Floyd Honey
Ms Ruth Cohen
Mr Simon Richards
Ms Shirley Russ
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale ND)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr David Spring, senior legal counsel, MMAH
Clerk / Greffier Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in committee room 1.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (NO 2)
Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.
The Chair (Mr David Tilson): Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. This is the standing committee on general government. We are holding public meetings with respect to Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto.
The bulk of the day is reserved for presentations from members of the public. Committee members may have an amended agenda. The city of York was to have been here today, but Mayor Nunziata has indicated she's unable to attend. There are two representatives scheduled to be here: Yasmin Khan and Liz Bonanno. Are either of those people here yet? If not, we'll start, and we'll try to fit them in later.
Ladies and gentlemen, we experienced some difficulty last week in keeping order. This Chair will try to keep order in this committee. There will be no warnings. Members of the public, I know some feel upset with this bill; however, we have to hear people. If there are any disruptions, I will ask all members of the public to leave this room, members of the media, members' staff, ministry staff and others, and of course the committee will then proceed with the delegations. I will be firm on that; there will be no warnings.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Before we start, I want to say that I'm happy we have managed to make space for a number of citizens and organizations to appear. I genuinely appreciate that that's been done. But the transition team, whom we had asked to return today so we could complete our questions, I gather are not scheduled and are not coming.
The Chair: That's a fair question, Mr Silipo. I haven't personally spoken with them; the clerk has. I'll let the clerk speak. I understand that Mr Prins has spoken to members of the transition team and they are simply unavailable to appear today. Perhaps Mr Prins could confirm that.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): That is correct. The offer was extended to them to come at any point in the day, and their schedules wouldn't allow it.
Mr Silipo: I find that quite offensive, as a member of this committee. I've made a point throughout the process -- members of the subcommittee would know how emphatically I insisted that we have the transition team here. There are many questions I wanted to put to them which we didn't have a chance to do last time. They are crucial to the evolution of the new city, and I find it really offensive that of the six or seven members on the transition team, not one of them could clear their schedules to spend half an hour with us today, which is all that was left.
I would like to request, Chair, even at this point -- I see that this afternoon there's an hour in which the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is scheduled. I'm going to be bold enough to assume that we can cut that down by half and request that either you or the clerk call the transition team and request the presence of one or more of their members here this afternoon.
The Chair: To be in the 3:30 or 4:30 slot?
Mr Silipo: I'm happy to leave that issue in the clerk's hands to schedule, but to attend this afternoon. From my perspective -- and I hope the committee agrees -- this is not a question of whether they would like to come; it's that we want them here and we have some questions we want to put to them.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): When we started last week, I had exactly the same fear. Today we find ourselves in the position that we can't hear any more or question further the members of the transition team and, for that matter, even the minister. I don't know if the minister came back, but he did say he was making some time.
Interjection: He did.
Mr Sergio: I'm glad to hear that he did come back.
This is the last kick at the can that we would have to shed some light publicly, to ask some questions and get some answers from the transition team. Here we are at the last second and they are not showing up. I find this quite unfortunate.
This is very important, not only for us but for members of the public as well, as we move closer and closer to the end of the line and the government is going to make a decision. If not all the members, someone from the transition team should be attending the meeting today to answer some questions that we still don't have answers to. I concur with the mover, my colleague Mr Silipo, that we should find some space and accommodate any member from the transition team to come here this afternoon.
1010
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's my understanding that they're in an all-day meeting. Similarly, Tuesday and Friday they met all day to prepare their interim report. Clearly, they're operating under time lines as well. They have their own schedules and deadlines. It's unfortunate that these were previously scheduled meetings.
Mr Silipo, if you have specific questions, perhaps an alternative might be to table them with the clerk and ask for the team to comment on them in a timely fashion. We have another week for you to prepare amendments. I would think that might be a good fallback position in the event that they're not able to accommodate your request.
Mr Silipo: I don't want to suggest for a second -- I appreciate that they may very well be busy with other important issues, but this is a legislative committee that has been given the task of looking at the bill that's going to help implement the megacity, the same kind of work the transition team is involved in. I think it is a bit of an offence to this body and to the Legislative Assembly for that group to be unable to send one member for half an hour, even though they may be in an all-day meeting.
I hope we have agreement around the table that we make that point to them; we ask them to come this afternoon and hope they're able to free up at least one of their members to come speak to us and answer the questions we have.
The Chair: I'm unclear, Mr Silipo. Is this a motion or a request?
Mr Silipo: I'm moving it.
The Chair: Further debate on the motion? All those in favour of the motion?
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): What was the motion?
The Chair: The motion, as I understand it, was that the Chair or the clerk telephone representatives of the transition team and ask them to appear today to make a presentation to the committee.
Mr Sergio: One of the members of the transition team, anyone.
The Chair: Obviously, at the Chair's and the clerk's discretion, we will be obliged to ask certain people who are coming today not to appear. The day is full; that's the problem.
Mr Silipo: There's an hour scheduled for the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. I think that would be the first place to look in terms of reducing.
The Chair: To cut that.
Mr Silipo: To cut that in half.
The Chair: I'm going to ask for the vote again. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion carries.
Mr Gilchrist: That's fine. I happen to know the schedule; they don't.
Mr Sergio: The other day, when we had Mr Tonks and two of the other members of the transition team, did they take the full hour or half-hour allotted to them?
The Chair: I believe they did. Can someone help me?
Mr Gilchrist: Yes; it was only half an hour.
Mr Sergio: It was only half an hour. If you recall, I put a motion on the floor to give them one hour. I realize it's passé.
The Chair: Mr Sergio, you'll recall that an hour had been set, but as a result of disruptions of the meeting, it didn't take place.
In any event, I will direct the clerk to forthwith contact the transition team and request if they are able to appear. We will report back to you, if we can get a hold of them, later this morning.
CITY OF YORK COMMUNITY AND AGENCY SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL
SYME WOOLNER NEIGHBOURHOOD AND FAMILY CENTRE
The Chair: We're ready to proceed, I hope. I'm going to call to see if Ms Khan and Ms Bonanno are here this morning. Please be seated, and welcome to the committee. Ms Khan, originally Mayor Nunziata was scheduled to appear and you were to appear with her. Is that correct?
Ms Yasmin Khan: That's correct, yes.
The Chair: You were originally to be given 20 minutes?
Interjection: Ten minutes, she said.
The Chair: Then we're clear. The two of you are speaking for a 20-minute block. You may proceed.
Ms Khan: Thank you for the opportunity. We are by no means replacing Mayor Nunziata. My name is Yasmin Khan. I'm representing the City of York Community and Agency Social Planning Council.
The mission of our organization, Y-CASP, is to enhance the lives of residents in the city of York by identifying local human services needs and supporting the development of appropriate responses to these needs. We are a non-profit charitable organization with an independent board of directors. Currently, our work involves planning, coordination, research and analysis, community education etc.
Today I will cover the demographics of the city of York and the findings from our research projects.
First the demographics: We in the city of York have the largest percentage of immigrants, where almost half the people were born outside of Canada. The English- and French-speaking population constitute a minority in this area. Almost one in five residents over the age of 15 have less than a grade 9 education. Later on I will get into the implications of what that means. The city of York's average household income is approximately 80% of Metro Toronto's average. We have a very high proportion of single-parent families, almost 18%, which is higher than Metro overall, and even in the single-parent families we have a higher proportion of female-led single-parent families. The underlying theme is poverty overall. We have a larger proportion of seniors over 65 and children under the age of five than Metro.
Most of the figures are from Stats Canada. I have brought a copy of Community Profile of the City of York, our own publication.
Some of the issues arising from community demographics include:
A high incidence of low income, and we referred to poverty overall, as well as really high rates of unemployment.
Language and education are barriers to job creation.
We are an immigrant settlement area. We are the most ethnically diverse community in Metro Toronto, and you know that Metro Toronto is the most cosmopolitan in Canada.
There are real issues around target populations -- youth, women, seniors, immigrants -- and they are all magnified in a weak economic climate.
The labour market adjustment strategies require more supports, for example, child care, translation services etc.
At Y-CASP, in the last year we have undertaken three research projects. I am reporting the preliminary findings. As the reports are completed, I'd be very pleased to forward the complete reports to you later on, some time in November.
This is primarily feedback from our residents and our agencies. The knowledge is derived from a variety of sources: from our own research, from other reports done by Metro, community services, United Way, some from Stats Canada, as well as our very close ties to our own community.
The three research projects I mentioned: One is a quantitative research project, the second is a qualitative research project, and then there's our Taking Stock survey.
The quantitative research project was undertaken with the help of the University of Toronto's research department. The sample was derived at random from five York neighbourhoods with mixed income levels, giving due regard to ethnicity and other variables too.
Our research is showing that 95.2% of residents think their public services and programs need to be protected from funding cuts -- a very high majority. These are very preliminary results. We are in the process of analysing them, and as I said, we will provide a full report later on.
We can report more on our qualitative research program, which was focusing on immigrant women settling in the city of York in the last three to five years primarily. Child poverty came up really high. There was an expressed concern for the ability to provide children with basic needs, especially food, and also shelter and clothing. One woman was reported as saying, "It is tragic when a child has to be told there is no more food in the house."
1020
The other major thing which came up was the interrelatedness of the problems and the issues. They described the overall effects of cuts as having a "chain reaction" -- these are their words -- in their lives.
One Hispanic immigrant woman was quoted as saying: "I have found that I go around in circles, no matter where I start. I look for day care or I look for work, and I go to find work but I don't find it because of the education. Where do I get educated? Here they're not going to teach me what I need for that job, and the jobs aren't waiting for you either, even if you do have the education. I feel I'm going around in circles. In none of those areas can you say I find relief, that if I do this or that, then I will achieve what I want."
The other things that emerged were availability of quality day care; the quality of the educational system; the demands that schools place on poor families, and by that I mean money for school trips etc; issues related to employment and training -- underemployment and lack of employment came up over and over; social housing; social assistance; affordable housing; medical care; and transportation. They're all interrelated.
Our third research was a survey done with agencies serving the city of York, called the Taking Stock survey. From this I have pulled out, given the limitation of the 10 minutes we have, just one or two organizations dealing with legal issues in the city of York.
Given the low employment and income rates within the city of York and given that no new affordable rental housing has been built, a local community legal clinic reports that tenants find it increasingly difficult to pay their rents. Workers from the clinic report that the majority of cases at the legal clinic are cases which relate to tenant evictions and other housing-related problems. Almost all evictions, they report, are based on rent arrears. They also report that the rates of evictions are substantially higher than they were two years ago, and there is no letup in sight. Finally, the way they explain it, many clients, after purchasing groceries and other essentials for their families, find it difficult to pay rent.
I have also, as I referred to, looked at other surveys. This one was released a couple of months ago, and I can leave a copy: Profile of a Changing World, done by Metro community services, the city of Toronto, and the Metro social planning council. In their report, Profile of a Changing World, the largest net losses by client group -- they talked about the impact of the cutbacks on the agencies and what client groups were impacted by the cuts -- were to immigrants and refugees, persons with physical disabilities and the unemployed.
Keeping in mind the demographics of the city of York outlined a little earlier, these particular program losses inevitably hurt the residents in a community like the city of York most.
The agencies serving our needy community are themselves under great stress due to cutbacks in funding. As the needs of the population are increasing -- we are a settlement area, for example, and there are new immigrants coming and settling, and Canada needs immigrants -- the ability to serve the needy is decreasing, to the point where many organizations, especially ethno-specific agencies, are beginning to close or are on the verge of closing down. New needs are emerging without the support systems.
United Way also released its report a couple of months ago, which confirms our Taking Stock survey. It is entitled Metro Toronto: A Community At Risk, and it reports increased rates of child poverty, youth unemployment, homelessness and anxiety over changes to welfare and health services.
In conclusion, the information gathered by Y-CASP is pointing towards some very disturbing trends, including increased rates of child poverty, higher reported rates of child abuse -- I just pulled out one page from The First Duty: Report of the Metro Task Force on Services to Young Children and Families; I don't know if it's easy to see, but the city of York is almost all coloured in to show the higher rates of child abuse -- youth unemployment, families under stress, homelessness and an overall deterioration in the quality of life of the majority of residents in the city of York. The impact of the proposed devolution of services such as social housing on communities with demographics like ours has major negative implications.
I have with me Liz Bonanno. She's the executive director of Syme Woolner Neighbourhood and Family Centre. It's a direct service organization.
If you have any questions or comments -- I was told we had to bring 25 copies. I'm sorry; I just didn't have time. Our own agency has gone down from nine people to two staff. I can leave my set for photocopying.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Khan. Ms Bonanno, if you have a statement, you've got about six minutes.
Ms Liz Bonanno: Syme Woolner Neighbourhood and Family Centre is a grass-roots, community-based organization located in the west end of the city of York. We provide services and programs for children and youth, women and families and community support programs, which include food programs. We have a food bank; we have prenatal adult-child drop-in programs; school-age programs, both after-school and day camp programs; we have a clothing exchange. We have diverse programs.
We have two locations. One is in an elementary school and the other is a neighbourhood centre which is located in a low-income community. There are eight high-rise buildings, one of which is a Metro Toronto Housing building.
Our catchment area is that we serve approximately 30,000 households within the city of York. The community I speak of is very concerned about the possibility of the downloading of services from what is now a provincial responsibility to the new Toronto.
Presently, we see people coming in -- our agency is right there in the community, so people come to our organization for whatever. If it's a tenant-landlord issue, if it's a child care issue, if it's an employment issue, if they're looking for some kind of support around a legal issue, they come to our organization first and we try to help them or, if we can, we refer them to another organization.
We are hearing stories from people who are living on the edge, that they're having difficulty now making rent. This is their priority. They're trying to hang on to their rental accommodation or their house. They're working poor; generally, the two parents are working or it's a single-parent family struggling to provide a home for their children and put food on the table.
We are finding that increasingly the issue we are hearing about is that they're on the edge, that they can't afford their rent. We have a food bank within our organization, and they're going to the food bank for food, they're coming to our breakfast program so their child can at least get breakfast in the morning.
1030
We are concerned that this winter, because of the cutbacks that have happened to date -- it has impacted in a negative way on most families within our community. They are worried about where their next meal is coming from and also where their next rent cheque is coming from. If there are any other cutbacks to the ability of families in our community to care for their children, to have a place to live -- we're concerned that more cutbacks will happen with the movement of supportive housing from the province to the municipality. It's a huge expense the municipality will have to deal with, and subsequently it will potentially increase rental costs, which will cause more and more people to lose their homes. We never used to have homeless people in our community; we now have homeless people. We're hoping to get some funding from the United Way winter relief program so we can have a breakfast program six days a week and our clothing exchange opened up six days a week to provide winter clothing for families in our community.
I'm here to ask that when you're looking at the issue of downsizing and the costs involved that the municipalities will have to pick up -- any other increase to families will impact in a negative way. The results will be very negative in our community and in other communities throughout Metro.
Thank you for this opportunity to express that to you, with the hope that you will consider what is already the environment in our communities, and that any other negative impact will be devastating to the families that are struggling now to survive.
The Chair: Ms Bonanno, Ms Khan, thank you very much for your presentations this morning. Thank you for coming.
DORIS BRADLEY
The Chair: The next presentation is Doris Bradley. Welcome. As you know, each delegation has 10 minutes to make a presentation. Thank you for coming. You may proceed.
Ms Doris Bradley: Mr Chair and members of the committee, first of all I would like to thank the mayors of most of the Metro municipalities for relinquishing their time so that a small number of citizens could have an opportunity to speak to Bill 148.
I was one of the many who spoke to Bill 103 earlier this year. I am a lifelong resident of the city of Toronto and one who is concerned about the ramifications of Bill 148 and its predecessor, Bill 103.
Bill 148 requires the creation of one Metro-wide library board, one historical board, one parking authority and one board of health instead of the current boards which serve each of the six municipalities. The result will be the loss of local influence and control in these matters, where adaptation to the local situation is most important.
Toronto has been declared by Fortune magazine as the best city in the world in which to live and work. The fact that the city of Toronto is such a vibrant part of Metro is no accident. It is the intentioned decisions of the members of the Toronto city council over the years that have made this possible.
The philosophy behind the city of Toronto parking authority was to provide parking at rates that would discourage people from bringing their cars into the downtown area. This has resulted in the assets of the city of Toronto parking authority increasing until they are now valued at $150 million, far above the assets of the only other parking agency in Metro, run by North York. In a Metro-wide city of Toronto, will that same philosophy prevail, or will the parking lots be sold off to the highest bidder and the philosophy abandoned?
This is one example of how amalgamation forces two urban styles into one jurisdiction. The older, compact city, with its active street life and jumble of shops, apartments, houses and businesses defines Toronto, East York and York, and contrasts sharply with the newer suburban style of low-density single-use areas and reliance on the automobile travel found in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. These two different city styles have different political cultures and demands. Cars versus public transit and community policing versus fast police response are examples. Experience in Calgary, Edmonton and many American cities shows that the style of the older downtown gets wiped out.
Another example: Why is it that the city of Toronto is the only local municipal government in Metro that has a housing department? Toronto city councils through the ages have declared housing to be important for the citizens. There is a belief in the necessity of affordable housing.
What about the historical board? Toronto has spent much money and energy to strengthen the city's respect for historical roots, and as a result Toronto's historical assets far outstrip the other municipalities'. One city loses and the others gain. Will those who gain show the same care and regard for the concerns which created the Toronto parking authority, the Toronto housing department, Cityhome and the Toronto Historical Board?
I am very concerned about our library system. Libraries are important in our communities. They are close to the community and respond to its needs. The organizational structure of the current library systems has been decentralized to facilitate this. The libraries in the six municipalities have been run as semi-autonomous bodies. All decisions on policy and expenditures have been made by the library board, not the municipal council. Why does this bill have the libraries reporting directly to the city council rather than the community councils? The sensitive role that libraries now play will suffer as they become encumbered by partisan politics.
What of the reserve funds of the current municipalities? According to Bill 148, these funds may be spent by the municipalities to reduce the tax levy over the next eight years. In other words, these capital funds may be spent as operating funds to reduce the rise in taxes caused by provincial downloading. I'm treasurer of a housing co-op, and under no conditions would we contemplate using our capital reserves as operating funds. The new council will be responsible for using locally generated revenue to meet a provincial agenda. Shame.
Does this all have to take place? No. Let's take a look at history. Metropolitan Toronto was created in the 1950s when the city of Toronto had Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough as its suburbs. Yes, there was some consolidation at that time. For example, smaller communities merged with Etobicoke and the city of Toronto, and Leaside and East York were joined.
Why was the Metro level created? There was a need for coordination of some services across the whole area; for example, police and ambulance services, transportation, including both Metro roads and the TTC, and social services.
Now, in the 1990s, the suburbs are communities such as Mississauga, Brampton, Richmond Hill, Markham and Pickering. What is needed now is coordination of some services on a GTA-wide level. This GTA-wide coordinating body would have representatives from each of the current communities in the area, just as the original Metro had representatives from the six municipalities. Why couldn't the process that took place in the 1950s happen in 1997? If it did, the GTA would end up as the best extended city in the world in which to live and work.
Earlier this year, the citizens resoundingly said, "Scrap amalgamation as outlined in Bill 103," and now 148, "and start a meaningful, consultative process in which governments at all levels heed the legitimate concerns of the citizens affected." They said it at the public hearings; they said it in the referendum. You members of the government at this committee and the other members of your caucus have been told by Judge Borins that consultation was woefully inadequate, contrary to that in which a democratically elected government should have engaged. He also indicated that it is not the role of the court to rule on the wisdom of the legislation, and that municipalities have no constitutional status or rights and are entirely at the whim of provincial governments.
One thing I can thank the current government for is sending a wake-up call to the citizens. If municipalities have no rights, it means that what we vote for or against at the municipal level can be overturned easily and "imperiously," a word used by the judge, if the provincial government decides to do so. We as citizens can't let it rest here. We have been used to governments which genuinely consult and listen. With a government that pushes its own agenda irrespective of the wishes of the people, we have no choice: We must get law in place to ensure that this cannot recur; otherwise, the implications for all of us are frightening.
As you know, Judge Borins's ruling is being appealed and will be heard in the Ontario Court of Appeal on October 6. If by chance the appeal is not successful in obtaining a redefinition of subsection 92(8) of the Constitution, the fight will continue. Legislative change will have to be pursued so that a provincial government cannot push its own agenda irrespective of the wishes of the people.
1040
To close, here is the new verse that Dennis Lee added to his poem 1838 earlier this year:
Now Harris took Toronto
And he drove it to the ground.
He wants a paper city
He can boss and push around.
The province treats Toronto
Like a rival to be slain.
But who will speak for sanity?
Mackenzie, come again!
Applause.
The Chair: Thank you for coming, Ms Bradley.
Ladies and gentlemen, I draw to your attention that the rules of the House and of this committee do not allow applause or anything. You're simply here to observe. We can't allow applause.
As instructed by members of the committee, the clerk has telephoned a representative from the transition team, Lynn Morrow, who did the scheduling for the time they appeared. We have been informed that they are at meetings all day and are unable to appear.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Mr Chairman, I find that an incredible affront to this committee and to this House. I would move that the transition team be censured for not appearing as they said they would. That is my motion.
This is the second time it has happened. It happened with the previously appointed trusteeship, which also refused to come before this committee. We've got another group of individuals, unelected, appointed by the minister, who work under the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They are rebuking the House, it's a rebuke to the committee, to you as Chair and to us as members of this committee. I move that we censure the transition team.
The Chair: I will say, and I'll have the clerk confirm it, that I'm not so certain that I as Chair of this committee have the ability to accept such an order. I will allow some debate, but I'm not certain that that motion is in order. My understanding is it may only be that the Speaker has the ability to do such a thing, but I will allow debate to continue.
Mr Colle: We as a committee can make that recommendation to the Speaker and to the House.
Mr Silipo: If that's what it takes, certainly I would support that. I just ask you, Chair, or the clerk what recourse is available to this committee when we have requested someone to appear and they refuse. I know there are provisions for the issuing of a warrant. Is that something the committee can do or request the House to do?
I don't know the nature of the conversation the clerk had with whomever he had it with, but I wonder if the head of the transition team and the members of the transition team -- not the staff who work for the transition team, but the people who are on that team -- appreciate the fact that this committee voted to have them appear, to ask them to appear. We used nicer words, but the tone was that we wanted them here, and that was supported by a majority of the committee.
That's all we have left at this point to get them to understand that this is not a question of whether it fits into their schedule but an issue of their having an obligation to come and talk to us and answer our questions.
The Chair: Could the members could just give me a moment.
To Mr Colle, who has made the motion, my understanding is that this committee simply does not have the power or the authority to censure the transition team. I believe the House and the Speaker may have more jurisdiction, and that could be confirmed later, but this committee, of which I am the Chair, does not have the authority to censure the transition team. You can move a motion that I as Chair, if the motion is accepted, write a letter to the transition team --
Interjection.
The Chair: Well, it's either that or nothing, ladies and gentlemen. I can write a letter to the transition team expressing your disapproval, but as far as your motion is concerned, unless there's some variation of that, the motion is out of order simply because we don't have the jurisdiction to do what you're requesting.
Mr Colle: I recall the same discussion when the trustees refused to appear before this same committee. At that time, it was brought to our attention that we as a committee could recommend to the House and the Speaker that these individuals -- in that case it was the trustees -- be recommended for censure.
That is the variation of my motion, basically that we ask the Speaker to take appropriate action, whether it be censure or that a warrant be issued, as a result of these paid political appointees, the transition team, failing to come before this House as they agreed to.
Chairman Tonks agreed to come last time. If you check the Hansard, they said they would come back. The enormity of their refusal to come back is that it sets such a dangerous precedent in terms of appointed people, who are not accountable to anyone because they're appointed, saying to this House, as we represent the House, "We don't think you are important enough or significant enough for us to even take 10 minutes or 20 minutes to appear before this House." I think you as Chair hold a very heavy responsibility here, because if you let them slip away with this, it sends a very ominous message to everybody who is called before this committee and has serious information to give.
They have critical information. They're basically the government now in the transition. They are running the seven municipalities and they are accountable to no one. They have failed even to come before this committee, which is in charge of these bills, especially this follow-up bill.
It is an incredible affront, Mr Chairman, to you and the House and this committee, to this very institution of the Legislature, if appointed people on the payroll of the provincial government, appointed by the minister, laugh at this committee and laugh at the Legislature. If you let them get away with that, you're doing a disservice not only to us but to a lot of other committees and a lot of the work the Legislature does.
I urge you to support this motion of asking the Speaker to censure the transition team.
The Chair: Mr Colle, as you know, I'm bound by the rules of this place and I'm also bound by the direction of this committee. If the committee directs me to do something, I will do it. Let's see how this goes.
Mr Silipo: Chair, could you or the clerk answer the question I posed earlier about the process for issuing a warrant when a witness refuses to appear?
The Chair: I'm sending the clerk on all kinds of messages, but I will have the clerk look at that one too. My understanding is that only the House can do that.
Mr Silipo: So we're in the same situation, that we would have to request the House to issue a warrant.
The Chair: I believe so. I don't believe we have the authority to do that, but if you wish I will check that one out as well.
Mr Silipo: Either that can be a part of Mr Colle's motion, if he wants to accept it, or I would make it as a separate motion.
The Chair: You may have to leave that one with us; I don't know.
Mr Silipo: I would also raise this as a question of privilege. I believe my privilege and that of all the committee members is being seriously impinged here by the refusal of a group of provincial appointees to a body to appear in front of a legislative committee when requested to do so.
I don't want for a second to diminish the work they are doing today in whatever meetings they are engaged in, but in the context they are working in, there is no greater obligation they have than to the Legislative Assembly. Today this committee is sitting on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, dealing with a bill they are entrusted to help put in place. For them to conclude that they can simply, because of their choice of which meeting to attend, usurp their responsibilities to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is beyond anything I've ever seen in the time I've been in this place.
1050
I want to raise that as an issue of privilege for you to rule on, because I believe it is a serious matter and it warrants either the issuing of a warrant or certainly the censure of the House if they continue to refuse.
I make one suggestion in passing, as one way to try to avoid a major confrontation on this; that is, for you to get on the phone to the head of the transition team. Your writing a letter, while I appreciate that suggestion, isn't going to be helpful in the time we have. Perhaps the head of the transition team --
The Chair: My suggestion was to the original motion of censure. That was a response to --
Mr Silipo: I understand that, but perhaps, Chair, we could continue the hearings with the Vice-Chair in the chair. If you would be willing to go and phone the head of the transition team, perhaps a conversation directly between you and him might impress upon him that this committee -- it wasn't me, it wasn't Mr Colle, it wasn't any other individual member, but this committee -- voted this morning to ask them to come and speak to us and answer our questions, and in their refusal to do so they are seriously impinging on our rights and they are creating what I can tell you is going to be a major confrontation if they persist in their refusal to come and speak to us.
The Chair: We have one more speaker. I remind the members that we have a full morning of people who wish to speak to the committee. I'm prepared to allow this to continue, but it will mean that certain members of the public won't be allowed to speak.
Mr Gilchrist: That's precisely the point I was going to make, Chair. If the opposition members would get down off their high horse, it's no more or less offensive than the fact that Barbara Hall or Frank Faubert aren't here. They were all invited exactly the same way. They're all affected. Frank Faubert is paid to be the mayor of Scarborough.
Mr Colle: No. They're paid political appointees. You paid Tonks and company to be the transition team.
Mr Gilchrist: The bottom line is that Frank Faubert can find the time to come down to the other committee but he doesn't want to come and face us, quite frankly because they don't have any comments.
Mr Colle: You're their boss. They should be here. Get on the phone and tell them to come here.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen --
Mr Gilchrist: The arrogance and conceit of Mr Colle in particular -- the transition team did show up. They were slotted for an hour.
Mr Colle: They showed for 10 minutes.
Mr Gilchrist: They were here for two hours, while demonstrations from the audience, fomented in large part by Mr Colle, cut into the speaking time, just as he's cutting into the speaking time right now.
Mr Colle: What did I foment? What did you say?
Mr Gilchrist: Exactly the same way you're doing it right now. Your ignorant behaviour --
Mr Colle: They're your paid appointees. Get on the phone and tell them to get here.
The Chair: Mr Colle.
Mr Gilchrist: They are responsible under Bill 103.
Mr Colle: Get on the phone and tell them to get here before the House. They're your employees.
The Chair: I'm going to recess this meeting if you two can't get yourselves under control.
Mr Gilchrist: I have the floor, Mr Chair.
The Chair: It seems to be out of control here.
Mr Gilchrist: That's the gentleman who's doing it.
The Chair: If you people want to have a meeting here, we'll have one.
Mr Gilchrist: No one interrupted Mr Colle.
The Chair: All right, you may proceed.
Mr Gilchrist: Bill 103 is the statute that put the transition team in place, not Bill 148. Obviously, they are working on things to do with the creation of the new city. This bill deals with things to do with the creation of the new city. They are no more or no less related to this than any of the other civic employees from all those cities who could be required to be here.
Mr Colle: Give us a break. They're interpreting every clause in this thing.
Mr Gilchrist: The fact of the matter is that they did show up at their appointed time, and as you heard last week, they cancelled previously scheduled meetings to do that. They are under certain deadlines. Maybe some people would like to set them up to fail. I don't think it's fair in the slightest that given that they have taken on the job and have a time line, obviously related to the fact that the municipal elections are coming up -- the current councils would like to have some input, and that's why the interim report will come out in plenty of time for the current councils to give comment and to factor that into, presumably, both their elections and then the work they do afterwards.
I think it is quite arrogant and conceited to believe they should just drop whatever they're doing at the whim of Mr Colle --
Mr Colle: They shouldn't come before the Legislature? Who's arrogant?
Mr Gilchrist: You are, Mr Colle. The bottom line is that they did show up. That is the bottom line.
Mr Colle: Get on the phone and tell your people to get here. You're saying they shouldn't be here. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Gilchrist: They honoured the invitation to be here, contrary to four of the mayors who were invited to be here. If you're going to censure the transition team, I suggest you censure all the mayors, because I am just as eager --
Mr Colle: The mayors aren't paid by you. You're paying the transition team.
Mr Gilchrist: They're paid by the taxpayer. The taxpayers pay all of them.
Mr Colle: The mayors are not paid by you.
Mr Gilchrist: Come on, Chair, could we get some order here, please? Are you done your rant?
Mr Colle: They're your hired hands. You get on the phone and tell them to get here when they're supposed to.
The Chair: This meeting is recessed for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1056 to 1107.
The Chair: We'll reconvene the meeting. There is a motion on the floor by Mr Colle that this committee present a report to the assembly that the --
Interruption.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I need your cooperation or we're never going to finish this day. Mr Colle's motion is in order, that this committee write a substantive report to the House that the transition team be censured.
I will interject at this stage that, as you know, every second of this day is timed for public hearings. I am prepared to hear further debate, but I remind members of the committee that the more we debate, it will be physically impossible, in the time that's been allotted to this committee, to hear representatives speak.
Mr Silipo: I had suggested, Chair, that there be another part to that, which was that the House be requested to issue a warrant to have the members of the transition team appear. I don't know if Mr Colle wants to incorporate that as part of the motion.
Mr Colle: That's fine, a friendly amendment.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, could I suggest that be made a separate motion, that we deal with this motion? I don't even think it's appropriate to amend it; I think it's a separate motion. Perhaps we could deal with Mr Colle's motion first, and then if you wish to put yours forward --
Mr Silipo: Fine.
Mr Preston: I guess I was instrumental in voting for asking these ladies or gentlemen to appear, but to censure them because they have other duties at this time is akin to censuring me for being here and not in the House. You cannot be in two places at once. I can't censure somebody because they have a duty to perform.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Mr Chairman, rather than our getting off on this tangent of censuring any member of the transition team for not being here, I'd like to suggest an alternative: whether the transition team could come this evening and whether this committee would be prepared to sit after 6:30 or 7 to hear their briefing, if that's a possibility.
The Chair: Mr Hastings, even if this committee agreed to that, the time allocation motion doesn't permit us to do that. That's the problem.
Mr Hastings: We'd have to go back to the Speaker and get --
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Hastings: I would like to propose a motion --
The Chair: You can't; there's a motion on the floor.
Mr Hastings: Then after this motion is disposed of one way or another.
Mr Sergio: Following what the member has said, since we are bound by the time allocation of the House, I suggest that we try to get the members of the transition team and request of the House another meeting some time next week, at the convenience of the transition team. I don't think the members of this committee would have any problem with that.
I support the motion by the member to sit tonight and invite the members of the transition team. Since this is impossible because of the time allocation, I would --
The Chair: Like Mr Hastings, everybody wants to make motions, but we have a motion on the floor, Mr Sergio, that this committee make a substantive report to the House that the transition team be censured. That is the motion that's on the floor and that is the motion we're debating.
Mr Sergio: That's fine. I'll be supporting that.
The Chair: Further debate on this motion? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Do I understand there are further motions?
Mr Silipo: Yes, Chair. I don't like to do this, I really don't, but under the circumstances I feel I don't have any choice. I would like to move that the committee request the House to issue a warrant to the transition team requiring their attendance at this committee.
When we passed the motion this morning, we did it with support from all sides of the committee. I took that as support by the majority of this committee that we felt it was important that these folks appear before the committee. It wasn't a question of whether they could appear or whether they wanted to appear; it was that we wanted them to appear and they should make every effort to be here.
As I said, I don't know if that message has been received that clearly. That's why I had suggested earlier that one other alternative would be for you to talk directly to the head of the transition team. Perhaps that conversation might impress the point that the committee as a whole, the majority at least, requested their attendance. Short of that, Chair, given where we are at this point, I think the only thing that would make the point as clearly is if they know we voted to have the House issue a warrant forcing them to come and talk to us.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Are there further motions?
Mr Colle: Mr Chair, on a point of order: What has happened here is so fundamentally wrong, this attack on not only this committee but the Legislature. It has made a mockery of this bill, this process --
The Chair: Mr Colle, that's not a point of order.
Mr Colle: I cannot sit through this and my party will not sit through this. In essence, what has happened is that the transition team appointed by your government has said: "The Legislature doesn't count. The committee doesn't count. We'll do what we want."
The Chair: Mr Colle, as the Chair, I'm telling you you're out of order.
Mr Colle: I cannot sit here, because this committee is now a sham. If you don't censure them for not coming, it shows this whole thing is just going through the motions and you're not paying attention to anybody. If they don't come -- the transition team is the most important part of this bill.
The Chair: Mr Colle, I don't want to have to recess again.
Mr Colle: If they're not here to answer questions, there's no way I'm going to sit through this mockery.
Mr Silipo: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: I raised this earlier with you and I want to raise this now formally. The refusal of the transition team to attend this committee, particularly in light of a decision made by the majority of the committee, hence by the committee, to have them appear is an infringement on my rights as a member of this committee and on the rights of every other member of the committee.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, I will say again that I don't think I have jurisdiction as Chair of this committee to rule on a point of privilege.
Mr Silipo: Who does?
The Chair: The Speaker of the House does. You're free to make that to the Speaker at any time yourself.
Mr Silipo: I will, but I just want to be clear, Chair, that it's my understanding that a point of privilege that arises out of an issue in committee has to be raised in committee, not in the House.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, you have a choice. You can raise it as an individual or you could make a motion that the committee report to the House on that particular point of privilege. You're free to do that if you wish to make a motion.
Mr Silipo: But you're telling me I can't raise a point of privilege directly with you as Chair of the committee for you to rule on.
The Chair: I don't have the jurisdiction to rule on it, sir. Only the Speaker can rule on that point of privilege. You can make a motion that the committee report to the House on that particular point of privilege, but I cannot rule on your point of privilege. I don't have the jurisdiction to. Those are the rules of this place. I am bound by the rules.
Mr Silipo: Are you telling me that if I stand in the House this afternoon and raise the point of privilege with the Speaker, he's not going to tell me, "Go deal with the Chair"?
The Chair: I understand the point you've just made.
Interruption.
The Chair: Madam, you're asked to leave this committee right now. I'm asking you to leave this committee right now. Get security.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'm asking you to leave, madam, please.
Mr Silipo, I understand the point of the comment you just made, and it's probably a valid point with respect to what the Speaker may do. I will read for the record what the position of this Chair is.
I may deal with points of order as they arise, but neither the committee nor myself has the jurisdiction to deal with matters of privilege in a substantive way, which is what your point of privilege is. Only the House, on report of committee, may deal with matters of privilege that arise out of the committee. Therefore, I'm not in a position to make a ruling on the point of privilege raised by Mr Silipo.
I would cite for the authority Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. It says: "A committee may not commit a person for a contempt or a breach of privilege. Nevertheless, it may report to the House that, in its opinion, a breach of privilege on contempt has occurred and ask the House to take action."
Mr Silipo, I repeat that I personally do not have the authority or the jurisdiction to order on your point of privilege. This committee can make a submission to the House or report to the House that the Speaker deal with it.
Mr Silipo: Then I move that the committee report this afternoon to the House on the fact that the members of the transition team were requested by the committee to appear this afternoon and are refusing to do so. Those are just straight facts. If the words are problematic, I'm happy to amend them. I'm not forcing an issue here about contempt or asking people to take positions on anything other than the facts that have transpired. I'd like to have that reported to the House this afternoon so that the issue can then be before the House.
Mr Preston: The words "refuse to" and "unable to" are something -- I don't know that they refused to or were unable to.
Mr Silipo: Fine. Chair, if the motion were to say, "They have indicated that they are unable to do so," that's fine. As I say, I don't want to prolong this issue in terms of asking people to take positions here. If you're telling me that the Speaker is the person who should rule on that, I'm happy to take it up with him, but I would like the facts, in the most neutral way possible, to be in front of the House this afternoon.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion fails.
Are there further motions?
Ladies and gentlemen, we are now back to the public hearings. We are way off our schedule. I will proceed until 12 and we'll do our best to accommodate people. Some people may not be heard, but we'll do our best to try and have everyone heard.
1120
LIZ RYKERT
The Chair: Will Liz Rykert come to the table, please? Good morning. You have 10 minutes.
Ms Liz Rykert: Members of the committee, first I'm going to give you a few of my thoughts as I prepared my talk last night after 1 o'clock in the morning, because I was called at 6:20 to come and speak today.
Last minute. Fast preparation. Lack of information. A willingness and need to speak. Profound distrust. Careful thought. New-found community. Fear of the future. A personal belief in the public good. A creeping feeling of loss about how I have come to think about my government. Patterns. Lost principles. A searching for the truth. Each thread wearing thin, slowly unwoven from the fabric.
As I sat here last week and listened to the unelected transition team members recommending you agree to recommend that then unaccountable councils come back to meet for the purpose of approving planning proposals after the November 10 election, I was rattled back to reality. Today, witnessing what happened with their refusal to appear, this reality is once again strongly confirmed for me. The transition team appears to have no masters, and you appear to be out of control.
Bill 148, the bill required because of the error by the Conservative Party in the Legislature on the day the mayors appeared to watch your deliberations, represents a piece of the pattern now familiar to the people of Ontario. How did we get here? Why am I taking time out of my day to speak to you as a citizen and as a person?
It seems to me it started with a little phrase, "common sense." Why was common sense so appealing? Because it rang true with the electorate. Your words reflected back their reality at that time, in slickly packaged media bites which left people on welfare with the impression that they would find work at a living wage; which created a sense of what the everyday person needed to make ends meet; which somehow, through the twisting of words, impressed enough people to give you a mandate.
I suggest to you that the ground is now shifting. What was your truth no longer finds resonance with the people. They say you're moving too fast. They say they don't trust you. They worry for the future of their children and for the members of our society whom you seem to take so much relish in attacking. They find their common sense now in the belief that their hospitals are closing, that their education system is no longer locally accountable, that their jobs are threatened, that their supports have evaporated, that their choices have been limited, that their belief in good government is gone. Common sense still exists in this province, but with the actions of this government it no longer resides on your side.
As I claim back my clear vision of what I know and understand to be a good society, it's filled with the common sense of the people: the people you shun, the people you fear. Centralizing power, ruling by regulation, marketing legislation like sports cars, denying public input, using appointed representatives: These tactics are all too familiar to us now. You are predictable, and common sense will prevail when you fail.
Toronto is my home. I have invested considerable time and money in the community. I believe it to be one of the best in the world. Before my eyes, common sense is telling me that there's more poverty, more desperation, that there's falsehood in public office. I keep speaking out because I know that one day you will be gone. I'm active in my community because I know that by working together I can learn from other citizens and residents who, like me, no longer believe in your ability to rule.
The son of megacity introduces the regulations to enact the City of Toronto Act against the will and common sense of the people. Under close questioning by the opposition last week, neither the minister nor his appointees on the transition team could produce either the means for accountability or the true costs of downloading. As a taxpayer, I don't know what my taxes will be. As a service user I was told it's a done deal to expect user fees next September. As a resident, I have come to expect responsive local government, a strong voice, fair practice, a belief that the people elected will govern for all the people. The truth in these statements has now vanished.
Your arrogance befits you, and your record, as collected online, will be there in the months and years to come as a resource for the citizens of this city and this province. Your actions are transparent to us. With transparency comes truth, the kind that forms the basis of common sense. Your title to this phrase has been stripped by your very own actions.
Our use of the Internet, recognized globally for its ability to pace you, action for action, and get the real truth out is one way we're fighting back. Our meetings every Monday night are another. Our ability to bring understanding to your chaotic actions and insight to your dark ways has proven inspirational for many. People are finding their voices, creating strong communities, and your actions are central to feeding the growing bond among us.
I encourage you to stay your path. It'll be your end. We have found our order in your chaotic management of the most important aspects of our public lives. Your path is destined to fail. Our strength lies in our own ability to see the truth, to bring transparency to your lies and to reveal your actions, like the last-minute scramble to schedule citizens to speak because the mayors chose to act with common sense and withdraw from your plan to shut out the citizens.
As a closing statement, I will repeat a quote I used in my deputation on Bill 103, from Jane Jacobs in her speech to the Citizens for Local Democracy meeting on February 17. She said:
"The only remedy for the bills is to discard them - toss them out. It is not possible to fix them; they are unimprovable. We must see that they are disposed of and then in an open, sensible, democratic public debate begin looking at what should be done and to do it gently."
As a citizen and as person, these words ring true with common sense for me.
The Chair: Thank you for coming, Ms Rykert.
1130
HEATHER BROOKS-HILL
The Chair: The next presentation is Heather Brooks-Hill. Good morning. You have up to 10 minutes.
Ms Heather Brooks-Hill: Good morning, Chairman Tilson, members of the government, members of the opposition. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee on Bill 148. It is my understanding that the mayors, not the government, have made this time available for the citizens of Metro Toronto. Please extend my thanks to them. Will you do so?
The Chair: Madam, if you're asking me, I'm governed by what is on the agenda. There were representatives from the city of York who came this morning and spoke.
Ms Brooks-Hill: Those of you who participated in the reading of Circle of Freedom at the hearings on Bill 103 in February will recall that I am opposed to the megacity. For those of you who were not present, I would ask you to stand for reading of Circle of Freedom.
We rise up
With our shouts and angry cries --
The Chair: Madam, Hansard cannot record you if you're standing. You'll have to sit.
Ms Brooks-Hill: I have a very good voice. I'm sure you can hear me.
The Chair: Madam, I'm informed by the clerk that it's difficult for Hansard to pick up what you're recording if you're standing.
Ms Brooks-Hill: We rise up with our shouts and angry cries
We shake our fists at the empty skies --
The Chair: I just want to put you on notice that what you're saying may not be recorded.
Ms Brooks-Hill: Thank you.
We shake our fists at the empty skies.
You are not gods who sit and give commands.
By the grace of the people you hold power in this land.
And we rise up with our shouts and our demands
And we cast our votes and we join our hands
In a circle of freedom stronger than your house
In a circle of freedom that breaks apart your boast.
Government by the people means the people will have their say
And your almighty proclamation is not the people's way.
We will let our children grow with breath and hope they call their own
And we will let our elders die in a place they still call home.
We will not be abandoned to the tax man and your law
We will stand and raise our voices in your legislative hall
For the circle of freedom is stronger than your boast
And this circle of freedom will break apart your house.
You as members of the committee are expected to listen to me speak. In the tradition of democracy, I, the citizen, trust that you hear me and include in your recommendations and amendments a reasonable reflection of what I and other speakers have to say. If I am to believe that the hearings can make a difference, we must enter this moment respecting this premise. Do you agree with me?
This is an unusual situation for me, as I have spent many hours in the gallery, as Mr Gilchrist well knows, observing you in the House during the last six months. This time, you will be observing me. Although I have not heard all of you speak, you will all hear me, if you listen, that is.
I believe that all of you are participating in the violation of something that is sacred. That which is sacred is our cities. It is sacred because it is the structure in which we ground ourselves, in which we understand ourselves. This bill eliminates the infrastructure of our culture. Bill 148 describes the destruction of our infrastructure. It destroys our understanding of who we are.
If you vote to pass this bill, you will be accomplices in a sacrilegious process. You have created chaos in many sectors already. This is not necessary. In fact, those who revel in the observation of the chaotic response are simply on a power trip. This is not responsible government.
Our historical boards, libraries, health units and parking authorities affect who we are. Tampering with any or all of them is jarring. Think of yourself on the operating table. Would you choose the knife? Want my toes on your feet, or some of mine and some of yours? How many of each? Who decides?
I don't believe that chaos facilitates improvement. I do believe that careful, researched planning facilitates improvement. I don't believe that big is better. I do believe that small is beautiful.
You might wonder, what do I recommend that you do? I don't recommend that you withdraw the bill. That would be irresponsible. I do recommend that the committee request a transitional year under section 16 of the bill. This would allow for the new council to make adjustments in a careful way. It is my hope that you will recommend this extension of time.
Furthermore, if 76% of the new councils are representative of the 76% No vote in March 1997, we will have a majority on council that would honour citizen input -- that is, of course, if the councillors are of high integrity and if all of us who opposed the megacity put the same effort into ensuring that we elect the councillors we want. This, of course, is true not just in Toronto, but across the province, in Peterborough county and so on. Time will tell.
I would like to close with an analogy from palliative care principles. I'm assuming you know what palliative care is, Mr Chairman. Are you aware of palliative care?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Brooks-Hill: As you are all aware, we will all die. Your government will die and a new one will be born. It's simply a question of when, where and how, not why.
Before your time comes, I hope you consider carefully the ramifications of passing Bill 144 as it is, the possible recommendations that would allow a gentler, wiser transition, and what your role, Mr Gilchrist, in the process will be. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for coming, Ms Brooks-Hill.
ANNE REDPATH
The Chair: We have about 20 minutes left. We have time for only two further speakers this morning, because we will have to recess at noon to allow members to go to vote in the House. That leaves Anne Redpath and William Phillips -- are they both here? Yes. I'm going to try to get those two speakers in this morning. The others, of whom there are four, I'm going to ask that you speak to the clerk. We'll try to schedule you this afternoon. It's a full afternoon, but we'll do our best. We will proceed with Ms Redpath.
Interruption.
The Chair: One of the members of the public has asked if he can speak this morning. Our problem, sir, is that we only have 20 minutes left, and we'll have two speakers in 10-minute slots. The morning ends at noon. We will try to reschedule you this afternoon. The clerk is about to speak to you. We will try to fit you in this afternoon, but this morning is out of the question. I'm sorry.
Ms Redpath, you may proceed. You have 10 minutes.
Ms Anne Redpath: My name is Anne Redpath. I am a management consultant by profession and I live in the city of Toronto.
I will begin by expressing my gratitude to Mayor Hall, Mayor Lastman and other mayors for so graciously making time available for individuals such as myself to speak to this bill. Such an extraordinary event: The committee holds hearings dealing with the future of an area with 2.4 million persons and the committee allots zero minutes for any of these persons to be heard. As Alice said in Alice in Wonderland, "It gets curiouser and curiouser."
I have some sense of the concern for the future held by people living in the city. I went to North York, Metro and both Toronto meetings with the transition team where people made deputations. I also attended a meeting with John Wimbs and the Toronto Arts Council on Berkeley Street and with the Toronto heritage board at city hall. In addition, I went to the last meeting of the Toronto board of health, where they reviewed their achievements over the years, and where people expressed concern for the future.
The rest of my deputation will be spent commenting on some of the disturbing or interesting aspects of the bill.
Toronto Transportation Commission: The TTC appears to be headed for difficulty, with a two-thirds council majority needed to appoint a director. The heavy users of the TTC are those in the densely populated inner-city areas in the present city of Toronto. On the new council, this city will have 16 of 56 councillors. It is difficult to imagine councillors being appointed who will have any interest in the transportation problems of the densely populated areas with relatively lower incomes.
I say this having just yesterday had a past member of the Toronto council comment upon the across-the-board cuts made by the TTC last year. The night service along King Street carried about 5,000 persons a year at night, while a route in Don Mills carried almost no one, but King Street was cut and badly hurt the riders at night who use it to get to and from work in hospitals and places like that, while the Don Mills route was left untouched.
1140
Boards of health: The merging of the several boards of health into one big board has led many of the boards to express their concern to the transition team at public meetings. This legislation does not address any of the concerns. Each municipality has funded its board differently, partly, one suspects, from choice, but largely from different needs in different municipalities. Deputations at North York were as concerned for the future of the programs of North York as were the deputations in the city of Toronto for Toronto's.
How is the funding for the new board of health of what I call MCT, megacity Toronto, going to be divided between cities? Should the programs of the city of Toronto be curtailed so that other areas can have their per capita allotments increased? If the present city of Toronto has 50% of the AIDS cases in Ontario, does this make sense? Is it fair? With 56 councillors in the new MCT, how does any one municipality, with two to 16 councillors, ever look after their needs, carry out any innovation and avoid being dumbed down or standardized?
Library boards: The merging of the various library boards of the MCT area into one monster board is disturbing to me as a citizen of the present city of Toronto, and no doubt is to many of the citizens of North York. Why? Because North York and the present city of Toronto are the two municipalities that have chosen to spend a lot of money on libraries. A city such as Scarborough has chosen not to do so.
As I read the legislation, the assets of all the boards of the MCT are merged, but no provision is made to maintain the funding of any of the library branches in any of the municipalities. Does this mean that the four lower-tier municipalities with respect to library services have their services increased? If so, does it mean that North York and Toronto, the two big-time spenders on libraries, have their services scaled back to provide funds for this? What is it that the government wants to achieve with this legislation, and is your objective being met?
Historical boards: The Toronto Historical Board, ie, the board of the present city of Toronto, is being merged into a new board that will represent the whole of the MCT. Poor old city of Toronto. It is the only city that has spent a lot of money and effort to protect and save its historical heritage. Choices made by other municipalities were to spend much less on their heritage, perhaps because they represent newer areas and have less history to oversee.
East York, some years ago, when they believed they were at risk of being pillaged, put their historical paintings and other items into a corporation to protect them from just such a day as this bill sets out for January 1, 1998. There are no protections in the bill that will keep artefacts in the community that collected them, paid for them, fought for them and valued them. Furthermore, there is no funding mechanism that will allow them to be maintained. With an unwieldy 56 councillors in the MCT and with Toronto only having 16, I cannot believe that the representatives of the other areas will maintain the function of the existing board and not want to get their hands on the funding for their own areas.
At the heritage meeting with John Wimbs of the transition team, he commented that there were deputations to the team by non-city-of-Toronto members to make arts, culture and heritage part of parks and recreation in the MCT. Even Wimbs appeared horrified by this. I can understand Mr Wimbs's horror when I see that section 77 allows the council of the MCT to dissolve the new board at will.
Parking authority: Once again, the present city of Toronto and its taxpaying citizens of the past are being treated with great unfairness. All parking authorities are being merged, assets and all. But surprise, surprise, only the present city of Toronto has any assets of note -- North York has a very minor operation -- and these assets are on prime land.
The MCT council has the right to sell off any land, it appoints all the directors of the parking authority, and, last but not least, it can dissolve the parking authority at will. Imagine the present city of Toronto with no Toronto parking authority lots. Imagine other cities splitting the revenue from the sale of the lots and imagine the glee of developers as they get their sticky fingers on the land.
Reserve funds: Last but not least, Bill 148 commits an act that is financial folly, but it's politically expedient, if I have understood it correctly. The reserve funds of the fiscally sound municipalities making up this merger may be used to cover their operating funds and lower their taxes.
Reserve funds are sums of money put aside for capital expenditures. They are accumulated so that when the time comes to replace capital goods and equipment, the funds are there; taxes do not need to levied to pay for the replacement of sewers or water mains or roads. It is just like a condominium, which is required by law in Ontario to set aside funds to replace roofs, elevators etc and is prohibited from using the reserve fund to offset operating funds.
In conclusion, I would like you to take another look at Bill 148, and do it in a professional and workman-like manner. List your assumptions, study and make public your figures and projections, and if, as the press keeps iterating, you have no figures, please develop them.
The present city of Toronto is too valuable to risk on one roll of the dice. Give us the consideration the government is giving to the rural residents who do not want school to start a week early -- see the Globe and Mail today, front page. The government is changing its policy in that case. Please think about doing it in ours.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
WILLIAM PHILLIPS
METRO TORONTO BOARDS OF HEALTH LIAISON COMMITTEE
The Chair: Mr Phillips, you have the rest of the morning, or until the bells ring. You may go for 10 minutes.
Mr William Phillips: The key thing I wanted to say was with respect to the fact that the minister had said that services in the new city would continue to be the same as in the old cities combined. I wanted to raise the question about the transition team going around asking that all budgets be cut by 15%. Certainly any kind of cut like that has to cut services. I was wondering if people could ask the transition team what that was all about, but it seems that the transition team is not beholden to this committee and is not going to be responsive.
The Chair: We had a fair bit of trouble with that this morning, and it will continue to be.
Mr Phillips: What I'm saying is that since that was my major point, I would like to yield my time to Mr Peter Tabuns, because I think what he has to say is of extreme importance.
The Chair: The floor is yours, Mr Tabuns. As you can see, we're way behind schedule, but thank you for coming.
Mr Peter Tabuns: I can see that, Mr Chair. Thanks, Mr Phillips, for giving me this opportunity to speak.
The Chair: You have a little less than 10 minutes -- about seven, in fact.
Mr Tabuns: I understand that. My speech is timed; I think I'll make it.
Today I'm representing the liaison committee of the boards of health for Metro Toronto, a body comprised of members of boards of health for the six municipalities and the medical officers of health.
On behalf of this group, I am here today to request a change in the provisions of this bill with respect to the size and composition of the board of health for the city of Toronto.
Under the current wording of the legislation, the board size is set at a maximum of 13 members, with no requirement for provincial appointees. The boards of health in the existing Metro Toronto recommend that the act be changed in this regard. We're requesting:
(1) That the total members be increased from 13 to between 17 and 23, at the discretion of the new city, comprised of the following: elected councillors, citizen representatives from community health committees, school board representatives and provincial representatives.
(2) That provincial appointees be required members.
The rationale for these amendments is based on our long experience with how public health works best at the local level, namely, that the board represents a broad base of interests and constituencies in the local community; that it's accessible to the citizens; that it's linked to key municipal, social, health and community services; that it's open and accountable; and that there's direct provincial input.
The city of Toronto has had citizen-led community advisory boards with direct membership on its board of health for several years, and this approach has facilitated community input into decision-making as well as alerting the board to key health issues. As an example, the city of Toronto would not have responded to the AIDS epidemic the way it had if it had not been for the intervention of community-based members of the board.
We're proposing that there be community health committees for each of the existing municipalities, with representation from the community councils and citizens. Citizens on the board of health would be selected from these committees.
The size of the new municipality also requires a different approach than the size of the board of health. The maximum of 13 was appropriate in the days when there were many more health units covering much smaller populations. The new board of health will be responsible for 2.4 million residents, plus several hundreds of thousand of others who come into the region to work and to take advantage of our recreational facilities, in contrast to current city sizes ranging from a low of 108,000 to a high of 654,000.
1150
In order to be able to reflect the broad range of interests, diversity of needs and different regions in the new city, this board must be larger than those that cover fewer people. Given that the new city will have more citizens than three quarters of the provinces and territories in Canada, 23 members does not seem to be unreasonable.
A third reason is that having a larger board is effective in that it involves stakeholders in the decision-making process earlier rather than later. The mix of elected officials, citizens and other representatives we have proposed will allow for wide discussion of the issues as well as for local issues to get on the agenda.
In summary, by facilitating broad representation such as we have outlined, a larger board of health will be more effective and efficient in the long run in fulfilling its mandate.
The matter of provincial representation relates to the fact that health is ultimately a provincial responsibility. Although most funding for public health will no longer come from the province, the Ministry of Health still sets and enforces the legislation and the mandatory guidelines for the delivery of services. You should also note that you'll be funding $3 million worth of 100%-funded public health programs in the new city for infants. It makes sense that you have representatives on this board who are able to speak to provincial interests.
Historically, the creation of boards of health by the Ontario government in the 1880s was due to the fact that local councils were unwilling to use local tax revenues to improve sanitary facilities that would help eradicate epidemics and make their areas safer. Having pressure from a forceful provincial government was essential to overcome parochial interests which were unwilling to pay for public health staff and services.
It's hoped that such attitudes would not prevail today, although with the downloading of funding there is a real risk of erosion of services. Having a provincial presence at the table as budgets and policies are decided will help ensure that a broader, more objective view will prevail.
In conclusion, given that the objective of governance is to ensure sound decision-making through accountability to the citizens, we feel that our recommendations will help achieve that goal.
That's my submission. I'm available for questions.
The Chair: Mr Tabuns, thank you very much. We can either do that or Mr Phillips could make a further statement. We have about three minutes. I'm at your disposal.
Mr Tabuns: I'm happy to return the chair to Mr Phillips, and I again thank him for giving me the opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, Councillor Tabuns, for coming.
Mr Phillips, you've got about three minutes, if you wanted to say a few more words to us.
Mr Phillips: Yes. There was one other issue I'd like to deal with. I think this relates to process. I used to be the executive director of the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association and was a school trustee for 13 years in East York. I had a large number of dealings with government in my roles. At the time I was most active, it was with the previous Progressive Conservative government.
What I noticed was the process they used then. For instance, they would come out with a green paper. That would be put out. Discussions would be held on it, responses would go in; those would be analysed. Then a white paper would come out. Same process: more discussion. Then, on the basis of the input on that white paper, legislation would be drafted and put to the House. Then there would be consultations, both formal and informal, to work out any problems. The previous PC government, which stayed in power for decades, had an excellent methodology of reaching consensus in the province.
At one point during Mr Davis's tenure, he stopped that process. It was quite odd, because while his Minister of Education at the time, Bette Stephenson, was in Ottawa giving a speech saying there were no plans to extend funding to Roman Catholic separate school at the secondary level, he and his deputy minister were meeting to draw up the plans, which they dumped at a cabinet meeting, to the surprise of everybody and to the shock of some people. I think basically that type of procedure led to the downfall of the Progressive Conservative Party in this province. I think that type of thing led to them being kicked out of office after all those many years.
The next two governments that came along -- I looked at how they operated, and they had a lot of the same lack of consultation built in. They did things they would have been wiser to have more consultation on and to build a greater consensus on, but they had their agendas and they paid the price.
Now, along has come the Harris government. Frankly, it has fallen into the same trap. It is operating not on the basis of developing consensus in the province, but in taking an ideology and ramming it down the throats of the people without paying attention to what they want and what they believe, and without working out the problems and taking enough time to build consensus. Not only is it a bad way to govern, but it makes terrible errors, and it of course has to pay the price.
I say to you that you are on the road to oblivion as a party in this province because you are alienating so many people who will not forget and will not forgive, who not only do not like what you're doing but absolutely hate it. There are people who are very disturbed by what you're doing.
The Chair: Sir, we're about a minute over.
Mr Phillips: That's what I wanted to say.
The Chair: You've obviously been through the wars and experienced a few things. We appreciate your coming and giving us your thoughts.
Ladies and gentlemen, this committee is recessed until 3:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1158 to 1533.
BOROUGH OF EAST YORK
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, the agenda is before you. We have the borough of East York with us. There's a long list of people who are here. Is Mayor Prue here?
Mr Paul Robinson: He is not here as yet. He is on his way.
The Chair: You're Councillor Robinson?
Mr Robinson: That's correct.
The Chair: Councillor Robinson, perhaps you could come to the front so we can carry on a dialogue with the microphone on.
Interjection.
The Chair: We almost had a new mayor.
Mr Michael Prue: That's the way we do things in East York.
The Chair: Sir, welcome to the committee. There is a long list of individuals from your borough who are here. How you present the position of the borough of East York is your call. You can call all or some of them or however you had planned. You can have them all come to the front or many of them come to the front, whatever you wish. In any event, you have an hour to make a presentation to the committee and the committee is awaiting your comments.
Mr Prue: Thank you very much for inviting all of East York here today. As you can see, this is potentially a passionate and hot topic in East York. I realize that most of the other municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto have not or will not be making deputations. I have to state for the record that we found it a little strange that given the content of Bill 148, which deals largely with boards and committees and with Metropolitan Toronto issues, the municipalities would find themselves in the position of having to choose who came to address your committee. I don't know whether this is a common practice, but I must state for the record we found it a little bizarre.
However, the people of East York had indicated to me in great numbers that they wished to appear primarily on two issues. The first issue is related to health and to the boards of health. There will be two deputants to speak to health issues as they relate to East York and to the setup of the new board of health for the megacity, and the remaining deputants will be here to talk about a potential amendment to Bill 148. I hope that fits within the category. This is the amendment about proper representation for the borough of East York. I'm sure you have heard it before, but I want to assure you, you will hear it again many times.
The Chair: A couple of members of the committee have referred to it from time to time.
Mr Prue: It is such a hot topic that in this election, going door to door, it's probably the number one issue raised: the lack of representation for the borough of East York on a ratio of 54,000 to 1. People cannot believe that we are being treated that way and are hoping the Legislature will recognize this and make an amendment or adopt an amendment or a private member's bill or whatever it takes. Those will be the last three deputants. The first two are Dr Sheela Basrur and Paul Robinson on the health issue. The last three I believe will be talking primarily about the third representative, and those people are Doug Taylor, Maureen Lindsay and Norm Crone.
I've also been asked to state for the record that a previous deputant who was also from East York has already given her deputation and is here today as well, Margaret Simpson; if it could be just noted that she is an East Yorker and whatever she said that day she says on behalf of East York as well. Without further ado I'm going to turn it over to the deputants for the remaining period of my time, unless there are additional questions.
I must apologize to you and to the deputants, but I'm at Metro Hall today and they're holding an item for me. I'm the next speaker on the list, so I'm only going to be here for a few minutes and I have to go back, but thank you very much.
The Chair: Sir, thank you for taking the time. I know your time is taken up by other matters and we appreciate your coming. Perhaps members of your council -- is it Councillor Robinson? -- could fill in for you. Thank you for coming.
Mr Robinson: I'll be the only speaker in this deputation. If MOH will assist me in answering any of your questions, I'll begin.
Good afternoon, committee Chair and honourable members. Mr Prins, your clerk, has copies of my presentation. I just ask that it not be handed out until I'm finished. I've been here with deputations and I know that you'll read along with me. I don't want that.
I'm here on behalf of the board of health for the borough of East York to present the position of the board of health on Bill 148. The board's position has three components. The first component is:
(1) That subsection 45(2) of the bill be amended to raise the proposed size of the new board from 13 members to 23 members in order to include a broader base of community representation on the board;
(2) That subsection 45(3) be withdrawn in order to permit the inclusion of provincial appointees to the new board of health, as is the case for all other non-regional boards of health in Ontario;
(3) That section 123 be amended in order to provide a sunset date for the interim board of health that would be no later than June 30, 1998.
On component number one, the size of the board: Under Bill 148, the new city of Toronto will have a single board of health. The actual size will be determined by the new city council and will have a maximum of 13 members.
The upper limit of 13 is set in the Health Protection and Promotion Act and applies to most boards of health across Ontario, the exception being regional municipalities where the regional council itself serves as the board. As the new city will overshadow all other municipalities in sheer size and complexity, the usual size restrictions for boards of health should not apply.
Furthermore, prescribing the size and composition of the new board in statute will make future changes almost impossible if these terms prove inadequate. We believe the terms defining the first board of health for the new city should give the city the flexibility it needs to construct the new board in a manner that best meets the needs of its residents.
The new board of health will face substantial public health needs and service challenges, and I'm going to go through the statistics that the new city will have:
Child poverty rates that are seven times greater than in neighbouring municipalities in the GTA: Over one in three families live in poverty; 36% of residents who speak a home language other than English or French; four times the number of immigrants than the provincial average; over 60% of all the tuberculosis cases in Ontario; and 70% of all the AIDS cases in Ontario.
The six boards of health in Metro have recommended to the Toronto transition team that the size of the new board range from 17 to 23 members. In keeping with the broad mandate and collaborative nature of public health, membership on the board should include, here we go, geographic representation; constituencies with an interest in public health, for example, school board trustees; city councillors; and citizens at large. Broad community and political representation will be impossible to achieve with a 13-member limit, but it can be done with a modest increase to 23 members, which is still less than half the size of the new city council.
1540
On caveat number two, provincial appointments: Bill 148 supersedes the Health Protection and Promotion Act by specifying that all members of the board shall be appointed by council. Everywhere else in Ontario, with the exception of regional municipalities, boards of health are allowed to have provincial appointments. In the experience of East York board of health, provincial appointees have brought to the board a view of community health needs and priorities that is truly at arm's length from political pressures. This has been essential for the board to make decisions and recommendations that truly reflect the best interests of public health.
In this respect there is no reason to treat the board of health in the city of Toronto differently from all other boards of health in Ontario. Public health will continue to serve primarily a provincial mandate and provincial appointments are consistent with that accountability.
The final component, number three, the interim board of health: The new city of Toronto will also have an interim board of health, which will be in place from January 1, 1998, until city council appoints a new board of health. The interim board will be comprised of the current chairs of the six boards of health. While the interim board will bring continuity between the soon-to-be-former six boards of health and the newly unified board of health, we do not want to see a six-member interim board carry on indefinitely, as this will seriously undermine public health programs and services, we believe.
Therefore, we recommend that a sunset clause be added to ensure a new board of health is appointed within six months; that is, no later than June 30, 1998.
Barring any questions, those are my submissions on behalf of the board of health for the borough of East York Health Unit.
The Chair: Councillor Robinson, normally we leave questions to the end and we can do that, or we can have some now. The risk of doing that is that the other people who wish to speak may not have an opportunity. I'm wondering if it might be appropriate to save questions more to the end.
Mr Robinson: Your way is more appropriate, Chairman. I'll wait and I'll try to restrict my comments to this, with the assistance of Sheela Basrur, the medical officer of health. I can't speak on some of the other issues because I am a candidate in the upcoming election.
The Chair: Good for you. Could I ask you to act as master of ceremonies for your delegation, Councillor Robinson, to introduce whoever is speaking next?
Mr Robinson: If I have an agenda, I can assist you.
The Chair: I have a list. There is an agenda which is simply a list of names.
Mr Robinson: Councillor Crone will be next.
Mr Norm Crone: Thank you, Mr Chairman
The Chair: Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Crone: It's nice to see you again. I thank you and the members of the committee for giving us this opportunity. My name is Norm Crone. As you pointed out, I am a member of East York council, but I think I should be clear that I am not delegated to be here by council. I'm here just as an individual.
The advent of the unified city of Toronto on January 1, 1998, has been greeted with a great deal of concern in the borough of East York, where I've lived my entire life and where I've served as a local councillor for many years. I'm not a candidate in the upcoming municipal election and hope to be able to speak to you today with a certain degree of personal detachment from possible self-interest that most of the other council members, as candidates, would not be able to do, and hope that you will accept my comments in that spirit.
In February, the Premier was quoted in the Toronto Star in regard to the referenda as saying, and I quote: "What's important is that we," and I assume he meant by that the government, "try to sift through all the maze of confusion and try to sort out what people are really concerned about and address that. We'll try to do the best that we can."
These past months, we in East York have also been trying to do just that through various public meetings and focus groups. All of this information has been conveyed, as it should be, to the transition team. There is one item, however, that seems to be bouncing around in this whole process which I believe can only be dealt with by you, to avoid a totally unworkable political structure being put in place on January 1, 1998: That it is in regard to the issue of the community council. This is, in my opinion, "the" East York issue.
In an August 1 report from our chief administrative officer, she said, and I quote:
"East York is in the unique position of being represented by only two councillors on the new city council. This reflects a representation of more than 50,000 constituents per councillor" -- the mayor just mentioned a figure of 54,000 -- "a situation which the East York community considers unworkable. A community council of only two poses difficult challenges both legislatively and practically. A quorum will require 100% attendance. While the possibility exists for the votes at all community councils to be tied, the votes at East York's two-member community council will result in decisions being made by the community council chair only, on most occasions."
East York residents in their feedback to us on this bill clearly indicated that a strong sense of community remains an ongoing priority. In her August 1 report, our chief administrative officer went on to say, and I quote again:
"Local identities can be sustained and enhanced through the community councils, special events, local service delivery, and local decision-making. Sustaining strong local identities will lend itself to pride and support for the new city."
This seems to me to be consistent with the objectives of the legislation, Bill 103 as well as Bill 148.
I believe that a viable and stable community council will be a critical element to the success of the future unified city of Toronto. I'm here today to request that Bill 148, entitled An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto, include a provision to either provide a third councillor for the ward currently designated as ward 1, or East York, or divide the ward into two wards.
The former would provide for more equitable representation of East York with the rest of the unified city; that is, approximately 36,000 residents per representative versus 40,500 average for the rest of the city. The latter, that is, two wards, would provide for somewhat overrepresentation for ward East York, approximately 27,000 representatives per member of council, but would maintain the principle of two councillors per ward and an overall uneven number of members on the council of the new city of Toronto: 58 councillors plus one mayor.
The concept of somewhat higher level of representation for otherwise smaller political entities is not unknown. For example, the members of parliament in PEI represent fewer people than do those in the rest of the country and it does not seem to create any major problems. As a matter of interest, there are four federal members of parliament for a population equivalent to about one and a half to two ridings in the rest of the country. I would note that the population of PEI is only slightly higher than that of East York. It's roughly equivalent to the city of York.
To me, however, the more critical point than the ratio of representatives to population is, at least starting out, the East York community council as envisioned by Bill 103 as a viable political entity, and that requires at least three councillors. Otherwise, it's obvious that without a unanimous decision, no decision could be made. There have been suggestions in some quarters that the new mayor of Toronto might sit as a member of the community council, but given the other responsibilities that will undoubtedly be required of him or her, I doubt that it would be feasible on anything but an extremely temporary basis. There are limits, I think, to what a single person is capable of doing.
I'm well aware of various statements that the new city council will have the power to vary the composition of the community council or the number of councillors for a ward like East York. Let's face it; without a near miracle, however, the East York community council won't last for the three years until the next election for the implementation of any post-municipal election changes. So if even only on a transitional basis until the new city council can sort out the whole issue of the community councils in the future city, their responsibles and so forth, I'm asking you to please amend Bill 148 to provide for the third councillor.
The third-councillor concept enjoys very widespread support not only from East Yorkers, who cherish the accessibility of their current council, but from virtually every other quarter we've addressed this to, including candidates for the position of mayor of Toronto, both leading candidates, I might add -- I know there are several others; from the chair and members of the transition team who met with us, East York council, at a public meeting in June; from our member of the Metro Toronto council -- I notice he's on the agenda to follow us today; from our own council, who still represent our local community at least until the end of December; and most important by our residents, whom we are all trying to serve and represent in our own way.
1550
The Chair: There may be questions. You can stay where you are.
Mr Crone: I'll just wait. If there are any questions, I can answer them Later.
The Chair: I have two other names of people we haven't heard from yet; it says "residents' Mr Taylor and Ms Lindsay. Perhaps, Councillor Robinson, you could introduce them.
Mr Robinson: This is Mr Taylor. He has just given your clerk copies of his presentation.
Mr Doug Taylor: Good afternoon. My name is Douglas Taylor. I'm an East Yorker. I have been a property owner in the borough for the past 23 years with my wife, Jamie, who was born and raised in East York. Today both of us have full-time employment in our community and are active and caring volunteers for several borough organizations and committees. We care about our community, we care about our borough council and our local government. We care about the loss of our local council and of democracy with Bill 103 and we care about our community's future with the amalgamation of East York into the new city of Toronto on January 2, 1998.
Today I want you, committee members, to be aware that as an active citizen in borough affairs I have also been part of the debates, hearings, and public consultation process concerning the amalgamation of East York into East York ward. As a result of this involvement, both my wife and I have become increasingly informed and concerned. As East Yorkers we can see our community and service issues being adversely affected by the lack of any provisions to increase our councillor representation by the same ratio by population basis as the other cities. This really came home to us just over the past few weeks.
I would like to describe to you a recent incident that occurred in the Legislative Assembly that confirmed our belief that an amendment to increase councillor representation before the municipal election should be part of Bill i48. This incident also helped to persuade me to come forward and speak today, which is something I have never done before. I know that in making my request to this committee, I am doing the right thing.
What I heard and observed in the House was as follows. On Thursday, September 11, 1997, I accompanied several of the East York municipal candidates and other borough citizens to the Legislative Assembly. We were present in the members' gallery when Ms Churley asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to help resolve this issue of our representation before the next election. She asked for consideration of Ms Lankin's amendments that would allow an extra one or two councillors to be elected on a transition basis for the next three years. This would give the new council further time during their hectic first term to consider changes within the bill.
We heard his reply. I would like to quote Hansard:
"I don't see this as a major problem." He is referring to the present number of councillors for East York ward. "Metro council at the present time has two representatives from East York and they represent their community extremely well. I don't see any problem whatsoever with two members from East York continuing to represent the needs of East York equally as well."
He also suggested that the new council might deal with our issue at an earlier time, and ended his comments by saying, "I know that two representatives from East York have represented that community extremely well at Metro council for many years and I see absolutely no reason why they couldn't continue to do that."
I respect the rules of the House as to the members of the public not replying, but it was very hard to sit there and not shout out, "No, sir, we have eight borough councillors and two Metro councillors handling this workload. We are not asking for the same as before; we are asking for an increase based on the same ratio of representation as in the other cities." I'm speaking today because this reason given by the minister is not a valid and realistic representation of East York's dilemma, one not of our own making.
Today and over all our years of history my borough council has worked at the most local level to resolve neighbourhood issues, often quickly, often onsite. The operative words here are "at the most local level." Also, because of our open speaker access and on-camera council meetings, East Yorkers have had direct input into their council decisions concerning fire service, health servicing, libraries, local planning, local roads and traffic regulations, local parks, water delivery, residential street safety and lighting, and list goes on.
Because we've had our city councillors working at the most local level among neighbours, we have been able to mend fences, so to speak. We have never had this direct speaker access at the Metro level and we will not have direct speaker access at the new city council. East Yorkers will miss this privilege. In addition, our new city representatives and council must deal with Metro-wide concerns, regional concerns and community council concerns. Let us be realistic. Among all the demands of a first term, just how much time will be spent on community issues? Also, East York has the added burden of an unjust and untenable community council structure.
Today I have come here and talked about the urgency of East York's representation issue. This is an issue about fairness and equity as well as service and access to the new government for East Yorkers. I believe that this committee can recommend a working amendment to the House to resolve this issue now, before the municipal election. East Yorkers and their candidates have agreed that it is essential to have this pre-election time so that we can discuss together the issues and concerns with the same rights of future ratio of representation as the other cities. I thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I thank you. There may well be questions of you. I believe there's one more name.
Mr Robinson: Ms Lindsay.
Ms Maureen Lindsay: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Maureen Lindsay and I am a proud resident of East York. I am a community volunteer and I am the chair of the East York property standards appeals committee. I would first of all like to thank our mayor for allowing us some of his time.
Today I would like to ask this committee to propose an amendment that will increase the elected representation for East York. An elected representation of two is neither fair nor workable. Our population indicates that we should have at least three councillors. We, the citizens of East York, do not want our fate for fair representation left up to the new city council, nor do we want to be left in limbo for the next three years.
I believe it is section 16 of Bill 148 that allows this committee the right to propose amendments to Bill 103. I believe that Bill 148 was introduced so that deficiencies in Bill 103 could be rectified. I hope this committee will be making proposals to correct the oversights and errors in the original bill. I am sure that if you consider the position of the electorate of East York, you will agree that we will not have fair representation. We should have the same rights as any other member of the new city.
In closing, I would ask that this committee please propose a motion to increase our elected representation from the present number of two. I'm finished.
The Chair: Okay. I'm just trying to determine how we're going to ask questions. I know that members will wish to ask questions of the various people who have spoken. We don't appear to have one caucus here; we appear to have two caucuses.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): You might say which ones.
The Chair: I'm sure you will tell them which ones. We have about half an hour. We'll give each caucus up to 15 minutes to ask questions, if they wish. Whoever answers is going to have to come to a microphone.
Mr Robinson: Chairman Tilson, can we have them all join us now?
The Chair: Yes, please.
1600
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Thank you all for coming. I think you raised some very important issues in both aspects of the presentation to the board of health issue. As I understand it, there have been representations from some of the other cities for expanded numbers on the board of health. I also think you raised a new issue for the committee to consider with respect to the interim board, and that's important. We're going to have to take a look at that and see what might be possible to address those concerns.
I would like to ask a couple of questions with respect to the issue of representation. As you know, I've submitted amendments to this bill before this committee and I took a kind of smorgasbord approach. We started with the call from East York for three members and three councillors. There was some indication from members of the government that they were concerned about a potential tie vote on the council, and I think, Councillor Crone, you referred to this in your remarks.
I put in another amendment that said, "Okay, you don't like three; you can have four." Then the response came back that the new council really should decide this issue, in terms of boundaries and those sorts of things, in the future and they'll have the power to do that. In fact the transition team has indicated that they are going to be making recommendations along those lines for making workable community councils.
But I think many of us were concerned that the first three years would leave East York in limbo, that a new council with many challenges in their first days may not get to that kind of issue until a year or two down the road. But given the seeming reluctance, and looking for a compromise that perhaps the government could support, we put in alternative amendments which actually called for the addition of a third councillor on a transition basis, that being the first term of the megacity council, which would then allow the council to work through some of these issues.
I know that your approach has been to hope that the government would support a permanent additional councillor for East York, but I'd like to know whether you had discussions among yourselves and whether the community would support the compromise position with the government that calls for an additional councillor for that transition period of the first term of the megacity council. Doug, why don't we start with you, and then perhaps Councillor Crone and others may want to join in.
Mr Taylor: If we were granted this third representation, it would make things a lot smoother for everybody, especially when you go into the new, I call it the grand council; I don't call it a mega-council. In the grand council they have a lot of work ahead of them. To put something forward to them of this nature, for them to get third representation, that's time. I believe by having that third representation we can go on, we can definitely go on, and that is what it's all about: It's continuing. Once January 2 is here, the first thing that should not be on the agenda is that third representation. There are other things to work on, other things to do, and if we concentrate on this -- and grant us third representation through this transition period -- it makes things a lot smoother for us all. I think that point is what we have to look at as a whole. Mr Crone, can you add anything to that?
Mr Crone: I think the question was particularly, had we had any formal discussion of this and input? Certainly, as I said, I'm not here as a representative of the council. I can't recollect any specific discussion of the issue of a transitional councillor, but the whole issue of the third councillor is something that has actually come out of the community. Anyway, I think as you heard from other members of the community, the whole issue is -- fine, you know we accept Bill 103. We're just trying to make sure that when this is implemented, it's a workable structure. It's the art of the possible and I think it very well may be a transitional issue. Who knows down the road what the new city council may do in terms of the structure of the community councils?
I'm not a candidate for councillor. I can't imagine how these people are going to deal with the barrage of issues that's going to be coming at them in the early days in particular. I see this as a transitional issue. My concern is that if something isn't done before or as the new council takes office, by the time the new council can deal with it, goodness knows what the situation is going to be.
Mr Taylor mentioned East York in his presentation and made reference to the two Metro councillors. Bear in mind that East York has one Metro councillor, Mr Ootes, who will be here momentarily, and our mayor, ex officio as a member of Metro council. That's two out of 34 members of Metro council. We're now talking about two out of a council of 57. So the ratio certainly is a lot different from what it is even under the current Metro council structure.
Ms Lankin: I have another question but I'll let Ms Churley go first.
Ms Churley: Thank you, and thank you for coming to give your deputations today. I'm just wondering, and again talking about the big issue we've come to here that everybody in East York wants, and that is an amendment. I presume you don't care whose amendment it is as long as it gets through. We've made it clear that the government would prefer to put in their own amendment -- "Let's just get the job done." I'm just wondering since the last time we talked, between now and then, have you had an opportunity to speak directly to the minister or to the parliamentary assistant? I'm sure he's going to have an opportunity later.
I know that Mr Gilchrist has expressed some interest and I'll let him speak for himself. It seems to me there generally is an understanding that there's a problem here, even from Minister Leach. He prefers, however, to leave it up to the new city council. Do you have any sense that there is a real understanding that this is needed, that generally a mistake was made? Are you seeing any changes? Is there anything more we need to do? Time is running out on us here.
Mr Crone: First of all, I'm not aware that there's any approach to the minister directly or to Mr Gilchrist, the parliamentary assistant. There was an approach, I think, through our local members of the Legislature and I know there was some frustration on the part of the councillor who did that because it went to an executive assistant. It went around and at the end of the day it was -- essentially it's being referred to the transition team.
Ms Churley: I'm sorry, I don't know whom you mean, what local --
Mr Crone: To the transition --
Ms Churley: You mean the local East York --
Mr Crone: Yes, to one of our -- I didn't do it personally, but I'm told by one of my colleagues that he did this. The bottom line, however, seems to be that it's being given to the transition team. Mr Tonks and Mr Wimbs -- I can't remember if there was a third one, but at least two of the members of the transition team came to East York in the June time frame. This question was asked and the answer we heard, certainly in my opinion, was that they were sympathetic to this. But I think it's kind of chicken and egg. The transition team is not able to deal with this. I think the place where this issue can be resolved is here. If it's resolved here, then the transition team I don't think would a problem. The transition team was here the other day. I don't know if the question was asked of them.
Ms Lankin: I put it to them.
Mr Crone: Is my answer consistent with what they said?
Ms Lankin: It's consistent. Mr Sutherland indicated that the transition team heard East York, recognized the importance of the issue, and in some of their recommendations to the new council dealing with community councils they hope there might be a mechanism there that the council might be able to deal with this in the future. A lot of that is "might" and "in the future."
Mr Tonks indicated that he saw no reason to oppose any measure being taken now, at this point in time as a transition member, to add another councillor and that the new council could deal with the issue down the road. So there certainly wasn't any disagreement from the council to proceed at this point.
Mr Crone: That was the sense I had as well. Others may have other things to say.
1610
Ms Lindsay: If I may, I think it's very important that you all be aware that we, the citizens, see it as a very major problem. When this transition begins, there are going to be so many vital, very important issues that are going to have to be dealt with. That's why we, the citizens of East York, would like to see them dealt with at this level, so that come January 1 we know where we stand and how our community will be served. We feel it is vital that the person, if a third councillor is granted, be elected. We do not want an appointed person, we don't want someone filling in, because if they are elected by the people, they are accountable to the people, and that is what we ask.
Ms Lankin: I would like to ask one question with respect to the board of health issues. In your presentation you talked about the fact that much of what the board of health would be doing would be continuing on with provincially mandated programs, and yet the desire for flexibility in terms of the makeup of the council I think reflects the reality that there are different population health needs in the different parts of the new big city. I was just wondering if you could reflect on that. My sense is that East York and your focus on healthy heart programs is very much geared to your population, compared to some of the inner-city health problems the current Toronto Board of Health has been dealing with. Is that part of why you see the need for this flexibility?
Dr Sheela Basrur: Part of the request for flexibility in the total size of the board is to do with the complexity of the local communities within what is currently known as Metro. They range considerably, as everyone knows, in income and ethnic profile and a whole range of factors that influence health.
In addition to that, though, in other words in addition to the need to tailor provincially mandated programs to local needs, is the complexity of service providers with which we have to work, other boards of directors, if you like, for non-profit agencies or for associations of consumer groups, parents, other people who wish to have a voice in the definition and resourcing and priority setting of public health programs.
It's really to enable a voice to be given to community groups and associations and the like that we wish to have an expanded board of health, in addition to the fact that we know we need to have an equal balance between elected members and appointed members. If we have only 13 people and we want to have an equal balance between elected and appointed, that leaves only, say, six or seven seats for the entire range of community voices that may wish to have a seat, and we don't think that's enough.
The Chair: You've got time for about one question.
Ms Lankin: This is not a question. I just wanted to indicate that the clerk has circulated copies of the amendments that I have tabled with respect to the composition of the council and representation for East York. I would like to get some clarification from the clerk. It doesn't have to be right now.
There are two versions of the amendments here. One is the permanent third member for the ward of East York and the other is the transitional measure of an additional member for the first term of office. There should be two other amendments as well which would provide a permanent fourth member or a transition fourth member. There are actually four amendments that I had tabled so that the committee had the widest range of opportunities and we could hopefully negotiate one we could all support. I'd just ask you to check, and if there's a problem, we can ensure that we get the other copies to you.
The Chair: Thank you. That's it. We'll now start with the government caucus, which also has 15 minutes.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you all for coming before us. Our hope was, when we had laid out the original format, that other cities would follow the lead of communities such as yours and bring people who reflected a broad spectrum of issues but identify the issues most important to them. I think you've picked two very good ones.
Let me start off with the issue of representation. I certainly would like to confirm that Ms Lankin and I have had discussions on a number of occasions. She's been very up front and I would join with her in trying to find, if at all possible, some reasonable middle ground in all this. I know that Ms Churley and Mr Parker have also expressed their interest in this.
Help me out in something here, and I ask this quite sincerely. The ward that overlaps my riding has a population as great as East York's. In the past census it was slightly lower, but we've had over 1,600 new homes built in Scarborough East and obviously over 5,000 more people just in those developments alone. In my discussions with Ms Lankin we've talked about whether it should be three or four. Let me ask you, and perhaps Mr Taylor could comment first.
There's no doubt that today East York is at the upper end of the scale. It is also a very stable community. That's one of the things, of everything we heard in Bill 103, people value about East York, that you haven't been beset with large redevelopment projects and that's the way you would like it to stay. That's totally appropriate. A community should be able to reflect those views. So it's not likely, as we look down the road, that there will be significant growth in East York; some, perhaps, but not significant.
There are still some parts of the existing Metro Toronto with a lot of open spaces; Scarborough Highland Creek, for example. The ward north of us, just immediately north of the 401, has vast tracts of land and there are existing applications before Scarborough council for 3,000 homes along Sheppard Avenue between Highway 2 and Morningside, just a very short stretch of Sheppard Avenue and an extraordinarily high density of developments have been proposed by a variety of property owners.
As we go forward with the proposals Ms Lankin has made here, we have to look at the real numbers, not just today but throughout the term of the three years. Depending on the direction, one of the suggestions was that this be made a permanent addition and one is to do it simply transitional, so we have to weigh those two things: Is it appropriate within the next three years or is it appropriate in the longer sense?
I would ask you, how would we reconcile with the people of wards that have the same population or greater today, or three years from now, or at some point in the future, if we make an exception for East York that we don't make for them? Let me leave it with that and invite your comments, Mr Taylor, and perhaps Mr Crone and anyone else.
Mr Taylor: I would like Mr Crone to answer that question because he sits on council and he's actually more knowledgeable in answering that question. I have a vision of East York growing in this period. We have a senior population of I believe 20% and, as you know, we don't always live long but hope. I know for a fact that we are going to have growth in East York, I see that vision, and without fair representation how can we go on? If you don't mind, I'd like to have Mr Crone finish my comments.
Mr Crone: First of all, you mentioned that we were the only representatives who were here and perhaps because, as part of our tradition, we have such an open council process that anybody who wants to come into any council meeting can come in, as you probably know.
I think you raise a good point. I tried to address that in my presentation when I said that to me, notwithstanding the issue of how high or how low the representation is, the most critical point wasn't really the ratio of representation but was in fact getting a political entity, the community council, at the beginning, at least, that could work.
Later on I don't know what the city of Toronto council is going to do. They may rejuggle the wards, or goodness knows what they're going to do. To me, the primary concern was the initial situation that we'll have in January, because no matter what happens, if we're going to end up with a community council of two, it's going to be very hard to make it work.
I addressed somewhat that other issue, however, when I pointed out the parallel with Prince Edward Island. There we have a province with a population of about 140,000 or 150,000 people, compared to our 108,000, with four federal MPs. Each federal MP represents probably fewer than 40,000 people compared to the 80,000 to 100,000 that is quite common in Metro, and I'm sure there are ridings that are even larger. While yes, there has to be some semblance of equity in it, it seems to me that hasn't caused a problem there and perhaps it won't cause a problem here.
I honestly think that people would recognize that there's a unique problem with East York having only the two members. In Scarborough you're going to have several members, I'm not sure how many it is, but several members anyway, so there is opportunity to make these adjustments later.
1620
I might add also that in East York, while it may appear to be very stable in terms of its size, we have several large development proposals. Our council chamber for the last several weeks has been taken over by the OMB. There's a Kosmor development at Brentcliffe and Eglinton which, depending on what the OMB decides, could have a large residential component in it. We've recently approved residential developments in the Thorncliffe East York Town Centre area. We have the Alcatel site, which has just passed for commercial development, although there's some possibility that could be appealed and perhaps would end up being something else. That's a 28-acre site. While East York seems to be somewhat stable, there is a fair amount, in proportion, of development going on.
Mr Gilchrist: Certainly, as you say, there's some growth.
Ms Lindsay: If I may, I'd just like to comment about the street where I live. When I first moved on Thyra Avenue we had a lot of seniors, but over time a lot of them have been going into seniors' housing. We have many young families with two or three children and it seems to be happening on every street throughout the borough. At one time we probably had the highest population of seniors in Metro, but today I think that is really on a turn. Evidence can be found in the increased enrolment in our schools and all the portables in our schools.
Mr Gilchrist: Indeed. My comment really related to open space, but I certainly accept that places like Acatel could very well face redevelopment applications. But to come back to the question, let me pick up on something you said in your original comments, Mr Crone, because I think there may even be another option before us here that has not been discussed perhaps as widely. I believe at least two of you made comment about the fact that there are only two representatives from East York in Metro council today. Without rehashing the whole Bill 103, Metro spends 74% of all the dollars; it deals with all the social services, the major roads, that sort of thing.
Whatever East York is today, clearly it has become that in the context of 40 years of certainly representation that wouldn't have won a vote if it was East York vs everybody else. I accept that the ratio changes, but even today 32 to 2 would effectively be the result if East York were to do something that was not seen to be in the interests of a majority of the peoples in Metro Toronto. So whether it's 32 to 2 or 55 to 2, I think we would all accept that for any application to go forward to be successful, it's going to meet the test that at least the majority of councillors -- it has always been the case that you had to have some Etobicoke or some Scarborough or some North York support.
You raised in your comments the suggestion that the real problem was the community councils, that today you have eight, and the ability to influence local decisions and reflect local values is what you see most constrained by going to two, and the possibility for tie votes and the need for unanimity to get anything passed. I'm wondering whether you have considered as another option that rather than a third person who goes to the city council, more people be added to the community council. I'll posit this as an option, just to throw it out for the purposes of discussion, that the person who comes third in the balloting would be considered to be the third person on the community council, which would guarantee you have to have a two-thirds opinion. There still is the public expression with the third most popular candidate in the race.
That allows us to make your case that within the community council there is a need to break ties and things like that, and three is 50% larger than two and would allow the increased representation there but still not create a dangerous precedent at the city council level. As I say, even today when the numbers come out for the final enumeration, I'm very confident you'll find that if East York is still number one, it won't be by more than a thousand people, and by the year 2000 I can almost assure you that even with the growth you've spoken about, you will not be in first place.
It would avoid the need three years from now to have somebody come back here and say, "Now we need an exception for Scarborough-Highland Creek and we need an exception for Scarborough-Malvern etc." I'm wondering whether it's the local issues and the need to break the tie and do those other things you spoke about, councillor, whether that might be acceptable or whether another compromise should be considered.
Mr Crone: I have to say, first of all, it's an interesting proposal. I can remember being at one of the local meetings and someone had come along with an idea of electing four councillors, I guess it was, and have it on a rotation basis, that for a while this one went to city council and for a while that one went. We did not put it forward because it seemed to be so much at odds with the overall structure that had been put in place for the rest of the city. In other words, I guess then East York would be the only municipality that had two councillors and kind of a vice-councillor or something. I'm not quite sure what you'd call that person. Certainly something that would make the community council viable and workable at least in the initial period is more acceptable than a two-person council. I can't imagine how it could work.
The Chair: You've got time for one more question.
Mr Gilchrist: Very briefly then, I guess in the converse, when you have the three, including representation on the city council, there are some other issues that come up. Now it's an even number, which creates the possibility for tie votes on the really big-dollar questions that come forward -- not too likely, hopefully, but that possibility is there. It it's three out of 58 or two out of 57, no singularly East York issue would ever win. Remember that there's nothing cast in stone about what authority is given to the community councils. Those decisions will be made by the new council. To a very great extent the same local input you have in your local council today, you'll have in the future.
I just offer that as something else for your consideration. I would invite your comments, not just now, but between now and next week when we table the amendment.
Ms Lindsay: Mr Gilchrist, I would just like to comment. I understand where you're coming from, but also in the bill as it now exists the city of York is getting four. They do not have double the population of East York, so I think the numbers game is going to be going on forever as communities develop. It's going to have to be looked at again so people are fairly represented, but I don't see why the city of York qualifies for four people. They are not double the population of East York.
The Chair: Sorry, we're out of time. Did you have a point of order, Ms Lankin?
Ms Lankin: You'll have to tell me. It may not be a point of order. It might be a point of something. I just wanted Mr Gilchrist to assure me that his line of questioning wasn't an indication that he's not still open to the possibility.
Mr Gilchrist: We have five people from East York here. I would like to keep an open mind --
Ms Lankin: Great. Terrific.
Mr Gilchrist: -- until next week when all the amendments are tabled.
The Chair: Councillors Crone and Robinson, Ms Lindsay, Mr Taylor, Ms Basrur, thank you very much for your presentations. It's been very worthwhile.
Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Just so that we don't get into some confusion later on when we're dealing with whatever amendments we're going to deal with, and you've heard the ones my colleagues would like to put, which I hope will find support from the government members, if there's any difference of opinion on this it might be useful, which is why I raise it now as I look at Bill 103 -- the composition of the community councils is set as per Bill 103 and it's not something that can be changed by the new council. I just flag that.
The Chair: Are you asking a question of staff?
Mr Silipo: Yes. I'm raising it as a point of order and asking for clarification.
The Chair: The staff person is not back until 5, but do you have an answer, sir? Could you come to the front? We've got a brief minute. Do we know the question?
Mr David Spring: I believe the question is whether it lies within the purview of the new council to change the makeup of the community councils.
Mr Silipo: That's right.
Mr Spring: I refer you to subsection 7(5) of Bill 103. That bill reads that the city council "may by bylaw dissolve a community council or change its composition" and, in the second part, "establish a new community council for any part of the urban area." That is subject to the rules that follow, set out in subsection (6).
Mr Silipo: I can see that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
1630
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
The Chair: The next delegation is the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Councillor Scott Cavalier. I have some other names, sir, but I'm going to let you introduce your delegation in the order in which you wish to present to us. You've got up to an hour. I see by the raised eyebrows that you think you won't take an hour to speak. Well, the members may or may not have questions. The floor's yours.
Mr Scott Cavalier: I'm Metro councillor Scott Cavalier. Good afternoon. On behalf of the chairman and members of Metropolitan Toronto council, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to your committee today. I am accompanied today by staff representatives from Metro's legal and finance departments, who will assist me in answering your questions following my remarks.
Metro council adopted its formal response to Bill 148 on August 13, 1997. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has a copy of our report, as does this committee. I don't intend to go over every point we raised in our written response to the bill. Rather, I want to highlight what we consider to be the most pressing issues that should be addressed through amendments to the proposed legislation.
In March of this year the Metro chairman made a presentation to this committee in which he outlined Metro council's practical concerns in response to Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act. We are pleased to see that by focusing on implementation issues, Bill 148 addresses many of council's practical concerns. However, some of the provisions in Bill 148 may in turn give rise to other practical considerations. These issues are described in our report, and where appropriate we have suggested specific amendments to resolve the issues.
A number of these issues we've raised in our report may not appear to be immediate make-or-break matters for the new city of Toronto. Nevertheless, they are matters that have an impact on the flexibility and tools that the new city will have to have to manage its affairs, both financially and organizationally. Many of these issues have been the subject of discussions between Metro officials and the provincial government for quite some time.
Bill 148 provides an ideal opportunity to address these issues. At the end of the day, I believe we all share the same goal, which is to ensure that the amalgamated city of Toronto has the means to function effectively and efficiently. Recommendations in our report are presented to you in that spirit. I urge you to consider them carefully and to amend the bill accordingly.
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that I wanted to focus today on what we consider to be the most pressing issues. These relate to the interim tax levy, the sinking fund, insurance, land use planning, and local boards.
The interim tax levy: I understand the transition team has also brought this issue to your attention. I would like to reinforce their concerns. As you know, municipal budgets are not normally set until the spring; therefore, councils generally pass a bylaw in December to authorize the collection of interim taxes for the few months of the tax year until the final tax bill is prepared and issued to taxpayers.
With the new council not meeting until January, the bylaw authorizing the collection of interim taxes could be delayed. We need transitional measures to ensure that the new council does not begin its existence with a cash management problem. We suggest to you that notwithstanding the provisions in Bill 149, the status quo should continue for the first interim billing in 1998; that is, for 1998 we would prefer to allow the interim billing procedure to continue under the existing practices. There really is no need to complicate matters in Toronto or, for that matter, in any other municipality undergoing amalgamation by introducing new rules to issue interim tax bills.
The new rules would require changes to existing tax billing systems in time for the issuance of interim tax bills in 1998. We request you to consider our suggestion as a transitional measure for the 1998 municipal tax year alone. The new city of Toronto can accommodate the changes contained in Bill 149 on interim tax billing starting in 1999. I understand that the new rules I'm referring to are in Bill 149, which is not what you are reviewing today. However, the new city's capacity to accommodate those rules is related to the implementation of municipal finance structures and processes in the new city of Toronto, which are part of the legislation before you today.
The sinking fund: A number of sections within part XIV of Bill 148 deal with sinking fund debentures and their administration. Our report includes recommendations to make a number of housekeeping amendments to these sections. I want to draw to your attention in particular a couple of these recommendations.
First, we are proposing that the bill be amended to require all participants in a sinking fund debenture issue to fund any deficits in proportion to their participation in the issue. It is not yet clear whether the new city will be issuing debentures on behalf of the school boards, as Metro has done in the past. At issue here is the principle that if the new city borrows on behalf of a number of agencies, including school boards, all participants should share in the risk of any potential shortfall, as they currently share in surpluses which have been generated every year for the past 15 years. At present there is no provision for this to happen. To date, no sinking fund deficits have been sustained. However, there need to be provisions in place to deal with deficits in the event that they occur.
In addition, we recommend that a provision be included in Bill 148 to allow for the charging of related operating expenses to the sinking fund accounts, including committee member honoraria, management fees, bank and custodial fees. Such a provision would enable the new city of Toronto to recover the costs of administering sinking fund accounts from all participants, again including school boards. It is fair, and I believe it is in keeping with the government's support for user fees and cost recovery measures.
Insurance: I am aware that the transition team has raised the issue of insurance coverage in the new city as of January 1, 1998. I want to echo the transition team's concerns and reinforce for you the importance of dealing with this issue by making provision in the legislation to authorize interim insurance coverage.
Land use planning: On a variety of occasions, including Metro council's response to Bill 103, we have recommended that the new city of Toronto be required explicitly to prepare and maintain an official plan. Section 44 of Bill 148 provides for the existing seven official plans to continue to be in effect until the new council repeals or amends them. However, there is still no explicit requirement for the new city to have an official plan. We strongly recommend that a section be added to the legislation requiring the new city of Toronto to prepare an official plan. An official plan will provide an important means for the new city and its communities to express their collective vision of their future and how they intend to manage urban growth and change in support of this vision.
Local boards: The environment in which municipal governments function is changing rapidly. Municipal governments need to have a great deal of flexibility to adapt their organizational structures and ways of doing business in order to meet the challenges of such a dynamic environment and in order to meet the expectations and needs of residents. We look forward to a new Municipal Act, which I understand will loosen some of the provincial controls that now shackle municipal government initiative, creativity and enterprise.
We are also pleased that section 93 of Bill 148 includes provisions to enable the new city to merge local boards. Section 91, however, places severe limits on the application of that power. We believe that the new city should have much greater flexibility to merge, restructure or even dissolve local boards and integrate the responsibilities and functions into the new city's line departments where that makes sense.
Currently, regulation 214/96, made under section 210.4 of the Municipal Act, gives municipal councils the flexibility to dissolve any board, change its form, function or name, or to assume one or more of the board's functions. This is an important power that the new city should have. We recommend that this power continue to be provided, either through an amendment to Bill 148 or in the forthcoming new Municipal Act.
To conclude, I want to acknowledge that Bill 148 is about implementation. It deals largely with administration and goes a long way toward smoothing the amalgamation. However, it does leave some issues unresolved. Those are the issues that I have spoken about this afternoon and which Metro council discusses in its report. Many are administrative issues that have been around for some time and which already have been the subject of discussions between Metro and the province.
1640
If the amalgamation is to succeed in renewing and invigorating Toronto, it is essential to take the opportunity to resolve these administrative issues and to ensure as smooth a transition as possible. Again I urge your committee to consider the recommendations in our report carefully, as I'm sure you will, and amend Bill 148 in the ways we suggest.
Now we'd be very pleased to answer your questions.
To introduce my associates at the table, from the legal department we have Jeff Abrams and Jack Horsley. Louise Eason is the treasurer and commissioner of finance for Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Silipo: Thank you for the presentation, Councillor Cavalier. I have a couple of questions on what you said and some on issues you haven't covered. The sinking funds issue: I assume from your comment that they haven't been addressed, at least as far as the education pieces are concerned, the school board piece, in the new education bill that's just been tabled. Do you know, or have you had a chance to look at it?
Mr Cavalier: I haven't had the opportunity to do so. I'm not sure whether the staff has.
Ms Louise Eason: We are not aware at this time if these concerns have been addressed.
Mr Silipo: You're right that the interim levy was raised by the transition team. I, for one, think the suggestion that has been made is quite sensible. I hope we can find a way to do that.
One issue I wanted to ask you about was in terms of the library boards. Has council looked at the issue of the continued existence, separate from the new library board to be established, of a separate library board for the Metro reference library? Did that ever come up in the discussions leading to the report?
Mr Cavalier: I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, we were looking at an integration of the existing board for the Metro reference library with the new library board.
Mr Silipo: That's what the legislation does. Clearly, it puts all seven together. As you may know --
Mr Cavalier: If my memory serves me correctly, that was the line of the discussion in that area, that the Metro council had --
Mr Silipo: -- had taken that position in support of that. Well, as you know, there is another view which says that the unique nature of the Metro reference library can best be protected by having the separate structure continue, notwithstanding the amalgamation of the other boards. I just wanted to see whether council had taken a position on that. I've just received the report and I didn't know whether it was addressed in there.
Mr Gilchrist: Good to see you, Scott. Thank you to you and your associates for coming before us here today. I appreciate your bringing forward your specific suggestions and your proposed amendments. That will be most useful. As a general comment, I will certainly guarantee you that we will take all of these under advisement, but I do want to comment specifically on some of them, some good news we can leave with you even here. On page 7, as one of the comments you make dealing with the future evolution of local boards, you suggest that regulation 214/96 under section 210.4 of the Municipal Act would be something the new city should have. I can confirm to you that as a lower-tier municipality, once the amalgamation takes effect on January 1, you automatically have that.
Mr Cavalier: As a single tier?
Mr Gilchrist: The new city will have that power.
Mr Cavalier: Super.
Mr Gilchrist: In terms of your other comments about the local boards, there was some thought -- not to suggest that further changes won't be forthcoming -- that some boards are large enough -- I think of the TTC in particular -- that it was appropriate to single them out for different treatment than any other board the city may inherit or in the future may create and at some subsequent point decide to change or dissolve. Having said that, I think your more general comments we'll take under advisement as well.
On the issue of the land use planning, I guess I'm a little confused, given that every one of the six existing cities has an official plan that could very --
Mr Cavalier: Actually, as does Metro now.
Mr Gilchrist: And there is a Metro official plan, yes. I was just going to say that. Given that the current councils have considered all the various issues before them, the need to distribute the various services, and have cobbled together what they believe to be appropriate official plans, having put those six pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together, and recognizing that there is a Metro official plan which is an overlay even above those six subordinate plans, why would there be a need to incur the expense of going out and commissioning in effect another official plan?
Mr Cavalier: In essence, what we're looking for, if it's fair to make analogies, is a comparison with the existing Metro plan and the overall general thrust that the opportunity of putting together a large-scale official plan process gives to the council. As you are probably aware, from time to time there have been some conflicts between Metro and the local councils when it comes to the planning issues, although 99% of those times we're pretty much in agreement. But we have had instances where local municipalities, particularly in areas where they have been doing redevelopment, where you've run into a contradiction in responsibilities, if you will -- Metro must provide the hard servicing, the major trunk sewers, water provision, public transit, and the local municipalities to this point in time have had the responsibility for making those specific amendments, so you get into a situation where the larger budgets are being driven by the smaller units.
What in essence we're looking for in this regard is to challenge the new city to look at itself for the first time, in many ways, as a complete whole. There's a number of specific things. There are certain areas within Metropolitan Toronto where there are services that exist that are underutilized, and one would hope that when looking at the large investment costs for major infrastructure, you would use what exists first before incurring additional expenditures and things of that sort.
Without that central official plan responsibility, I think there are times when the tail wags the dog. I personally believe there is a role to be played by challenging the new council to see itself as the one governing unit, particularly in large infrastructure investment.
Mr Gilchrist: I don't think anyone would disagree that as all municipalities are required, on an ongoing and set frequency, to update their official plans -- I think your goal is certainly one that everyone would support. I guess the only question is, in light of the fact that a lot of time and money has gone into the current Metro plan -- in particular I would ask you to put your mind forward.
Let's assume for a second that you're successful in the upcoming election. Help me out. You mentioned that in the past there have been times when there were conflicts between the city and the Metro official plans. Now that it will be the same councillor wearing in effect both hats, you certainly would not have any personality issues and won't have any political issues in the broadest sense of the word; you're down to pure planning. As you look back historically at the few times you say there were these conflicts, which you've had to deal with either at the city level or the Metro level, would the fact now that the same council is interpreting both the overlaying plan and the subordinate plan not remedy many, if not all, of those past conflicts?
1650
Mr Cavalier: I can envision it remedying some, but it would be very much on an individual, ad hoc basis. I'm not sure, without institutionalizing the official plan process at the new city level, that you can be assured that that would happen.
You've mentioned a couple of times now about going through the expense. We don't envision that this has to be something that is done immediately but as there are the current responsibilities, where there's a review every five years and a more specific update on a 10-year basis. That's the kind of process we envision. It wouldn't be an annual, costly review.
Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate your raising it. As I sit here right now -- and I'm at a bit of a disadvantage; I don't have other statutes before me -- I thought the Planning Act covered that and would similarly apply to the new city. I appreciate your point, and we'll certainly consider that in the context of not just Bill 148 but the other relevant statutes.
You made a couple of other good suggestions and we'll take them back as well. The sinking fund: Again you can help me out on this. Particularly on page 5, the top paragraph, you mention provision to allow for the charging back of other related expenses. Are these special considerations available to other municipalities today? Is this an oversight, or is this something you envision only because of the size of the new city or the complexity?
Mr Cavalier: Sinking funds are Louise's specialty.
Ms Eason: My specific personal experience is with both Metro and the region of Peel. In that respect they're very similar in that those administrative expenses may not be charged back. It does appear to be contrary to full-cost-recovery principles and service contract principles. In the case of Metro there is a citizen committee, the sinking fund committee, of four members, and there are support services provided by Metro for which in the past the cities, the borough and the school boards have benefited. It would be a simple matter of prorating those costs according to the participation in debenture issues.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. Like Scott, I would have to defer to someone far more expert than me in seeking counsel whether this is something that would be extraordinary or whether these powers exist for other municipalities. Again, I appreciate your raising them.
We've had a chance to digest your other presentation as well. I know staff have been able to deal with a number, but they will certainly deal with them all by the time the deadline comes for filing amendments.
I appreciate the fact that while not all the municipalities affected took the time to do this, yours did. We very much value your specific input and your experience in all this. Thank you very much for coming before us.
The Chair: Thank you very much Councillor Cavalier, and Ms Eason and Mr Horsley and Mr Abrams. Your presentation has been appreciated.
FLOYD HONEY
The Chair: We're a little bit ahead of time. Is Floyd Massey here? Sorry, I see I have the wrong name here. Your name is Mr Honey. I apologize. The copy I have had "Mr Massey." Welcome to the committee, sir.
Mr Floyd Honey: Thank you very much for the correction. I was sitting back there wondering how I got to be Floyd Massey.
Mr Gilchrist: The powers of the Legislature are truly awesome.
Mr Honey: It suddenly occurred to me that I live at 1 Massey Square. I guess I was named after my address. I want to assure you that Massey Square was not named after me.
The Chair: I thank you for coming, and I apologize again for our error. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.
Mr Honey: I want to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. I am a retired minister of the United Church of Canada. Most of my career was spent in administrative posts in national and international church, interchurch and interfaith organizations. I have had no direct experience in government, though on a much smaller scale I served for seven years as president of the largest condominium corporation in Canada. As a Christian minister, however, I have a profound concern about human welfare, and this includes, of course, the welfare of people who live in cities. It is out of this concern that I come to address you.
I have lived for 13 years in the city of Toronto and for 29 years in the borough of East York. I thus have fairly deep roots in what is now Metro Toronto. It must have been by pure accident that I landed up in an afternoon where nearly everybody else comes from East York.
I find it difficult to speak about Bill 148 because I remain solidly opposed to its parent, Bill 103. It's going to make government much more remote. As a resident of East York, I have grown accustomed to the accessibility of the mayor and the council. It is very easy to pick up the telephone and talk with Mayor Prue. This will be much harder in the megacity. The so-called community councils, which we've been discussing here, with their limited mandates, will be no substitute for the elected councils in the existing cities, which have a much broader mandate and a more intimate acquaintance with the concerns of their communities.
The claim that amalgamation would save money was based on a flawed study which, even in its attempt to support this claim, was not able to cite actual evidence to back it up. All objective studies of amalgamation in other cities show that amalgamation increases costs rather than reducing them, and this altogether apart from the increased costs that will result from downloading, about which at the moment we have no solid accounting.
In adopting Bill 103, the government ignored the recommendations of the Golden commission and the Crombie task force, to whom it had turned for advice. It also ignored the advice of Jane Jacobs, an internationally recognized expert on urban affairs. In her submission to the hearing on February 3, 1997, she said:
"I would judge that the city of Toronto is probably close to the limit at which true flexible responsiveness is feasible. Apparently, the Ontario government wants to amalgamate our city governments for the purpose of cutting out confusion and duplications, improving services and reducing waste. Good aims, but depend on it, in real life the side-effects of amalgamation would contradict those aims."
Most serious of all is the destruction of democracy represented by the passing of Bill 103 and many other actions of this government. In other municipalities where amalgamation was forced, the municipalities concerned at least had an opportunity to work out their own plan of amalgamation, though they knew there was a gun at their head if they did not do so. In Toronto we did not even have this privilege. In a draconian action, the like of which this province has never seen, we have been told, "You are going to amalgamate, and this is the way it is going to be done whether you like it or not." This in the face of a referendum which showed clearly that we didn't want it.
Now the unelected transition team, likewise imposed upon us and not subject to legal challenge, is proceeding to dictate administrative decisions which should belong to the new council, and is even trying to impose a 15% budget reduction, regardless of the cuts to vital services which this will entail.
1700
His Honour Mr Justice Borins, in his judgement on the recent legal challenge to Bill 103, had this to say, "Counsel for the respondents submitted that there had been, over the years, adequate public consultation in respect to the mode of governance of Metro Toronto." There's a lacunae here where he cited some of those efforts at consultation. He went on: "As well, there is considerable force in the applicants' position that although the Ontario Legislature standing committee on general government conducted hearings on Bill 103 after it had received second reading, they were too little, too late, as the government had long since indicated its determination to proceed with the legislation.... The evidence supports the conclusion that Bill 103 simply appeared on the government's legislative agenda with little, or no, public notice and without any attempt to enter into any meaningful consultation with those people who would be most affected by it -- the more than two million inhabitants of Metro Toronto."
So we come to Bill 148, which again comes to us after second reading, with exactly two days of hearings, the first hour of which was allocated to the minister responsible for the bill and the second to the transition team. My text says that exactly eight spaces have been allocated to representatives of the general public. That was my understanding when I wrote this. As it turns out, there have been some additional spaces allocated, I believe, because of some cancellations.
Those of us who are opposed to Bill 103 are concerned to see that as much power and responsibility as possible remain within the regions now represented by the cities. Bill 148 simply continues the process of centralization begun in the original megacity bill. We might call it the "ultra-amalgamation bill." We find that there will be one library board, one historical board, one parking authority and one board of health. Could these agencies not remain in place until the new council, if there has to be one mega-council, has a chance to review the situation and decide, in its own wisdom, what is the best arrangement for these various functions? Does the government think that the people of Toronto have no intelligence at all and you must therefore spoon-feed us like babies because we can't be trusted to do the right thing? Maybe you should abolish the council altogether and simply let the province run all our affairs.
It is being rumoured that some members of the Tory caucus are feeling nervous because they sense that many of their constituents feel they are moving too fast. I urge you to recommend to the government to slow down, think again, make a serious effort to obtain citizen input. I urge that you do this not simply out of self-serving political considerations but as a matter of conscience. Most politicians, I imagine, are concerned about the legacy they leave when their term of office ends. I am afraid that the legacy of the Common Sense Revolution will be the destruction of a city that is the envy of many, and the destruction of democracy in Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Honey, for your presentation.
RUTH COHEN
The Chair: The next presenter is Ruth Cohen. Welcome, Ms Cohen.
Ms Ruth Cohen:. My name is Ruth Cohen. I am a retired high school English teacher, and I've entitled my presentation The Sheer Heaviness of Being in Ontario in These Woeful Times. According to my horoscope today, I am supposed to be charming, diplomatic and talented -- some people would question that, I imagine -- but even if that were true, having failed to move you before, I doubt if I will get you to see the light this time round. Having watched you all seated in the Legislature, looking very contented with the astounding legislation you have put into place, I am wondering if it is possible to be either charming or diplomatic when discussing Bill 148. I fear it would take a lot more talent than I possess to get across to you the dire consequences of the legislation you've put into place. I doubt if Jove himself would be able to move you.
I am glad of this opportunity, however, to speak to you again as I did once before on Bill 103. Even if your eyelids are very heavy by now and you're looking forward to running home to have your glass of wine and your cigar while you gleefully survey your conquest of Ontario, at least another "piece de resistance," or "piece of resistance," will go into the record.
The fact is, I have been hit with too many horrors on a daily basis, the latest one striking very close to home. I am a retired school teacher and know how ludicrous the latest edicts affecting our educational system are, but I will let my colleagues outside fill you in on that one. I am here specifically to comment on your Bill 148, popularly known as the son of Bill 103. As such, it bears the earmarks of the restructuring frenzy we have been through with Bill 103, only this time we have a melange of prescriptions on the minutiae of how the restructuring is to proceed.
I am especially concerned about the prescriptions in Bill 148 curtailing more of our rights and turning the democratic process we once knew into a sick joke. You are trying to impose a command economy on us equal to anything Joe Stalin had to offer. When I look at the provisions of Bill 148 for the disposition of the assets and reserve funds of the library board, the historical board, the parking authority, the board of health, the TTC, some of them with huge reserves, like the parking authority with its $150-million reserve fund, I am amazed at the sheer effrontery of this government in stripping away powers and assets of all our municipal institutions. And for what? To make good on the famous tax cut, of course. Plus the additional benefit -- question mark -- of setting up everything that moves for privatization.
There are already many examples from around the globe of places where these very prescriptions you are forcing upon us were put to the test and failed miserably. A prime example is New Zealand. New Zealand, once a tiny, perfect island, was hit with your kind of restructuring program in 1984. Before 1984, it had the third-highest standard of living in the world. It had the lowest unemployment in the industrial world. There was almost no violent crime. Personal security was taken for granted. Foreign debt was $20 billion, and total public debt was $11 billion.
After amalgamations and privatizations had taken place in 1984 -- an interesting year -- the standard of living went down to 22nd place; unemployment doubled and kept rising; 26% of the nation's children lived in poverty; teenagers committed suicide at a higher rate than ever before. I have appended the article I read which contains the information on New Zealand. It is called If Pigs Could Fly: The Hard Truth About the "Economic Miracle" that Ruined New Zealand.
The people will not forever allow themselves to be trifled with in this high-handed manner. At some point, they cannot allow your restructuring and privatization to continue.
How can you remain so blissfully ignorant of the fact that your weird restructuring experiment is bound to fail? How many mice's tails do you have to cut off before you realize that the experiment is not going to fly, that cutting off their tails is not the way to get a generation of tailless mice?
Personally, I was very pleased at the response you were getting from some people in responsible positions faced with impossible edicts being laid before them by the transition team. I was especially impressed with the response of the chief administrative officer of North York, who had received a letter from Jack Pickard advising that North York was not to spend its own reserve funds because they were needed for the megacity. Her reply was most colourful and succinct. I believe she said she had carefully filed the letter and commented, "He can stick it in his ear." Most impressive.
There have been other examples of people on Toronto city council who have been given impossible demands re budgets and 15% cuts and what not who have also refused to comply. There should be a lot more of this kind of response. To respond to your provocations with an absolute refusal to comply is not civil disobedience; it is our civic duty as a free people to rid ourselves of what has become the bane of our existence.
You may think the Constitution makes us your creatures, but we're not. All your outlandish attempts to carve us up will be eventually be dismantled. After you are gone, we will have our citizen assemblies, which will meet to forestall any repetition ever again of the outrageous abuse of power we have been subjected to since you took office.
All this confusion and mayhem stems from your mistaken identification of municipalities as corporations in the business sense of the term. But the people of Toronto do not live in corporations. They live in neighbourhoods and communities. They will, I am certain, at the earliest opportunity dismantle this entire house of cards you want us to live in and restore democracy to our beleaguered city. Your resignation as a government would be most helpful in this regard. I strongly urge you to consider that option and call an election now. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Cohen, for your presentation.
Members of the committee, I have two other delegations scheduled to appear. One is Shirley Russ and the other is Simon Richards. Not here? Then I'm going to call recess for about 10 minutes. We'll return in 10 minutes, at 5:25.
The committee recessed from 1713 to 1726.
SIMON RICHARDS
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we have two more presenters. I understand that Shirley Russ is not yet here. Mr Simon Richards, who wasn't able to appear this morning, is here. We're glad you came back, Mr Richards. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.
Mr Simon Richards: Thank you, and thank you to the clerk's office for calling me at work. I would also like to thank the mayors of the six cities for just saying no. I am delighted to once again be a member of the cast in your ongoing farce of public hearings. I feel like an understudy who gets to go on when the main actor won't. I consider these hearings a farce because I know you aren't listening. I know you are not listening because you don't want to hear me or any other member of the public. If you did, you would have invited me to speak, along with all the others who requested to be heard. As it is, if it wasn't for the mayors in their official capacity refusing to dignify this low comedy with their presence, I never would have had the chance. So I am delighted that you have been forced to hear from me. I shall endeavour to be as quick as possible, because I have glue setting.
I'd like to begin with a brief review. The passage of an omnibus bill taking power from the many and concentrating it in the hands of the few to enable the government to carry out its policies; the elimination of local councils; the dismantling of the welfare state, coupled with the conscription of a cheap and mobile labour force; the quashing of unions through forced arbitration before government-appointed trustees, and the forced amalgamation of previously autonomous unions; the dismantling of the education system and its replacement with a new, improved version under the direct authority of the government -- these paternalistic, legislative acts are part of a policy of imposed order.
History has, however, shown us that the imposition of order is destructive, because that order derives only from the few. Imposed order is never democratic. Therefore, it does not have the support of the majority. The seeds of chaos lie close to the surface of imposed order.
A case in point is the aforementioned pieces of legislation. They were foisted on the public between 1933 and 1937 in Germany. They are being foisted on the public of Ontario in 1997. The legislative similarities are not confined to the examples I mentioned, although I do know of a major difference: Hitler never cancelled photo-radar.
When I spoke to Bill 103, I reminded you that many of your parents and grandparents fought in a war to preserve democracy. A few short months later, you have become the very people your parents fought against. Congratulations. Now, one of your collaborators who works at one of the dailies dismisses the comparison between you, the Ontario Tories, and Hitler's National Socialists. He feels it diminishes the horrors of the Holocaust. I would like to point out that the Holocaust was their grossest perversion, but it was not their only perversion. To be blind to all the other perversions and abuses in order to honour those who died in the greater is ultimately appeasement, ergo, collaboration.
History has also shown that there are always those who will not collaborate, who will submit to these perversions and abuses, who will fight to the end. This room today was full of such people. They, we, the people, will win, because that is historical fact as well. In light of this fact, I urge you to stop your revolution now and save everyone a lot of time and trouble. I assure you, we will defeat you and your agenda and we will unravel your asinine legislative acts.
To look into the near future, I understand that you are considering that after the November 10 election and prior to January 1, when the new council picks up the few reins allowed them, you will allow the old council to deal with zoning and development. That's an interesting idea -- not. Along with your response to the March 3 referenda, it helps me to clarify your concept of democracy, to wit, government by diselected officials, not put in place by non-voters.
Here's another clarification for you: When those people democratically elected to positions of authority no longer listen to the people who elected them, when they no longer seek the guidance of the people who elected them, when they resort to skulduggery and obfuscation to silence the people who elected them, then there is no longer democracy. There is dictatorship.
In closing, the majority of the people of the six cities do not want your amalgamation. We do not want your Bill 103. We do not want your Bill 148 etc. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
SHIRLEY RUSS
The Chair: The next presenter is Shirley Russ. You have the honour of having the last word today, Ms Russ. Thank you for coming.
Ms Shirley Russ: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you even though I'm not a mayor. An amalgamated city reduces my chances by one in six of ever being one. I am honoured to be only one of some 20 members of the public to have this opportunity. I'm also, truthfully, quite humbled by representing so many of my fellow citizens.
I truly appreciate the work you do as members of the provincial Parliament, in thinking about Ontario and trying to do the best for the people you represent. I'm aware that your committee has been listening for six hours, that it's been a long day and that you're probably tired and hungry and ready for dinner. From the work I do, I know that the simple act of yawning can provide a welcome release from fatigue and make it easier to listen. So feel free to yawn while I speak, and I'll be neither offended nor shall I assume that I'm being boring. Instead, I'm actually going to hold out the hope for you that our 10 minutes together may be truly interesting, possibly memorable, and that they could make a difference.
I come here keenly aware that while our focus is Bill 148 and Metropolitan Toronto, I am speaking to a committee of the provincial government rather than a municipal committee. I wonder whether you would just indulge me with a show of hands for those of you who actually reside in Metro Toronto. It would help me as a speaker to have a sense of -- okay. That gives me a sense of the proportion over here.
Metropolitan Toronto is a complex network of citizens and services, hospitals and housing, parks and pools, and it works. It works so well that by international standards it's considered to be one of the best places in the world to live.
Its population has both a high density and a great diversity that produce huge needs. The density requires a vast grid of public transportation not only for its residents but also for workers who commute and visitors who come from many parts of the world. The density also demands affordable housing, health care, libraries, recreation facilities. You can't just go for a walk in the countryside when you live here. The diversity means there are many single and separated parents and are many young people. It means there are many people for whom English is a difficult language and that finding jobs and feeding families is a very big challenge. So all the English-as-a-second-language courses, the accessible libraries and the low-cost housing are crucial to the city's wellbeing.
I urge you not to siphon off any of the reserve funds and the moneys of the parking authority or the historical board in order to reduce taxes or fill other needed places. Please leave them for the enormous needs of this complex city.
Since the density and diversity extends to its historical sites, the unique nature of the Toronto Historical Board seems to deserve a special mention. The board has done an excellent job of preserving and promoting our history, and it needs to keep all the funds it has accumulated to do its task, for the history that resides in Toronto is not just the history of Toronto; it's the history of Ontario and of Canada. Therefore, the funds are needed to preserve that history and keep it accessible to all of Ontario and all the visitors from within and without that come to learn about Canada.
I request that you look closely at section 95 of the bill, which allows for variable services and variable mill rates. Section 97, with its transitional tax levy, would allow, just as an example, that a tax could be levied on East York if snowplowing services were provided for their services, and the same tax would not be on the other sections. Sections 95 and 97 have the potential to create unevenness and unfairness, especially since the megacity council will operate without the local democratic inputs that the current councils have. I know this government does not want to create a system that works less well than our current six councils do.
Similarly, it's important that you determine more equitable representation for East York. East York is slated to have one councillor for approximately 54,000 residents, compared to the one for every 37,000 residents in the other areas. Since fair representation is a cornerstone of democracy, I'm sure you will add the necessary amendment to Bill 148.
I want to speak to the implementation that Bill 148 addresses and to caution against any speed or haste. While we can amalgamate in urban area overnight by legislation, we don't actually change that area. We still have the same number of people and the same diverse needs for health, for housing, for libraries. If I were to put it another way, you can change the government of a city overnight, but you can't change the city in that time. The process of changing from six councils to one needs to be painstaking and thorough. It needs to build on our knowledge of what has worked, it needs to build on the wisdom of working people, and it needs careful consultations with those who provide and those who use the services of the city.
I would like to quote someone who is absolutely crystal clear on that point. Please favour me with listening carefully both to the quote and to the author. "The most consistent message we have heard throughout our public outreach was that the transition and implementation process must respect local democracy and the role of representative governments. Again, we agree. We want to work with the people of Metro Toronto and with local municipal offices on ways of ensuring a democratic and accountable process." The writer is none other than Mr Steve Gilchrist, in a letter to me dated March 19, 1997.
In conclusion, I'd like to hold out for you that whether you do or don't currently live in Metropolitan Toronto, at some time in your long life, you may have a daughter or a nephew or a friend or a colleague who does. They may need work or housing or social assistance or want to learn from a library or a place of history. At that point in time you will be personally pleased that you thought carefully and well about the future of this city.
I trust that you care deeply about the people of Toronto, including all those who live in the vast metropolis that is Toronto. Thank you very much for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you. Your presentation has been most refreshing. We thank you for coming this afternoon.
Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the presentations today. I remind you that next week, on Thursday, October 2, is the clause-by-clause debate. I remind members of the committee that the amendments that you wish to be submitted should be filed with the clerk by 12 noon on or before October 1.
If there are no questions, I adjourn this committee until Thursday, October 2, at 10 am in this committee room.
The committee adjourned at 1742.