GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO
CONTENTS
Tuesday 8 December 1998
Greater Toronto Services Board Act, 1998, Bill 56, Mr Leach / Loi de 1998
sur la Commission des services du grand Toronto, projet de loi 56, M. Leach
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est 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 Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton PC)
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ms Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel
Mr Mark Spakowski, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1533 in room 151.
GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO
Consideration of Bill 56, An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à créer la Commission des services du grand Toronto et la Régie des Transports en commun du grand Toronto et à modifier la Loi sur la Régie des transports en commun de la région de Toronto.
The Chair (Mr John R. O'Toole): I call this meeting of the general government committee together. As everyone knows, we are reviewing Bill 56. I recognize that all the caucuses are represented. The next thing I want to ensure is that everyone has a copy of the amendments. There are 28 amendments by the various caucuses.
The purpose of this committee is to review the clause-by-clause provisions. I'll start with section 1, if everyone --
Interruption.
The Chair: The Chair would just say that the committee's charge is to deal with clause-by-clause consideration of the Greater Toronto Services Board Act.
Interruption.
The Chair: There is no charge of this committee for input at this time. With that, I would rule your remarks out of order. That's pretty much the way it stands.
Interruption.
The Chair: Out of respect for the committee and committee members, I think there has been sufficient opportunity for public input. Over the period from about 1988 this issue has been before the public.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Chair: You're supposed to be an impartial Chair --
The Chair: I am an impartial Chair, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: -- and it's not your job to interpret government policy when you're sitting in that chair.
The Chair: I'm not interpreting government policy; I'm stating the charge of this committee. It's very clear: to consider clause by clause.
Mr Silipo: That's the reason why you can't hear him, not because of whatever number of years of debate there may have been on this.
The Chair: I'm stating the obvious. There has been opportunity for input.
Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Chair: The order of the House that set up this meeting has denied Mr Sewell or anybody else who wants to come to the committee the opportunity to come here. It has nothing to do with how much debate there has been or has not been before this place; it simply has to do with the fact that the government -- of which you are a member, but when you're sitting in this chair you're supposed to be impartial -- has deemed it advisable not to have any public debate in this committee prior to the passage of this bill.
The Chair: That's correct, and that's more or less what I've stated. With that, I will entertain section 1.
Interruption.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Phillips: Just a comment: Tragically, you are being shut out. Yesterday we dealt with a huge property tax bill and the government refused to hear from anyone. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, wanted to comment, the clerks and treasurers -- virtually everyone who knew the material was shut out from hearings. Similarly, you're shut out from hearings. It's tragic, but that's the way Harris runs the province now.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): What standing order is this arising from?
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist hates to hear from the public, because the government likes to ram through their stuff.
Mr Gilchrist: At the same time you're castigating us for not following rules, you yourself are abusing the process.
Mr Phillips: I'm not abusing the process.
Mr Gilchrist: What standing order are you referring to?
Mr Phillips: I am making a comment, Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Gilchrist: No, you said it was a point of order.
Mr Silipo: No, he didn't say it was a point of order.
Mr Gilchrist: That's how he got the Chair's attention.
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist, I never said that. I'm just saying that, unfortunately for the public, the public is shut out of this process. Yesterday it was shut out of a major property tax bill, where the province is levying $5.5 billion of property tax. Nobody from the public could come and make their views known. AMO, the clerks and treasurers, the financial officials and the tax assessors all wanted to comment. So here we are today, when a member of the public wants to comment on an important bill. This is the first time he's had a chance to comment on it.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Pardon me. I would respect that Mr Silipo was the next person. Was it on a point of order?
Mr Preston: Mr Chair, a point of order.
The Chair: No. Was yours a point of order, Mr Silipo?
Mr Silipo: No, I wanted to speak, Chair.
Mr Preston: Mr Chairman, I believe the Chair has made a decision. I don't believe we should be debating it. Let's carry on with the business that we have been told to come here today to carry on.
The Chair: Respectfully, I do accept that advice and I will read this for the record: "The standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on" -- this date, the 8th and 9th. That's precisely what we're doing. We will proceed with the amendments. I'm asking now to follow and respect the rules. I'm sure all members do.
With that, I'm going to call the question on section 1.
Interruption.
Mr Preston: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr Gilchrist: Point of order, Chair.
Interruption.
Mr Gilchrist: First off, turn off the cameras, please, Chair. Oh, it's not on?
Interruption.
The Chair: This committee stands recessed for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1540 to 1545.
The Chair: This committee is reconvened. Thank you for your patience.
With that, we're dealing with section 1. I'm going to call the question on section 1. Shall section 1 of Bill 56 carry? Carried.
Shall section 2 of Bill 56 carry?
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I just wanted to make a couple of comments, because this is the section that establishes the Greater Toronto Services Board.
I wanted to say that I find it unfortunate that the government has chosen to deal with this bill in this particular way. As you know, we had some indication from the government towards the end of the last sittings, I think around the end of June, when the government actually introduced legislation, that this was something they wanted to proceed with. There had been some draft legislation presented before then. There had been a couple -- well, more than a couple -- of studies done with respect to this issue, and we had the sense, although it came very late in the session, that the government was serious about moving in this direction.
We heard that again at the beginning of the fall sittings and then we heard nothing from the government representatives, either the minister in the House or the House leader, as we were dealing on a week-to-week basis with whatever business of the House was being called, that this was in fact something the government was going to proceed on. I think it was a fair conclusion for many people to reach that the government had decided this was no longer a priority.
Then, a couple of weeks ago we were all of a sudden again given to understand that the government intended to proceed with this and now had to get this thing passed before the end of the sittings prior to Christmas. I think, and I just want it on the record, that this is an abysmal way for the government to have treated this very significant issue.
You have here the establishment of the Greater Toronto Services Board, a body that is going to exist in effect to act as a coordinating body within the greater Toronto area for a number of services, yet the government has been hot and cold about whether it actually was serious about proceeding with this. One of the impacts of that kind of approach has been that there has not been the kind of public discussion that quite frankly there ought to have been on this bill. I know there have been discussions with a number of municipal politicians. I know that Mr Tonks, and Mr Farrow before him, to be fair, spent a significant amount of time dealing with politicians, local and regional. I think that was good, and I'm glad that happened.
There is also another element of this discussion that has not taken place in the way it should have for as significant a step as this. That is the discussion with the public at large. I think what you saw earlier from Mr Sewell was but one indication of the kind of frustration that's there among the public, not to mention some of the politicians -- because we have in our package of materials today comments even from politicians, who presumably were part of those earlier discussions. We have a letter from Roger Anderson, the regional chair of the region of Durham, expressing great regret and concern over the process regarding Bill 56. They are opposed to this Greater Toronto Services Board. They wanted to come before the committee and explain their reasons why, and they did not get the opportunity to do so.
Mr Sewell also had that same point to make. He actually had a couple of suggestions, I gather, from the two-page presentation he was looking forward to making, and others I know had. Had we had even limited time in this committee to actually canvass some of those opinions, I want to suggest to members of this committee, we would have been able to end up with -- despite the fact that the government I believe is wrong in rushing this legislation through in this way, even with some hearings on this -- a piece of legislation that came out of the process that would have quite frankly been better.
We have in our own way suggested some amendments, and I'll speak to those as we go through the bill, but I just wanted at this point to put on the record my complete and utter opposition to the way in which the government has handled this very important issue, that purports to set a framework for coordinating services within the greater Toronto area and which we, as I will deal with later in the debate, believe should only be a first step towards a real restructuring of government to create a new regional level of government in the greater Toronto area. The way in which this government has gone about doing this has shut people out of the process and has simply added to the frustration, as opposed to trying to bring people together, which is what I thought the government was trying to achieve through this piece of legislation.
The Chair: With that, I'll call the question. Shall section 2 carry? Carried.
On section 3: If members would look to their binders and see our first amendment, I've been advised by the clerk it is not out of order as it's presented, because it's the first section where we're dealing with any amendments, but it does refer to a later section, which is 72.1. We would seek unanimous consent to stand this down at this time, because it does refer to another section of the bill.
Mr Silipo: Why can we not deal with it at this point, Chair?
The Chair: It presumes that the other section would stand unamended, so it logically should be dealt with when we're dealing with the section that it refers to. It's dependent on 72.1.
Mr Silipo: That's fine. You're saying you want to deal with the other amendment first and then come back and deal with this?
The Chair: I'd seek unanimous consent to stand this down, to deal with it in order of sequence when we're dealing with that section of the bill, 72.1.
Mr Silipo: I'm fine with that, I'll agree, but I'd like to speak on the section.
The Chair: Agreed? Agreed. It's stood down.
The next amendment is number 2, a government amendment.
Mr Gilchrist: Maybe I should make the amendment and then you could speak to the section, because it relates to the same section.
Mr Silipo: Sure.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Regard to character of communities
"(2) In carrying out its object under paragraph 1 of subsection (1), the board shall have regard to the diverse cultural, environmental and economic character of communities within the GTA."
This motion is going to result in an addition to the Greater Toronto Services Board objects section. There's no doubt that while the GTA is certainly perceived as one integrated economic unit, there are all sorts of different cultural, agricultural, economic and environmental realities across the GTA. This motion is proposed as a result of requests, particularly from rural municipalities, that the diverse nature of the GTA be recognized in the GTSB objects clause.
The Chair: Are there comments or questions on this amendment? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Carried.
The next one is number 3, a government motion.
Mr Gilchrist: The one I've filed is different. You're proposing to go to section 4? I think Mr Silipo wanted to talk --
The Chair: Number 3 is a stood-down amendment.
Mr Gilchrist: I think Mr Silipo indicated he wanted to speak to section 3, though.
Mr Silipo: Yes, I did want to make a couple of comments with respect to section 3, which deals with the objects of the board.
As I said earlier, I actually think they should have gone beyond where they're prepared to go in this bill. I made that point in second reading debate and I won't go on at length here. I believe the time has come to actually move towards establishing a new level of government to reflect the changes in the greater Toronto area and that the most sensible way to go is the way in which the Crombie study suggested, the way in which the Golden study suggested, which is to create a new level of regional government. That should have been the first priority of the government, as opposed to the amalgamation inside the city of Toronto.
Given that the government has chosen to take this particular step, I believe even this very mild step has the potential for turning into something more akin to what I'm proposing and suggesting. I would want to see this legislation at the end of the day hopefully reflect that direction, not simply leave that out as a vague hope for the future. That's why we'll be proposing amendments later in the course of this bill that would set up this greater Toronto services body as, in effect, the transition body towards the establishment of a greater Toronto area council, which would replace the existing regional governments. There would obviously have to be discussion around the exact powers, as well as the exact boundaries of that greater Toronto area council, because I know there's some ongoing discussion about both of those things. That, we believe, is the public discussion that needs to take place and that the public needs to be engaged in. We believe that needs to be very clearly the direction.
As I said, we would be prepared, and I personally very strongly believe, and my caucus believes, that is the direction we should be moving in. We would be prepared to see that set in motion now, for a date to be achieved as soon as possible. We've made a proposal which I hope we will get to later on that spells out that commitment in the legislation. We hope that will meet with support around the table, because we think the time is long past to simply coordinate services. Even with that, there's a fair amount of weakness in this legislation, but if we want to begin by simply coordinating, we should do that, but we should then also be prepared to make the changes necessary to end up with a new and real level of regional government that reflects the changing nature of the greater Toronto area as an area and as a region.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments?
Mr Phillips: I assume Mr Silipo's comments are appropriate now. Later on we are dealing with an amendment on section 72.1 that incorporates the thought of Mr Silipo.
I have a slightly different view. I think there's unanimity on the need for some form of Greater Toronto Services Board. I think what we've got here is a model that takes the first step and brings the parties together. They've been together in an informal way; the GTA mayors have met, I think successfully. The challenge we have is if we now, at this stage, prescribe the next step, which is the motion on 72.1, we may be prejudging where this thing will actually lead. Furthermore, I suspect if we were to adopt that, many of the municipalities that now are prepared to work with this new board would have difficulty with it. Even though I tend to think that may be where this will lead, I don't want to prejudge that yet.
I just raise my comments because we'll be dealing with this later in the substantive motion calling for the elimination of regional governments in the year 2003, I think. My problem with that is I think we are prejudging the next piece of legislation on this.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support?
Mr Gilchrist: We already did that. We're going to have to just stand down section 3, because there's a pending amendment.
The Chair: No, we weren't debating section 3. I thought you had moved the third amendment.
Mr Gilchrist: No.
The Chair: In that case we are standing down 3.
Mr Preston: They were speaking to 3. We're dealing with 3 when we deal with 72.1.
The Chair: OK. Thank you for those comments.
Mr Gilchrist, if you could move the next amendment, number 3. I thought that was the one we were discussing.
Mr Gilchrist: I would be pleased to do that.
I move that clauses 4(d) and (e) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(d) the chair of the council of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth; and
"(e) a chair, elected by the members described in clauses (a) to (d)."
The rationale behind this amendment is that the chair of the council of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth does not, as the bill is currently worded, have the ability to vote to elect the chair of the Greater Toronto Services Board. Hamilton-Wentworth will, of course, be responsible for providing funding towards GT Transit and will be involved in GT Transit matters. That means that Hamilton-Wentworth, as the bill was originally drafted, was the only member municipality that didn't have a say in who the chair of the GTSB would have been. The suggested amendment adds the chair of Hamilton-Wentworth to the list of members who elect the chair of the GTSB.
As we get further into the amendment packets, there are a number of consequential amendments to other sections that are required to ensure that the chair of the council of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth has the ability to elect the chair of GTSB.
Mr Silipo: As you can tell from the fact that we have an identical amendment, we certainly will support this amendment. We appreciate the fact that the government is seeing fit to move at least in this direction because, for the reasons Mr Gilchrist has stated, it's important that the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth be involved in, among other things, electing the chair of this new body.
The Chair: Very good. Any further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.
Amendment 4, Mr Silipo.
Mr Gilchrist: It's identical.
The Chair: That's identical? Do you want to withdraw it, if it's out of order?
Mr Silipo: Yes. I guess it's technically out of order; we've just done it.
The Chair: We'll vote on this section. Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
1600
Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding at the end, "and the election of the chair of the board."
Again, this motion is consequential to permitting the chair of Hamilton-Wentworth to vote to elect the GTSB chair. The effect of the motion is to amend section 5 of the bill to give the chair of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth the ability to vote with a weighted vote of four and to act as a member of the GTSB with regard to the election of the chair.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Carried.
Amendment 6, Mr Silipo, is very close to the one we just voted on.
Mr Silipo: I genuinely mean this, Chair, because we only got these amendments this afternoon. My notes say this has the same effect. Is this in fact exactly the same?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Silipo: I believe it is. The wording is set out differently, but I believe it does exactly the same thing.
The Chair: Would you like to withdraw it?
Mr Silipo: I'm just looking for a ruling from you or the clerk.
The Chair: With your indulgence, the clerk is saying to me that there is some minor difference in the wording. It's up to you to withdraw it, or I can rule it out of order.
Mr Gilchrist: If it's helpful to Mr Silipo, I can advise you that legal counsel has advised us that it has the same effect.
Mr Silipo: Then I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Withdrawn? Thank you.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
Amendment number 7.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 6(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "the total votes of the members of the board representing the regional municipality and its lower-tier municipalities" in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh lines and substituting "the total votes of the members of the board representing the regional municipality and the members of the board representing the lower-tier municipalities of the regional municipality."
This motion is to give effect to a minor technical amendment to clarify the language in the section dealing with representation principles for regional municipalities to ensure that the votes of both the regional municipality and the lower-tier municipalities within the region are included when calculating representation by population.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments on this amendment? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support? It's carried.
Amendment 8.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 6(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "with respect to matters set out in part II."
If I may speak to it, this motion is consequential to permitting the chair of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth to vote for the chair of the GTSB. As the bill is currently worded, the city of Toronto has four extra votes when dealing with GT Transit matters. The effect of this motion will be to remove any imbalance and ensure that there is fairness in the weighted vote but also it facilitates the ability for the chair of Hamilton-Wentworth to vote.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question.
Those in support? It's carried.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
Mr Silipo, amendment 9. Pardon me, we're still dealing with --
Mr Silipo: That's in section 10, I believe.
The Chair: Pardon me, we've got to vote on the next section. Shall section 7 carry? Carried.
Shall section 8 carry? Carried.
Shall section 9 carry? Carried.
Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 10(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "clauses 4(a) to (c)" in the second and third lines and substituting "clauses 4(a) to (d)".
This, I believe, is a consequential amendment to the position we adopted earlier regarding allowing the chair of Hamilton-Wentworth a vote with respect to the election of chair.
The Chair: Further speakers?
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Silipo, we certainly agree with the intent of your amendment. However, the government motion which follows, in a more detailed fashion and touching on a couple of other areas, accomplishes exactly the same end.
Mr Silipo: I'll withdraw this, Chair.
The Chair: Withdrawn? Thank you.
The Chair: Number 10, Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 10(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Election of chair
10(1) After each regular election, the members of the board described in clauses 4(a) to (d) shall elect a member of the board or any other person as the chair of the board.
"Chair not to be member of a council
"(1.1) The chair may not be a member of a council of a municipality. Such a member may be elected as chair but upon being elected must resign as a member of the council and, if the member is also a member of the board, as a member of the board."
These sections describe the procedure for the election of the chair to the Greater Toronto Services Board. The motion amends subsection 10(1) to permit the chair, or any other person, to be a member of the board. As well, it adds subsection 10(1), that if a member of a council of a municipality is elected as chair, they must resign from council, and if they are a member of the board they must resign as a member of the board. The motion also includes the chair of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth as a member of the board who elects the chair. Council members can be considered to become chair of the GTSB, provided they resign their council position upon election as chair.
There are two reasons the chair of the GTSB should not remain a member of council. First, it's important that the chair be seen to be impartial. Second, the position of chair of the GTSB will require full-time attention. Part of the motion, as I had said earlier, is consequential to permitting the chair of Hamilton-Wentworth to vote for the chair of the GTSB.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.
Mr Silipo?
Mr Gilchrist: I think we're going to find the same situation again, Chair.
Mr Silipo: Yes.
The Chair: Would you care to have legislative counsel --
Mr Silipo: I'd be happy to withdraw this. I believe the government amendment does exactly the same thing.
The Chair: Withdrawn?
Mr Silipo: Yes.
The Chair: OK. Number 12.
Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate Mr Silipo's accommodation, because it does in fact do the same thing.
I move that subsection 10(8) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Initial election of chair
"(8) At the first meeting of the board, the members of the board described in clauses 4(a) to (d) shall elect a member of the board or any other person as the chair of the board."
Speaking to the motion, it does three things: It amends the section so the election of the initial chair of the GTSB will occur at the first meeting; it provides the chair of Hamilton-Wentworth with the ability to vote in the initial election of the chair of GTSB; and it allows the initial chair of the board or any other person to be a member of the board.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support? It's carried.
Shall section 10, as amended, carry? It's carried.
Shall section 11 carry? Carried.
Shall section 12 carry? Carried.
Shall section 13 carry? Carried.
Shall section 14 carry? Carried.
We've got the next amendment here.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 15(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Additional votes for Toronto members
"(2) The members of the board representing the city of Toronto shall have four additional votes, distributed among the members as determined by the council of the city of Toronto, with respect to matters set out in part II and in elections of the chair of the board."
Speaking to this, this amendment is consequential to giving the region of Hamilton-Wentworth a vote for the chair of the GTSB. The proposed amendment would give the city of Toronto four additional votes for the chair of the GTSB. It maintains the current percentage of votes, 50%, which the city of Toronto has for the election of chair and is in keeping with the general principle of the legislation, which is for representation by population.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.
Shall section 15, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 16 carry? Carried.
Shall section 17 carry? Carried.
Shall sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 carry? Carried.
Mr Gilchrist, amendment 14.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that subsection 22(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Strategies
"22(1) For the purpose of carrying out its object under paragraph 1 of subsection 3(1), the board may promote and facilitate coordinated decision-making among municipalities within the GTA and may adopt, by bylaw,
"(a) strategies for municipalities within the GTA with respect to the provision and optimal use of infrastructure; and
"(b) a countryside strategy for the rural areas of the GTA that reflects the importance of rural and agricultural matters to the GTA."
Speaking to this, this motion would amend the section of the legislation dealing with strategies, to add that the GTSB can adopt a countryside strategy for the rural areas of the GTA that reflects the importance of agricultural and rural matters to the GTA. The section previously provided only that the board can adopt strategies with respect to infrastructure. This additional provision will assist rural municipalities in defining their role on the Greater Toronto Services Board. The agriculture industry in the GTA ranks number one relative to the other areas in the province. It's important that it's acknowledged in such a strategy. Rural interests must also be reflected in the overall strategy of the board. This amendment is being proposed as a result of feedback from a number -- in fact, I believe all -- of the rural municipalities within the GTA.
1610
The Chair: Further questions or comments on this amendment? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that paragraph 2 of subsection 22(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "adequate information" in the first line and substituting "such information as the board considers adequate."
This amendment would mean the board must ensure that such information that the board considers adequate is made available to the public and to boards, commissions and agencies prior to passing a bylaw adopting any strategy.
The amendment is being suggested for the purpose of clarity. Certainly it was important to define "adequate," and it will clearly be incumbent upon the board to ensure that all adequate information is disseminated before passing any bylaws.
Mr Silipo: At first reading of this, I actually have the sense that if you change "adequate information" to "such information as the board considers adequate," it reduces the strength of what was in the legislation before. I appreciate the need for somebody to make the determination about what is adequate. But I think that if it's left as it is, there is a broader test that has to be met than, quite frankly, what the government is suggesting. I believe that by this amendment the government is narrowing the nature and scope of information that would be considered adequate.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Silipo. I certainly don't want to leave anyone with the impression that that's our intent. In rereading what was originally proposed in the bill, without any kind of test, without any parameter being put on that, it really was open to some debate, some dispute down the road, as to who decides what is or is not adequate.
I think you're absolutely right that there is a greater test, and municipalities are governed by that test today as we are. We have every confidence that as municipal representatives on this committee, the Greater Toronto Services Board, they would certainly feel driven to follow the same sort of standard. If you don't provide any definition, then one will be provided for us by someone or something that may or may not be acting in the best interests of the municipal representatives and, quite frankly, the people in the GTA.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? It's carried.
Amendment number 16, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: I move that section 22 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(5) No member municipality shall exercise its powers in a way that is inconsistent with a strategy adopted by the board under this section."
The reason for this amendment is to try to give the infrastructure strategies proposed or established by the new board greater teeth, in fact to make them mandatory. An example of this would be the Oak Ridges moraine, a vital water source which goes through this whole area and is threatened by continued development if there isn't a body that can look beyond individual borders and set in place a policy and a strategy to which all municipalities inside that greater area have to adhere. We believe that this is an important amendment, which provides greater strength in the role of this board. I hope it meets with support.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Silipo. In the fullness of time, perhaps this will be the direction in which the GTSB evolves. But our initial review of your proposed amendment left us with the inconsistency with certain other sections where we have tried to develop voluntary strategies as the first step for the board as it tackles the need to integrate and coordinate various infrastructure and service realities in the GTA.
We think you could perhaps take some comfort instead from section 33 of the act, where the board is mandated that by the end of the year 2000 it must come back with an overall review of the long-term direction and make application to the minister for any supplementary powers or directions to the municipalities over which it is assisting in developing these coordination strategies.
As a first step, it would be inconsistent with a lot of other sections of this act to mandate that sort of top-down approach to planning. But I certainly think your representations and the actual day-to-day workings of the board will leave municipalities with either a greater or lesser comfort level, with the ability of the board to take that high-level approach to mandating planning in years to come. I expect those submissions, one way or the other, to form part of their review literally within the next 24 months.
For that reason, I must regrettably indicate that we won't be supporting this amendment.
The Chair: Further questions or comment?
Mr Phillips: My challenge is that the language is fairly specific. I've had a lot of discussions with the municipalities around the GTSB, and I think most are prepared to enter this exercise and try to make it work, even in developing strategies around the environment and things like that. I'm afraid this may take them to a level of execution that would either slow their developing the strategies or require them to take action that's beyond what they think they're heading into.
I repeat what I said earlier: Down the road this will become a body that makes a lot of decisions, but I'm prepared to see them work their way into that.
The Chair: Are there further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Shall section 22, as amended, carry? It's carried.
Shall sections 23 and 24 carry? Carried.
Shall sections 25, 26, 27 and 28 carry? Carried.
Shall sections 29 to 32 inclusive, carry? Carried.
Section 33 amendment, Mr Hardeman.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I move that section 33 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Municipal resolutions
"(1.1) The board shall, in conducting the review under subsection (1), have regard to resolutions of member municipalities with respect to matters described in paragraphs 1 to 4 of subsection (1)."
This amendment would add a new subsection to the section dealing with the review of the board prior to December 31, 2000. The amendment would ensure that the board must have regard to resolutions from member municipalities dealing with the board's size and composition and the number of votes of the board members, and thus the powers of the board and whether a municipality would no longer be a member of the board.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on this section? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.
Shall section 33, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 33.1 is a new section. Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"School tax exemption
"33.1 Real property owned by the board is exempt from taxation for school purposes."
The Chair: Any questions or comments?
Mr Silipo: We want an explanation for that.
Mr Hardeman: This motion provides that the GTSB will be exempt from taxes for school purposes on real property it owns. This would be consistent with the tax treatment currently employed for GO Transit, which is proposed to be provided to GT Transit. GO Transit does not pay education taxes, but because of the new structure it could be obligated to pay the education portion of taxes. This would exempt them from that taxation.
Mr Silipo: Doesn't this in fact deal with property beyond GO Transit? How is it limited to GO Transit?
Mr Hardeman: I think it deals with all property owned by the board. Currently, all other properties that would not be part of GO would also be municipally exempt from taxation. It's proposed that, even though it is owned by the corporation, it would also be exempt for education taxation purposes.
1620
Mr Phillips: I'm just not clear on this. The way the school tax works now is, if any taxes are currently being paid and we exempt them, then other taxpayers have to pick it up. You're saying this changes nothing from what currently exists. This is status quo.
Mr Hardeman: All the properties we are referring to that would be under the jurisdiction of the board are currently under the jurisdiction of the municipality, where they are already tax exempt.
The Chair: Is that clarified, Mr Phillips? Any further questions or comments on this amendment? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Section 33.1 is carried.
Shall sections 34 to 53 inclusive, carry?
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, do you not want me to group those?
Mr Silipo: I have a question on section 39.
The Chair: We'll just move up to section 38. Shall all sections to 38 carry? Carried.
Section 39, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: I have a question, and it may sound a bit silly, but it's about the name of the Greater Toronto Transit Authority. It seemed to me at first look that it makes ample sense to call this new body the Greater Toronto Transit Authority as opposed to GO Transit, except that even in the changes we've made here, we've acknowledged even more than in the original draft that this is not limited to the greater Toronto area; for example, the link with Hamilton-Wentworth.
I guess I just need to raise the question. We actually contemplated an amendment to simply keep the name GO Transit, which doesn't limit it in that sense. I'm just curious as to why the name change and why not leave it GO Transit?
Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure. It's going to be difficult to answer why not? But there's absolutely no reason why the board, under the new name, could not continue to use "GO Transit" as a functional name.
Mr Silipo: The problem is that we're changing the name in the legislation. In the definitions we actually do that. I just went back and checked and it's in there. As I said, we had intended to, and I didn't see it. I think I missed it in the amendments.
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, with your permission, I would ask Liz McLaren to --
Ms Elizabeth McLaren: I'm Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister of municipal affairs and housing. You'll notice in the legislation that the existing corporation which runs GO Transit is TATOA, the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority. We are continuing TATOA because it has to be the corporation that owns the rolling stock. In that instance, we had to create a new corporation, and that corporation is to be called GT Transit. But that in no way means that GO has to stop its operating name of GO Transit. Currently, the board is TATOA and yet it operates as GO, and so as GT Transit it can also operate as GO.
Mr Silipo: So we don't envision, then, a whole series of changes to what people see as GO Transit, in terms of the name? I'm not talking about the services at all here.
The Chair: Is that right?
Mr Hardeman: There would be absolutely no reason to see the name "GO Transit" change in this legislation.
Mr Silipo: That makes me feel a little better. My preference would still be to not see the change, but I can live with the explanation.
The Chair: We have voted on all sections up to 38. I ask members' indulgence to vote from 39 to 54 inclusive. All those in support? That's carried.
We have a new section before us, 54.1.
Mr Hardeman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"School tax exemption
"54.1 Real property owned by GT Transit is exempt from taxation for school purposes."
This is the same rationale as previously, to exempt properties of the transit authority from education taxes, as we did for the total board's assets.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? It's carried.
Shall sections 55 through 60 carry? Carried.
Section 61. Mr Hardeman, amendment 20.
Mr Hardeman: I move that subsection 61(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:
"(d.1) authorize and govern the establishment and maintenance by GT Transit of reserve funds for purposes for which GT Transit may spend money;"
The Chair: Is there an explanation you'd like to read?
Mr Hardeman: If the committee wishes.
Mr Phillips: Yes, I'd like it.
Mr Hardeman: In this amendment the services board is being given the authority to authorize and govern the establishment and maintenance by GT Transit of reserve funds which can only be used for the purposes for which the GT Transit can spend the money. Providing the board, rather than the transit authority, with this authority is in keeping with the powers related to financial matters already provided to the GTSB. It's important that the GTSB maintain final authority over the reserve fund. It is the GTSB as a whole which is representative of all the municipalities. The GTSB would have control of expenditures from the GT Transit reserve fund through its budget approval powers.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.
Mr Silipo, amendment 21.
Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 61(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "a two-thirds majority" in the third line and substituting "50 per cent plus one".
This amendment obviously changes the two-thirds majority requirement to 50% plus one for major GT Transit decisions. We think that's important in order to make sure that GT Transit can function properly. We expect there will be problems with capital funds that will have to be injected, and we think that 50% plus one would more fairly reflect the share of costs for GT Transit between the city of Toronto and the remaining municipalities in the GTA.
The Chair: Further questions or comments?
Mr Hardeman: The government has to ensure the fairness and the significance of some of the requirements of the GTSB. We have put in place a two-thirds majority vote for some significant changes that we think would require more than a simple majority to change the structure as it's being set up by the bill. We would oppose this amendment.
Mr Phillips: This is the one part of the bill that does bother me, and I think Mr Silipo's motion is a good one. I've wrestled with it; I've listened carefully to the arguments for the two thirds, that it's sort of a balancing thing. But what I'm afraid of is that we end up with kind of a GO gridlock by requiring a two-thirds vote essentially to change the funding formula. That's what this is all about.
You all know that the funding formula says that the city of Toronto picks up 50% of the cost and the rest of the area picks up the other 50%. To change that requires a two-thirds vote. People are coming into this on the basis of having a certain number of votes on this thing, but the rules are a little different. For the only substantive issue, involving money, you don't need 50% of the votes, you need two-thirds of the votes. I'm afraid we may be institutionalizing gridlock, that one group will say: "All right, we're paying 50% of the cost of this. We have a vested interest in not spending a lot more money on the thing or a lot more capital."
I think we should consider carefully whether the two-thirds is helpful or harmful in making GO work. I think all of us see GO working every day, and working quite well. My concern is that this may end up with a deadlock at the GO board and rather than the expansion we want, it stalls.
1630
Mr Hardeman: I would share some of Mr Phillips's concerns, but at the same time we need to recognize that as the board is presently balanced between Toronto and the other partners, so to speak, it would become, at the end of the first cycle, when they do a redistribution of the membership and the weight of voting -- with a very small change in population, you could significantly change the funding model, and that would not necessarily be in the best interests of the total transit system.
We think the two-thirds majority does not inhibit their ability to function, but it does obligate a fairness that everyone's voice is heard if a change is going to be made.
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): Is the two thirds consistent with other aspects of the legislation? I think I've seen it mentioned earlier in the legislation; there are other references to two thirds. I think we're being consistent by using the two thirds. In my opinion, you do not have the gridlock that's been referred to, because a two-thirds majority is much better than a 50-plus-one to something-else split. To me, this is a better way to do it so that no particular area or groups of areas can line up against another area.
Mr Hardeman: I've just been informed by staff that there are areas, such as adopting the strategy for the board, that also require the two-thirds majority. As it relates to the whole legislation, the intent is to make sure that where it significantly impacts and provides the ability to change the way the board is set up to function, it requires a solid majority, shall we say, for that change to take place.
Mr Saunderson: I had spoken about the bill last week, and one of the things that impressed me about it was that it did provide that there would not be a narrow margin; it had to be a solid margin. I thought that made a lot of sense, particularly when you're starting off with something new. As you said when you spoke, Mr Hardeman, we can make changes later on. But I think this is a good way to start.
Mr Silipo: The argument that Mr Saunderson has put forward would be one that I could support if the starting point was in fact a balanced one, but it isn't. What you're starting out with is a situation in which the property taxpayers inside the city of Toronto, who have 15% of the riders on this GO Transit system, are being asked to pay 53% of costs. You tell me on what scale that is reasonable.
If you're into a concept that's saying those costs should be apportioned, then surely to God the starting point it would dictate should be reflective at least of the ridership, and if not of the ridership, certainly not on the basis of the spread that it is now. The problem is that once you start with that imbalance, you then are creating a further imbalance by not allowing any changes from that to be made unless you have a two-thirds majority. So quite frankly you're very likely locking that in for the lifetime of this board. I just can't accept that rationale.
If we were saying it's a complete zero-starting game and the board is going to have to set that decision from the beginning, that would be a different ball game. But that's not what's happening. They start out with whatever the existing situation is, and the existing situation, I'd say particularly to Mr Saunderson as a member, like me, from inside the city of Toronto, to be fair is one that apportions a much higher share of the costs to the taxpayers inside the city of Toronto. That's just not fair. I hope you would see that it would be equally unfair if it were the other way around, but that's the way it is.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question.
All those in support? I declare that motion defeated.
Shall section 61, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 62 through 70 carry? Carried.
Government motion 22, section 71.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 71 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Application of other acts
"(3.1) The Land Transfer Tax Act and the Retail Sales Tax Act do not apply to vestings under subsections (2) and (3)."
This is to clarify that the transfer of assets between existing and new corporations would not generate the need for paying land transfer tax or retail sales tax.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? I rule the motion carried.
Mr Silipo, motion 23.
Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 71(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Employees and collective agreements included
"(6) Subsections (2) and (3) apply with respect to the employees of the authority and with respect to collective agreements, despite any notices filed before this section comes into force."
This amendment would allow bargaining unit employees to continue their collective bargaining relationships, because the bill, as we understand it, explicitly prohibits them from having any successor rights. This amendment would ensure that they would start in this new venture with exactly the same collective bargaining relationships and rights that they have now.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments?
Mr Phillips: Is that the case, that when this is set up -- are we talking about the GO employees here?
Mr Silipo: Yes.
Mr Phillips: Their collective agreements are null and void as soon as this --
Mr Silipo: That's our understanding.
Mr Phillips: That's true?
Ms McLaren: That's correct, yes.
Mr Phillips: What was the rationale for that?
Mr Hardeman: As it is with all other transfers in the realignment of services between the provincial and municipal governments, the agreements do not transfer with the employees. It was considered that this was the same situation, and they should be renegotiated or there should be the ability to negotiate a new contract, as the corporation deemed appropriate, as it is with municipalities with any transfer of services.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question on this. All those in support? Opposed? It's defeated.
Mr Silipo, motion 24.
Mr Silipo: I move that clause 71(8)(b) of the bill be struck out.
This is the section that in effect quashes the employee bargaining rights of people who work for GO Transit. We don't accept the view that says that because this change is happening, you should lose all of your bargaining rights. I haven't heard anybody say that you're not going to need the same employees to deliver the same services the day after this body comes into place, so why would it follow that you should strip them of all their collective bargaining rights?
This is an issue that has not received much attention. Quite frankly, when it came to our attention we were to some extent surprised that that's what the impact was. I obviously see from Mr Phillips's reaction that he's in the same situation. I don't know if everyone on the government side is fully cognizant of this, but that's what you're doing. I would say to members that if you're not doing it completely knowing that this is what's going on, let's figure out a way to not make this happen, because there is no good rationale that I've heard from anybody as to why this has to be done.
1640
Mr Hardeman: Similar to the previous situation, the issue of successor rights does not apply to any of the transferred services from the provincial government to the municipal government. This bill does not do anything different than in all those cases. We deem it inappropriate to include that in this one but not for all the other employees who were in the same transfer situation.
Mr Silipo: Chair, could I ask Mr Hardeman a ques-tion? I take it from what he's saying that the government is not going to support my amendment. When GT Transit is set up, what happens to the collective bargaining rights of all those employees who are now delivering those services and who may, quite frankly, by and large not even realize that this change is about to happen? What happens to their collective bargaining rights? What do they do the day they become the employees of this new body called GT Transit?
Mr Hardeman: There will be an amendment coming forward to deal with the timing of the implementation of the bill, to make sure the labour negotiations can be put in place and completed prior to the implementation of the final step of the bill, where the actual labour transfer would take place.
Mr Silipo: Is that the last government amendment that you're referring to, the one that denies the coming into force of sections 71 and 72 until a date to be named by proclamation?
Ms McLaren: Yes.
Mr Silipo: What's envisioned as a result of that amendment?
Mr Hardeman: The final phase of the transfer would not take place until the labour issues had been settled as to who was going to run the buses after the transfer. Obviously, a labour contract would have to be signed by the employees and management in order to make that transfer take place.
Mr Saunderson: Isn't there a bit of consistency here with -- I'm trying to think of the bill. It was a small rail line act -- I forget. It was quite a while ago that it came up. I think there is consistency here, because we said in that act that successor rights would not apply if a rail line was sold off to the private sector. Aren't you really trying to cover that off in the way the legislation is drafted?
Mr Hardeman: I think it is consistent, that successor rights do not apply in this transfer. I would not necessarily agree that this was the same as what applies in the shortline railroad situation, but it is consistent with the approach we've taken in other transfers of service between the provincial and municipal governments.
I would point out that it is very important for this service to have a group of employees to operate the service. That's why the amendment will come forward as to the implementation of the whole program, to make sure there is a labour contract signed between management and the employees prior to the final transfer taking place, to make sure that as they get up the next morning there are people operating the buses, and the system will continue without interruption in operating. The negotiations will take place with the new board the same as they would have taken place with the present operating authority, which would have had to negotiate a new labour contract with its employees.
The Chair: I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? Defeated.
Mr Silipo, number 25.
Mr Silipo: I move that section 71 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Ontario public service pension plan
"(9.1) All employees of the authority who are members of the Ontario public service pension plan remain members of the plan if they become employees of GT Transit, unless an agreement between the bargaining agent and GT Transit provides otherwise."
This, I hope, is self-explanatory. It says that unless there's a different agreement reached, the people who are now employees of the authority would remain as members of the Ontario public service pension plan and all the rights they have within that pension plan would continue to be there.
I would just point out that this does allow leeway for something else to be worked out, but it also makes it clear that if that something else doesn't come about, people don't lose the existing rights they have.
The Chair: Ms McLaren or Mr Hardeman?
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, I'm just trying to get clarification. The amendment is that you wish that the employees should stay in the public service pension plan for the province, as opposed to being transferred to the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, the OMERS plan?
Mr Silipo: Yes, that's right. That's where they are now, and what we're proposing with the amendment is to keep them with their existing rights. That's my understanding as to what folks are telling us they would prefer to do, unless of course they, through an agreement between the bargaining agent and GT Transit, determine otherwise. If they do, the amendment would not prevent that from happening either.
Mr Hardeman: The question is whether, as they are working for an authority that is not a provincial government authority, the appropriate place and the appropriate pension plan is the public service pension plan. It would be more likely that, being a municipally operated function, they would become part of the municipal employees' pension plan. So we do not see the need or the appropriateness of keeping them in the Ontario public service pension plan. The legislation will allow all the pension rights to be transferred to the other pension plan.
The Chair: With that, I'll call the question on Mr Silipo's amendment. All those in support? Opposed? That's defeated.
Shall section 71, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 72 carry? Carried.
I think we have a new section, 72.1.
Mr Hardeman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"First meeting of the board
"72.1(1) The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing shall convene the first meeting of the board.
"Person appointed to preside
"(2) The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing shall appoint a person who is not a member of the board to preside over the first meeting until a chair is elected under subsection 10(8).
"Alternates, if council fails to appoint
"(3) If, 24 hours before the first meeting is scheduled to begin,
"(a) the council of a member municipality has not exercised its power to appoint alternates for members of the board under subsection 9(1), the mayor of the municipality or the chair of the council, as the case may be, may appoint alternates for the first meeting;
"(b) the council of the city of Toronto has not exercised its power to appoint the members of the board described in clause 4(b), the mayor of the city of Toronto may appoint alternates for those members for the first meeting;
"(c) the council of the city of Mississauga has not exercised its power to appoint the member of the board described in clause 4(c), the mayor of the city of Mississauga may appoint an alternate for that member for the first meeting.
"Same
"(4) Section 9 applies, with necessary modifications, with respect to alternates appointed under subsection (3).
"Distribution of Toronto votes
"(5) If, 24 hours before the first meeting is scheduled to begin, the council of the city of Toronto has not exercised its power to distribute votes under subsection 15(2), the mayor of the city of Toronto may exercise that power for the purposes of the first meeting."
The Chair: Questions or comments on this amendment? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.
Mr Phillips: It looks as though our next presenter, the regional chair, is here now.
The Chair: He just left.
Mr Silipo, on the next amendment, number 27, I might just draw to your attention that the amendment that we stood down is related.
Mr Silipo: Yes. Which would you like me to move first?
The Chair: Do this one first. It's required?
Mr Silipo: Yes.
1650
I move that that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Greater Toronto area regional council
"72.1(1) On January 1, 2004, the greater Toronto area regional council is established as a successor to the board and to the governments of the regional municipalities of Durham, Halton, Peel and York.
"Participating municipalities
"(2) The participating municipalities of the Greater Toronto Area Regional Council are the city of Toronto and all the area municipalities of the greater Toronto area.
"Dissolution and repeal
"(3) On December 31, 2003,
"(a) the board and the regional municipalities of Durham, Halton, Peel and York are dissolved;
"(b) sections 1 to 72, 73 and 74 of this act are repealed; and
"(c) the short title of this act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Greater Toronto Area Regional Council Act."
As I indicated earlier, this is the amendment that would give this particular bill greater teeth in that it would actually set a direction for the future and suggest that certainly by January 1, 2004 -- which is still some time away; it's not next year -- we would move from the Greater Toronto Services Board to a new body, which would be the greater Toronto area regional council, and that body would become the regional level of government in the greater Toronto area.
There is obviously lots of work that would have to be done between now and then. The other consequential amendment I have to this would see that the Greater Toronto Services Board would, in part, become the transition body toward that greater body.
I assume in making this amendment that there would have to be lots of discussion among the politicians -- regionally, locally, and provincially, I want to emphasize -- around both the issues of the nature of the powers that should be vested in the new regional council as well as the issue of the boundaries, because on both of those I know there are a variety of views.
While I could look at the issues of powers, for example, and say there are the issues of public transit, questions of planning, a number of other issues -- I would even argue, for example, the extent of social services, child care etc -- those policies vesting in the new regional council I believe is an issue that needs discussion.
Similarly, the issue of the boundaries is also one that needs further discussion. In both the Crombie study and, more particularly, in the Anne Golden study there was some suggestion that the boundaries of the new greater Toronto area should be smaller than the regional municipalities that now are each part of that greater Toronto area. That is also something on which I take very much of an open view and our caucus does.
The intent of the amendment is to be clear about the direction we are moving in, to go beyond what the present bill does, which is to say that this will lead to something else, and that something else is a new regional level of government. Having been in government, I can understand why the government might not want to go in that direction today. We would be creating a regional government that would be representative of some 40% of the population of the province. But I just want to remind members of the government that they had no hesitation in proceeding with establishing one council to have responsibilities for both the regional as well as local responsibilities within the city of Toronto. I think this is the direction to move in.
There may be some people at the regional level who don't agree with this, and that's fine. There's still lots of room by virtue of this amendment for discussion around both what the actual boundaries would be as well as the exact powers. I specifically did not include either of those issues in here because I did not want to pre-set that.
What I did want to suggest and propose in this amendment, though, is the importance of establishing the Greater Toronto Services Board as a transition body towards something else. Otherwise, we can find ourselves some years down the line simply reflecting the frustration that will have come from having another body, the Greater Toronto Services Board, which will at best simply formalize the kind of informal discussions that take place now among the mayors and will not have moved us any closer towards a real restructuring of governance and the delivery of services in the greater Toronto area, which I believe is where we need to go and which I would assume most people around this table would agree with, whether or not they support this amendment.
That's the rationale. I don't know what will happen. I suspect people will not see fit, judging from the earlier comments, to support this. But mark my words, this is going to be the direction we have to move in, regardless of who forms the next government. I think the longer we leave it, the longer we do a disservice to proper planning and proper moving forward towards the real restructuring that has to take place at the regional level in an area that, after all, is home to some 4.5 million people.
Mr Phillips: I won't be supporting the amendment. I view the setting up of this Greater Toronto Services Board as the next step, and I really don't want to prejudge what the next step will be because I really don't know. I think it will be several years before we determine that. What this amendment does is essentially prejudge the next piece of legislation or a major component of it.
My own view is that we take this next step with the Greater Toronto Services Board. It's not perfect, but maybe it's difficult to get perfection. I don't know how the next step will emerge, I really don't. I may have my own opinions right now, but times change over a three- or a four-year period.
As I say, the problem is that in adopting this amendment, we're prejudging the next step. I'd much rather get the experience -- it's timely, I might add, that the regional chair of Durham is here joining us to hear part of the debate.
I think we should move forward with this next step and then let the GTSB work its way through to seeing how that works out and where the next turn in the road will be.
Mr Hardeman: I would agree with Mr Phillips as to the intent. The purpose of the motion is predestining what the final outcome may or may not be.
As we look through the whole piece of legislation creating the board, the intent is to give them the ability to coordinate for the region and to do what the regional municipalities of the area deem appropriate in how best to deliver the services. I think suggesting that at a certain time this is going to take place would be counterproductive in helping the services board do the best possible job of what it is they're going to be set up to do.
I think it is a first step in providing regional coordination. If the end result is that this is what will be required, at that point in time it would be quite appropriate for those municipalities involved in the board to come forward and request changes to be made to best suit the area, as opposed to predestining it and saying this is what needs to be done now, thinking we can see the eventuality into the year 2003. So I would be opposed to the resolution.
The Chair: With that, I'll call the question on Mr Silipo's amendment. All those in support? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
That leads to the next NDP amendment that we stood down, which is now technically out of order, if you would withdraw that.
Mr Silipo: Yes, I will.
The Chair: I'll go back just for housekeeping and we'll vote on section 3, as amended. Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Carried. Now we're up to date.
We're now at the next motion, a government motion, Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: I move that section 73 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Commencement
"73(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), this act comes into force on January 1, 1999.
"Same
"(2) Sections 7 and 9 and subsection 15(2) come into force on the day this act receives royal assent.
"Same
"(3) Parts II and III and sections 71 and 72 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."
This amendment provides for the staged implementation of the bill. Subsection 73(1) will allow the GTSB itself to be established on January 1, 1999.
Subsection 73(2) will allow the provisions of the act, sections 7 and 9 -- dealing with appointing members from the city of Mississauga, one member, and the city of Toronto, 10 members, and appointed alternates, to become operative as soon as the bill receives royal assent. This will enable all members of the board to be in place as well as alternates to be appointed.
Subsection 73(3) deals with the parts of the act dealing with GT Transit and the transfer from the TATOA to GT Transit and the agreements dealing with rolling stock. These provisions will, as was the case prior to moving the amendment, come into force on a day to be named by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
These amendments will ensure that the GTSB can be up and running prior to the establishment of GT Transit and the transfer of the operating responsibilities of GO Transit. This will allow the negotiations to take place to make sure that all the labour issues have been dealt with and all the rolling stock and so forth transferred and then put the new transit authority in place to make it operational.
Mr Silipo: Could Mr Hardeman give us some sense as to the kind of time frame that he envisions for parts II and III and the negotiations and discussions? I appreciate that he may not be able to give me a firm date, but are we talking about six months, a year?
Mr Hardeman: I think I can ask staff to give an estimate. The reason there is no date in it is mostly for the reason of the labour negotiations. One cannot set a fast one month or two months to make sure that everything is in place and have it transferred. You could do that with the transfer of the rolling stock, but you cannot do with the negotiations. That's why it's left to the proclamation date, so that it can all be in place and then the transfer take place.
Ms McLaren: We are anticipating that part II would probably be proclaimed within a month to six weeks after the January 1 startup date and part III, three to four months after the proclamation of part II.
The Chair: Does that answer your question, Mr Silipo?
Mr Silipo: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: With that, any further questions? I'll call the question. All those in support? I declare the motion carried.
Does section 73, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 74 carry? Carried.
Shall the table carry? What exactly does that mean? Oh, the table, which is the appendix. Carried.
Mr Silipo: The table will then obviously be changed too, in the revisions, to reflect the --
The Chair: There is an amendment.
Mr Silipo: With the inclusion of the chair of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth?
The Chair: I think it's included already.
Ms McLaren: The table doesn't change.
Mr Silipo: The table doesn't change?
The Chair: No. Legislative counsel advises that the table does not change.
Mr Silipo: No, because this is for members of the board. That's right. I'm sorry.
The Chair: So we've carried that section.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall Bill 56 carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.
Very good. With that indulgence, I thank the members of the committee and staff and all those who attended here today.
The committee adjourned at 1703.