Transcription du comité 1997-févr-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Consideration of Bill 103, An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto / Projet de loi 103, Loi visant à remplacer les sept administrations municipales existantes de la communauté urbaine de Toronto en constituant une nouvelle municipalité appelée la cité de Toronto.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government's hearings on the City of Toronto Act, 1996.

I have several announcements to start off this morning. The first one is that, pursuant to the order of the House, this committee will start its afternoon sittings at 3:30 promptly whether or not the House has completed routine proceedings. All members should note that: whether or not the House has completed routine proceedings.

If there are any votes in the House during the committee hearings, I will suspend the proceedings of the committee for about five minutes -- that's at my discretion -- to allow members to get to the chamber and vote. I will resume the hearings immediately after the vote, so please don't mill about after the vote, come right back to the committee room.

Of note, perhaps not only for members but for anyone else joining us today, the cafeteria will remain open until 7 pm on the nights that we are sitting to allow members and the public to get some food during our 6 pm to 7 pm break.

Members have in front of you some written exhibits submitted so far and you will get more written submissions as time goes by.

For anyone not able to find a seat in the room if we have more folks join us, there is an overflow room. Today it will be committee rooms 1 and 2.

Our first order of business is discussion and then adoption of the report of the subcommittee. I'm going to read the report of the subcommittee into the record for members.

The subcommittee met on Thursday, January 30, 1997, and agreed to the following:

"1. That the minister be offered 30 minutes in which to make a presentation. Each of the two opposition parties will then have 30 minutes to question the minister and to place comments on the record.

"2. That each of the existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto be offered 30 minutes in which to make presentations and that they be invited to appear, if possible, on Monday, February 3, 1997.

"3. That the board of trustees be requested to appear for 30 minutes in which to make a presentation.

"4. That every individual be offered up to 10 minutes in which to make their presentation. The subcommittee will revisit the time frame for groups.

"5. That any time remaining in an individual's or an organization's presentation will be used for questions from the committee. A party rotation will be followed. If time permits, more than one party may have the opportunity to question a deputant. If the deputant's time expires before all parties have posed their questions, the Chair will recognize the next party in the rotation for question in the following presentation.

"6. That scheduling be done by the clerk under the direction of the committee. Each party will provide the clerk with their selection of deputants chosen from the lists provided by the clerk on an ongoing basis.

"7. That a partial list of deputants is required from each party at 12 pm on Friday, January 31, 1997.

"8. That the clerk has the authority to use these three lists to begin scheduling on Friday, January 31, 1997.

"9. That the committee run an advertisement for one day in the Toronto daily papers. Committee hearings will also be advertised on the Ontario parliamentary channel, on the Internet and through a press release.

"10. That the clerk has the authority to place the advertisement in the papers.

"11. That the deadline for written submissions is on Thursday, February 28, 1997, and that the deadline for requests to make an oral submission is on Thursday, February 13, 1997.

"12. That the committee will request the Clerk of the House to have the Ontario parliamentary channel televise the evening sittings of the committee and rebroadcast the daily happenings in the House after 9 pm.

"13. That ministry staff be present at all committee hearings.

"14. That legislative research prepare a summary of recommendation during the second and fourth weeks of hearings.

"15. That the Chair start each meeting punctually, regardless of the number of members in attendance.

"16. That the Chair, in consultation with the subcommittee, if necessary, shall make all additional decisions necessary with respect to the public hearings.

"17. That the clerk, in consultation with the Chair, shall implement a procedure for filling cancelled time slots.

"18. That beginning on Thursday, February 6, 1997, the committee will travel during the evening sittings to the city hall of each of the affected municipal governments and that each municipality will be visited by the committee at least once.

"19. That the committee will offer 15 minutes to Citizens for Local Democracy as the first deputant on Monday, February 3, 1997, to discuss the procedure of the committee hearings."

Is there a mover for the subcommittee report? Mr Silipo moves. Is there any discussion?

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I would move to delete clauses 18 and 19.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Gilchrist: First off, on 18 --

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Unbelievable.

Mr Gilchrist: On 18, I think it's clearly not practical to consider that at the evening break this committee can adjourn to any other locale. First off, we have the practical considerations of Hansard, both the written and the electronic Hansard, the translation service, the members' transportation and then we have the cost of the TV feed back to Queen's Park from any of those venues, where the feed out from Queen's Park is clearly provided at no charge by the parliamentary channel.

I think the other practical consideration is that it will be difficult, if indeed possible at all, for the committee to even arrive at places like Scarborough city hall in the one hour that we would have at our disposal and, quite frankly, to hear only 12 people in each venue each of those nights, the cost which we had an estimate on the broadcast expense alone could be as high as $40,000. It is clearly inappropriate that we spend that kind of money when we would compromise the ability of people to receive the electronic broadcast, which is provided via the parliamentary channel not just across Metro but across all of Ontario.

Second, on clause 19, I think it's totally inappropriate to suggest that any one individual or any one group should have special dispensation. On the flipside, it is quite appropriate for them to take whatever portion of the time allotted to them to deal with procedural matters. However, having spent about 35 minutes discussing all the aspects of the subcommittee process with them last week, I'm confident that they are fully apprised of how this committee does its various scheduling, and if there are any further questions, I think it would be appropriate for them to pose them to the office of the Clerk. I don't think it's appropriate for us to create a precedent and allow them to actually come, even before the minister and the two opposition parties have put their comments on the record.

0920

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I think the exclusion or the attempt to delete number 18, which calls for this committee to travel to each of the city halls -- that is an essential part of this committee's deliberations. As you know, it's the tradition of the Legislature to visit affected municipalities when legislation is before them. Committees of this Legislature go to Timmins, they go to Thunder Bay, they go to Ottawa, they go to Kenora. Now if you will use that argument in terms of the cost of this as a way of essentially limiting debate -- that's what it's all about. If that principle is established at this committee, it strikes at the fundamental basis of this Legislature.

In other words, if we put a pricetag on whether you can go and talk to people and people can be part of the process in these municipalities, you are in essence going to say that every time a piece of legislation comes before a committee, they are going to, first of all, look at the cost and say because of the cost of supposed television hookups, you can't go to that municipality.

If there isn't something as fundamental as that that is wrong about deleting this -- and you know I think it's also part of the fact that if you are going to in essence close down the city halls and close down these local governments, if you don't have the guts to go to their municipalities and tell the taxpayers of Scarborough, Etobicoke, York, East York and North York to their faces why you're closing their doors down and why their government doesn't work, I say to you that's wrong. Based on situations where these city halls or governments have existed for 200 years, at least have the courtesy to go out there, get out of Queen's Park for one sitting, to listen and hear and people can participate in this process. I think that's an affront and this is why many parts of this bill are wrong. What you're doing here is typical of this affront to the basic participation people are asking for. In terms of cost, let's find out whether we can eliminate that $40,000 cost.

The other thing I should mention in terms of nights, the subcommittee has agreed it doesn't have to be a night sitting. There's no reason why we can't spend one whole day in Scarborough, Etobicoke or East York. There are so many little excuses and roadblocks to going out to the municipalities -- and you're the same government that is saying: "Oh, there's overwhelming support for amalgamation of the municipalities. We don't even need a referendum."

But I tell you, the reason you won't go out there is because you're afraid because you know the people in most of these municipalities don't want this shoved down their throats. That's why you won't go out there. You're afraid to go to the city halls, to East York, to Scarborough and Etobicoke when essentially we should go out there because of basic democratic courtesy. If you're going to make such dramatic changes in the lives of these people, out of tradition and courtesy and democracy you should go out there and let the people participate in person if they want to.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): It's quite telling, you know, and reflective of everything that this government has done in dealing with this issue, that the first item we're dealing with this morning is their refusal to travel to the different city halls to hear and give people an opportunity to be in their own communities as they speak to the committee and as they follow this process.

It's quite telling because we know that what this government has tried to do, what Mr Leach and what Mr Harris have tried to do is to just ram this piece of legislation through without any real process, and only when they saw that that was a bit problematic did they back off on that and did they come to the point of saying, "Oh, let's have the hearings at least go on beyond the referendum."

When I put these two motions before the subcommittee, I did it because I thought it would reflect a sense still left by this Conservative caucus that they were going to at least go through the process of hearing people in a legitimate way and that being in the city council chambers is where people who are involved and who are interested in these civic issues that we are dealing with tend to be, Chair. It just makes so much sense for the committee to go.

There are lots of reasons. I could add probably another five reasons to Mr Gilchrist of potential issues as to why maybe it's difficult to do it, but those are all quite frankly reasons that any travelling committee always has to deal with, the question of Hansard travelling, but we do it all the time when we go outside of Toronto.

The question of the time frame: If there's a will to do it, I'm sure it can be done, I say to Mr Gilchrist. There's nothing magic about the 7-to-9 slot. If that became an issue, I'm sure that if there was agreement in this committee, there wouldn't be a problem with even your ministers in terms of the committee sitting from 7:30 to 9:30 if that facilitated us getting to Scarborough city hall if that was necessary.

On the question of money in terms of the issue of televising the proceedings, we know there is already available a cable feed from each of the city halls, and I think in a situation like this some discussion with the cable companies about eliminating those costs is something that could be done.

The point is, Chair, that if in fact the government members were interested in having the committee travel, it could be done. There's no doubt about it: It could be done and it should be done. But the sheer reality is that they would much prefer for us to be pigeonholed into this committee, which, although it's well equipped, is not going to be able to hold the hundreds of people who are interested in following this debate, not on TV, but live. That's what the issue is about. The issue is about allowing citizens to follow these discussions, to be participants in these discussions. That, by the way, is what happens when councils deal with issues that are important to people. But of course we're not surprised that that kind of notion is strange to our Conservative colleagues across, because it's reflective, as I say, of everything they have done on this bill so far.

As far as the issue of hearing Citizens for Local Democracy, let me say again to the Conservative members that if you haven't understood the kind of significance there is to this grass-roots citizens' movement that has sprung up as a result of your actions, then you really have your head in the sand, you really don't understand what civic participation is all about, you really don't understand what has gotten people so riled up. Your anti-democratic measures in ramming through this piece of legislation, coupled with your insistence on downloading on to the property tax base costs that should clearly be borne at the provincial level, your linking of all of these things -- you've done it; we haven't had to do it.

People are understanding what you're doing and people are upset, and the Citizens for Local Democracy group should be given an opportunity to talk to us about some real concerns that I know they have about the process. Because we know that, try as we might, one of the key issues we have in front of us with this committee is how to deal with the hundreds, over 1,200 people so far, a growing list of people who are wanting to speak to this committee.

As a subcommittee within the confines, we're trying to do our best in recommending what should be done with individuals. We've got the issue of organization still to be dealt with by the subcommittee. But the reality is that unless the Conservative members on this committee are going to be willing to show some flexibility as we go down the road, we aren't going to be able to hear anywhere near the number of people who are interested in talking to this committee about these important issues. That's something that we also have to address, Chair.

So for those reasons it's clearly important that the committee travel to the city halls and certainly that the Citizens for Local Democracy group be given a few minutes to talk to us about the process.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Silipo. To the group -- I recognize some of the folks from Citizens for Local Democracy -- just to let you know you may not indeed be the first group presenting. That's under debate right now as the committee considers the subcommittee report. In light of that, I'd invite you to remain seated until we have that decision.

Mr John Sewell: Mr Chair, we did want to speak to the procedural question before there's a vote.

The Chair: We have further debate, and that's from Mr Sergio.

0930

Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, I have here the recommendations of the subcommittee and I believe that these recommendations were accepted by the subcommittee. Am I correct?

The Chair: By this committee?

Mr Sergio: The subcommittee accepted these recommendations here?

The Chair: That's right.

Mr Gilchrist: No, no. By a majority vote.

Mr Sergio: Hold it. Don't say no, because it says right on top that these are the recommendations as made and accepted by the subcommittee. Mr Gilchrist, please.

The Chair: Mr Sergio, the subcommittee consists of a member from each party and the subcommittee report was adopted, all except for basically the last two points.

Mr Sergio: No, no. Mr Chairman --

The Chair: Let me finish, Mr Sergio. Now the subcommittee report has to come before committee and be approved by committee, and that's what we're doing right now. We're having a discussion.

Mr Sergio: Are you saying what's in front of us, not everything was approved by the subcommittee?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): By a majority vote.

The Chair: Yes, not unanimously, but by a majority, two to one.

Mr Gerretsen: It's the only time.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, isn't it the case that all the recommendations, usually whatever has been recommended by the subcommittee, is presented to this committee here?

Mr Gilchrist: Or approved.

The Chair: All of the subcommittee reports in any committee hearings need to be approved by the full committee. The subcommittee is simply a --

Mr Sergio: But all the 19 recommendations would have been approved, according to the recommendation here.

The Chair: That's true.

Mr Sergio: That's true, okay. So if those recommendations were approved, normally the committee, as we are now, rubber-stamps those recommendations.

The Chair: No, that's not the case.

Mr Sergio: That's not the case? It's always been the case in the past.

The Chair: No, there quite often would be some --

Mr Sergio: It's always been the case in the past, usually. What is the purpose then to have this debated, to have a subcommittee make recommendations so we don't waste time here, half a day, discussing these recommendations so we can go immediately to the public? Isn't that the idea, to have a subcommittee make those recommendations, and those recommendations to be rubber-stamped by this committee here?

The Chair: No, they're never rubber-stamped. They're always open to debate, and that's what we're doing right now.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, that's fine. I can see where the member is coming from, and for that member, specifically that member, to appear this morning here on a question of cost, when we are soon travelling within Metro and the members of the government side, Mr Chairman, especially Mr Gilchrist, did not take into consideration the expenses we incurred travelling to Thunder Bay, Timmins, to fly members on a daily basis to hear as many as six people and today to tell the people of Metropolitan Toronto that it's the cost, $40,000 -- that's a pathetic excuse. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be travelling within Metro. I hope that common sense will prevail today.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Gilchrist, then Ms Churley and Ms Lankin.

Mr Gilchrist: I don't know whether Mr Sergio's putting on the record that he doesn't think it's appropriate we travel to Thunder Bay or whether he's saying that cost is not an issue.

Mr Sergio: That's not what I said.

Mr Gerretsen: That's nonsense.

Mr Gilchrist: But the bottom line is that the subcommittee gets together to hopefully accelerate the process through which the various scheduling issues can be decided. I think it's quite appropriate that on 17 of these points we reached more or less unanimous consent. There's still one issue to be discussed. It is a fact that I put forward a five-minute presentation time for individuals. I was outvoted on that, but I am prepared to go along with that. That would have accommodated 1,200 people, and quite frankly would be consistent with the same standard used at every city hall.

However, on the last two things, the last two clauses, this is a provincial bill and the precedent is that the committees always sit here. The only example that was ever given to me of a deviation was a select committee that was charged with specific and very different rules. But the standing committees of the Legislature meet here.

Mr Silipo: We travel all the time.

Mr Sergio: That's nonsense.

Mr Gilchrist: Within Toronto, Mr Silipo could only give me a reference of one other committee that had ever travelled. The town hall meetings, we have lots of opportunities for people to come forward, and I think being lost in all of the rhetoric opposite is the fact that there will be only 12 people scheduled each night, because at 10-minute allocations that's all you can fit in. This doesn't limit debate. I have every confidence that every slot from now until the first week of March will be filled. So if every spot is filled, perhaps you can explain how we would be limiting debate.

There have been any number of people express interest in appearing before the committee. They knew at the outset, or the Clerk's office would not have told them otherwise, that this is where hearings take place. The fact that those names are on the record presumably means that they are interested in coming out and making their presentation here before us.

I think we can't ignore the cost and we certainly can't ignore the fact that there are a myriad of other reasons, not the least of which would be votes and other considerations, why the members would have to be here until 6 o'clock. Your own motion, the two-to-one vote that outvoted my concerns, was that we have only the night sittings in those towns. So if in fact Mr Silipo is saying that the motion is defective because it doesn't allow enough time to travel, well, forgive me, sir, but it's your motion. I do not believe it is practical and I don't believe it's cost-effective.

The bottom line is that the people across this province and across Metro deserve access via the television channel and the parliamentary broadcast system, as well as the ability to come down here and have free parking after 4:30 and any number of other advantages we offer: We're on the subway, we're on bus routes, we are more convenient than many of the city halls. The bottom line is that it is far more appropriate to have the committee meeting in this venue.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I heard Mr Gilchrist on CBC Radio this morning talking about the fact, and he just mentioned himself, that he's willing to live with the majority vote on the subcommittee on the 10 minutes as opposed to five. I find it interesting that he's picking and choosing what he can live with, based on what the subcommittee decided on, and what he can't. It's very clear to me that this is not about necessarily limiting debate. The very nature by which this government -- the quick timing on this so that people can't really participate means, de facto, that debate is being limited on this.

What it's all about is not having meetings in city halls which will be packed with people -- we know that; they know that -- who are opposed to what they are doing. They don't want to see, or they want to limit that, to the extent they can, from being shown on TV: big demonstrations, hundreds and hundreds of people there making the hearings, frankly, difficult for them, because there are very many people outraged about what's going on here. We know that's what's really going on here.

I would say it's profoundly stupid of the government members to have these committee hearings starting off like this today, with Citizens for Local Democracy sitting here waiting to talk to us. What are we doing here but sitting and fighting about something that's quite fundamental? The people of all of the cities around the Metro area want us to come to their cities. Why not do that? Why not do it even if you are afraid of the crowds that are going to come out? It would help us get on with this. In terms of listening to these people here today, for heaven's sake, there they are sitting here, ready to talk to us. What are you going to do, have them thrown out?

Let's just agree, for heaven's sake: common sense. You guys take the cake. You don't know what common sense is. This is ridiculous, having this committee start off by not allowing these people to give a presentation and by not allowing us to travel at city halls with all these lame excuses.

I would suggest to the committee now, let's get on with this. Let's do what the people of all of the cities in the Metro area want: Get out there, give people the opportunity to come down and listen in the public forum to what's going on. Let's move on this. Use some real common sense and stop trying to overturn the decisions on the subcommittee when it's convenient for you to do so.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to address both points that Mr Gilchrist has raised. I continue to be amazed by this government's attitude, the arrogance with which they approach this process around hearing from citizens in Metro Toronto on such an important and fundamental change to the governance of those very citizens.

First of all, let me deal with the issue of the committee travelling. I have never heard such bunk as the series of excuses that I have heard put up by this government, and it's not just what I've heard from Mr Gilchrist today. This started in the House leaders' meetings, which you know I attend. In those meetings, some of the first things we heard were similar to Mr Gilchrist's: "It has to be broadcast. You have to have the Amethyst Room, because that's the only place where this can have a province-wide broadcast." I tell you, there are bills that go through this place all the time where there are committees sitting simultaneously in this room and in other rooms which don't have the broadcast facilities and the government never blinks an eye, and never at that point in time says that we have to set up broadcast facilities because every bill has to be broadcast.

I think it is worthy of being broadcast. I think we should use this room, we should ensure that it's broadcast, but the government put that up as the straw person why the committee couldn't travel. "It would be impossible to have the hearings broadcast if we went to city halls." I very quickly picked up broadcast services, spoke to the folks involved and said, "How difficult is it?" The head of broadcast services said, "We just hook to the cable feed; it's a two-second operation." This is not a big deal, so that was blown out of the water.

0940

Then what did they come back with? They came back with: "There would be a cost because we would have to pay the cable company to use its broadcast and to rebroadcast it across. There's a charge." Have they even called Ted Rogers? Pick up the phone. I'll call him for you. I bet you we could make a deal. I bet you that the cable companies would see this as an important service, a civic service through their community cable process.

I heard today from Mr Gilchrist, when he was on CBC this morning and here again, that there isn't enough time between 6 o'clock and 7 o'clock for Hansard to pack up and for broadcast services, the translators, to pack up and to move everything to the city hall and to get set up again. You would think we only have one set of Hansard and one set of translators. When we travel on the road, like on Bill 26 -- so that the members here can remember -- when one day we were in Timmins and the next day we were in Sudbury, we didn't pack up the same team. The team went and set up ahead of time. These things are possible; these things are not reasons.

The question is, do you want to have an opportunity for residents to come out in large numbers and participate in this process? Mr Gilchrist makes much of his proposal for a five-minute presentation by individuals because that's the standard that's used in city halls for deputations. You know what the other standard is? That those deputations and that process are open to a whole range of people to come and sit in those galleries and be part of that process. So why is that an appropriate argument to put forward, Mr Gilchrist, when you want to limit to five minutes and it's not appropriate when we want to talk about moving the hearings around?

If you have a problem with respect to it only being the evenings, Mr Silipo's suggestion is one that could be undertaken by the subcommittee to look at alternatives. I can assure you from the point of view of our party, and I think I can speak on behalf of the Liberals, that we would give agreement through the House leaders' process for quick passage of an amendment to the motion allowing the committee sitting time. I don't think that should stand in the way of facilitating this process of the committee's travelling.

I also want to address another comment I heard from Mr Gilchrist. This happened to be this morning when he was spinning his line on the CBC, where he said, quite surprised: "We offered for the mayors to come and they've all declined. They don't want to participate in this." What bunk. The mayors have said, given that the question of the committee travelling to their city halls is still an open question, they would prefer to make their presentations in their own city halls. Yet he left all of the people listening to CBC this morning with the impression that the mayors had declined to participate in the hearings process. This is not an accurate reflection of what is going on.

Let me say that Mr Gilchrist speaks much of precedents. He speaks much of precedents when he refers to the five minutes, for example, that deputations have at city hall. What about the precedent here where we have an opportunity, when we're dealing with provincial legislation, not just to hear a deputation but to have a dialogue between members of the committee and the presenters, to have questions and answers? That's a precedent as well. But precedents only mean something when they support the government's intended goal. I could cite all sorts of ways in which you have broken precedents in this province: Bill 26; this legislation, forced amalgamation without a process. There are lots of precedents that are around. These are just shams of arguments set up to support your intended goal.

I want to also touch on the issue of Citizens for Local Democracy, because here again you rely on precedents and say that this would be horrible, that we would be breaking precedents to have a group talk to us about process before the minister comes and makes his presentation on the bill, that there's something sacred about the fact that the minister should be allowed to have his say first. The whole debate that's taking place across Metro Toronto right now revolves around a question of democracy, of governance, of the style of governance, and there is no one who should have a greater say in that than the people who are being governed -- not a minister, particularly a minister who sat on a task force that made a totally different recommendation before he was elected to government; not a provincial government.

People should have a say, and that's what these hearings are going to be about, and if the hearings aren't conducted in a way in which the residents of Metro Toronto feel that their voices are going to be heard, that it's going to be conducted in a way that will allow for open, democratic participation in civic affairs -- because while this may be a provincial bill, this is about civic affairs -- if there isn't a sense by the people that this process meets their needs, it totally discredits what we do here at the provincial level.

It is incredibly important that you rethink your position on this. We have the time now, we have the people sitting here now and we'd ask you to please think before you vote: Think about the importance of this to the democratic process and as an expression of your government's willingness to hear from the people of Toronto.

Mr Colle: I just wanted to point out that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was very explicit in the House, as was the Premier, when asked whether or not the meetings would go to the municipalities. The Premier, in answering our leader, Mr Dalton McGuinty, said he had no problem with agreeing to all his recommendations, of which one was to go out to municipalities.

Mr Leach in fact is quoted making a commitment to the citizens of East York on January 21 in the newspaper known as the East York Mirror. He was asked a question by the East York Mirror, "Is there a plan at this point to take these hearings on the road, to go to East York and Scarborough?" Mr Leach responded: "I'm sure we will do that. I agreed to that. No problem." So you have this clear directive from the minister who has carriage of this bill indicating to citizens that they will be going out to the municipalities, and the Premier reinforcing that. The minister in the House, in response to Mr Silipo, said he would do that. It's a deviation from the commitment made by the minister.

The other aspect of it is in terms of Citizens for Local Democracy. There's an opportunity here to reach out to people who have serious concerns about this bill. Citizens for Local Democracy represents a cross-section of people across Metro. I don't think there's any fundamental roadblock to us doing that. If we do it, at least we attempt to demonstrate that we're willing to listen. I think the worst thing we can do is to try to hide behind procedural rules, saying, "We won't listen to this group because they're a group." This is quite an extraordinary collection of people and individuals who have come together because this is an extraordinary, revolutionary bill that's before us. We've never seen a bill of this magnitude, with this kind of impact, before the 2.5 million people of Metropolitan Toronto.

Just to follow up, Mr Leach said in the House, in answer to Mr Silipo on January 14: "I haven't talked to the House leader, but in discussion with the opposition House leaders, if they want to have the committee move around Metropolitan Toronto, I certainly wouldn't have any objections to that." Again, the minister is quite clear: He wants the meetings to go out to the municipalities. I don't know, therefore, who is contradicting what the minister has stated publicly in the House and in the press over the last month, or why.

Even the Premier said, in response to Mr McGuinty, on January 21: "But we will provide for full and adequate and representative hearings that make sure all viewpoints are heard...," because Mr McGuinty asked whether he would take this out to various municipalities.

Just to conclude, I think that by doing this, going out to municipalities, letting them know that this is due process and they can partake in it, they can be there in person, we're essentially getting rid of some of the fear people have. It's so fundamentally different from what they're used to in terms of how government works, in terms of how local government is going to work, that we owe the people of Metropolitan Toronto at least that: going out to the city halls. If we can't get our act together in terms of getting our support staff out there -- what kind of government is this that can't organize a trip to East York?

0950

Mr Gerretsen: You would think we were talking here about hearings that were going to stretch on for the next three or four months or so, the provincial equivalent of the Somalia hearings. We're talking about five weeks of hearings here, and only on specific dates. It's really too bad that these hearings have started off on such a confrontational tone and note. Maybe I'm still very naïve, but I would have thought that one of the reasons you have these hearings is to actually learn something. I hope to learn something from the presenters and I hope that the government members do as well. If it's a done deal, if that's what you're really saying to the people of Ontario, then what the heck are we doing here?

I hope that in the future we can do something about these public hearings. I've mentioned this on at least half a dozen occasions over the last six to eight months or so. I feel that in order for these public hearings to have any meaning at all, they should really take place after first reading of a law rather than after second reading, before each party stakes out their position on it. It seems to me that what we're dealing with here is not just a process we have to go through.

I kind of get the feeling from the government of, "Well, at least if we go through this process, and we rush it through over the next five weeks, and we set aside some hearings, then at least people can't say we didn't have any public hearings." I hope that isn't the way we approach these hearings. I hope we approach them with an open mind and that views can change on this, because presumably, as a result of these hearings, we'll all be a little bit the wiser afterwards and maybe we can make some changes, effective changes, and it's basically up to you gentlemen and ladies sitting across from me here.

It seems to me that we're not just talking about a law that one particular government wants to put through and somebody else opposes. We are here talking about the future of our communities, the future of the neighbourhoods that people live in and the kind of representation that they will have later on. It's something that I fundamentally believe in, that's probably much more important than anything on a provincial or national level or scale. I think that most people relate more to their own communities and the services that are available there and the contacts they have with people there and the kind of community feelings they can get about a particular area. That's what we're talking about here, and I would hope that we will listen to the people who come before us, whether they're 1,200 or 600, with an open mind.

Quite frankly, to start it off on this kind of a confrontational note, when apparently the one group that had been told they could speak here for 15 minutes this morning at 9:30 is now being told, "You can't speak now; please go away," I don't think that's setting the right tone and I don't think we're doing our communities any good by that in the long run. Let's have an open mind on this, and I would ask the members on the government side -- you control this process -- to reconsider this and pass numbers 18 and 19.

Mr Silipo: Specifically on number 19, the issue of Citizens for Local Democracy addressing us on the procedure, you know, we could have heard them by now. We could have heard them and we could have actually probably heard some interesting and useful things that might have helped even the government members deal with the complexity of the procedural issues, let alone the substance that we'll get to as the process unfolds.

I guess I need some guidance from you, Chair, in terms of what we can do procedurally to try and stop this kind of -- the discussion has been useful, but what I would like to do is to just move, whether it has to be an amendment to Mr Gilchrist's amendment, that the Citizens for Local Democracy be heard now.

The Chair: We have to deal with the motion on the floor. You can amend the motion. I guess that to do that you would have to amend the motion by deleting from Mr Gilchrist's motion point number 19.

Mr Silipo: Whatever has to be done. My point is that we should hear from the group now rather than continuing to go back and forth on this. I think we've all put our points on the record. Let's decide that we should hear them, give them a chance to talk to us, because I suspect that they want to talk to us in fact about the other 18 points that are on this list, as well as other things that they have to say to us, and I think the sooner that we actually hear from them the better.

The Chair: Effectively, Mr Silipo, your motion is to amend Mr Gilchrist's motion to delete point 19 from Mr Gilchrist's motion.

Mr Gilchrist: I think it's totally inappropriate. We have all those hundreds of people who have expressed an interest in coming and speaking to the bill, and it's my understanding that Mr Sewell and his associates want to speak to the process. We are not in a position to change the process. The subcommittee does what it does and the committee does what it does. We've just heard criticisms opposite at the suggestion that even though it was a two-to-one vote in the subcommittee, the other dissenting vote can't air that here in committee. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to live by the rules, Mr Sergio wanted to suggest that the other 17 clauses -- in fact, he would prefer all 19 to be considered sacrosanct. Well, if they're not open to debate, then clearly there's no point in listening to someone who wants to criticize that very same process.

If the suggestion is that the Citizens for Local Democracy want to make a presentation on the bill, of course; they are encouraged. I would expect them to speak towards the bill and I would even go so far as to suggest that I'm sure the government members would be quite comfortable with their being given the first spot after both the minister and the criticisms, and Mayor Tonks who has already accepted an invitation this morning. That would still afford them an opportunity this morning, before any of the other individuals or groups have made a presentation, and I would be quite prepared to have 19 changed to read that they would have the first spot after Mayor Tonks this morning.

Mr Sewell: We want to talk on process before the committee votes.

The Chair: Order, please. Excuse me, you don't have the floor. Mr Gilchrist has the floor. Mr Gilchrist is moving an amendment to the amendment.

Mr Gilchrist: No, I'm suggesting to Mr Silipo that if he wishes to withdraw his motion, I would amend my amendment to delete 18 and to alter 19, that the committee will offer 15 minutes and that we will consider their slot, subject to any further discussion we have about group time. If they want to spend their 15 minutes to talk about process or any other aspect of this bill, then that's fine, but I don't think there should be a suggestion that the other people who've expressed an interest in speaking to this bill should be prejudiced or should be treated any differently.

If there's a certain amount of time for each group or individual, then I think that's something we have to be consistent with across the board. If Mr Silipo wishes to withdraw his amendment to my amendment, I will amend my original amendment that 18 is deleted but 19 will read that the committee will offer 15 minutes to Citizens for Local Democracy as the first deputant after Mayor Tonks on Monday, February 3, 1997, to discuss the procedure of the committee hearings.

The Chair: I have Ms Lankin first and then Mr Silipo, unless you want to flip order.

Mr Sewell: We want to talk on process before you vote on it, not after you vote on it.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr Chair, can we get some order here?

The Chair: Ms Lankin has the floor, please.

Ms Lankin: There are two fundamental problems with what Mr Gilchrist is saying. First of all, unless you allow for some informality here and we could actually have a dialogue with these people, we have no idea whether Citizens for Local Democracy have come here today prepared with the brief that they want to present on the content of the bill. We do know that they are here today, as a result of the subcommittee recommendation, prepared to speak to the issue of process and they want to speak to the issue of process before this committee takes a vote.

You're all sort of wrangled up here in terms of procedure and precedents, although I pointed out that you're willing to change precedent whenever it suits you. You're all sort of caught up in that and how this would be very difficult to do and we're in the middle of a debate on a bill.

Why don't we just agree, three-party agreement, to have a recess for 15 minutes which will be an informal session in which informally the members of the committee can stay here in this room and listen to what these people have to say? Then we reconvene formally as the committee, so we've not broken any precedents here, haven't done anything that's allowed citizens to actually enter the debate of politicians and everything's sacrosanct, but we have heard from a group which is here, which is prepared to make a presentation which I think is very important for members of this committee to at least be prepared to listen to before they take a vote on the issue of procedure which will bind this committee from here through the rest of the process.

I would suggest a request, Mr Chair, for unanimous consent for a 15-minute recess which we will use as committee members in an informal way to listen to the presentation of this group.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for that? I see a no. Mr Silipo, you have the floor.

Mr Silipo: I don't think there's anything else that needs to be said. The turning down of that last practical suggestion I think said it all, Chair.

Mr Colle: Mr Chairman, in terms of where we're going to be going for the next five weeks, I'm asking you to use your discretion as Chair, because the government side has obviously been given certain direction on how to handle this important bill. But I would ask you as Chair to use your good judgement. I think I mentioned this to you at the subcommittee. Give the Citizens for Local Democracy 15 minutes to ask how this system's going to work, how the process is going to work, 15 minutes of recess. You as Chair I think will defuse a lot of, as I said, the apprehension and the whole aura of this being forced upon people without having due process. If you make that ruling of a recess informally, it allows the government to stand by their party position of not allowing them to speak. I think you're going to make this process work a lot better if you allow this 15-minute informal question-and-answer period with the Citizens for Local Democracy. I urge you to consider that as Chair.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is that if the members of the opposition parties make this special consideration for Citizens for Local Democracy and you rule that they be given 15 minutes for process, then would you not also have to make that consideration clear to every group and every individual that comes and makes their presentation to this committee during the next five weeks? Every group ought to have that same opportunity.

Ms Lankin: I'm going to test this out. I think that there may be an agreement emerging with my earlier suggestion for a recess in which there's an informal session which is off Hansard and that members may stay in the room and listen to a presentation from Citizens for Local Democracy. I understand, however, that in order to get agreement I must make the proposal for five minutes, so I'm now going to ask for unanimous consent for a five-minute recess during which an informal presentation by Citizens for Local Democracy may take place.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? We'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1002 to 1012.

The Chair: Our recess is complete and we're now back. I'd like to entertain voting, first of all, on Mr Silipo's amendment to Mr Gilchrist's motion.

Mr Silipo: If it helps, rather than going back, why don't we just vote on the original amendment and deal with that issue? I do have one motion I'd like to make following upon what we heard, but I'm quite happy to do that after the vote, if you wish to proceed with the vote on Mr Gilchrist's amendment.

The Chair: I need unanimous approval to vote first on Mr Gilchrist's motion.

Mr Gerretsen: Unanimous approval?

Mr Silipo: I'm withdrawing my amendment to Mr Gilchrist's amendment.

The Chair: Okay, thank you; that's what I needed. Now we're moving to Mr Gilchrist's motion. I have a motion to amend the subcommittee report by deleting points 18 and 19. That motion is --

Mr Gilchrist: It's just 18 now, clearly, and amend 19 to five minutes.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, a recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Jim Brown, Ford, Gilchrist, Hastings, Kells, Munro, Newman, Parker.

Nays

Colle, Gerretsen, Sergio, Silipo.

The Chair: I declare the motion carried.

Interruption.

Mr Silipo: No city hall. That's what they just turned down.

Interruption.

The Chair: Order, please. Any further motions on the subcommittee report?

Mr Silipo: I just want to clarify for the benefit of those people here and watching that, although my colleagues Ms Lankin and Ms Churley are here, they unfortunately aren't voting members of the committee because we only have so many votes per caucus. It's not a question of all of us who are here being able to vote.

I want to put another amendment -- I guess it would be in the form of an amendment -- to the subcommittee report on the basis of what we heard from the Citizens for Local Democracy group: that is that, first, the clerk be requested to make arrangements to move the hearings to the Macdonald Block as soon as possible; that, second -- the clerk, I think, has given this assurance and so I just put this on the record for the sake of it being on the record -- it be clear that people who are offered an opportunity to speak are given reasonable notice and that they don't lose their slot by virtue of not being available to speak at the particular spot they are first offered. I know that has been the practice the clerk is operating under, and I think it should be clear to everyone that this is what the committee also wants to see.

Third, the majority of members of the committee have obviously already turned down the fourth request, of the hearings being held in the council chambers, although I say to my colleagues opposite I hope this is something they continue to keep in mind. We may be able to come back to this at some point in the future. But the third point, in response to the point that everyone who wants to speak should be allowed to speak, with which I agree, I would like to move, then, Chair, that the House leaders be asked to address the issue of insufficient time being available to the committee to hear all the people who so far have expressed an interest in speaking and leave it at that for the time being, as maybe they can come up with some solutions to this. So those three parts.

The Chair: Any discussion on that motion?

Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, I would like to propose something that I think Mr Gilchrist and the members of the government will find quite acceptable, since it seems that the cost of travelling to the area municipality is the main problem. I would further move that the committee consider holding public hearings at the various local municipalities, provided that each municipality will absorb the cost of holding the hearings in its own individual municipality. This way, whatever the cost may be, if it's $500 or $1,000, if the local municipality wishes to absorb the cost, then I think the problem has been eliminated and solved.

The Chair: With respect, Mr Sergio, I think that's a separate motion. We'd like to entertain discussion. We can hold that motion, and we can entertain discussion on Mr Silipo's motion.

Mr Sergio: Okay, that's fine.

The Chair: The next up is Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: I'll be voting against Mr Silipo's motion for two very practical reasons. First off, the Chair has already ruled that you'll be giving only five minutes for votes and other practical considerations. But the other thing I would draw to Mr Silipo's attention is that both overflow rooms are empty on this, the morning I would have thought would be as important and as interesting to people to come out to hear the discussions, and I am told this room is accommodating all the people who want to be here today.

With the greatest of respect, I think there are organizational problems. You're clearly aware of the organizational problems of moving it over there. I think this is just something else that's taking time away from hearing the presentations I would have thought all members would want to hear this morning and this afternoon.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, on a recorded vote I'll put the question on Mr Silipo's motion.

Ayes

Colle, Gerretsen, Sergio, Silipo.

Nays

Jim Brown, Ford, Gilchrist, Hastings, Kells, Munro, Newman, Parker.

The Chair: I declare the motion lost.

We have a further motion. Mr Sergio, repeat your motion, please.

Mr Sergio: My motion, as I said before, is that the committee consider holding hearings in each municipality, provided that each municipality wanting to have a hearing in its own city hall will absorb the cost of such a hearing.

The Chair: Any discussion on that motion?

Mr Colle: As you know, the government is saying that basically it can't afford to go to East York, so the meetings have to be here. I think this is a very proper motion that addresses that concern the government has about cost in going to East York and Scarborough. If the government is worried about the cost and there's an opportunity for this cost, which is normally picked up by the Legislature, to be picked up by the municipalities and taxpayers of the municipalities, I think this is at least an attempt to have the people most affected by this legislation there at first hand as their city halls are closed down by this legislation.

I think it's an attempt for them to see face to face the government that's proposing the closing down of six governments and their city halls. Anything that can afford the opportunity for these taxpayers to witness what this government is about to do I think is part of the essential process we're talking about in participation in this revolutionary dismantling of local government.

1020

Mr Gilchrist: Very quickly, Mr Chair, because I know we all want to proceed to the actual deputations, but that cost was only one factor. There are a myriad of other practical concerns in trying to get from here to there in an hour.

When Etobicoke council hosted a referendum debate, a grand total of about 11 people showed up. I'm confident that the people who want to participate will have access to this building and will also have access to the fact that these proceedings will be broadcast -- that was part of the motion -- and will be carried at night, and far more people will benefit from seeing that than would ever show up at a town hall meeting.

Ms Churley: Unfortunately I'm not a voting member of the committee but at least I can get on the record.

I don't know if Mr Gilchrist is aware of how ludicrous and ridiculous he sounds when he talks about not being able to organize travelling within the Metro area. We've got the minister here, and I suggest that sends out a very interesting, ironic message, in a way. Here they are trying to amalgamate all these different municipalities, saying "nice fit," and at the same time the parliamentary assistant today is saying that we can't, as a committee, possibly organize, that we don't have the ability to travel around Metro Toronto, it's so big.

This is a ridiculous argument. It sounds ludicrous. If you're going to argue against it, at least tell the truth, that you don't want the crowds of people in the room.

The Chair: Order, Ms Churley. That's out of order, imputing that.

Ms Churley: I withdraw those remarks about the truth, but I think everybody is aware that the committee does not want to travel to the cities because they don't want the large crowds that are opposed to amalgamation to be seen. They should admit that and stop this nonsense about the inability of the committee to organize to get to East York or Scarborough, for heaven's sake. It's ridiculous. You have members here today who come from those ridings. You manage to get here in a few minutes, don't you?

Mr Silipo: I don't want to prolong this but I wonder, if we offered to turn all the hearings in the council chambers into informal hearings, whether that might accommodate the members opposite. It seems to me that's the only way that they have any sense of what's going on here today. They refuse any reasonable proposal from this side of the table to accommodate. There are a myriad of reasons they like to put up against doing it. They now have also turned down, people should understand, moving these hearings into a larger room here at Queen's Park. It really just begs the question: What hope is there for people coming and talking to us about the real issues if on these procedural questions they won't even show any flexibility at all? We'll see.

Mr Sergio: Again briefly, because I think this is a total waste of taxpayers' time: I'm pleased that Mr Leach is here because when we travelled with rent control with this exact committee, with the exact members, with the exact members of staff we flew, we travelled throughout Ontario from east to west and north to south, Thunder Bay, Timmins, Sudbury, Peterborough, Ottawa, whatever, at great expense. We heard no more than 12 to 14 people on a daily basis going to that very extensive cost.

We have just heard from the member that maybe not even 11 people are going to show up. With all due respect, let's give the people a chance. Let's give the people the opportunity at least to come to the various city halls and prove us wrong. I think that should be more than an incentive for the members of the government side to say, "Sure, let's go and hear what the people who are going to come out have to say."

If we travelled to Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, whatever, to listen to six to eight people at great expense, I'm sure we can accommodate, and we should; I think we must. I think the minister would agree today that the committee should make every possible effort to travel to those places. We are talking about no more than 10, 12 miles from either side from Queen's Park.

To say that it's a question of time or cost I think is a red herring, and as my motion says, as long as the local municipality will absorb the cost, I think the members and staff should travel to those areas. I hope the members on the government side will see the positive side of the motion and will afford those people an opportunity.

Mr Gerretsen: I just reiterate that I don't think the procedural matter should become the issue. The issue should be the whole substance of the legislation that's before us. The minister has been listening to this for the last 10 or 15 minutes now, and I would like him to address at the appropriate time what he said on January 14, 1997: "I haven't talked to the House leader, but in discussion with the opposition House leaders, if they want to have the committee move around Metropolitan Toronto, I certainly wouldn't have any objection to that." Whether he still stands by that or not, it's his piece of legislation. Surely what he says goes, and if he wants to have hearings in the various city halls of the other six communities that make up Metropolitan Toronto, he can make it happen. Let's hear from the minister to see whether or not he's prepared to do that.

The Chair: When we get through the committee reports, as we have to, the minister can put whatever he wants in his responses. I believe that the parties also have the opportunity to question and give comment. Any further debate?

Mr Silipo: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Colle, Gerretsen, Sergio, Silipo.

Nays

Jim Brown, Ford, Gilchrist, Hastings, Kells, Munro, Newman, Parker.

The Chair: I declare the motion lost.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't want to belabour discussion on this because I'm also eager to hear from the minister on a number of points. I just want to be clear about what is going to happen on one of the points that was in the motion I put that was turned down, about the clerk giving people reasonable notice. I hope it was simply inadvertence on the government members' part that they turned that down and that they don't really, seriously mean they don't want the clerk to give people reasonable notice.

The Chair: I think the clerk would like to speak to that.

Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Lisa Freedman): Just to clarify what's happening in my office at the moment, we're currently trying to schedule people for this Wednesday and Thursday. If people we contact are not available this Wednesday and Thursday, they're being offered a time slot next week. At this point we've opened up a two-week time slot. Once we get that scheduled we'll continue to open the further weeks, as we get to them.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Seeing no further motions, I'm going to put the question. Will the committee adopt the subcommittee report, as amended? All those in favour? Opposed? I declare the subcommittee report, as amended, adopted.

1030

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES

The Chair: Our first deputant is the Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister Leach, you have half an hour.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to set the stage for discussion of Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act. I am pleased to be here because I truly believe we are at a moment in time when the residents of Canada's greatest city have an historic opportunity before them.

We have the opportunity to ensure that Toronto enters the 21st century strong, united and ready to meet the needs of its citizens and the challenges of the future. We have the opportunity to create a governance structure that will save money, remove barriers to growth and investment and help create jobs.

In a larger sense we are faced with an even greater opportunity: the challenge of creating the best system of governance for the best city in Canada based on the best practices in government. With the City of Toronto Act we are proposing that the Metro regional government and its six municipal governments be replaced by a single government.

We have been clear about our intentions to create a new and unified Toronto from the start, because we know that people care about this community, the city they live in. People want to know what changes are being proposed and they want to know how these changes will make things better.

But it's also important to know, first of all, why change is necessary. Recently, Fortune magazine called Toronto the best city in the world to live and work in, but today a city can't just rest on its laurels, no matter how high the praise. Given the relentless competition from the global marketplace, Toronto has to move forward just to maintain its current position, and right now we are not moving forward.

Toronto is not growing as fast as the cities we compete against for jobs in business, and jobs are not being created as quickly. Instead of coming here, businesses and industries are leaving this area. We need to keep them here. We need to attract new business by maintaining the excellent infrastructure that has made Toronto the envy of the world. As competition with other cities increases, it gets harder to maintain and improve our infrastructure with two layers of government and seven municipal councils.

How do we solve these problems? We do it by working together, and we've already proven that we can. Right now, 72% of Metro services are already consolidated, including police, public transit, social services and ambulances. The six city governments and city bureaucracies divide among themselves only 28% of spending. I don't think anybody would suggest that the TTC would be more efficient if it was run in six fiefdoms and I don't think anybody would recommend cutting the police into six. These are excellent services that provide the community with a tremendous value for tax dollars.

Those who oppose completing the steps that began with the creation of Metropolitan Toronto, who oppose completing the move from seven governments to one, ignore how much of that work has already been done and how well it works now. We propose to bring that final 28% into one seamless city. We propose leaving behind seven competing governments, the seven roads departments, the seven planning departments. We propose leaving behind the six fire departments, each with its own administration, training facilities and communications networks. We propose leaving behind the overlap and duplication, the escalating costs, confused priorities and conflicting mandates, and too many levels of government.

Under the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, politicians would work together to carry this great metropolitan area forward instead of working hard to protect their own turf. Government would be simpler, easier for citizens to understand, and as politicians are reduced from 106 to 45, it would be greatly reduced in size.

At this point, I'd like to thank all of the members of this committee. I know that you're going to be spending long hours in the coming weeks on this issue. The hearings that begin today, February 3, will extend until Wednesday, March 5. There are a great many people who wish to speak to one Toronto, and we want to hear as many as possible. That's good. Legislative committee hearings are the best arena for the public voice to be heard on matters of public interest. The public has the opportunity to be closely involved with the parliamentary democracy in Ontario and members of Parliament can get a very clear picture of the concerns of the people they represent.

Today I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about some of the concerns I know people have about the proposed legislation.

People worry that local government will be less accessible to the average citizen, but we believe just the opposite will be true: Local government will be more accessible. The new act would create neighbourhood committees and would give citizens the chance to be directly involved in the issues that affect them where they live. They'll be able to tell their representatives on city council what they think local priorities should be, whether it's about recreational facilities, social needs or the delivery of services in their own community.

Neighbourhood committees are a way for municipal government to keep in touch with the wishes of local residents. They will help to preserve and promote neighbourhood identity. They'll make local decision-making possible and give everyone the chance to contribute to the future of their city. Councillors will carry those local priorities with them when they sit down at city council meetings. The way we see it, with a single, united system of government in Toronto, a direct line can be created from neighbourhoods straight to the top; from local concerns and priorities directly to city council.

As for concerns that a larger city will lose its neighbourhoods, history defies this argument. I grew up in Weston. Weston officially ended as a town more than 30 years ago, but it still thrives as a neighbourhood. So does Mimico, so does the Beach, so does Willowdale and so does Guildwood. Our neighbourhoods will remain. They will remain strong and viable and they will be better for no longer having to deal with so many levels of government, so much duplication and overlap, so little understanding of who's responsible for what.

Today it hardly matters whether a local politician is accessible. The real problem is that that politician may not be accountable. Let's make the problem concrete. Let's say someone's street is not being plowed in the winter and the sidewalk of an elderly lady down the street is not being cleared. Who do you call? Is the road a Metro or a local road? Who's responsible for the sidewalk? Who clears away the pile of snow where the Metro sidewalk meets the city sidewalk? Who knows who's in charge of street lighting?

Under a simplified, united and understandable Toronto government, we would know who's responsible and we would know who to call, because your local councillor -- the city councillor -- would be responsible and accountable for everything from street lighting and sidewalks to fire protection, recreational programs and waste collection. That's why accountability and accessibility are not just government buzzwords. They mean something real, something important in people's lives. Most of all, you can't have one without having the other and you can't have democracy without both.

That's why the proposed City of Toronto Act is not just about efficiency and cost savings; it's also about making government representative and responsible to the people who elect it. In my book, that's what democracy means.

That word "democracy" has been tossed around a lot lately by those who oppose Bill 103 because the province has appointed a board of trustees to oversee financial transactions during the transition to the new city of Toronto. We've been accused of taking away the authority of elected officials here in Toronto and we've been accused of taking away the democratic rights of Toronto citizens.

In response to that I'd like to quote from an editorial I read just last week in the Ottawa Citizen. "Far from being undemocratic," the editorial said that the appointment of trustees was a "critical safeguard" for democracy. The board of trustees' only mandate is to make sure that municipal assets, assets that belong to the people, are safeguarded during a time of change. That's only prudent and it's in the best interests of all the taxpayers. The elected officials in Metro and the cities will still be carrying out their duties in 1997, just as you elected them to do.

When I listen to people talk about their concerns about this new act, it often seems that they're not worried about its substance -- they're not worried so much about the creation of single, strong, accountable government -- they're more worried about the process of getting there. The board of trustees is part of that process. Let me speak about the balance of the process for a bit.

1040

Upon passage, Bill 103 will set the foundation for change. More specific legislation will be introduced later this year. It's going to be a busy year, a year to plan and to construct a new, strong, unified government in Toronto, a year to get ready to ensure that we have a strong and cost-effective city. What's important is careful planning.

A transition team will be appointed, made up of experts from the financial, government and administrative sectors, and people from the private sector. Their job will be to consult with residents, to ask the right questions and find the right answers.

Let me be clear: Both pieces of legislation and the work of the transition team are just the beginning. The real work of designing how the new government works will be the responsibility of the new council. They will make the decisions that best suit the people of Toronto.

We have also heard comment that the government is rushing this legislation through without consultation and without due deliberation. Again, the opposite is true. We based our decision to act on years of research, debate and public discussion. That includes the work of the GTA task force and the consultation carried out by the GTA review panel on the task force report.

Amalgamation of some local municipalities has been recommended by some Metro mayors and the Who Does What panel recommended that a strong, unified central core would help the entire GTA prosper and compete in the international marketplace. It includes the recent study by KPMG that shows that unifying government in Metro can save taxpayers up to $865 million over the next three years and $300 million every year thereafter.

I began today by saying that we're at a historic moment in the life of this city. We have a one-time opportunity ahead of us to take advantage of the best ideas in government innovation and planning. We have the opportunity to create a future for this great metropolitan area where government can do better with less.

We have a history of amalgamation in this province. It's been going on, for one reason or another, for many, many years. Does it save money? Yes, it does. Does it mean better services for less money? Yes, it does. Ottawa-Carleton, for example, decided to amalgamate its police services. They saved $2.4 million a year. They coordinated waste collection in the region and saved $6 million over three years. Where restructuring has been proposed or implemented, officials are expecting to realize savings to taxpayers, about 5% of the total municipal budget. Kingston and Hamilton-Wentworth are two examples.

Ottawa-Carleton and many other municipalities across Ontario are beginning to take advantage of these best practices in government. The people in Metropolitan Toronto have that same opportunity at this time in our history. We have the opportunity to construct a new foundation for government in this city to make a fresh start, taking full advantage of all of the best ideas available today.

I've heard the claims that amalgamation pushes costs up and not down. I recall a few months ago people saying that provincial governments couldn't lower income taxes. This is a new era. The creation of one Toronto will be the first attempt to unify a city government where the goal is to re-engineer government to do better for less. It will break new ground and I know it will be successful.

One government would make Toronto strong and united. It would become a powerful voice for the wellbeing of all of its citizens and it would help to keep Toronto the most powerful engine for the economic interests of the rest of Ontario.

People worry that this city would be too big at 2.3 million people. Let's put this in perspective: It's not going to be any bigger than it is now; that's the population of Metropolitan Toronto. For people who count on the services that local governments provide, it's not going to be very much different than it is now, because as I said earlier, almost three quarters of the services are already delivered at the upper tier, Metropolitan Toronto.

But with one city our ability to attract new business investment would be enhanced; a single, united government would give Toronto greater clout in the international arena; and it would reinforce this city's role as Canada's major centre for commerce, industry and education.

A strong, united city of Toronto would meet local needs. It could answer the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities facing the entire Metro area. Communities and neighbourhoods would have more control over local decisions and services than they do today. The men and women who are elected to lead Toronto into the 21st century would be able to see beyond today's artificial political boundaries and make decisions that will be to the greater good of everyone in Toronto.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister Leach. Next on our agenda is to move to the opposition and then the third party. Each would get a half-hour to make a presentation and/or ask questions.

I was going to ask you, Minister, to invite your staff to the table, which you've already done. Before we begin, I wonder if just for expediency's sake staff would read their names into the record for the benefit of Hansard.

Ms Elizabeth McLaren: Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister.

Mr David Spring: David Spring, legal counsel to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Chair: We'll begin a half-hour with the opposition, starting with Mr McGuinty.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'm proposing to make a statement at the outset and then allow my colleagues the remainder of the time.

I appreciate the opportunity to set out the Liberal Party's position on the minister's megacity plans and I want to begin by being as clear and unequivocal as I possibly can. I want to say to you directly, we in the Liberal caucus are opposed to your plan to force the people of Metro Toronto into a megacity. We are opposed to your plan because we believe it will cause property taxes to increase, because it will lead to more cuts in services and because it will make government even more remote and distant from the people it is supposed to serve. We are opposed to your plan because it is the wrong plan and the wrong vision for one of the greatest cities in the world.

The debate we're engaged in today is not just about the kind of government that will exist in Metropolitan Toronto come the start of next year. This debate is about the kind of place Metro Toronto will be to live and work in come the next millennium. This is a debate about vision and quality of life and opportunity, the very reason that people come together to form a city in the first place.

We've listened to your plans to force the people of Toronto into a megacity. We've heard your plans to dump more than $1 billion in new costs on to Ontario municipalities, nearly $400 million in Metro Toronto alone. We've seen the $1-million advertising campaign.

You had a choice between a vision of Toronto as a humane and caring place or a city where there is too much need and too few services, and in our opinion you made the wrong choice. You had a choice between a vision of Toronto where people are close to government and where differing community needs can be met in different ways, or big and remote government that treats everyone with uniformity and conformity. Again, in our opinion you made the wrong choice.

1050

Minister, to govern is to choose, and we believe you've made the wrong choices. There are many shades to this debate, but you choose to see everything in black and white. That's your government's style. You believe that in every situation there are only two choices: the government's or the status quo. Let me make it clear to you that I am not a defender of the status quo; quite the opposite. I understand the need for change.

We need an integrated transit system, not just in Metro Toronto, but across the GTA. Your vision takes us further away from that, not closer to it. We need an economic strategy, not just for Metro Toronto, but for the entire GTA. Again, your vision takes us further away from that.

Change is inevitable, but progress is not, so let's be careful. Let's not mistake the wrecking ball for innovation. Let's not change what many call the city that works into the city that used to work. There are undoubtedly things we have to change about Metro Toronto, but there are also things we have to be very careful to preserve.

Toronto didn't become a special place by forcing everyone to do everything the same way. This city has grown bigger and better through diversity, whether it's the diversity of people and cultures that have made this city their home or the diversity in local governments that allow different parts of Metro Toronto to respond in different ways to local needs. It's that diversity that has made this city special.

When you start tampering with that formula, when you start telling people that they have to do everything the same way and be governed in the same way, you risk destroying the very special kind of chemistry that made the city great.

Over the next several weeks, through these hearings and through local referenda, the people of Metro Toronto will send you a very loud and very clear message. The question is -- and it's an important one -- will you listen?

I want to say to you again very directly that I find your attitude and your government's attitude toward public input very disturbing. When it first became clear just how many people wanted to make presentations on this bill, you said that some kind of campaign was being orchestrated. What you see as conspiracy, I see as the very healthy desire of the people of Metro Toronto to have a say in the future of their community. What you see as unnecessary disruption and delay, I see as the very necessary process of democracy in action.

This morning I had the opportunity to read the city of York Guardian. There was a letter in it from one of the residents of that city, and I think you'll find it very interesting. The letter reads:

"I am a democratic person who lives in a democratic country. I believe that when one side speaks, the other side should listen. With our provincial government, democracy is not apparent. What we say does not matter, and it never will."

I sincerely hope that person is wrong. I hope you will listen closely to what the people of Metro Toronto will be telling you over the coming weeks. I hope you will understand why the people of this community want to have a say in the type of city they will live in. You can impose your will on the people of Toronto if that is your choice, but for you and your government, that will only be a short-term victory.

At the end of the day the will of the people will triumph, because the fight against the megacity didn't begin today and it won't end tomorrow or even at the close of these hearings. The people of this great community will continue to fight for their vision of a humane and caring city. They will continue to fight for their vision of a city of opportunity, with neighbourhoods that are able to meet local needs, and for my part and for the part of our caucus, the Liberal caucus, we will be right beside them fighting for that vision for as long as it takes.

Mr Colle: Thank you, Mr Leach, for your presentation. When John Ralston Saul phoned your office and talked to one of your assistants and asked him, "What city are you modelling this new megacity on?" the answer your staff person gave was, "Well, it's Chicago, it's New York City. Don't you want to be great like those two places?" What is your model of a megacity? What are you going to make it like?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm going to make it like Toronto. What we're looking at here is creating a situation similar to what we faced in 1954 when Metropolitan Toronto was created, when we needed a strong city core with the ability to serve its suburbs. What we have now is a similar situation where we're going to create a strong city core for the greater Toronto area to give us an opportunity to be competitive in the global marketplace, to make a city that's truly united and truly great. This is a great city. Everybody recognizes that and we have an opportunity now to make it even greater.

Mr Colle: Therefore, your staff were wrong and shouldn't have said, "Like New York and Chicago." In terms of the international marketplace, I know you've often commented, "The reason we're doing this, one of the reasons, is we're going to try and get the Olympics and when we become this megacity we're going to have a better chance at the Olympics." Aren't you aware that cities like Atlanta are divided into a number of cities? Aren't you aware that Sydney, Australia, which has the Olympics for the year 2000, by the way, is made up of 40 municipalities, one no larger than 300,000? Are you going to still keep to that line that one of the reasons we need a megacity is we can get the Olympics, given the proven track record that you don't need to have a megacity to get the Olympics if you want them?

Hon Mr Leach: Getting the Olympics would be a goal, but it's certainly not the major goal in creating a single city. To me, creating a single city for an event that lasts about six weeks would not be appropriate. What we're trying to do and what we intend to do is to create a city that can compete in the global marketplace for economic development and trade for a long, long time -- forever. This city has an opportunity now to become great. It's good; we have an opportunity to become great.

Mr Colle: Just getting back to that, you have taken some extraordinary measures. You've put these seven governments under trusteeship. You're putting in a transition team. You're eradicating these seven governments and you seem to be in a great rush to do it. What has gone so wrong with Toronto that a city that was recognized as being one of the leading cities in the world all of a sudden needs this revolutionary, dramatic dismantling? What is so wrong? Is there something we haven't seen in the press, or have you got some reports that show there's this present and imminent danger out there, that we have to take these dramatic measures that you're taking?

Hon Mr Leach: Your leader just said a few moments ago that the status quo is not acceptable, that the status quo is not an option. What's happened in the past, over the last several decades, is that we have suffered from procrastination, from various political parties not having the will to make the changes that are needed to bring the cities into the 21st century.

Mr Colle: But again, all this procrastination -- somehow somebody or some people or some taxpayers or some elected officials didn't do a bad job, and we became a pretty reasonable place to live. I can imagine that if this were Cairo or Mobile, Alabama. Why this unprecedented dismantling of this magnitude? I just don't see. You haven't presented anything.

The other thing which is most frightening -- and you've been warned by David Crombie, you've been warned by the board of trade. Your friends at the board of trade -- you made this grandiose megacity announcement right at their doorstep, right in their dining lounge and you told them, "We're going to bring in a megacity." They're your friends. They're saying that this megacity, coupled with your downloading, endangers the economic viability of one of the great cities and that essentially what you're going to do is widen the tax gap between Toronto and the 905 by your downloading.

In other words, was this megacity created because you wanted to offload your provincial responsibilities for social services, family benefits, long-term health care, child care, drug benefits, because you wanted to dump your costs provincially on to the property taxpayers?

I ask you: Are you now going to reconsider? Because what you're doing is contradicting yourself. You said one of the reasons you're creating the megacity is to make it more competitive. You, in your other piece of legislation, are taking away the competitiveness because you are going to dump income-maintenance programs on the property taxpayers. Again, it's not the left wing and it's not the opposition. These are your friends who are saying you're putting your megacity into grave danger because these costs cannot be borne by the property taxpayers, that you're going to jeopardize Metro's economy. Even the president of the Bank of Nova Scotia I think is very worried about this dumping and downloading on to the property taxpayers with this megacity.

If you're trying to make this megacity better, more competitive, more financially viable, why would you then download all these responsibilities and put it in the hole? In fact, I guess one of your great supporters at Metro -- the Metro councillors and the Metro chairman -- Shirley Hoy, who worked for you as a deputy minister, said at AMO on Friday that this downloading is putting your megacity in grave danger.

1100

Now it's up to over $530 million that you didn't add up correctly. You forgot to add $530 million that would be borne by the Metro property taxpayers. In other words, this $530 million is going to put Metro in such a hole that no matter how unified it is and how big it is, how is it going to get out of the hole? It's basically going to have to put an extra $530 million of your responsibility for health care and welfare on to the property taxpayer.

How are you going to get the Olympics if you can't pay for welfare and social housing? How are you going to get international business to come here when they pick up the Toronto paper and see, "Board of trade worried about the future of Metro"? This is what you've done, and I say to you you've done this because you've got this package which I call the mega-dumping package. You get rid of the local opposition so you can dump all your provincial responsibilities on to the taxpayers. There's nobody left to fight. You, the province, have walked away from all your responsibilities, and all the cutting and slashing has to be done by the local property taxpayers. This is what you've left. You've basically miscalculated -- or you have calculated -- a $530-million hole.

On top of that, your own KPMG report says that this new mega-government is going to have to cut about $350 million a year on top of that to fulfil your rationale for doing this, because you say your rationale is to save money. So this new government is going to have to find $530 million to pay for and this new government is also going to have to cut another $350 million every year.

I say to you, maybe your model is Detroit or maybe your model is New York or Chicago, and maybe that person in your staff office who talked to John Ralston Saul was right, that for some reason, somehow, some mad Machiavelli you have in your office envisioned a plan -- a scheme, I should say -- to destroy a city that is considered one of the best to live in.

In summary, Mr Minister, your figures don't add up. Metro is in the hole by $530 million. It's going to have to cut another $330 million. Never mind getting the Olympics; you'll be lucky if you get the Boy Scout Jamboree here the way Metro is going.

Hon Mr Leach: What have you got against Boy Scouts?

Let's go back to the beginning and the member for Oakwood's premise that the board of trade and David Crombie are opposed to what we're doing. The board of trade supports Bill 103. The board of trade supports going to a single city very strongly, and their chairman has been very outspoken about that. David Crombie supports Bill 103. David Crombie supports going to a single city. So if you're working under the assumption that the two parties you mentioned are opposed to the actions being taken by this government on Bill 103, you are mistaken.

Mr Colle: Mr Minister, what I said is --

Hon Mr Leach: I'm not finished.

Mr Colle: -- that the rationale you've been giving for creating megacity is to make it more financially viable, to save money. But what you're doing is making people like Crombie stand up and say -- there is a connection, you might say, between property taxes and this megacity. Do you agree there? Is there somewhat of a connection?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. I'm glad you brought that up, because the board of trade also supports the government's proposals for property tax reform and Mr Crombie supports the government's proposals for property tax reform.

Mr Gerretsen: Not the way you have proposed it.

Hon Mr Leach: This government is taking education off the residential property tax, something that the citizens of this entire province have been looking for for years. Studies that we have done on the economic savings indicate that there will be substantial savings as a result of amalgamation, in excess of $300 million a year.

Mr Gerretsen: Release those studies.

Hon Mr Leach: The numbers being put forward by the Metropolitan Toronto group, the numbers that I saw, show the entire costs of social housing being put into effect on day one, and that's obviously not the case. That's a program that will be phased in over several years. We have a great opportunity here by amalgamating this city into one unified community to come up with best practices for the delivery of services that will provide the most economic, affordable and best services available to the taxpayers.

Mr Colle: Mr Minister, there is a bit of a connection between what your plan is going to do -- what your package is going to do to the Metro property taxpayers, commercial and residential -- to your megacity plan. That is why, again, the board of trade has said that because of your dumping and offloading of your responsibilities, you are putting this new city into jeopardy, that it's not going to work if you are going to dump things like social housing on to the property taxpayers. That is why they're saying you can't have one without the other. In other words, how is this city going to be competitive, how is it going to protect neighbourhoods, if they can't undertake to respond to the new responsibilities you've given them?

The board of trade has said your scheme is going to increase property taxes for businesses an average of $7,900 per business, and residential, $350 per home. With the new figures, because now we know we've got drug benefits too, your supporters at Metro are saying this is even going to be higher. So how is this city going to work, as I said, better? How is it going to provide for strong neighbourhoods? How is it going to provide for better services when you are dumping almost like a tax time bomb on their lap? It's such a tax time bomb that everybody from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is saying this is a shell game that's going to destroy Metro: the board of trade, Gordon Chong, all your supporters who say maybe megacity by itself, but now they know that the other shoe has dropped. You can't have megacity by itself because your scheme is basically to have this megacity that now will be in charge of trying to protect neighbourhoods at the same time trying to provide for seniors, trying to provide for people on social assistance.

I remember when this exercise first started. It was about levelling the playing field between 905 and 416. Even Hazel McCallion, another Conservative, says this is a mega-mistake. You know, Mr Minister, that most of the social housing, most of the welfare, is in Metro; the 905 doesn't have that kind of obligation. So you're going to put Metro at a competitive disadvantage to the 905. Never mind that the level playing field is not going to exist; you're creating a canyon between the 905 and 416 that is not only not going to work to the benefit of Metro citizens and taxpayers but is going to destroy the viability of the GTA.

The GTA won't work if you've got Metro with a tax disadvantage, because we know that in the city of Vaughan there isn't the social housing. There isn't in Markham the need to serve the elderly. You know there's a growing elderly population here in Metro. All you've done through your midnight fax machines is you've said that anybody who questions any of this material is wrong. Like here: "Do the Math. Metro Taxpayers Win."

You're saying that the Metropolitan council and its financial experts are wrong and you're right. In other words, the $500-million gap now that exists in Metro doesn't exist; they're not adding up right. I say to you, Minister, you are putting Metro and its property taxpayers and the whole GTA in jeopardy by not listening to people who are your supporters, who are saying: "What's the emergency? What's the rush? Whose agenda is this?"

1110

Hon Mr Leach: To the member for Oakwood, it's interesting to note that the individuals and the corporations that the member stated are opposed to our actions, regardless of the separation of services issues, still support strongly a single city. Gordon Chong strongly supports a single city after taking into consideration the changes in the separation of services. The board of trade still supports the single, unified city after consideration of the changes. David Crombie, again, continues to support a single city despite having concerns about having social services on the property tax base. Despite their concerns about that issue -- and we're quite prepared to talk to them about that specific issue and we intend to talk to them about that specific issue -- they still strongly support a unified, single city for Toronto.

Mr Colle: Just one final comment, one final question. On this thing about going out to the municipalities, as you know, in the House you were quite clear in saying you didn't oppose, you supported, the hearings going out to the cities. To the East York mayor you said, "I have no problem taking these hearings to East York and Scarborough."

Minister, will you not tell your committee members on the government side that it is your will, as you stated in the House and in the press, that you want these hearings, that you're not afraid to go out to East York, you're not afraid to listen to the people in those municipalities and take these hearings out there? Will you not clarify that with your government members, who are contradicting what you said in the House?

Hon Mr Leach: The purpose of these committee hearings is to give the citizens of the Metropolitan Toronto area an opportunity to present their views to this committee. I don't know what you accomplish by going out to the cities.

Mr Colle: You said you wanted that. You said that in the House.

Hon Mr Leach: What I said in the House was that it was up to the House leaders --

Mr Colle: No, you said there's nothing wrong with that; you'll support that. "If they want to have the committee move around Metropolitan Toronto, I certainly wouldn't have any objections to that."

The Chair: Mr Colle, you've posited a question. You should allow an answer.

Hon Mr Leach: If the goal is to give the people of the greater Toronto area or the people of the Metropolitan Toronto area an opportunity to present their views to this committee, I think this is the most appropriate forum to do it in. I don't know what you accomplish by putting on a travelling show.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me quote to you exactly what you said in the House.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Mr Gerretsen, you have four minutes remaining.

Mr Gerretsen: All right. I'm quoting you: "I haven't talked to the House leader, but in discussion with the opposition House leaders, if they want to have the committee move around Metropolitan Toronto, I certainly wouldn't have any objections to that." Do you still stand by that and will you give your parliamentary assistant, somebody who works for you, instructions to make sure that these hearings get around to the various city halls in Metro Toronto?

Hon Mr Leach: No. I think the most appropriate forum to have the hearings is here.

Ms Churley: Is that written down, Al?

Mr Gerretsen: Okay, so you've changed your mind on that, then.

Hon Mr Leach: It's more appropriate to give people an opportunity to travel here so they can speak to this committee. The House is in session; most of the committees have to be here. I agree with the decision that the committee made.

Mr Colle: It doesn't have to be here in the evenings.

Mr Sergio: Minister, just in the time that I have left here, the board of trade, Mr Crombie, the United Way and others -- I don't know which newspaper you have been reading, which commentary or even editorials. They have said that they are not in favour of the downloading, the effects of the megacity as you have proposed it. Are you still in favour of downloading all the extra services on to the municipalities, and do you still claim that this will lower taxes? If you do, can you please provide all the information -- the figures, the data -- backing up your claim?

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Chairman, our purpose in being here today is to talk about Bill 103, and all the individuals and all the corporations the member has just mentioned favour going to a single, united city despite the concerns they have about some of the separation of service --

Mr Sergio: Are you willing to release all that information to us?

Hon Mr Leach: -- and we are prepared to sit down with the agencies, with AMO, with the board of trade, with Metropolitan Toronto, and discuss the issues they have concerns about. We're quite prepared to do that.

Mr Sergio: Are you willing to release all the information, all the data?

Hon Mr Leach: They are still in favour of a single city.

Mr Sergio: You are not answering my question. Are you willing to release all the data, all the information, supporting your claim?

Hon Mr Leach: We will have information that will be made available to those we have the discussions with.

Mr Sergio: Don't you think this committee should have all that information so we can make a proper --

Hon Mr Leach: This particular committee is dealing with Bill 103, which deals with the amalgamation of the six cities in Metro, plus the elimination of Metropolitan Toronto. We're not here to discuss or debate the merits of the services being divided between the municipalities.

The Chair: There's about a minute remaining.

Mr Sergio: Wouldn't you want to listen to the people, providing them all the information necessary so they can come to the hearing?

Hon Mr Leach: We are listening to the people. That's what we're here for. That's what we're in this room for right now, to hear representatives from the various communities come in to speak.

Mr Sergio: Why don't you provide the people of Metro with all the information so they can come to this hearing with informed minds and then speak for or against your proposal? Why don't you release that information before? Why don't you release it now?

Hon Mr Leach: All the information on creating a single city is available to them at this point in time.

Mr Sergio: We have no information.

Hon Mr Leach: We will have other legislation coming forward on the separation of the delivery of services, about taking education off the property tax, about having the municipalities responsible for hard services, having the municipalities responsible for 100% of the delivery of social services and 50% of the cost.

I know what you would like: that the municipalities spend and we pay. That was the recommendation, that the municipalities deliver the service and the province pays.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We've come to the end of the half-hour for the opposition party.

Mr Sergio: I have another 30 seconds.

The Chair: Actually, you don't have any time left. We're now into the half-hour for the New Democratic Party, starting with Mr Hampton.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I'll take a couple of minutes because there are a couple of matters we need to draw particular attention to, and then my colleagues have some statements they would like to make.

First of all, there is something quite absurd happening here. Committees of this Legislature regularly travel to places like Windsor, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Sudbury, Hamilton, Timmins, Peterborough, Kingston to hear people, to ensure that people have an opportunity to be heard. For you, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and for your government and for government members of this committee to say that this committee can't possibly travel to North York city hall or to Scarborough city hall or to Etobicoke city hall or to the city of York or the city of East York to hear people, to listen to people who have indicated that they want to be heard, for you to take that position that you can't travel to those cities and to those locations is absolutely absurd.

Second, I want the minister to understand and to get it very clear in his head why we are opposed to your megacity concept. As one observer put it, when I had a chance to meet and talk with him, he said that the megacity concept and the government's downloading of health care and social assistance on to municipal taxpayers are intimately connected. The megacity concept is intended to create the fog that will facilitate your mega-downloading of health care and social assistance costs on to municipal property taxpayers.

To put it bluntly: First you drug the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto with your megacity concept, then you mug them with your downloading of the costs for health care and social assistance. That's exactly what this scheme is all about. The two concepts are intimately connected. First, you mug the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto with your fog about megacity, and then, while they're trying to figure out the confusion you've created, you download huge costs related to social assistance and health care. That's what it's all about. That's why we are so opposed to what you're doing here.

My colleagues have some comments and some questions for the minister, to deal with some of the other issues.

1120

Hon Mr Leach: Did you want me to respond to your comments?

Mr Hampton: You'll have your chance later. This is our time.

Hon Mr Leach: I didn't know whether you wanted me to respond.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you'll get lots of chances to answer because we've got a number of questions we want to put to you.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): That's NDP democracy.

Mr Silipo: Somebody's concerned about democracy over there.

Mr Hampton: What an incredible revelation.

Mr Silipo: That's a good start. Maybe we're going to start something.

Minister, I want to start with the process we have just begun here this morning. In your presentation, you lauded the legislative committee process and how great it is that this is part of the process. I want to try to understand from you, what parts of this legislation are you open to hearing change suggested to in this process?

Hon Mr Leach: Are you waiting to hear --

Mr Silipo: I'm asking you a question, yes.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to make all your statements first.

We're open to hearing all suggestions. What changes and what amendments we might make to this act are unknown at this time, until such time as we've heard all the input from the deputations. At this point in time I haven't heard anything that would cause me to change my view that a single, unified city is the most appropriate move for this community. However, we are quite prepared to have the residents of this city come here, make their presentations, hear them. If they make a point or a case that would cause us to make an amendment or change the bill in any way, we would be glad to do that. Once we've heard all the deputations, we'll do that.

Mr Silipo: I heard your parliamentary assistant last week at some time, and I can't remember whether it was in the House on second reading debate or exactly where, but he indicated that already -- I think these were the words -- there are some amendments you have contemplated making. Could you give us some idea of what those amendments might be?

Hon Mr Leach: The trustees, in their meetings with the CAOs from the various communities, have suggested several amendments in terms of the reporting by the communities to the trustees. There are some amendments that will simplify and make the process a little better as we go along.

Mr Silipo: I wonder if you would be willing to share those with us, sooner rather than later, so that if people are speaking to the committee and they have concerns about particular provisions which may disappear from the bill or may be changed, they have a chance, as we would, to take a look at those.

Hon Mr Leach: Again, we're not proposing any amendments at this time. What I said is that they have suggested some amendments. We would prefer to wait until we hear the deputants and the speakers and the organizations comment on this bill, and then we will determine whether there is actually a need to have amendments. I'm sure there will be. I don't think a piece of legislation has gone through this Legislature that hasn't had amendments of some sort, and I'm sure this one will as well. But we would prefer to wait until we have the views of the citizens known to us.

Mr Silipo: You mentioned the role of trustees, and that's one of the areas I want to pursue with you. In your comments you said that the board of trustees' only mandate is to make sure that municipal assets are safeguarded during a time of change. If that's your primary concern or your only concern with respect to the board of trustees' role, why does section after section in this bill completely tie the hands of the municipally elected politicians for the next year if this legislation is passed? Why is it that they basically can't go to the washroom without getting permission from the board of trustees?

Hon Mr Leach: That's a ridiculous statement. The municipalities, the elected councils of all six boroughs in Metropolitan Toronto, can continue to do business just as they have done in the past. The trustees are put there to safeguard the assets of the taxpayers of this community. It has happened in other jurisdictions that large severance packages to senior employees have been provided and then people hired back the next day. Will that happen here? I doubt it, but you're far better off having that safeguard for the taxpayers, to make sure their assets and their reserves are kept intact.

If the councils of the municipalities carry off their business in a responsible manner, as I'm sure they will, they won't even know the trustees are there.

Mr Silipo: That's my point. If you're so sure they will carry out their responsibilities in such a responsible manner, why do you need to have all these provisions hanging over their heads? If you're concerned about municipalities potentially getting rid of municipal assets, why not simply put in a provision in the bill which says municipalities are not allowed to dispose of their assets, period? Why do they have to provide monthly reports? Why do you have trustees be the ones who will set up the structure in terms of who's going to be the senior administration? Why do they have to have monthly reports in to the trustees? Why, as I say, do they at every turn have to seek and get permission from your group of three unelected, appointed officials if your only concern and your primary concern is that they not dispose of municipal assets?

Your words seem to indicate that you have some level of trust for the elected officials, but your actions in terms of the bill instead show complete contempt for the elected officials. The bill says very clearly that you don't trust them at all, that in fact what you want to do is make sure that every single conceivable action they take has to be approved by the trustees.

Hon Mr Leach: That's not correct. I guess some of my concern arose as a result of the motion passed by the council of East York on December 18 to explore ways of disposing of the assets of the borough of East York to a non-profit organization. That alone should be an indication that there's a need to have a safeguard. I think that's only prudent.

Why don't we just put something in the legislation that says you can't sell assets? Well, perhaps there might be a case where it would be appropriate for a municipality to sell an asset, and you would want them to have the ability to do that if it is appropriate. All we want to ensure is that the council of the new city and the taxpayers of the new city will have the rights to those assets that reside in each of the seven governments and the revenues there as well.

Mr Silipo: I would remind you that the actions of the East York council that you mentioned were taken after you introduced the legislation, so unless you knew that that's what they were going to do, that couldn't have been a reason for your having drafted the legislation prior to that.

Hon Mr Leach: And isn't that scary? After they knew that there would be trustees to oversee the actions, in spite of that, they passed a motion to explore ways and means of disposing of the assets. Doesn't that concern you? It concerns me that taxpayers' assets would be disposed of.

Mr Silipo: Again, if that's your concern, you can deal with it through far less draconian measures than what you're putting in place. There is no justification whatsoever for you to put these three appointed people -- I look forward to them appearing before the committee and hearing more about how they're going about doing their work. But there is no justification for you giving these three appointed people powers that are far greater, quite frankly, than you now have as the minister responsible, to the point that you say any decisions they make cannot even be reviewed by a court. If they make an error, you're protecting them from the normal process that any citizen now has against their duly elected officials, be they municipal or provincial.

1130

Doesn't that tell you that what you're doing here? Do you understand what you're doing on that score, or is this just something that maybe somebody convinced you was necessary that maybe on second thought you might not so readily agreed to?

Hon Mr Leach: I think it's far better to be safe than sorry. I would far prefer to have three individuals who are very experienced in municipal financing -- the chairman, Jack Pickard, was the treasurer for Metropolitan Toronto for just about all of its existence -- and to have them there to provide sober second thought to municipal councils that may -- and by their actions have indicated they're considering it, particularly the city of Toronto, again, which passed a motion saying they should explore the disposal of assets in a similar fashion to East York. To me, that's totally inappropriate and, to me, if there was ever any need or any doubt about the need to have a board of trustees, those two motions settled that question.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you talked about savings, and savings, I think you said, based on history. Can you tell us, please, outside of the KPMG study you like to flaunt around, what other studies you have or have seen that actually indicate that moving in this direction is going to save money?

Hon Mr Leach: There are a number of amalgamations that have taken place around Ontario over the years. Every year there are a number of amalgamations. As a matter of fact, there are 350 municipalities in Ontario that are involved in amalgamations right at the present time, all with the intent of saving money.

The city of Hamilton and Hamilton-Wentworth are proposing to save 5% of the budget. Kingston, for example, is proposing to save 5% of its budget through the amalgamations that are going on there. In the city of Ottawa, as I mentioned in my remarks, when they amalgamated the police departments of the various municipalities into one, it was done for cost savings and efficiency. Amalgamating the disposal of waste, of garbage, was done to achieve cost savings and efficiency.

That's what will happen with the services that are amalgamated here in a single city. You will gain those cost savings and efficiencies from having a single, unified city and not seven planning departments, six fire departments and six parks departments. All the savings that will accrue to the city as a whole as a result of those amalgamation will certainly save money.

Mr Silipo: It would be interesting for you to share those studies with us because I think what we will find when we look at them is that, just like the KPMG study, the bulk of those savings don't come from the amalgamation; they come from looking at better ways of doing things -- that's in fact what your KPMG study showed -- but which have nothing to do with amalgamation by and large.

If you read the KPMG study, that's what it says. It says that most of the savings don't come as a result of amalgamation. It also pointed out that the end result of the studies was the reduction of some 4,500 jobs at the end of the day, and one of the reasons you use for doing this is that this is going to help create more jobs within the city of Toronto. The first indication we have is that if you proceed along this line, we're going to see a reduction in jobs, jobs that are now going into actually delivering basic services to people across Metropolitan Toronto.

In terms of some of the other examples you mentioned, Minister, one of the interesting differences of course in what's happening or what you've done here in Metropolitan Toronto versus what is happening in Hamilton, in the Ottawa-Carleton area or anywhere else is that there, good or bad, there have been or continued to be some processes in place. The citizens, the elected officials locally have an opportunity to talk with each other and to look at the different alternatives to amalgamation.

Here, you've decided the course of action. Here, you've decided what's best for people and that's one of the affronts that continues to disturb and offend people across Metropolitan Toronto, that here in the largest municipality where there should be at least the same kind of process there has been in many of the other municipalities, despite the fact that what you're doing now is completely opposite to what you said in the last election you would do, you have chosen to go completely opposite. You've chosen to completely disregard any sense of process whatsoever. You misuse studies like the Golden task force report, which had no recommendation at all about getting rid of local municipalities, yet you include it in your list, assuming or wanting people to assume that it supports what you're saying when it supported the opposite direction of what you're moving in.

That's why we're going to continue to oppose what you're doing, going to continue to put you to the task of justifying line by line what you're doing in this bill, because you won't be able to at the end of the day.

Hon Mr Leach: You're mistaken when you say that the Golden report didn't support this. The Golden report supported amalgamation. They recommended going to four cities, which meant there was an elimination of two cities. Don't forget that.

When we looked at the Golden recommendation for four cities we gave it considerable review and a lot of attention because that was its recommendation. We looked at, how do we make this work? What we found was that when you try to dissolve down the 70% of the services that are presently provided at the upper tier, you have to divide the police department into four, or the transit into four, or social services into four; it doesn't work.

What did they recommend? They said, "If that's a problem, we'll set up special purpose bodies." You end up with a magnitude of special purpose bodies, and who are they responsible to? "Then we'll set up a committee of individuals from each of the four cities to oversee them." What have you done? You've just re-created Metro. You haven't accomplished anything.

On taking a look at that and reviewing and taking into consideration that about 70% of the major services are already at a single city delivery, it is far better to move those remaining services up into a single tier and have one unified city, get rid of all the artificial boundaries, create a city that would be strong and viable to take us into the 21st century, and that's the decision we made.

Mr Silipo: Why didn't you come to that conclusion a year and a half ago prior to the election? Why did you come to the opposite conclusion then? Why did you say then that you were going to get rid of Metro and you were going to then deal with the services at the local level by pushing some of them down to the local level and some up to the provincial level? You had all the information then. You promised the people of Metropolitan Toronto that you would not be getting rid of their local municipalities when you went into the election. You're the government and the party that likes to run around saying, "We're doing what we promised," and you're doing the opposite of what you promised.

Hon Mr Leach: Quite the contrary.

Mr Silipo: No, it's not quite the contrary. You're doing exactly the opposite.

Hon Mr Leach: We're doing exactly what we promised. We promised to get rid of a layer of government and we promised to get --

Mr Silipo: Isn't it interesting that Joyce Trimmer doesn't agree with you and she chaired that task force you were a member of?

The Chair: Order, please. Let's have some order.

Hon Mr Leach: I was a member of that task force and I know what the recommendations were and we carried out all eight of those recommendations that were in that task force. I was there; you weren't.

Ms Churley: We just have a few minutes left so I want to pick up on that. I have here A Vision for the Future, dated April 3, 1995. There are opening remarks here from Mike Harris, MPP:

"I would like to begin with one fundamental reality. When we talk about different levels of government and who should tax and pay for what, let us remember -- there is only one taxpayer.

"We must end the old politics of downloading one government's problems on to another."

That's one statement that was made. The other one is that quite clearly Mike Harris said, "These findings are leading the task force to conclude that Metro regional government in its current form must go." Later on, "Eliminating Metro government would result in the elimination of regional taxation," and on and on, very clearly.

I was at that GTA debate and I heard myself -- you said you were there -- the now Premier say that he would get rid of the Metro level of government and keep local government. That is not what happened here.

There is a consensus, I believe, that change needs to happen. All the studies I'm aware of, including the Joyce Trimmer study and the Golden report, talk about the need for change, but one of the overriding concerns you haven't really addressed is the restructuring of some kind of regional GTA governance. That has not been done here. What is happening is you're getting rid of local government and going in the exact opposite of what the Premier said when he was trying to get elected. You broke a fundamental promise.

Hon Mr Leach: That's not true.

Ms Churley: It is true. You and your government have shown contempt for the people of Toronto, and I'll tell you why.

Hon Mr Leach: That's not true.

Ms Churley: You broke a promise that you made during the election campaign, and then when you decided to do an about-face and do it this way, you haven't given people the opportunity to really engage in debate. We have the press involved in this debate. There are various members of the press here today -- I recognize them -- who are taking different positions. That's fine. The public out there, Minister -- I can tell you in my riding because I've been doing a lot of work in the riding and about -- a lot of people, still do not know what's going on.

1140

I get angry when I hear you and the Premier and the member for Brampton South and others, and the editorial in the Toronto Star, for that matter, when it criticizes the city councillors who are working with local people to try to get their message out. We have the Premier spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money extolling the virtues of what he believes is the correct route to go, ie, megacity -- with the good side of his face, I may add, well-lit, very slick ads -- millions of taxpayers' dollars being spent doing that.

Yet when the city of Toronto, working with local residents and the local councillors, tries with much less money and resources to put the other side out, there's criticism from you, from your government and from some of the editorials in the papers. I want to point out that is showing contempt for the people of Toronto and the elected representatives, whom we elected, to try to get the other side of this message out.

Hon Mr Leach: To respond to your question about what we committed to as a government during the pre-election time frame: We indicated that we would get rid of Metro and we're doing that. We indicated that we would reduce the number of politicians and we're doing that. We're doing that by creating a single, one-tier government to provide all the services that are there. We're scrapping Metro, we're scrapping the five cities and the borough.

Ms Churley: Yes, but you said you'd keep local government and you're not.

Hon Mr Leach: You also mentioned that you were concerned that we weren't dealing with the GTA. We're establishing a GTA services board. We have an individual, Milt Farrow, working on that. At the present time --

Ms Churley: Why aren't you amalgamating, by the way, in the GTA, in the 905 area? We know that there are, compared to say the Metro Toronto area, lots of politicians. If you want to get rid of politicians, why just rid of politicians in the Metro area? Why aren't you doing the same thing in the GTA? Why are you separating out Metro?

Hon Mr Leach: As I mentioned earlier, there are over 350 municipalities in the process of amalgamation and downsizing and restructuring and eliminating politicians and their communities. We have proposals from Halton, from York, from Durham to downsize the size of their councils and we agree with that. What we don't agree with is that you can have a one-size-fits-all, that you deal with every region in the same manner, because every region is different and every region should be explored on its own merit as to what's best for the taxpayers in that region.

Hamilton-Wentworth is not the same as Halton; Metropolitan Toronto is not the same as Ottawa-Carleton. We'll look at each individual region and determine what is best for the citizens of those regions, not take a cookie cutter and slam it down.

Ms Churley: Okay, but very clearly, in the studies, and quite rightly -- one of the things I agree with what you say is, there have been lots and lots of studies done and there needs to be action. I agree with that. But clearly none of the studies -- except for your own bogus study that was done in three weeks and nobody was talked to -- suggest doing what you're doing. I find that alarming and frightening, that you're going ahead and not taking the advice of people who have studied it for years.

What I want to know is: The overriding problem that emerged in studies around and about the GTA in terms of competition and all of that, the overriding concern, was the kind of coordination within the GTA; that is what has been causing a lot of the problems we're talking about here today. Amalgamating the local governments is not going to solve that. You're fixing a problem that doesn't really exist. That's what I don't understand.

Hon Mr Leach: What you have here is tremendous overlap and duplication. Why you need seven parks departments --

Ms Churley: You can fix overlapping of duplication without amalgamating and getting rid of our local, accountable councillors. There are lots of ways to do that.

Hon Mr Leach: You will have a local accountable council. Let's look at what the four mayors proposed. They proposed reducing the number of politicians by about 50%, going to 48 councillors. We're proposing 44. What's the difference? We'll have one elected mayor; they want six. Right now you have, as I pointed out, six fire departments, all with their own administration, communications and training. The waste and duplication just on that operation should be enough to indicate that going to a single city will create a better community.

Ms Churley: There's no proof of that, though, Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Even the parks departments themselves met and said that yes, there would be savings if we amalgamated, yes, it would end duplication and overlap. The police department has said a single city will work better. The people who deliver all the services out there say that yes, there are savings and there is better service delivery by going to a single city.

Ms Churley: Could I ask you one last question here? Do you support the kinds of advertising your government has been engaged in, faxing people in the middle of the night without a covering sheet saying who it's from, the Premier going on TV spending millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to extol the virtues of your plan, that your government was deemed -- or you in fact were deemed -- by the Speaker as being in contempt of the Legislature, therefore of the people?

Hon Mr Leach: That's not correct, and you know that.

Ms Churley: We can quibble over that. At the end of the day your members voted against that. Do you support the kind of advertising that is spending taxpayers' money that your government is doing?

Hon Mr Leach: We believe there's a strong need to get the message out to people in the most appropriate fashion. In my community, far before the government decided to put out any advertising, we were flooded with anti-amalgamation propaganda by the cities. I had the mayor, in a note delivered right to my door, pointing out all the reasons. If you want to talk about an undemocratic process, the city of Toronto taking taxpayers' money and giving it only to those who oppose --

Ms Churley: So it's okay for you to do it but it's not okay for the city of Toronto to do it. What's the difference? You're not giving both views. That's my point here.

Hon Mr Leach: We're not giving money to intervenor groups either.

The Chair: Order.

Ms Churley: That is my point here, Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: We're not giving money to the special groups to go out and hold a tug of war.

The Chair: Order, please. Minister and Ms Churley, unfortunately we've come to the end of the 30 minutes for the third party. Thank you, Minister, for coming forward today. I appreciate your coming forward for the time you did this morning.

1150

ALAN TONKS

The Chair: We have one more presenter before we break, the chairman, Alan Tonks, of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Chairman Tonks, would you come forward, please.

Mr Sergio: Since he agrees to this proposal about not hearing the opposing side, can we dispose of hearing him?

Mr Gilchrist: I hope that's on the record. Mr Sergio has suggested that we don't listen to anybody in favour of the bill. We want to hear what you have to say even the Liberals don't.

Mr Sergio: You're so full of nonsense.

The Chair: Order, please. Thank you, Chairman Tonks, for coming to appear before the committee today.

Mr Alan Tonks: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I've anticipated being in the House twice. Only during these hearings and from sitting here listening to the cut and thrust of your decisions do I come to the conclusion of the difference between a parliamentary system and how cities operate. In your parliamentary approach you're attempting, through the cut and thrust of your partisan relationships, to focus on the truth of what makes for a really great city, and I applaud you in attempting to do that.

Please don't get what I'm saying wrong, but cities, from my experience, are so grass-roots that cut and thrust of partisanship sometimes takes on a different spirit. I have chosen to be part of that spirit, and I'd like to try to show you a little insight into that in my discussion today.

I support the concept of a united city. It's in a better position than a fragmented city to meet the global economic challenges and to position the core of the greater Toronto region. It offers the best hope to maintain the culture of civility of this community. Communities are made great by people, not necessarily by politicians, and sometimes we forget that.

We share the same challenges for the future and we should be united in dealing with them. To surmount these challenges we need a united city, a unified city. It will be less top-heavy, less bureaucratic and more efficient. Amalgamation doesn't mean bigger government; it means leaner government. Amalgamation won't just make our government more efficient to run; it will make it easier to understand. People will know who to turn to when they need help and they will know who to hold accountable when they are unable to get it.

My vision of the united city is one of a sustainable, diverse urban community that is economically vital, environmentally healthy and socially strong; a city where challenges of growth and change are met in an integrated and balanced way, where economic competitiveness and civility are not mutually exclusive, where people help each other and the community's interest is paramount.

This requires partnerships with the federal and provincial governments, the community, public agencies and private organizations. This requires that the united city has the legislative and financial capacity to thrive, a sound financial platform. Without this the city will be doomed before it is even created. The impact would be decline in our neighbourhoods, accompanied by a flight of businesses, jobs and people, weakening our tax base and hollowing our core. Cities create wealth. Wealthy cities lead to wealthy suburbs, and competitive cities are critical to a competitive province.

Today I'm going to try to disentangle two very separate issues: one, which is the focus of these hearings, is the question of what kind of political structure Metropolitan Toronto needs; the other is which level of government, provincial or municipal, should pay for which services. While separate issues, decisions regarding who should pay for what have the potential to either capture the opportunities afforded by a united city or make the political structure irrelevant. Without a strong financial foundation, no format of municipal government could maintain our quality of life and continue to address the needs of our citizens.

Just remember that while about 50% of the GTA population lives in Metro, 72% of the people living in the GTA who are over 65 years old live in Metro, 66% of all GTA households earning less than $20,000 a year live in Metro and 89,000 children under 10 years old live in poverty and live here in Metro. I have said that is a city of poor children greater than the population of a very large city to the north of us, Barrie.

One can agree with the provincial government's proposed structure for municipal government, as I do, while strongly disagreeing with its proposed funding formula, as I do.

Before I turn to Bill 103 I must address the downloading issue just very briefly.

The public embraces the need for change and knows the time is now. What the public fears is the unknown financial impacts on their property and business taxes. At the present time we're playing a game which, on the roll of the dice, threatens to place them and their families in harm's way. People are worried.

Just consider the options the united city would face to try to make up a $379-million gap, and I realize there are figures that indicate it's even greater than that. The board of trade estimates it would require a $350 annual property tax increase for the average Metro homeowner and a $7,900 annual increase for the average commercial business, and it could get worse. Promised contingency funds will not get us out of this fiscal straitjacket that the downloading will tie us in. We must find an option to produce a revenue-neutral solution. We must protect the taxpaying citizens of the new Toronto: our renters, our homeowners, our businesses, our industry, our future.

Now I'd like to focus on Bill 103. I am critical of the process for amalgamation envisaged by Bill 103. The legislation as drafted requires substantive revision in a number of areas. While a detailed submission will be forthcoming from Metro council, let me outline the key issues as they concern the board of trustees, the transition team and neighbourhood committees.

First I want to talk about the board of trustees, section 9 to section 15. The board of trustees violates the basic democratic principle that a municipal government must be in a position to be accountable to its electors. How can it be accountable if it can't make decisions in what it judges to be the best interests of its electors? The board of trustees severely restricts the ability of the elected representatives of Metro Toronto's residents to govern. It seems based on the presumption that the existing councils can't be trusted, and as an elected public official and servant and on behalf of my colleagues, might I say that notion offends me.

My recommendation to you is to scrap sections 9 to 15 entirely and not to have a board of trustees at all. There are sufficient checks and balances in the legislative and regulatory relationship between the province and municipalities now to permit the existing councils to get on with the job of carrying out the mandates vested in them by their electors. Bill 103 should simply emphasize that the existing councils will continue to be guided by the principles of financial best practices and due diligence.

If you don't eliminate the board of trustees, then at the very least limit the extent to which they intrude on the daily business of the elected councils. Micromanagement by the board of trustees is inappropriate. For example, the list of what old councils should not do, clauses 10(1)(b) to (g), should be replaced with a clause that indicates that once a council's 1997 budget is approved by the board of trustees, only financial matters not contemplated in that budget and/or matters not consistent with the contracts and collective agreements need further approval from the board of trustees.

Second, the transition team, which is sections 16 through 21, needs to be rethought. The transition team also violates the accountability principle. The actions of the transition team will place unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on the ability of the duly elected new council to make important decisions about how it carries on its business, whom it employs and even how much it's allowed to raise or spend. If at the outset the new council can't be trusted to make these kinds of decisions, why create it in the first place?

Sections 16 through 21 must be changed to limit the scope of the transition team to ensuring that the bare minimum structure is in place to allow the new council to begin functioning. This means that you must scope the mandate of the transition team to developing a plan for the consolidation of general government functions which the new city council can then implement quickly, and to researching the most effective tools for citizen involvement. When it is in office, the new council can make the necessary decisions about the organization of the new municipality and its approach to doing business.

Bill 103 should provide for an interim period at the start of the new council's mandate during which all municipal department heads report to the new council until such time as fair hiring processes have been successfully completed. The transition team may be mandated the responsibility for hiring a new solicitor, clerk, treasurer and auditor in preparation for the consolidation of general government functions, which should be the first priority of the new council. Transition from the fragmented to a unified city in the areas of general administration and management shouldn't, and needn't, miss a beat. It must be the new council that undertakes consolidation of newly acquired service functions. How could it be otherwise? Metro's experience is that service delivery must be equally distributed across the whole area, based on sound research and on individual community needs.

1200

I recommend, then, that a more effective approach would be for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to appoint a special benchmarking committee to monitor the consolidation and progress of the new city council and report its findings annually through the Provincial Auditor's report.

Third, the idea of establishing neighbourhood committees -- section 5 and clause 16(4)(e) -- is not thoroughly thought out. On the one hand, the united city must ensure that opportunities for higher citizenship are unparalleled; that it supports strong communities with equitable access to opportunities, resources and services; and that it fosters a sense of pride, identity and shared responsibility among people who live and work in the city. On the other hand, however, I don't believe that simply requiring the new city to enact a bylaw creating neighbourhood committees will achieve this. Surely it is council that needs to work with and listen to the community about what matters to them. Citizens must be more directly brought into this process of change before we enshrine it in any type of model through legislation.

Why ignore the process for city planning which already exists? Bill 103, subsection 2(2), does not require the new city to have an official plan. This surely must be an oversight. The most effective way to get neighbourhood involvement would be to develop an official plan for the new city. The constituents I have talked to want a voice on a broad range of issues, interrelated issues concerning planning for the entire city: the environment, social policy, economic development, cultural expression. Revision to subsection 2(2) giving the new city all the powers and duties of Metropolitan Toronto is critical to community access. In this way, the new city would be required to prepare and maintain an official plan, and with it the public process for planning the new city. Out of this process will emerge ideas for structures that will provide for real and continuing citizen participation, which, at the planning level, will be unparalleled in the history of this city.

I cannot emphasize how important it is that in this area of citizen consultations, we get it right: balancing our local planning concerns that affect neighbourhoods and the large social, environmental and economic issues that underpin the future sustainability of this city. It is not beyond the capacity of this city to achieve this objective, and in order to do so, it must not be rushed.

This debate should not be trivialized to focus on pro- or anti-megacity. It is not about the institutions of government; it is about people who share a quality of life. What has given us that quality of life are our values, beliefs and attitudes and the political culture of sharing and caring. I simply cannot believe these will disappear with the elimination of some internal borders, a half-dozen city halls and a few thousand bylaws. Anyone who seriously believes that vastly underestimates the people of this city.

That is not to say that these cultural values cannot be undermined. Indeed they can. I believe Toronto must be a united city, but it can be slowly and irreversibly destroyed by the erosion of our ability to pay for services that keep our city safe, clean, socially peaceful and neighbourly. Disentanglement must result in a solution that is revenue-neutral for this community. The future citizens of the unified city will be the ones who will be the beneficiaries or the victims of that. Fix the foundation that is at risk -- that is, the financial foundation -- and together we will tackle the future.

The people who built this city were visionaries, people who had a dream of how the interests of the community interrelated, and their achievement is a city that works. This is the Metro story. Now it remains for us, the beneficiaries, to write the next new, exciting chapter in the history of this city, a unified city built on strong neighbourhoods and harnessing its enormous potential through new structures of citizen involvement.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair: We have about three and a half minutes per caucus for questions, starting with the opposition.

Mr Colle: As you know, your commissioner said on Friday that this mega-dumping on to the new proposed city is going to cost Metro another $530 million. The average taxpayer picks up about $400 per home. I think you've stated very clearly that the new city can't work if it starts in this hole.

I commend you for really elucidating the fact that the city doesn't work only as a government plan on paper, because you know the reality of dealing with the homeless, the aged and the children in Metro.

I want to get your comments. A couple of weeks ago, when told of Metro's concern about this lack of consultation on this tax gap for Metro, the minister's comment was: "Well, these cuts are nothing. What's another $378 million? There have been cuts since Christ was a cowboy." That was how he demeaned the task that's before anybody who's going to govern the new city.

Could you put that on the record in terms of the reality of trying to meet a $500-million gap and providing for a city that works in neighbourhoods and a city that works in hospitals and a city that works for the children; that it's not just some easy thing that anybody can do and trivialize it as something that's been done forever, without even any consideration? Could you put into perspective what it has meant to you over the last four or five years at Metro?

Mr Tonks: First of all, I would suggest that if we could advance the timetable a couple of years, I don't think any provincial government would try to foist that on a united city with strong representation that would very vociferously oppose that kind of thing.

The additional impact beyond that which was announced, the $379-million impact, is with respect to long-term care and the drug assistance portions of those programs.

To answer the question, I may be an idealist -- I've been accused of a number of things, but if it is an idealist, I certainly wouldn't shirk away from that characterization -- but I always believe that people of goodwill and good faith who recognize that there's going to be harm inflicted on anyone are prepared to step back and readdress the approaches they're taking.

I'll give you an example of how that most recently was done, and this is a fair statement, that Metropolitan Toronto, as of March, would have to get rid of 3,500 day care spaces. Last year we said to this government, "If that happens, it's going to be devastating to your workfare programs and so on." The community and social services minister announced on Friday -- and I thanked her -- that the province listened to Metro and has found a better way of protecting those day care spaces.

All I'm saying to all the members is, help us to find ways to recognize that, should the impact be devastating and take us all away from what we want for this city, let's reappraise it and let's find new solutions. The idealism part of that, to Mr Colle, is that I believe that if there's a will, there are ways that will be found. I'm certainly going to find those ways, and I think part of this process will be a step in that direction.

1210

Mr Silipo: Mr Tonks, thank you for the presentation. I appreciate on the one hand your very clearly making the link between what the government is doing under Bill 103 and the downloading of costs on to the property tax base, and there are many other pieces in your presentation that, if we had time, I'd like to get into. But I have to tell you, sir, as a member of the provincial Legislature who represents part of Metropolitan Toronto, I am troubled and, I have to tell you, I take great offence at seeing the chair of the Metropolitan Toronto council appear in front of this committee, speak for 20 minutes, and not once mention the official position of the Metropolitan Toronto council on amalgamation.

As you know better than I, sir, that position, as I understand it, is that the Metropolitan Toronto level should be abolished and that we should move to a GTA level of governance. Why have you not, in 20 minutes of presentation, even touched upon the official position of your council?

Mr Tonks: The difference between the parliamentary system and that to which the member is referring, the local system, is that the members of the Metropolitan council give their chairman quite a bit of latitude because they recognize that he also represents a smaller part of the constituency. I have represented a personal view with respect to my position on the unified city. Members of my council may call me to account for that and I will remain subject to that, but at no time has any member of my council said or suggested that I shouldn't have the opportunity to verbally represent that case I have.

Second, with respect to the second part of the point, on the elimination of Metro government, Metropolitan council has not taken a position with respect to that issue. I have indicated that I would like another opportunity to appear before the committee because there is a draft paper before the council that will be subsequently approved, towards the end of February. I have asked for another opportunity to appear before the committee and to present Metropolitan council's view.

Mr Silipo: I'll be happy to go back and re-read what I thought was the position of Metro council on this.

Chair Tonks, I don't have any trouble at all with you and the other mayors who appear before us giving their personal views on this; I'm not at all objecting to that. But I would think that if we scheduled you and the other mayors for 30 minutes, you would at least have the decency to tell us what your official council position is.

Mr Tonks: Mr Chairman, I take great exception to the word "decency." It's a value-loaded term that may be applicable --

Mr Silipo: It's intended to be.

Mr Tonks: -- in the confines of the questioner, but it's not mine.

Mr Silipo: Do your job. Come on.

Mr Tonks: The people will be the judge of that, Mr Silipo, just as they'll be your judge.

Mr Silipo: Absolutely.

The Chair: Thank you, Chairman Tonks. We now move to the government caucus time, starting with Minister Leach, followed by Mr Hastings.

Hon Mr Leach: A very good presentation, Mr Tonks. There are a couple of concerns you have that I would like to address. First, you were concerned about the trustees overseeing the budget. Once the budget of the various municipalities is set, as long as they stay within that budget, there's no need to return to the trustees for anything. If they establish a budget and stay within it, they'll never see the trustees. I think the trustees have asked for a monthly report just to show they have stayed within it. I think that concern might be alleviated.

The transition team is making recommendations to the new council. What we want them to have an opportunity to do, of course, is to select some of the senior staff so that when the new council is elected, they can come in and start to work right away. If the new council determines that the staff that were selected aren't appropriate, it will be within their power to reverse those decisions. Once they're elected, they have the job to do that.

I understand that you concur with a single united city but you have some concerns with the process. You would probably agree that the transition team, for example, could develop that process, working with the existing municipalities.

The other thing I just wanted to make sure you're aware of is that Bill 103 is creating a foundation for change. A second piece of legislation will be brought in shortly which will get into the details, for example, of creating an official plan. All those details will be dealt with in that second piece of legislation. What we're dealing with now is just the foundation for change and giving us an opportunity to get on with it.

I hope those comments will alleviate some of the concerns. We look forward to working with the five cities, the borough and Metropolitan Toronto in ensuring that this single city can be put in place in a very effective manner.

The Chair: If you would care to respond, you may, Chairman Tonks.

Mr Tonks: I guess the problem I have is that the transition team appears to be focused in a manner that it's actually going to provide the solutions, if you will, to real citizen participation through real structure. My position is that if you dream that's possible in the time frame, then we're dreaming in Technicolor.

Hon Mr Leach: That's a job for the new council. There isn't any doubt about that.

Mr Tonks: Yes, if the transition team is going to research some models and provide those as points of departure for the council, I think that's right.

What the people are really concerned about, whether they're people involved in any aspect of life in the city -- business, the arts, the social parts of the city -- as I've indicated before, we shouldn't miss a blink, that the continuing service delivery system works while the new format of governance is being implemented by the new structure.

The Chair: Thank you, Chairman Tonks, for coming forward to make your presentation today. Unfortunately, Mr Hastings, that conversation exhausted the government caucus time. This committee will recess until 3:30 this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1216 to 1530.

JANE JACOBS

The Chair: This afternoon's first deputant is Jane Jacobs. Please come forward. Ms Jacobs, you have 10 minutes this afternoon to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. If you leave some time at the end of your presentation, it will start off with the opposition caucus asking you some questions on your presentation, if you decide you would like to entertain them. You may begin at any time.

Ms Jane Jacobs: I'm within the 10 minutes, or almost 10.

I oppose amalgamation of Toronto, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, York and East York for many of the same reasons others oppose it but will use my 10 minutes to emphasize that cities do not thrive from central planning, including megacity planning. A city of social and economic vitality contains and nourishes details and differences in mind-boggling quantities. Respect for details and differences is of the essence.

For instance, a small town can be economically pretty much all of a piece, that is, flourishing or declining as a unit. But in a city some places are apt to be in social or economic trouble at the very same time other parts are prospering or maintaining an even keel. Thus, a city's government ought to be flexible enough to respond to radically different needs and opportunities at the same given time.

For example, last year, at the initiative of the mayor and council, the city of Toronto introduced a new planning philosophy into two small specific downtown areas in serious trouble. Not incidentally, the change was made with patient and complete democratic procedures and safeguards. Megacity bureaucracies do not employ this sort of pinpointed awareness and responsiveness. They can't, because their jurisdictions are too big and complex.

I would judge that the city of Toronto is probably close to the limit at which true flexible responsiveness of the kind mentioned is feasible. Appointed neighbourhood citizens' bodies, like New York City's community planning boards, are not remedies for the shortcomings of megacities. I served on one of those community boards in New York for many years, and I assure you, though we tried hard and though our board was one of the more conscientious and fair, the system was a flop compared with the human-scale elected local governments we are lucky enough to have.

All bureaucracies make mistakes, but megacity bureaucracies tend to make big, big mistakes, like the elevated Gardiner Expressway, for example. What is worse, they tend thereafter to be paralysed with respect to correcting their mistakes or learning from them. For instance, when the city of Toronto was granted autonomous control over its social housing under Mayor Crombie about 25 years ago, it promptly switched away from housing projects in favour of socially and economically superior infill housing and also created the St Lawrence neighbourhood, deliberately modelling it on city strengths rather than project weaknesses. Contrast this with the brain-dead and otherwise notorious record to this day of the Metro housing authority, the third-largest landlord in North America.

Apparently the Ontario government wants to amalgamate our city governments for the purpose of cutting out confusions and duplications, improving services and reducing waste. Good aims. But depend upon it, in real life the side-effects of amalgamation would contradict those aims. It defies common sense to afflict the businesses and residents of six cities with government that will be less responsive than what they have now, more prone to costly error because less on top of detailed realities, more inert, and very likely more vulnerable to favouritism and hidden agendas at the expense of taxpayers and the public treasury.

We all recognize, I think, that these are times of rapid change when we need to welcome innovative better ways of doing things. Many traditionally monopolistic public services need to be opened up to entrepreneurs and others with good ideas; also, with good jobs if their initiatives pan out. Great ranges of activities from transportation and sewage treatment to recycling services, products and technology invite innovative development. But governments can, and too often do, discourage experimenting and prevent or delay privately undertaken initiatives that trespass into their traditional preserves. All central planning is at odds with multiple and diverse experimenting. To be sure, small bureaucracies, small governments can be as brain-dead as big ones, but at least, if they are multiple, when one says no or just doesn't get it, the old saying applies: not all the eggs are in that basket.

Whatever Metro's virtues were at the start, it now behaves like a dysfunctional family. Its members are suspicious of one another. They gang up on each other. The wrangles concern activities that are already amalgamated. The few Metro coordinating services really necessary and really conducted amiably are now geographically irrelevant. Anyone who supposes harmony will prevail and efficiency reign after whole-hog amalgamation has taken leave of common sense. These six cities really are different and the differences won't be erased by dint of everybody trying to mind everybody else's business and beat down every local vision different from their own.

The Golden report had it right: strengthen the local city governments by doing away with Metro. Coordinate fewer and more carefully selected responsibilities at scales which are actually rational for their functions.

The ugly conflicts in Metro over methods of property taxation arise ultimately because over the years large and inappropriate burdens have been piled upon property taxes, the only way Ontario cities have of levying taxes. Property taxes hit poor renters and struggling businesses disproportionately heavily compared with their means. That's why welfare costs in property tax bills are unjust as well as impractical. The same applies to support of public schools, essentially another type of social transfer payment. Both belong on income tax. Provincial governments, no matter whether Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic, have one and all been frightened of biting that bullet. But the injustices and makeshifts of the property tax mess are now already intractable. To place still further inappropriate burdens on that tax will make what is now intractable intolerable, no matter how the take is pooled.

There are ways out of relationships if and when they become intolerably destructive. One possible escape could be to create a new province, South Ontario. In that event, South Ontario and North Ontario could each set its own preferred tax and other provincial policies. North Ontario, of course, would still depend heavily on subsidies from South Ontario's economy but only indirectly through Ottawa, much as if North Ontario were an Atlantic province.

However, it would be much, much more sensible to avoid an intolerable future leading to deterioration and disruption by intelligently and courageously facing realities in the fine province of Ontario that we do have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jacobs. You've used your time very effectively right up to only 10 seconds remaining so there will no time available for questions from either caucus. I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

Ms Jacobs: You're welcome. Thank you for listening.

1540

JEANNINE LOCKE

The Chair: Would Jeannine Locke please come forward. Welcome to the committee this afternoon. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit. Any remaining time will be allotted to the opposition party for questions.

Ms Jeannine Locke: It's fairly formidable to follow Jane Jacobs. Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I have no idea how, among the hundreds of petitioners, I happen to be here, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

For your information, I've lived in five cities during my long adulthood: Saskatoon was the home from whence I set out to make my fame and fortune. Ottawa, London, England and New York City were stops on the way to Toronto where, 30 years ago, I elected to settle in, to become a citizen, not merely a consumer of the riches accessible to me here.

I feel favoured to have been present during Toronto's evolution into the cosmopolitan city that was recently celebrated by Fortune magazine. Northrop Frye, speaking of his city, in his very last public speech before he died, saw Toronto's real glory, "in the tolerated variety of the people in its streets." In other words, this is a great place to live. Toronto works the way it is, with its 16 wards of manageable size.

I'll give you an example from my own personal experience of just how democratically it does work. In 1969, I was living where I still live, on Belmont Street, in a row of small houses that were built when Yorkville was a village. Behind our row is Ramsden Park, lovely and lively in all seasons. Our only midtown park, it has playing fields that accommodate all ages. No one nowadays would dream of disturbing its busy useful life. But back in 1969, Toronto was still infatuated with bigness. We gloried in our high-rising buildings and our Gardiner Expressway.

It happened that Ramsden was threatened by a land swap that would have allowed Greenwin development to build on city property immediately adjoining the park. Two looming apartment towers, with their attendant heavy traffic, would have radically changed the character of the park. Three women, neighbours, myself and two other freelance journalists, decided to resist progress in aid of our park. We would take on city hall.

Along with steady attendance at committee meetings, where we were treated playfully at first, we contacted ratepayer groups across the city and made the rounds of newsrooms and editorial boards. Within six weeks, we had crowds behind us. There was a community out there. In June 1969, a monster rally in Ramsden brought together, for the first time, all the ratepayers groups in the 16 wards. CHUM, a good neighbour, supplied a sound system, music and stage. We made a great racket that day in the park. City hall got the message. Ramsden was saved, and it all started with only three women with resources only of energy, endurance and the attractions of a good cause.

In the same year, two women, according to Saturday's Globe and Mail, were responsible for initiating the campaign that stopped the Spadina Expressway. Surely that is democracy at its most economical and efficacious.

Now, 28 years later, it might seem that nothing has changed. Aroused citizens are meeting again across not only Toronto but the whole Metro area in schools, auditoriums, theatres, churches and kitchens to campaign against Bill 103. But the circumstances tragically could not be more different. We're dealing now with a majority provincial government that doesn't listen and has declared that it won't listen, not only to its citizens who are opposed to being swallowed up and regurgitated into a single megacity, but even to all those respectable people in groups with certified expertise who are as baffled as the rest of us.

Instead of public debate, the government assaults us with a blitz of propaganda, a province-wide letter implying that the bill was passed. It was later censured by the Speaker of the Legislature. Then there's the omnipresent TV advertising campaign, and finally hundreds of thousands of anonymous faxes in aid of the government's programs. The fax machines are probably whirring in this building as we speak: all of this not to inform us but to keep us innocent of the information that we need. Instead of building community in order to confront the real problems in this province, our government is turning us against each other: 905 versus 416. What a puzzlement this must be to newcomers.

Why the unseemly haste? We have muddled along for 200 years and suddenly in a single week our government presents us with such massive change and attendant chaos that it is literally breathtaking. It's also, according to John Ralston Saul, "The classic corporate takeover strategy: By changing everything at once, you create confusion among the enemy." The enemy being us. That's the shattering idea.

I'll try to end my allotted time with ideas that are more inspirational. Here I'm quoting again from Northrop Frye's last public speech, its very last paragraph:

"Society must be loyal, but in a democracy there are no uncritical loyalties. There must always be a tension of loyalties, not in the sense of opposed forces pulling apart but in the sense of one feeling of belonging attached to and complemented by another, which is very often the relating of a smaller ethnical community to a larger one."

It is through some such process as this, Dr Frye believed, that the development of Canada must make its way.

Finally, I heard on the news yesterday of a monument being unveiled in Ottawa in honour of Tommy Douglas, the pioneer of medicare. The inscription on the monument is a message from Tommy that I'll leave with your committee: "Courage, my friends. It's not too late to make a better world." Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. There are two minutes remaining for questions coming from the opposition caucus.

Mr Colle: Thank you very much, Mrs Locke, for coming. I think the question I have for you is, why are you so afraid of this megacity bill? I know the minister has said here it's just politicians afraid of losing their jobs. He said it's just the left-wing radicals. Why are you concerned about this megacity as a citizen of Toronto?

Ms Locke: I think it's because in the time that I've lived not only here but in a variety of places one sees mistakes being made. It's very hard at my age to believe in the infallibility of almost anyone, let alone politicians, and I think there is that wonderful tension of loyalties when you get a manageable size, as I tried to illustrate with the Ramsden experience.

It would never have occurred to me, for example, to take this to a huge, city-wide council because I don't think my little park would have meant very much in those circumstances. But I lived in that neighbourhood of that park and I knew what would happen to that park. The city hall councillors had made that decision, thinking: "Aha, a wonderful increase to our tax base in this neighbourhood. Two 27-storey shining towers. How economical. How wonderful." Joe Piccininni in fact did say to me one day as to a sort of patient retarded child that he couldn't understand why I would prefer this sort of general untidiness of my background when I could have these two beautiful towers that I could be nesting at the foot of. So I just --

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Locke.

Ms Locke: Accessibility is my --

The Chair: I apologize for interrupting. You've come to the end of your 10 minutes. I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

1550

MIRIAM KAUFMAN

The Chair: Could Miriam Kaufman please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Dr Miriam Kaufman: I'm Dr Miriam Kaufman. I'm a paediatrician who has been practising in downtown Toronto since the middle of 1982 and I live in the city of York, although my mail never seems to come to city of York. It always says "Toronto" and gets to me anyway.

I don't think it's surprising that the last two speakers and I have all lived in the United States. I don't think this is just because when you live in the United States, you turn into a rabble-rouser. I think it's because we have all seen megacities in one way or another in our personal experience and have been pleased to have avoided living in one of them since we have moved to this country or come back to this country as in my case.

I was talking to my parents last night in Georgia and my father said, "I think there's a generation gap here." He said: "We went to the big cities a generation ago and now know they're a mistake. You guys haven't figured that out yet and you're going to make the same mistake again." I think that's what we would like to prevent happening.

Unlike many people who are here today, although I don't think gigantic is great, I also don't think tiny is always terrific and I do in fact favour some amalgamation. As I said, I live in the city of York and I would like the city of York to be amalgamated with Toronto or North York or Etobicoke, whatever geographically made sense.

However, I would like that because I think it would help us in our building of a community. We have difficulties with York being so small with giant Toronto, in my case three doors down the street, in sometimes building a community that makes sense to us geographically. To me, community building is very important, but communities are not built by governments making decisions about who's going to be part of what megacity or what smaller city. Communities are built by the people who live in them.

Many of us who live in the communities in Toronto have this feeling with this proposed legislation that somehow or other we're being punished for our misdeeds. We don't know what those misdeeds are, but we must have done something wrong to have this imposed upon us rather than being able to build our own communities. I think it's important for the health of our communities for them not just to be cities but to be communities in the best sense of the word and I think we need to be able to do that.

I think the introduction of this legislation is good because it has lit a fire under some of the politicians within the different cities in Metro to look at amalgamating in smaller ways, to look at making things more efficient. In my own city, our city council voted to approach the city of Toronto about amalgamating those two cities. I think that's the usefulness of this legislation, that it has forced people to think. I would like it to stop at that point and to let us move along with building our own communities, with making things more efficient, without this kind of top-down thing.

I'm going to be quick, because I know there are many people here today who have a lot more to say than I do, but I just wanted to say one other thing. When I started thinking about the whole megacity idea, I started thinking about how some of my friends reacted when the Price Club, or actually its predecessor, opened in Toronto. People thought it was really great and definitely thought bigger was better and rushed off to the Price Club and came home with 20-pound bags of popcorn and gigantic things of corn flakes. They were proselytizing about the Price Club and how I really should go to the Price Club and buy these huge things that would save me a lot of money.

They stopped doing that after a couple of months, and I thought to ask about it. They said: "You know, it seemed like we were saving a lot of money, but when we actually got there -- we've been throwing away a lot of stuff. The kids will not eat corn flakes every morning for six weeks." Then you throw it into the compost and it turns into cement and that's a whole other problem. It's very difficult to go through 20 pounds of popcorn in the time it stays fresh. All of a sudden, those people are saying: "Maybe bigger is not actually better. Maybe I should go back to my local grocery store and be buying things in more reasonably sized packages."

Those people don't stay away from the Price Club altogether. When they have a big purchase to make, they go there. I would say that the analogy to that is something like police services, which I think make sense to have Metro-wide. We should be able to go to the government price club when we need it but we shouldn't be forced to do all of our shopping there. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Kaufman. We have about four and half minutes left. If you'd like, you could stay and entertain some questions from the third party.

Mr Silipo: Ms Kaufman, I appreciate the point you're making that some change is not only necessary but is desirable. In fact, one of the problems we see with this legislation is that it doesn't give the opportunity for that kind of discussion that you want and, I suspect, many others want to try to come up with what the alternatives might be. The government clearly has made up its mind, it seems, and so far is saying it won't be budged from that. I just wondered if you could expound a little more on that point of what we would need to do to give people in Metropolitan Toronto the kind of time that still would result in some changes happening, so it wouldn't be seen as a way to just say, "No, we don't want to do anything," but at the same time really engage people in a serious discussion that would lead to some consensus perhaps emerging around what changes we should make.

Dr Kaufman: Well, I'm not a politician, I'm not a lawyer or anything like that.

Mr Silipo: That may be of benefit in this case.

Dr Kaufman: What I would like to see is some kind of legislation that would insist on the cities coming up with a business plan that looks at efficiencies, that looks seriously at getting together with the other cities around things that should be amalgamated, but also finding some way to encourage cities to undergo mini-amalgamations. I would love to see three or four municipalities a year or two from now.

As a physician, I've been trained to look at the evidence. This is our buzzword these days: "evidence-based medicine." We really like to look at what the evidence is. I started looking around for evidence that megacities will save money or do things more efficiently. I haven't been able to find that. Now, I'm not adept at the city planning literature, and maybe I've missed that. But I would like somebody, some committee or something, to look at what is the real evidence, not that people think it's a good idea, but what's the evidence that where it's been tried it actually works?

Ms Lankin: I appreciate your presentation. I was struck by your comment that you feel like we must have done something wrong here in Metro; we're being punished for something. In a way, that's the thing I can't understand about all of this. Take a look at how the government is proceeding in areas like Hamilton-Wentworth, where there has been a process and its citizens' forum that's been involved in advising the politicians; the way they're setting out a process for Ottawa-Carleton to continue on the road of looking at their changes; and how they're just beginning discussions with the 905 area, and they say it's going to take some time.

1600

It seems like other parts of the province are being treated differently and are recognizing a sense of process. The government says there's been lots of studies, but none has been with real citizen involvement and none has recommended this option. How do you respond when you see different processes in different parts of the province?

Dr Kaufman: I feel resentful. I have to say it never occurred to me to feel any animosity towards people who lived in one area code over another before all of this. But I was reading somewhere that after all this happens, the area around Toronto will have about the same population as in the new Toronto, but with 29 governments. Somehow or other, it seems to me that they need less but that we maybe need more than one. There is this feeling of somehow or other we must have done something wrong to be treated in this fashion, which people in other parts of the province don't seem to be being treated in.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Kaufman, for your presentation today. I'm not sure the folks at Kellogg's appreciated some of it, but the rest of us do appreciate you coming forward and making your presentation to the committee.

KYLE RAE

The Chair: Would Kyle Rae please come forward? Good afternoon, Mr Rae.

Mr Kyle Rae: Thank you. I first of all would like to thank Isabel Bassett for being here. You're my MPP and I think it's very important that you hear what people have to say about this issue. I'm really gratified to know that you're taking the time to be here. It's unfortunate that the minister who has introduced this has left. I will soon be his constituent; I'm moving in April. I remember during the last election at the 519 Church Street Community Centre all-candidates meeting, he repeatedly used the term, "I won't blow smoke at ya." Well, if there ain't smoke been blown at us, I don't what is. It's just incredible what's been blown by that minister at the city of Toronto and other municipalities in Metro.

I have spoken to many committees over the years. I've gone up to Ottawa and I've been here in the previous government and this government; Bill 26, for example, and rent control. I have never had a harder time trying to figure out what to say to a government about an issue because they made it so patently clear at the very beginning that they don't want to listen. I have never experienced that in my life and I am ashamed to say that I am experiencing that in Ontario. I think you hear that from the people who have spoken to you today. I've heard it just from the two previous speakers this afternoon.

I can't believe that a government is only interested in what it believes in and is not interested in the facts. That's what I've been hearing time and time again. I had the opportunity to read Minister Leach's speech earlier today, and it's full of beliefs, not about facts. It's what he wants to achieve. It's about an ideology. It's not about, how do you fix local government?

I can't believe the degree of hostility. First of all, there was a request to await a referendum. We were told no, and then they decide yes. Then you continue to refuse to allow a referendum steer you or guide you. I find that preconceived notion of how to deal with this matter appalling in politicians. We don't do that at the city. I don't think even Metro, on its worst day, does that. I'm surprised that you do that.

On page 3 of the minister's comments, he said: "People worry that local government will be less accessible to the average citizen. But we believe the opposite will be true. Local government will be more accessible." Earlier this month we had a visit from Wendell Cox, who's a very established, informed consultant in the States. He wrote a report, Local and Regional Governance in the Greater Toronto Area: A Review of Alternatives. What did he find? He found that in the major municipalities in the States where there had been amalgamation, there are thriving actions by citizens' groups to reverse it. There are communities in LA that are wanting to leave. In New York City, Staten Island is wanting to leave that amalgamation. In Chicago, as he said, people did not decide to hive off their neighbourhood; they left, they walked out, they moved to the suburbs, they got out of town. I'm afraid the recipe you have on the table is going to give us that same damaged city you've got in the States.

He also talks about escalating costs. On page 2 he said, "We propose leaving behind the overlap and duplication, the escalating costs, confused priorities and conflicting mandates...." I have yet to find any evidence that we have escalating costs. I have been the chair of the personnel committee of the city of Toronto since 1991, and since that time I've chaired the streamlining committee, which has reduced the budget by $85 million without raising taxes. We have not raised taxes since 1992, and we have maintained our levels of service. Through attrition, we had no layoffs, and we've reduced the staffing levels from 8,500 to 7,000. By 2001, we will be free of any debenture costs.

We have reduced the senior management level from 85 managers to 41 managers and we've collapsed the management levels from seven to four. We are keepers of our own house, we are fixing our own problems, and I resent the city of Toronto and the municipalities of Metro having to carry the burden of your tax problems. This is a downsizing exercise to alleviate your problem.

We are not in the financial mess that Miami City finds itself in. That state is now thinking of merging it with Dade county. Miami is bankrupt and they're going to fix that bankruptcy by merging it with Dade county. That is what you're trying to do to the city of Toronto. Fortunately in Dade county, they're going to have a referendum. They're going to ask the people if they want it. They're not going to force it on them.

Contrary to the minister's comments, we are efficient. We are not subject to escalating costs. We know that over the years Metro Council has increased its taxes far more regularly and at far higher rates than we ever have. Between 1984 and 1994 the residential tax rate was increased by 73.1%. The city of Toronto's draw on that residential tax rate was 37.7%. Metro Toronto's draw on the residential tax rate was 68.6%, almost twice. We are not the problem. If you look at the information, you'll find that the Metro level of government is the more costly level of government.

This was just handed to me before I came into the meeting by one of our commissioners. They have studied the GTA upper-tier operating budgets per capita. The Metro budget per capita is $1,294.38, in Durham it's $700, Peel is $500, Halton is another $500, York region is $468 per capita. Metro level of government is already the costliest level of government you've got and what you're doing is entrenching it. You're taking away what local communities need, and that is accountability. It's not just accountability about the decisions you make, it's accountability about the money you spend. I would say to you that Metro council has lost that and you're busy trying to shore that up.

When I've dealt with this issue in talking to my constituents, and many of them have phoned my office, they are concerned about their neighbourhoods. I represent inner-city Toronto, right downtown. It is the downtown that the people in the rest of the Metro area come to to see theatre, go to the opera, go to football and hockey games. They consider it their backyard. They don't see it as a neighbourhood; they see it as a destination for work or for play. So there is a constant tug of war between the issues of the suburbs and the downtown played out in my own backyard, in the one I represent.

You have traffic issues. The Spadina Expressway was one that was dealt with several decades ago, but the Leslie Street extension could easily come back on to the agenda if Metro is dominated by the suburban neighbourhoods.

1610

Metro council has never been an apolitical actor in the arts community. Members of that council will go into their budget and say, "We don't like gay and lesbian theatre; we're not going to fund it," because they've got a suburban mentality. They've done that on the floor of council.

Incineration is an issue that the suburbs love and would love to see imposed on Toronto, and city council has a ban on incineration. There's that conflict.

I chair the AIDS committee of the city of Toronto and we give out a million dollars of taxpayers' money each year for AIDS prevention and education, and every year we ask the other municipalities in Metro area to create their own funds for that education and every year they say no. When that fund was first started in 1988, North York's response was, "We don't have AIDS in North York." That's the problem I'm afraid of and that's the concern that my constituents have, that kind of: "It's your problem, not mine. The prostitution and the crack dealers are down there. It's not in North York. It's not in Etobicoke." Those kinds of conflicts will be exacerbated.

I don't think I will see another capital project built in downtown Toronto. If there is a major issue around taxes, am I going to see a library, a school, a new park built in downtown Toronto, or will it be built in Scarborough? We know the answer to that, because for the last 20 years it's been almost impossible to build a school in Toronto. All that capital money gets spent in Etobicoke, in Scarborough, and anyone who knows the education system can tell you that.

We don't need your experiment to tell you what it's like to have a Metro level of government. We've had it since 1988 as a directly elected body and we know that it's in opposition to the beliefs of the people who live in downtown Toronto.

I don't understand why this government has gone in this direction. I don't think it is in the public's interest. I don't think it's been demonstrated. You have not demonstrated why we should do this. The information that we have received at city, council from Americans who have done their studies in the States to our own work, say that it's not viable.

I take exception to the way in which you talk about consultation or consensus or trying to understand the issue with the neighbourhoods, when in fact you've taken a very hostile approach. You've said, "This is what we're going to do," and you leave us very little room to inform you or negotiate with you.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Rae. I've already been quite liberal with the time.

Mr Rae: I grew up in this province and I must tell you that I've never seen a government acting in this manner.

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

RINO IANNONE

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

Mr Rino Iannone: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I live in Etobicoke. I am married. I own a small business in the city of Concord. Prior to the last provincial election I was sold on the political platform of the provincial Tories. They stood for common sense. I, like many other citizens, voted to give Mike Harris a mandate to bring to port his Common Sense Revolution. Slowly but surely this province is seeing an extraordinary turnaround and a remarkable number of opportunities being created.

On the other hand, however, I hear ever more often now, "Sorry, we're understaffed; we just cannot serve you as we used to." I sometimes feel that if I were to run my business the way some government offices are run, I would not be in business for a very long time.

At the same I'm cognizant of the layers and layers of bureaucracy that existed and continue to exist in our system, of the duplication of tasks that take place every day, and of the money wasted needlessly. On several occasions I have seen crews of men working the streets of Metro. One person is working, six are just watching. Is this vision indicative of the way that my money is being spent? Am I paying the salary of seven men when only one can do the work?

Common sense tells me that if one person is doing all the work then only one person should be hired. But what about the other six? What would they do? Would they just sit in an office, draw money and nobody even know they exist? Would they join the unemployment line ranks? Is this formula being applied at every level of government? Am I being asked to pay the salary of seven persons when only one is needed to do the job?

This same commonsense formula can be applied to the proposed amalgamation of six cities. It really makes sense that instead of having six mayors, six governments, we have only one mayor and one government that takes the responsibility to deliver what a municipal government should deliver: services that reflect the daily needs of its citizens, ie, garbage collection etc. Most importantly, we need to continue to have a local government that is close to the grass roots and understands the importance of continuing to be committed to that end.

We now know what we have. As imperfect as our system may appear, we know what to expect from our municipal representatives, but now we want to change that. It is proposed that in the name of common sense we get rid of the six existing municipalities and Metro, and amalgamate them into one. Fine. I would like to know what happens to the other six that are now not needed any more. This is the question: Are we confident that one government can do the work of six or are we creating just another layer of municipal government? Are we creating another Metro just with a different name, just bigger?

Oh yes, let us not forget the proposed referendum in the mix of things here. Let me see now. The question should be very clear, very direct, very honest: "Are you in favour of abolishing your local municipality for a megacity municipality? Yes or no?" It sounds simple enough.

But before I'm asked to answer this question, I welcome the opportunity to understand all the issues at hand. I have no idea what's going on. It only makes good common sense as far as I can see. I want to see a blueprint of what is being proposed. I want to see the mid- to long-term implications of the proposed creation of this so-called megacity. I want to be sure what tomorrow means to me and, more importantly, what I am creating and leaving for my kids. Will we create for them a city that is, just like it is today, one of the best in the world or are we planting the seed for slow but sure destruction and disintegration?

We must be assured that what is being proposed is taking place to fix something because it needs fixing and we must be assured that what is taking place will work better, more efficiently and will be cheaper. Otherwise what is the purpose of all this, really? Can someone please tell me what the purpose of all this is? On the subject of common sense, is the downloading of provincial responsibilities a show of good common sense? I am not sure.

Will we have to pay for every service that is now being paid by for our current tax system on a municipal level or will we see toll booths at every street in our own neighbourhood? Are we paving the road for that kind of scenario?

It seems to me that the government is unloading dead weight on to the municipalities. This is a government that is running away from its responsibilities in a quest to balance its books, as far as we all can see. It's the easy way out. Let someone else pick up the tab. Sure, walk away and let somebody else pick it up.

Let me talk for a moment on the subject of democracy. Let me talk about the three appointed trustees the provincial government has imposed on Metro municipalities to oversee spending for the year 1997. This move may not appear to be democratic at all. As a matter of fact, it appears to laugh in the face of democracy. This appears to be wrong, and it probably is wrong, but you know, it makes good common sense. After all, we wouldn't want our elected officials to go on a buying or selling spree like drunken sailors, would we? One last hurrah.

1620

Well, you know what? I like the idea of these three appointed watchdogs. I like the concept of accountability that they bring to our political mix. In fact, I like the concept so much that I would like to see it written in the constitution of every level of government. That's right. Even our provincial government should have three appointed watchdogs elected by the people to oversee its daily spending. You know how the story goes: What is good for the goose -- right? Let's see a show of courage from our government and let's have them apply this rationale that they have imposed on the municipalities on themselves.

If now is the right time for municipal reform, well, so be it; let's have it. I, for one, would like to see changes that would hold our megacity government more accountable. We must have more accountability from our government, and this is the time to show real courage, real leadership and real commitment.

Let's find a formula that would, first of all, bring accountability to our mix of municipal affairs. Let the people appoint bureaucrats; top bureaucrats, that is. Every top bureaucrat should be elected by the people. Let's make sure that what happened in the city of Etobicoke just a few moments ago is never repeated. If you make a mistake, you're out. It's as simple as that. It only makes good common sense as far as I'm concerned.

We must not forget that all the elected officials remain to some degree accountable to the people. If we don't like the direction that they have taken us in the course of their elected mandate, we have the chance to rectify the matter by electing new people in the next election. Bureaucrats are currently not accountable to anyone. We must bring accountability in our mix of reforms.

This government must remember that in two years or so it will be accountable for everything that it has done. There's no doubt that the electorate is watching the government's handling of this matter of great importance to our future. Whose agenda is Mike Harris trying to deliver this time? What an opportunity for this government to continue to show that the good, old commonsense approach is still very much alive and well. We are all watching.

By the way, what is the hurry? We waited so long, I cannot understand why we must do things at this speed. Let's see the plan. Let's have the long-term implications of all those changes. I voted for the government that showed the guts to put on paper a clear vision of our province. It was a serious commitment on their part to outline to us what we were to expect. It sure grabbed my attention, but as far as I know, no mandate was ever asked for by this government to bring this revolutionary change in our current municipal structure. I was never aware of this intention, but maybe it is the right direction to take. After all, remember: Six looking, one person doing the work. It makes good common sense to bring about some change.

But as for the Common Sense Revolution booklet, I would welcome the opportunity to see this government that has shown so much leadership in a clear commitment to common sense come up with what I would call a commonsense "megalution" booklet. I would welcome this government's continued commitment to good common sense.

I would also welcome a series of public debates between Mr Al Leach and the mayors of the existing six municipalities and Metro. Then and only then I will be prepared to answer the question on the referendum ballot and accept or reject the idea of a megacity, and not one moment sooner. This is in the name of common sense.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Iannone. You've effectively used your 10 minutes. I appreciate you coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

ARTHUR LOFSKY

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

Mr Arthur Lofsky: My name is Arthur Lofsky. I was born in the city of Toronto 29 years ago and have been a resident of North York for 25 years. I am a card-carrying member of the Progressive Conservative Oriole riding association. I also love this great city of Toronto.

I'm very saddened to be here today. I'm saddened because the Toronto I have known is about to die. Furthermore, I am also witnessing the death of the tranquil and tolerant Ontario I used to know. I voted for this government and I cannot express my regret in doing so. I despair at how unnecessary and wasteful the machinations of this government are and I am furious that Toronto's being destroyed for the most sinister and cynical reasons.

What is most infuriating to me is how this government is perverting the democratic process. Mike Harris, Al Leach and the powers that be appear to be taking advantage of public ignorance on municipal governance by quickly introducing massive changes without explanation or mandate. They justify it all with a publicly financed propaganda campaign that says the status quo does not work, is inefficient and is captive to vested interests. They explicitly imply that to be against Bill 103 is to be for the status quo, sinister indeed.

Until recently most of us in Metro Toronto probably never understood why we've escaped the urban blight well known in American cities. Why were we so lucky to have healthy neighbourhoods, vibrant city life, with safe streets and responsive government? What do we know that the Americans don't? It turns out that Toronto was the beneficiary of a very successful experiment, two-tiered government: one tier to deal with day-to-day local demands represented by distinct boroughs of manageable and responsive size and one tier to coordinate regional needs and services that required shared resources.

The framework was wildly successful. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s Toronto prospered while American cities withered away, but we became victims of our own success. The so-called 905 regions grew around Metro as people migrated to cheaper land with cheaper taxes. Being adjacent to Metro allowed them to enjoy Toronto's services without having to pay for them. Separated by the artificial boundary of Steeles Avenue, they were subject to a different property tax regime based on outdated provincial standards. For example, regional police forces are subsidized outside Metro and so are many other services that Metro pays for on its own.

It soon became a rational economic decision for businesses and homeowners to locate outside Metro, yet still utilize Metro's services without paying for them. These disparities became very apparent when the recession of 1991 whacked Metro. The tax base erosion began to accelerate, exacerbating further the property tax differential between 905 and 416.

As a lifelong resident of Metro I was very concerned. I am proud of my city and I used to travel in and out of Canada, bragging how wonderful Toronto is. But I began to understand that something had to be done that would put Metro back on a level playing field vis-à-vis the economic regions surrounding Metro. I was younger then and did not fully understand how to do that. I hoped my wiser elders would figure it out, as they had in the past. When the previous government announced the Golden commission to deal with this problem, I was comforted by the fact that the problem had been recognized and would be addressed in the traditional Ontario way, that is, through consultation, discussion and hearings and then more consultation and discussion. That is the way changes of this magnitude and impact should be dealt with, because so much is at stake.

Fast-forward to January 1996 and the release of the Golden report. The Harris government was now in power and appeared, in my opinion, to be on the right track. It took a while to absorb the Golden report. It was big, bold and sweeping in its recommendations. It was thoughtful and scholarly. I personally liked its main recommendation that the GTA should be recognized as an interdependent economic region, with a governing body to coordinate regional services. This made a lot of sense. Indeed it seemed analogous to the steps taken in the 1950s, when Metro was created.

What was significant, however, was another main recommendation recognizing the importance of local government. Instead of amalgamating Metro into one jurisdiction among the GTA body, the Golden commission scoured the literature on the subject and found that large local governments above a certain size do not serve the citizenry very well. Local governments become remote the larger they get, and it follows that they become more expensive to manage as the bureaucracy takes over. Golden and its brain trust recognize this.

I know everyone did not agree with this report in its entirety, particularly the recommendation for a new GTA level. That's fine. These are important changes that affect millions of people. It is natural for people to be concerned. It is also important for interested parties to express themselves, and in so doing, evaluate the effect the changes would have on their lives. Nevertheless it looked like we were going in the right direction.

What I did not count on was a government that has no regard for the citizens of Toronto, and by extension, no regard for the people of Ontario. I did not count on the so-called Progressive Conservatives, once known for consensus-building, to toss around Toronto as a variable in its fiscal and political calculus. Never did the Tories promise to amalgamate Metro. Indeed they campaigned on the primacy of local government over regional government.

Even if they were sincere in their belief that an amalgamated Toronto would be better, how could they decide to wipe out a governance structure that by all indications serves its citizenry well, and in a matter of months? How could they wipe it out in favour a giant megacity structure despite all recommendations to the contrary? Why go against right-wing ideology and create a giant government that will have four layers, as set out in Bill 103, versus the current two?

It took me a while to figure these questions out because the answers were so unbelievable to me. The PC government is so doctrinaire and obsessed with its power that it will use any means necessary to keep it. Toronto just happens to stand in the way. These Tories are not Conservatives; they are authoritarians who would make the old central planners of past regimes proud. The Fascist dictators and Communists present and past had no regard for their citizens. Their prime concern was holding on to power.

1630

Ladies and gentlemen, we now have tyranny Ontario-style: the unholy marriage of left-wing centralist ideology and right-wing fiscal radicalism. This regime wants desperately to keep its tax-cut promise because they feel that their grip on power depends on it, so much so that they're willing to recklessly rearrange Ontario's service delivery structure to do so. This means that the government has to unload all of its expensive responsibilities on to the municipalities, and because Toronto helps and attracts less fortunate citizens, Toronto is the loser.

Suburban and rural municipalities come out even or ahead, which suits this government fine. The cold political calculation was made that those outside Toronto are the ones they have to answer to, because that is where their constituency lies. I am certain that at some time, somewhere in a backroom someone said, "Let's take advantage of the anti-Toronto sentiment in the sticks."

But this government probably could not get away with it under the six-city model that it originally favoured. Scarborough and York would be bankrupt under the load. Al Leach had a problem. His party indicated it would get rid of Metro, also known to him as a tier of government. Since he probably could not get away with downloading it on to six cities, he and his ministry had to amalgamate into a large government. It also fit in neatly with a number of other political objectives the government had, namely, eliminating that pesky left-wing council in downtown Toronto.

What do we have here in Bill 103 besides the untimely death of Toronto? We have a complete abandonment of democratic process so that these changes can be rammed through so quickly, no one will notice how destructive and diabolical they are. We have a Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing abandoning and ignoring all evidence showing how destructive Bill 103 will be to Toronto. We have a government that throws a healthy city with 2.3 million citizens into a Mixmaster, hoping the mush will reconstitute itself. We have Al Leach arrogantly in contempt of the people. We have a Premier presiding over his fiefdom using public funds to disperse an Orwellian orgy of propaganda to advance his party's agenda. We have so many subversions of democratic principle, one has to conclude that democracy in this province is dying fast.

I ask you, Isabel Basset, John Hastings, Douglas Ford, Jim Brown and Julia Munro, to sincerely stand up and be counted. I ask you to not allow this bill to be passed for the greater good of this province. I ask you to let Toronto live. Thank you.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much for coming forward here today, Mr Lofsky. We've spoken on this subject before. You've raised the issue of the timeliness of the things we're pursuing here and the fact of consensus-building. How do you reconcile the fact that the mayors themselves produced a report in December that in virtually every area, for example, the reduction in the size of the council, the elimination of one level of government, the fact that all services should be coordinated, each in one centrally planned and administered office -- in every substantive case the mayors themselves put their names to a document in December that agreed with every single, solitary thing we're doing in Bill 103, unless you want to split hairs.

They suggested we should cut to 48 councillors; our bill says 44. They said you could save $240 million; KPMG says $300 million, but I'll accept their $240 million. How did they find those dollars? By saying that every single aspect of each service should be coordinated, the only difference being that all garbage should be handled by Scarborough Metro-wide and all licensing for Metro should be handled by East York etc. So when even the mayors of the cities themselves, in concert with their councils, have signed a report that comes back and says on every single one of those substantive issues they're in agreement with us, how do you reconcile your statement that this is either rushed or inappropriate, given that the mayors themselves came to similar conclusions?

Mr Lofsky: I don't accept that everything they proposed is in Bill 103, but that mayors' report was also rushed. Regardless of whether you agree with that or with Bill 103, I think the question has to be taken to the people and they have to be given time to understand what's in both of those proposals.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lofsky, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

JINI STOLK

The Chair: Would Jini Stolk please come forward.

Ms Jini Stolk: I'm very pleased to be here today to speak about something I feel passionately about, Bill 103, the megacity bill. Like many of my friends and neighbours I have been dismayed, even shocked by the scarcity of public consultation and debate undertaken by the government before initiating a change of this magnitude. Having the opportunity to come here and speak my mind at these hearings is very important to me, and I thank you for the opportunity.

I have many concerns about the implications of Bill 103 but I have decided to limit my comments today to what I know best: my own experiences in dealing with municipal governments.

I have been lucky enough to be much involved over the years in municipal issues because my life and profession have been centred in the city of Toronto. I'm currently the general manager of Toronto Dance Theatre, which is the leading modern dance company in English Canada, and president of the board of Artscape, an organization unique to Toronto which works to provide affordable work space and live-work space for artists. Before moving to Toronto Dance Theatre I was for 10 years executive director of the Toronto Theatre Alliance, and before that I also worked in publishing and in visual arts.

I've had the privilege of being part of the tremendous growth in the arts and cultural sector in Toronto over the past 25 years, and throughout my career I have also been very much involved in the development of municipal policies and initiatives to strengthen that community. Over that time I've worked extensively with two levels of government, the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto, and have worked, but less extensively, with local arts councils in the other cities and in the greater Toronto area.

Because I've also travelled throughout the United States to meet with municipal performing arts alliances in all the major cities, I feel that I have a pretty fair knowledge of how arts and cities work. My experience has been that the two-tier system we have had in Toronto has worked very much to the advantage not only of the arts community, providing the resources, encouragement and environment which is allowed to grow to the extent it has, but also to the entire Metro region. The few frustrations I've experienced in dealing with more than one group of politicians and bureaucrats were far more than offset by the flexibility and responsiveness I found in a system where there was essentially a logical and workable division of responsibilities.

The city of Toronto is of course where most arts organizations in the region are located: the theatres, the dance studios, galleries and workshops. The relationship of these cultural amenities to the health and wellbeing of the city itself is obvious at the local level. Councillors live next to artists, they have theatre companies down the block and they can see on a daily basis how the arts influence the flourishing of small businesses like restaurants, cafés, bookstores and parking lots located near an arts venue. The urban lifestyle is important to their constituents and usually it's very important to them.

The Toronto Arts Council, not surprisingly, is the most responsive of the funding organizations. Its decisions are made at arm's length and they're therefore removed from political pressures, and its board is made up largely of artists, so it's therefore mostly concerned with the creative process. As a result it is the most risk-taking of the funding organizations. It has programs for individual artists and it is the funder most likely to take a chance on funding the new and untried. It has given many fine and prominent artists whose names you will certainly know their first support. It has also been extremely efficient. It spends less in terms of cost of administration versus dollars spent on the arts through grants than any other councils.

Metro council, through its culture division, is also a supporter of the arts, but in a significantly different way. Metro's policies have focused on accessibility and ensuring that Scarborough residents, Etobicoke and East York residents have access to the arts of their own area and within the region. Part of that is keeping costs down so the arts are affordable to people wherever they live. Metro culture division and Metro council are also interested in the financial impact of the arts on the region. That's why they've always been concerned about the arts as a major employer in the region and with the close relationship of the arts to the growth of the tourism industry.

1640

There are different policies at the two levels, different priorities, and the results, taken together, are extremely effective. Councillors at the Metro level, however, are also dealing with very large issues and large budgets, way larger than the arts budget, including and especially the social services budget, the welfare budget, police and the TTC.

Over the past few years, as there have been increasing pressures on these budgets, the arts experienced a 25% loss in funding at Metro. I anticipate that this sort of pressure will only increase, has to increase, with the downloading proposals being brought forth by the province and that the argument I have made and my colleagues and friends have made that the economic future of the metropolitan area depends on a strong, vibrant arts community will increasingly lose against the economic crises of the here and now.

The system we now have in the arts and, I would also like to argue, in many other areas of social life in Toronto works. It works remarkably well, and I certainly heard no compelling reason from the government to put it at risk. It has allowed us to achieve a thriving cultural infrastructure which is the envy of people across North America. None of my colleagues, those I've worked with who also work in the arts community in their cities, feels as connected to the local political process or had the access to the local politicians and the ability to work with them to develop policies which are good for the arts and good for the municipality as I have had in my time in Toronto.

I have been proud to be part of a democratic system where people care about local elections and turn out to vote. This is actually amazing and I wonder if we realize how lucky we are in just the basic involvement and turnout at the local level in Toronto, a system which is accountable to its constituents and responsive to local and regional needs. People in the city of Toronto and in the other municipalities can reach our councillors, can present them with information and expect to be listened to. They are representing us and they can deal with the voices of their individual constituents. This does not always mean we're successful -- certainly we have lost many battles over the years -- but we're listened to and the process of decision-making is both open and fair.

I have always believed that these were some of the structural reasons which have saved Toronto from becoming like almost all cities now in the United States, where downtown neighbourhoods have become home only to the poor, where the infrastructure has crumbled, where anyone who cares about good education or quality service has no choice but to move to the suburbs.

I wonder if we realize how lucky we are. My friends in the States have trouble believing that I live right downtown, as close as I do -- I live at Bathurst and College -- I'm not afraid of crime; I send my kids to the local schools, and they're wonderful schools, and they're just around the corner; that myself and my children have access to affordable and accessible social programs; that we also enjoy and have one of the most flourishing arts communities on the continent. This is why people want to live in Toronto and why businesses want to locate here. We have something wonderful going on here and I am willing to fight very hard to keep it.

I was speaking this morning to Sandra Shamas, who, you probably know, is one of Canada's great comedians, and she said when I was speaking to her about this issue: "Human beings do not megacity. It's in our nature to form groups of families, neighbours to work together in communities and to share, to solve our problems collectively and together and to rejoice in our triumphs collectively."

I'm here today to appeal to the better judgement of the government members: It's not broke; don't fix it.

Applause.

The Chair: Order, please, folks. We'd like to get some questions from the Liberal caucus. Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: How much time, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Two minutes.

Mr Colle: Ms Stolk, thank you very much for your presentation. You hit a real light for me when you mentioned Bathurst and College, having grown up there back in the 1950s. I think that area is a perfect example of how cities heal themselves and how cities become prosperous socially, theatrically, economically. Can you explain to the members of the government caucus what is happening on College between Bathurst and Ossington these days?

Ms Stolk: Yes. It is a success story. It was an area of town that was not thriving. The businesses along that strip had been failing and had been leaving, and it is now totally revitalized. It is a combination of the arts community and small business which has seen that revitalization. There are now cafes, restaurants, all of them doing extremely well. There's a nightlife and in fact a wonderful Sunday brunch life. It's a day life and it's a nightlife that wasn't there just a few years ago.

Some of those cafes and restaurants that started this trend were started by artists or by people who had come out of the arts community who decided that they needed places to go and they developed restaurants. They didn't know; they were taking a chance. The rents were low. It wasn't a place where restaurants were typically found, so rents were very low. They went in and they spent a lot of their own time and their energy, and what's now developed as a very thriving business community.

It's an example of what we see with Artscape, as an example, all the time. When we build live-work spaces for artists in a neighbourhood, within a year the neighbourhood is looking up. Businesses are growing, they move in, the neighbours are happy, developments begin. It's not difficult to look and to see what happens, and it's part of the collectivity of small neighbourhoods that I think is essential. It's made Toronto what it is today.

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

JENNIFER WATKINS

The Chair: Would Jennifer Watkins please come forward. Good afternoon, Ms Watkins. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Jennifer Watkins: Thank you. I come before this hearing as an individual citizen of Ontario who has resided in the city of Toronto, very enjoyably, for over 20 years. My time before you is brief and my point of view as a member of the electorate must be taken seriously.

On December 30, 1996, at a public meeting of concerned citizens, members of the electorate of the province of Ontario, I wrote a letter requesting my assumed democratic right to present my concerns to the government regarding Bill 103 at public hearings. At that time, my primary motivation in writing was to ensure that the current majority government of Ontario follow democratic process and listen to the concerns of the electorate regarding Bill 103.

Although hearings are taking place and I'm here speaking, I am still concerned by the government's insistence on ramming this legislation through and making massive changes so quickly that proper debate and appropriate involvement of local citizens is not possible. It is not possible, as there is no time allowed for people to truly comprehend the effects of the contents of the legislation before it is passed. I also understand that this type of public debate would have more appropriate prior to the second reading of the bill.

The day after I wrote that letter, a blue and white Ontario government brochure showed up in my mailbox, proclaiming One Toronto for All of Us. I was shocked and offended by this slick portrayal that seemed to assume the legislation had passed, that amalgamation was a done deal and we would all live happily ever after.

I received this publication less than 24 hours after I learned that the government had removed local democracy by placing our elected council under trusteeship and that the decisions of this provincially appointed board of trustees, as outlined in subsection 12(1), is final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court. I voted for my city council but had no say in its loss of powers. It was hard to comprehend that all this was happening before Bill 103 had even reached second reading in the House.

1650

Although I speak alone, I know my concerns, my anxiety and fear regarding Bill 103 are shared by hundreds, if not thousands, of people facing the forced amalgamation of the cities and boroughs that now comprise the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The government is holding our cities hostage and has declared the citizens of Metro the enemy. The government chooses to use this legislation to force the amalgamation of a region of 2.3 million persons because the government wishes to exercise more control in this region. Why do I think this?

I would next ask: Is bigger better? Most experts don't think so and many studies of other amalgamated regions prove it is not. "Less is more" is a paradigm originally coined by post-modern artists, architects and designers. This philosophy looks at elements of design where a simple statement could be made through reducing the complexity of form. Bill 103 also follows this principle, giving it a whole new meaning. The objective is to have fewer elected politicians on the payroll to carry out policy, ostensibly to save money. This set up will actually reduce the opportunity for citizens to have an active voice in the democratic process that allows us to participate in decisions made by these politicians who are meant to represent our interests. Despite the appearance of less government, this mega-government will actually have more power and control when the voice of the citizen on the local level is removed.

As the majority, the government feels that it has the right to proceed on this course. They seem to think this majority gives them a kind of divine right to carry out this agenda based on neo-conservative ideology that is so prevalent in the United States. This ideology follows that if you, the provincial government in this case, unload the payment for social services to the lowest possible government, the power to tax effectively is not there. Successful in this dumping, the government would be able to live up to its platform to reduce the provincial deficit and it will be able to provide the promised tax cut. They will be able to do this because they will have passed off their responsibility for finding money to cover these services on to the municipalities, which can ill afford to cover them from property taxes.

In my study of history and rational thought I learned that it is always important to consider the short as well as the long-term effects of any decision, policy or legislation. The government, while paying lip service to this long-term betterment of Ontario, has the short-term goal of providing a tax cut to the wealthy on the backs of the middle class, the poor and the disadvantaged. Class lines are being drawn.

The government was elected on the catchphrase "common sense." If you hold to the aim of ramming through this legislation, it must be noted that your methodology of imposing this amalgamation is both uncommon and nonsensical.

Bill 103 should be not brought forward for final passage until it is clear to the electorate what all the implications are. Extensive public debate must occur and citizens must be allowed to decide. Local people must solve local issues. Therefore, I ask the government to extend the range of public debate beyond the current forum into the communities, that the third and final reading of Bill 103 be postponed and, finally, to respect the results of the municipal plebiscites and referenda.

The Chair: We have about three minutes if you'd like to entertain some questions. Mr Marchese.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Thank you for your presentation. I have a question around something the Toronto Star editorial presents almost on a daily basis and that this government and its members echo constantly. They say: "We're not losing democracy. We still are going to have an elected group of people. Yes, it's big but there will be 44 Metro councillors." So presumably because of that, democracy hasn't disappeared. Everybody will have a say and will be able to go to that government and still be able to do what they did before. Do you see it that way?

Ms Watkins: It's difficult for me to see into the future regarding how this supposed government will respond. I personally am afraid of the process we're in, where the voices of the people are not being heard now. We will not be able to be involved in any process that will allow appropriate government and representation to occur for the citizens. I too live in a downtown, very vital neighbourhood at College and Spadina. I've lived practically next door to councillors and blocks from my city hall. I do not want to lose that connection and ability to be involved in my community and to affect its future.

Mr Marchese: I just want to agree with much of what you said in terms of people being involved and needing time to find out exactly what is happening, because there's still a lot of people who don't have a clue.

Ms Watkins: No.

Mr Marchese: Only the active ones have engaged themselves to understand. But what is clear to me is that the further you remove yourself from a bigger government, the less involvement you have and the more unreachable they are. I know that when I started at the Toronto Board of Education as a trustee, there was a great deal of public involvement because people are very close to their local schools and to the board. Similarly, with the Toronto city council, the closer you are, the more involvement you're going to get. The further you're removed, it seems, from my practical experience in politics for a long time as an active person, you get fewer and fewer people who will be able to reach their councils. Is that your sense?

Ms Watkins: Yes. I agree with that completely. I feel that I made some of those points in my presentation and hope that they will be considered.

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

RUTH COHEN

The Chair: May I please have Ruth Cohen come forward. Good afternoon.

Ms Ruth Cohen: Thank you. My name is Ruth Cohen. I'd like to thank the committee for giving me this time to speak to Bill 103.

By way of introduction, I would just like the committee to know that I've lived in downtown Toronto virtually all my life, except for a brief period when I was at university in the southwest of the United States. I grew up in the College-Spadina area, in a house on Huron Street which later became a Buddhist temple, among other things.

I count myself fortunate indeed to have attended as unforgettable a school as Harbord Collegiate and to have had the benefit of living close to the magnificent libraries at St George and College, with early beginnings in the Boys and Girls House of that bygone day. It was only in later years that I realized how fortunate I was to have benefited as well from the wonderful programs available to children in those days, especially in the arts and music.

I will of course never forget those free concerts at Varsity Stadium, where as a teenager I gained my first introduction to the classics, an interest which has continued on to the present day, mainly through the medium of the CBC. Another wonderful memory is the conservatory, where I took piano lessons, and the art gallery, where I took Saturday morning art classes from Arthur Lismer. That places me pretty well, I think.

I lived in a diverse, vital neighbourhood, which I contrast with the solid bank of strip malls which awaits under the new regime. I happen to know first hand what happens to the inner core of cities when untrammelled development occurs. I studied anthropology and philosophy at the University of Denver and the University of New Mexico. When I was at school in Albuquerque, New Mexico, way back when, the town was a veritable jewel in the sun: a main street with all kinds of fascinating stores, neighbourhoods with cosy adobe houses, Old Town with its smell of piñon wafting over the colonial buildings. When I visited again 15 years later, I was shocked to find the downtown completely gone, looking like a bombed-out area, all boarded up, literally overrun by rats.

This has been the American experience, repeated over and over again, the one we have avoided here in Toronto. Those of us who have participated in making our town livable will not allow this to happen here. We've been through too much to get to where we are -- the place known the world over as the most livable city in the world -- to see it demolished through the current ideology of privatization.

1700

Yes, it's true there are experiments going on all over the US in privatizing welfare, privatizing schools, privatizing hospitals, but that's not us -- not here, not now, not ever. We will be a beacon here in Toronto. We will stand fast and continue on the route to sane policies for a sane society. We're educated people here -- maybe that's what you have against us; I don't know -- the product of our school system and our municipal and provincial institutions. We're quite capable of determining our own future within the kind of enlightened, intelligent representation we've had up to now.

Those of us who object to this impending juggernaut rolling over us have been accused of being old fogies, stuck in the old ways, unwilling to accept change. That's the usual definition of Tories, isn't it, or Conservatives? We do not see ourselves as conservatives actually, though we tend to see some of you, as you have described yourselves, as revolutionaries -- revolutionaries, unfortunately, to the point of anarchy. While we are not conservatives, we are not anarchists either. We are conservationists perhaps, and we are terribly concerned about what this bill will do to all those regulatory functions that are designed to protect us, to protect the environment, that respond to human need, human peril, human desire for fulfilment.

It is wrong to think that we are just creatures of habit and don't like change. As a matter of fact, most thinking people today believe that huge changes have to be made very soon if we are even to survive as a species and if all the other species on this planet are to survive, but not like these. These will exacerbate, not correct.

What is most disturbing is a strange tendency on the part of your ministers and those who drafted this weird piece of legislation to be completely impervious to any argument, any analysis, any exhaustive demonstration that this imposed restructuring not only cannot work but is certain to have catastrophic consequences. Yet it is perfectly obvious to the ordinary citizen, as well as to those in opposition, as well as to experts of your own choosing, that the provisions in this bill will bankrupt our city and are a violation of the democratic rights of citizens to determine how they shall be governed.

We insist that any restructuring proceed through the normal channels of discussion and debate provided by our parliamentary system and our municipal governments, and not by fiat or decree as this bill does. We are trying to tell you that this is not the way to go. It will have the opposite effect from what you intend.

I have some recommendations because of my past training in the disciplines of philosophy and anthropology. I recommend a rethinking of the purpose of government. I recommend the acceptance of the starting premise that humans are cultural beings, not just economic units. Every finding of the biological and anthropological sciences confirms that is an irrefutable fact.

The implications of that premise would be far-reaching and would transform government, education and the delivery of services in a direction hardly even envisaged by those who worship at the shrine of the free market as the be-all and end-all of human endeavour. Yet it's this very cultural dimension, the defining hallmark of the human species, that gets thrown out the window by attempts like this to govern on the basis of consumerism alone.

As an example, the implications for education would be that, far from privatizing schools to be run by big business conglomerates with a view to churning out happy little cogs in machines that don't even exist any more, it would emphasize cultivation of the higher mental faculties, a project some would admittedly find rather challenging.

Ursula Franklin has put it in her usual succinct fashion when she pointed out recently that the city is not just a resource base but also a habitat. She also said that it is dead wrong for some people to profit from other people's misery.

Scientists from every discipline are warning that we only have 10 years to effect changes which call for the most massive cooperative effort in the history of the planet, certainly not some kind of dog-eat-dog throwback to primitive times. We have to become profoundly ethical and respectful of life. Plundering the earth, exploiting the people, is not the way to go. That is the kind of thinking that requires immediate, radical change.

You may become aware through this exercise that there are thousands of people in Toronto, and for that matter in Ontario, who will fight with their last breath to make sure this great public enterprise is not derailed by legislation such as this.

Interruption.

The Chair: Order. Thank you, Ms Cohen, for your presentation. You effectively utilized your 10 minutes. I appreciate your coming forward to make your presentation to the committee today.

MARY MCGEE

The Chair: Would Mary McGee please come forward. Welcome to the committee, Ms McGee.

Ms Mary McGee: Members of the standing committee on general government, I am here today to speak to you about Bill 103. I hope, when you look at me, you see me for what I am: a middle-aged, middle-class woman who works and lives in Toronto with her husband and children. I hope, when you listen to me, you hear the voice of a Toronto resident who, with the introduction of this legislation, realized that voting is not a sufficient discharge of one's civic duty. That is why I requested an opportunity to speak during the hearings on Bill 103.

I was raised to believe that life in a democracy meant individuals had certain rights and that those rights entailed corresponding duties. In a democracy we have the right to participate in our own governance. The corresponding duty is to vote in elections. The message to voters sent by Bill 103 is that voting in municipal elections does not safeguard their right to a representative local government.

I have read Bill 103 and I am deeply concerned, because this is what I learned: First, Bill 103 removes the authority of local councils to pass a resolution relating to a payment not provided for in the budget; to make purchases over $50,000; to transfer money among reserve funds or change the purpose of reserve funds; to enter into contracts that extend beyond December 31, 1997; to hire or promote employees; to negotiate termination settlements. In short, Bill 103 prevents local councillors from performing the duties they were elected to carry out.

Secondly, the authority that has been taken from elected councillors has been given to a board of three provincially appointed trustees. The trustees are given additional powers, including the authority to review, amend and approve the 1997 operating and capital budgets and to hire staff, arrange for facilities and obtain expert services in order to perform their functions. Decisions made by the trustees cannot be subjected to judicial review. Actions taken by the trustees are shielded from damage proceedings. Expenses incurred by the trustees become a municipal responsibility. In short, Bill 103 provides appointed trustees with total responsibility for the conduct of municipal affairs and no accountability to the residents of the six municipalities.

Thirdly, Bill 103 calls for the establishment of a transition team and grants the team the authority to make recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on further legislation to implement amalgamation and on the levels of municipal taxation and expenditures.

The legislation gives the transition team the power to establish the new city's basic organizational structure and to hire department heads and other employees. It empowers them to make recommendations to the new city council on the function and membership of neighbourhood committees and on the rationalization of municipal services. In short, Bill 103 establishes an entity which at present is nameless and faceless to be the sole architects of the new city. For all I know, they may not even be among the residents of the new city that they design.

1710

Now that I have highlighted what Bill 103 calls for, I would like to point out what this legislation does not ensure. It does not ensure the dissolution of either the board of trustees or the transition team and it does not ensure the members of neighbourhood committees will be elected.

To say Bill 103 ends local democracy is not, as some have said, a radical statement. It is not, as others have said, scaremongering or apocalyptic rhetoric. It is simply a reasonable conclusion on the part of the reader.

Upon finishing Bill 103, the reader is forced to consider the following questions: Is it necessary? Will it result in savings? How will it affect the quality of urban life? Finally, is it part of the Common Sense Revolution?

In considering whether Bill 103 is necessary, one is asking whether municipal governments have been so irresponsible that they brought about their own demise. In examining that proposition, I would like to focus on Toronto.

The city of Toronto operates within a balanced budget. The city government has been streamlining since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% reduction in the total number of personnel. In 1996 the city undertook a complete reorganization of its structure for delivering municipal services. It started at the top and by spring had replaced 13 commissioners with a four-person board of management. By fall 1996 the number of directors was reduced from 81 to 37. The reorganization of management at the lower levels is still under way. Toronto has been streamlining and restructuring. The city government has been acting responsibly.

Another way to evaluate the necessity of Bill 103 is to consider whether amalgamation is the only method of improving local government. Of 25 recent reports on governance in the Toronto area, none supports amalgamation. No report published by or for any government in the last 40 years recommends amalgamation of the municipalities that make up Metropolitan Toronto.

In considering whether Bill 103 will result in savings, one is asking whether unit costs will decline if seven structures are folded into one. The answer can be found in research on Canadian and American cities. Andrew Sancton, director of the local government program at the University of Western Ontario, examined municipal consolidations in three provinces, including Ontario, and concluded that that there is no evidence that consolidation produces savings. He points to what he describes as the vast academic evidence that connects increasing municipal population and increasing municipal per capita expenditures.

Wendell Cox, an expert on local government efficiency and responsiveness, evaluated the new city proposed by Bill 103 on the basis of two key principles advanced by the Crombie Who Does What advisory panel. As far as the principle of democracy, accountability and responsiveness is concerned, Cox concluded that the weight of the evidence is on the side of smaller governmental units. Smaller governments are more accountable, more responsive and more attuned to neighbourhoods than larger governments. Larger governments are more susceptible to special interests and more difficult for the elected officials to control.

With respect to the efficiency principle, larger governments have higher unit costs than smaller governments. The research from the United States shows that amalgamations similar to the one proposed by Bill 103 do not save money. American amalgamated cities with populations greater than one million have per capita costs that are more than double those of amalgamated cities with populations between 500,000 and one million.

The explanation for the higher unit costs, according to both Sancton and Cox, lies in the fact that government mergers are characterized by cost escalation pressures. Where there may be savings in eliminating duplication in administration, administrative costs represent only 10% to 15% of municipal budgets. These savings are more than offset by rising wage and service standards. In fact the evidence from US studies is so strong that in 1987 a United States federal government advisory commission reversed its position on consolidation and began supporting fragmentation.

In examining whether Bill 103 will produce more effective and efficient local government, the question of its impact on the quality of urban life has been answered. Since larger government is less democratic, less responsive and more expensive, the quality of life will decline, yet it is the quality of life in Toronto that has made this city a world leader, according to a recent Forbes magazine survey. Whether the measure is fiscal or social, the current Toronto is efficient and effective; it is not in need of replacing with a new Toronto.

This brings me to the final question: Is Bill 103 part of the Common Sense Revolution which commits the government to reducing overlap and duplication? No, it is not, not if we are to believe the words of the Premier, who prior to the 1995 election went on record with the Ontario Taxpayers Federation regarding this issue. In answer to very specific questions, Premier Harris said he would not eliminate local municipalities and transfer the responsibilities to regional governments. Furthermore, he said that this issue was not too complicated for the average citizen to decide by referendum and that any such referendum would be binding.

I would like to close by saying Bill 103 has no redeeming merits. It shows a lack of respect for 2.3 million residents of Metropolitan Toronto. It delivers the death blow to local democracy. In Toronto's case that means the end of a 200-year-old tradition. It takes strong cities and makes them vulnerable to urban decay. It goes against the rules of public finance. For all these reasons, I believe Bill 103 must be withdrawn.

The Chair: Thank you for coming forward and making your presentation today. You've effectively exhausted all of your 10 minutes, and I appreciate your coming forward to make your presentation.

RICHARD JESSOP

The Chair: Would Richard Jessop please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee. You may begin, sir.

Mr Richard Jessop: Thank you for the opportunity of presenting to the committee today. I'm Richard Jessop and I'm president of the Avenue Road-Eglinton Community Association. We're an association in north Toronto.

As an association we have no position on Bill 103, either for or against. However, that does not mean we do not have significant concerns with the bill. These concerns are the speed with which it's being rammed through, the cost-effectiveness in service levels that could follow the implementation of the bill, our access to local government and the issues of fiscal responsibility in a larger government unit.

I'll deal with the first: speed. There have been a number of alternatives proposed, the Golden commission, the Crombie report etc. As the last speaker said, none of those seems to have proposed a megacity. In fact the report by the six mayors, a recent proposal that came out, seems to have the same thoughts about the megacity as would be proposed by the Progressive Conservatives, and what we have here is change for the better, elimination of duplication, improved coordination through the GTA, cutting the number of politicians by 52% and a saving of $240 million a year. Who are we to believe? Do we believe the six mayors' proposal or the megacity proposal?

There's a need to debate which is the best structure. Structures need to be robust. Today the PCs are in favour in government; tomorrow it could be the NDP; the day after, the Liberals. The economy may be up; the economy may be down. We need structures in place that go beyond the flavour of today. The speed with which we're moving here makes me suspicious of the motives, again particularly since the non-partisan committees, having looked into this, have not recommended a megacity.

One would also say if other areas of the province have been given the opportunity to decide their own fate, one wonders why Toronto cannot have that same option.

Can I now turn to cost-effectiveness? Again, both sides of the debate, the six mayors' report and the pro-megacity through the KPMG report, are claiming cost savings. Who are we to believe? Again, the only empirical evidence I've seen, as the previous speaker has quoted, is the Wendell Cox report, which talks about cities greater than one million having significantly more per capita spending than cities of less than one million.

1720

Let me tell you from own personal experience about what I think amalgamation will cause. In my other life working for a living, I had the responsibility to merge two divisions within a large company. Both of those divisions had 200 people each, and I was able to merge the two divisions and effect a downsizing of 30% of the staff. I would say it was done humanely, effectively and efficiently. But how did I achieve that downsizing of 30% staff, you may ask. We stopped work. We didn't do capital project work that was on the books.

One wonders what we'll stop in the city of Toronto. We've talked about the merging of the fire departments. I doubt if we're going to close all the fire departments in the city of Toronto and have Etobicoke service. Therefore, I can only presuppose it's going to be through reduced service levels.

The other thing I managed to do quite effectively in the amalgamation that I did was a lot of soft service costs: accounting, payroll, things like that we managed to merge. That effected quite a few savings. However, it was not insignificant. We had systems within the company that were the same system, so that didn't pose a problem. I have also been responsible for implementing systems within the company that re-engineered the company, so to speak, and they do not come without significant costs. The transition was also terribly disruptive and created undue concern for the employees, as you would expect. My conclusion from my experience is that transition is costly and painful, and we have to do it.

Tom Jakobek, a councillor with the city of Toronto, was quoted at a meeting I attended as saying the amalgamation will cost $400 million. I figure it will be a lot more. From a business case perspective then, as I have to put business cases together for my business and any work that we do, my boss wants to know there are going to be certain savings to defray risk. I'm not sure I'd bankroll this one, given particularly the notion the six mayors say duplication can be eliminated without amalgamation. So, as a request from the ratepayers, we requested that the government set aside for this megacity a minimum of $500 million for the transition, and this is aside from any funding you're going to have to set aside for the downloading of welfare.

Now I'd like to talk about the issue of access to local government. I've lived in both Scarborough and Toronto, and they are extremely different cities and have unique characteristics. We have bylaws to protect us and we have planning rules to protect us. The large city hall will create a impetus towards a common average.

I've got a quote from the Toronto Star, Monday, January 27, and this is Staff Inspector Gary Grant, head of Metro's parking enforcement unit: "He said that, with one bylaw, there will be a single fine for the same offence across the city." Whoopee. This is the bureaucrats' view of the world, and it really does not support the notion of the unique communities that we have within our city.

I'd like to turn to the Conservatives' view of how to fix these things proposed in Bill 103, and that is to replace our current two-tier government with a three-tier government to rectify the situation and, with the downsizing of the councillors, I hope they've got enough time to deal with the individual residents in their ratepayer groups.

Having said that, though, one would hope Bill 103 will address the local councils being open to grass-roots involvement. They should not be political appointments. The other things that these grass-roots community committees will need is accountability. Otherwise, it's meaningless. I've been on teams, committees, whatever, where I've had no accountability and felt very frustrated. They will not work.

We also need mechanisms for the community associations, of which I'm the president, so that they can also be heard in a larger city. The OMB is not listening today. Who is to suppose that they will in the future?

I'd now like to get to the last issue of fiscal responsibility. This will be a government accountable for over $1 billion. There are trustees in place for the time being looking after that, and we've heard that some people think that's an unworkable situation. It certainly is unworkable in the long run.

1730

How are we to mitigate problems created by large governments who are less controllable and will be more open to special interests? Well, you better put rules in Bill 103 for the lobbyists. As neighbourhood community committees, we run on very thin budgets. We're lucky at any time if we have $1,000 in our community committee.

Also, large governments beget large unions, and again I can speak of that from my business experience. I think the previous speaker spoke about that one. I will quote from the Wendell Cox report. It says: "Successive collective agreements can be expected to increase the compensation of municipal employees to the level of the highest-paid workforce of the pre-existing cities. Downward convergence in labour rates is unprecedented." This is not very comforting from a taxpayer's point of view.

In summary, I would request that the government reconsider what they're doing and be receptive to other views and other recommendations. The citizens of Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, East York and York have worked hard to provide civic pride for their citizens, develop community centres, city halls to define their presence and personality and have created one of the best cities in the world. The citizens of Toronto deserve the best structure in the future to maintain that well-deserved global reputation. Let them have the choice. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Jessop. You've effectively exhausted your 10 minutes. I appreciate your coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

ROBERT KATZ

The Chair: Would Mr Robert Katz please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee. Go ahead, sir.

Mr Robert Katz: I will attempt to be brief, if I can, but I just wanted to say that I'm very honoured to be here, first because I respect all of the people in this building and on this committee and also because I particularly have come to respect, through knowing them and seeing them in action, Mr Mike Colle and Ms Isabel Bassett, who have served our Toronto community through an awful lot of volunteer work and a lot of tireless work on their own. So this certainly is a place where I feel what I have to say can be listened to. Thank you for inviting me.

I live on Wellesley Street East in Toronto. My wife and I have lived on that street for just over 25 years. I run a business on Danforth Avenue. I employ seven people and I've been doing that for almost 10 years. I mention that because I do have roots in this community and I do have a lot of concern for the community in which I live.

What I plan to do today is to focus entirely on the one issue of the binding referendum, because if I tried to focus on all of the issues of Bill 103, I would have to go very quickly and cover a lot of ground without any real depth.

On the issue of the binding referendum, I begin by noting that I have an adult daughter who lives in Quebec. My daughter is a federalist. She does not want to lose her Canadian citizenship and she does not want to see Quebec separate. She knows this may happen. I think that's the reality of any federalist living in Quebec; they know that they may lose their country. But at least she is comforted by two things.

First, there is an understanding in Quebec that that province will not separate from Canada unless and until two things happen. The first thing that will happen is that the people of Quebec will elect a government that says, "We are committed to separating," and they will knowingly elect a government that says, "We want to separate from Canada."

The second thing is that the people of Quebec will vote in a referendum in favour of separation. So my daughter feels that she has a chance living in Quebec. She can work against a separatist government and she can work for a No vote in a referendum. She may lose and if she loses, well, that's too bad. She'll feel sad about it and maybe come back to Toronto and maybe not, but at least she has the option of electing a government, knowing full well what they'll do and voting in a referendum knowing that will shape the decision that is made.

I want the same prerogative for myself, for my family, for my neighbours who live in Toronto. I want the prerogative of knowing, as I vote in an election, whether or not the party that's coming to my door plans to amalgamate Toronto or get rid of Metro, and I would like, once Bill 103 has been proposed, for there to be a referendum which is binding upon the government. I feel I should have that same right that anybody in Quebec has.

I appreciate that there are situations in which referendums are inappropriate. Specifically, when an issue is integral to a government's policy, if they hold a referendum on that one issue and it's defeated, that would prevent the government from going forth with its overall policy. I submit that amalgamating Toronto is not integral to any part of the government's policy, that it is something the government feels it should do in the interests of efficiency, but not because it's essential to the government of Ontario that it be done. This makes is a very appropriate issue for a referendum.

I followed Mr Leach very carefully throughout the debate because he happens to be my own member of provincial Parliament. When Mr Leach introduced the amalgamation bill, the first thing he said was: "Don't waste time arguing against it. We won't listen to anything you say. Our mind is made up and we are convinced." He told us not to waste our money on a referendum because no matter how many people vote against the megacity, he doesn't care, this is something that he intends to do to us notwithstanding. Explaining his rationale, he said, "The issue is just too complicated for people to understand." Those were his words: "It's too complicated."

Now without any disrespect for the people in this room, and I really do have respect for these people, I don't think there is a single person in this room who is any more or any less qualified to determine the future of Toronto than I am. I don't think that any member of provincial Parliament elected from a riding out of town should feel comfortable coming to Toronto and deciding to ruin this city against the wishes of its people.

I feel that is a decision that should be made by local people, and it's quite possible we'll do it wrong. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Leach is right and this megacity will be more efficient than the six cities and one Metro structure that already exist, and if he is right and I am wrong, I can live with the consequences of my decision. I've lived here for many years and I plan to live here for many years more, and if I've made a mistake, I can accept that.

So too perhaps I've misestimated everything. Perhaps when the referendum is held, everybody will vote in favour of amalgamation. If that happens, I promise you I will write a letter of apology to Mr Leach and I will say, "You were right and I was wrong, and I will drop this issue forever."

The one and only thing I'm asking today is for the right to have this decision made via binding referenda, following which this committee will recommend that the government do what the people of Toronto are requesting be done, whatever that may be. Thank you very much.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Katz. I appreciate your coming before us today. I probably couldn't find more appropriate words to preface my question to you than one of the presenters who appeared just a few minutes before you, Ms Cohen, who said, "We insist that any restructuring proceed through the normal channels of discussion and debate provided by our parliamentary system."

Now I'd be the first to admit that those opposed to this bill have done a very creditable job from their perspective of creating the perspective that somehow referenda are part of our democratic process in this province, but as I'm sure you're aware, no previous bill has ever been debated save and except exactly the way we're doing it here today. You make your appeals directly to MPPs or you appear before a legislative committee.

Second, there is no municipal council that has submitted one of their tax increases to your consideration. There is not one that has submitted one of their outrageous severance packages to civil servants they were laying off to your consideration. For them to turn around now and suggest that somehow we should be dealing with this bill differently than the thousands of other pieces of provincial legislation is something really quite galling to anyone who really believes in the parliamentary process.

My question to you is, what is there so unique about this bill? I'm the first to admit it affects only one part of Ontario, but is the suggestion that a bill that affects 2.3 million is less worthy of this process than, say, a taxation bill that affects all 11 million Ontarians? What is there unique about this one bill that demands we have a different process just for it?

Mr Katz: There are several things that are unique about this bill, but first of all I thank you for your question because I agree with the first part of it completely. I did not mean to suggest that this committee or this Legislature has violated any normal process. Rather I feel that the amalgamation of Toronto is analogous to the separation of Quebec; it is something so very important, so very permanent and irreversible that people deserve the right to vote because it will not hurt the government one iota if we vote no and you change your minds, but it could have a major effect on those of us who live here.

I agree with you completely: referenda are not a part of the Ontario political landscape. In fact, I never heard any Premier suggest that referenda would be a good idea until Mike Harris was elected. This is the suggestion of Mr Mike Harris, that referenda should be used to resolve difficult debates.

Mr Gilchrist: And exactly consistent with what Quebec has done.

Mr Katz: The one thing I was going to say is, if I don't like the spending habits of my city councillor, I can vote her out of office in December. If I don't like the decision the provincial government makes on Bill 103, I can't do anything about it. The matter is settled and over and we're amalgamated and nobody will be able to take humpty-dumpty and put it together again.

Mr Gilchrist: Well, I guess, Mr Katz --

The Chair: Sorry, Mr Gilchrist, but we've come to the end of the 10 minutes. I'd like to thank you, Mr Katz, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

BOB BARNETT

The Chair: Would Bob Barnett please come forward. Welcome.

Mr Bob Barnett: Thank you very much, Mr Chair and members. It's great to have this opportunity to discuss with you this issue of amalgamation. It just sounds like very simple words, but in fact it is something that involves such great symbolism. It involves the image of ourselves. Someone from Toronto is part of Toronto; Toronto is part of us. So it's not just a money issue.

I think it's interesting that we're discussing this today. We're proud of Toronto. Toronto was judged the most livable city, and that's very important to me because that's part of my life. I'm an architect and I deal with cities all over the province. I've been the president of our own residents' association; Sussex-Ulster represents 1,300 homes. Now it's the local issues that are the bread and potatoes of issues. A lot of these issues, I call them fence disputes, local things, but we have a whole city that has been built up to deal with methods of solving these local, intense problems and I'm concerned that we're tearing apart structures that we've built up and nurtured over, well, almost two centuries now.

I'm here to tell you that I agree with the fundamental principles of Bill 103. Let's look at them: saving money, providing better services and funding services provided at the local level with money that's raised at the local level. All of those things make perfect sense to me. My concern is that the details in the bill don't support the fundamental principles. Let me just tell you why I think that.

First is saving money. This bill, in my opinion -- and I'm sorry; I've read a lot of the academic studies -- holds for me the certainty of costing us all vast amounts of additional money. Winnipeg and Halifax have proved it. They didn't budget for the cost of amalgamation, yet it has cost them a lot of money to achieve this amalgamation and it's going to roll on and keep on costing them money. I personally believe that Andrew Sancton and Wendell Cox have it right, that both in the United States and Canada amalgamation costs more money, not less money.

This quickie, three-week KPMG study was in my opinion severely flawed. It ignored the costs of amalgamation, a fundamental problem. It ignored things like coordinating union agreements and standardizing bylaws -- fundamental problems, fundamental costs. It ignored the extra costs of running a larger city. That's more bureaucracy. They completely forgot that larger cities take more bureaucracy to run them. It claimed that money could be saved by amalgamating the police when -- hey -- the police are already amalgamated. Big mistake. KPMG's savings came from entirely different things like using civilians for policing. That happens, I think, not to be such a bad idea, but it's got nothing to do with amalgamation; it's through other things, rationalization. KPMG itself states in its own report that they're very uncertain whether there will be any savings from amalgamation, and that's the only study that claims to even vaguely support it.

1740

Sancton and Cox were not the only ones to say that big cities have higher unit costs. Academics like Pinchot and Roberts have demonstrated that companies across North America are moving away from large company amalgamated structures and towards decentralized operating units to save money. They can provide better service at lower costs by splitting them up. Pinchot's book has a very interesting title. It's called The Death of Bureaucracy and the Rise of the Intelligent Organization. They prove that large organizations are more expensive for each unit of production. Another academic, Tom Roberts, in Liberation Management proves the same thing. They talk about CN, which is breaking itself apart; 3M, AT&T and DuPont are all breaking themselves apart to provide better service and save money, and IBM's doing it. Yet we're talking about creating something that's bigger and more bureaucratic. It's going to cost more now and it's going to cost far more later.

I suggest that the present cities be encouraged to become more efficient by giving them incentive grants. Help them to save money, reward them for saving money. If their unit costs can come down, reward them for it. Publish the unit rates of various cities. If unit rates are high, let the public punish the politician who is spending too much money. Let the taxpayers put the pressure on.

I encourage experimentation and more efficient ways to provide labour for providing the services within these cities. But we have to avoid, most important, the extra costs that surely are going to come from this amalgamation. Here's a maybe overgrandiose example, but I personally feel that the reason Communism was not a successful system was because of the excessive cost of centralized administration. Big organizations can't plan well, can't administer well. What you get are a lot of large, simplistic projects.

Here's one: The LRT, our light rapid transit, our funny streetcar on Spadina. That was brought to us by Metro Toronto. It cost us $150 million. It didn't bring us any new users. It might have benefitted Marathon Realty or the SkyDome, maybe, but the cost of amortizing that $150 million is $10 million a year. I think it's a white elephant; it's not bringing us any new revenue. The residents and the city opposed this but Metro pushed it through. That's the kind of major, white elephant, grand-scale project that large governments provide. This is contrary to smaller government, it's contrary to the Common Sense Revolution.

More than one person has suggested to me that amalgamation sounds like the kind of program Conservatives complain about. I don't think it's a local cost-efficient program, the kind that is designed by Conservatives, frankly, like me. Michael Walker, who is the executive director of the Fraser Institute in BC, has just completed a report on municipal amalgamation. He concludes that amalgamation is a poor idea because it creates a larger monopoly. We should be trying to get rid of these monopolies, not create more. We should be able to choose more the way we get our garbage done. Taxpayers are going to flee these monopolies and leave for less expensive municipalities.

I'm concerned that the province is trying to tell us how to spend our property taxes. I think we should, as residents of local municipalities, have some discretion over the spending of our money that's raised locally. You have every right as the provincial government to cut our transfer payments. I think that's perfectly fair. We're getting, what, $50 million a year right now? Cut it off. No problem. But I don't think you have the right, the moral right, to take our residential taxes and dismantle our municipal local government that we chose and have nurtured to give us a good decision-making process for 160 years.

Let me talk for a moment about services. The main reasons that Pinchot and Roberts suggest that companies decentralize and break themselves apart is to provide better service. They give in those books hundreds and hundreds of examples of companies which get things to the customer in days instead of the weeks they were doing it in before. The best way to provide good planning is at the local level, where the community can tell people what they want. The people in Guildwood don't care what's happening on my local street in downtown Toronto. Why should they care about that?

I suggest that we involve the local politicians in making local decisions. It's the same thing with parking regulations. Things that work in the suburbs don't necessarily work downtown. I'm not sure we should be trying to force the same things to work everywhere. Standardization of all these bylaws, to me, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Some of the things that I think should be dealt with at the local level are parking regulations, street repairs, service repairs of our pipes and sewers, local parks and recreation, animal control, fire protection services, building permits, heritage buildings. All kinds of things are dealt with at the local level. Maybe even the cities right now are too big. But I don't think we should go to a higher level. Metro does not provide good decisions. They're not accessible to us. The bureaucrats are far too distant.

As an architect, I get approvals all over the province. The universal rule that I've come up with is that the smaller the municipality, the faster and the better the service. I get really rapid approvals in Welland and Lindsay. Toronto actually is not too bad, but you go to Mississauga and North York, they're terrible. I've had an application waiting for six months and they haven't even looked at it yet. The bureaucrats are remote. When I go to Metro to get something done it's like I don't matter. My project's only worth $1 million and it just doesn't matter to them. When I have to come back to my client and say I can't get my approvals and the workmen are waiting to do the jobs and it's taking six months and a year to get decisions, it just doesn't work, doesn't make sense.

The most effective members of our city government are our elected representatives. They help us get access to the local government. They allow the government to talk to us. We get to talk to the committees. These local representatives work 12 and 14 hours a day, six days a week. They're not civil servants, but to me they're the most efficient service providers. They get the best quality out of the services that city provides.

The Chair: Mr Barnett, you've exhausted your 10 minutes. Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

JULIE BEDDOES

The Chair: Would Julie Beddoes please come forward? Welcome.

Ms Julie Beddoes: Mr Chair, members of the committee, my name is Julie Beddoes. I came to live in Toronto in 1966. My children grew up here; my grandchildren are growing up here. I've just bought an apartment in the Gooderham and Worts development and I hope to live here to the end of my days.

Whether one supports or opposes the amalgamation of all the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto into one new city, certain provisions of Bill 103 appear to have been hastily prepared and in need of further examination and revision.

In particular, Bill 103 transfers to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, my MPP, and to his appointees the authority to overrule the decisions of duly elected municipal representatives and to establish the conditions and staff with which any new council will function, with no right of appeal even by recourse to the courts. Moreover, the bill provides no time limit on the exercise of these powers. Such a transfer of authority over the governance of what is now Metropolitan Toronto from elected representatives to a minister not elected on the understanding that he eventually hold that authority is contrary to conventional procedures in any democracy.

1750

First of all, "[T]he minister may," the bill says, but is not required to "dissolve the board of trustees," part III, subsection 9(10), and "the transition team," part III, subsection 16(12). He may dissolve them one month after the transition year, but he's not obliged to. The bill even provides, in the event that he decides not to dissolve them, for the payment of their salaries and expenses during and after the transition year. If you'd like the part and subsection numbers, I've got them. If, therefore, the minister is displeased with the composition of the council elected in November 1997, he may subject it indefinitely to board and team.

The second point: The so-called transition team will have the authority to continue to perform the duties listed in part III, subsection 16(4), which include (a) the consideration of "what further legislation may be required to implement this act," and this could be going on into the next century, and "(b) consider whether restrictions should be imposed on the amounts the new city may raise and the amounts the new city and its local boards may spend in any year." How can we possibly vote for a new council in November and how can the people who stand for election possibly come before us without being able to give any kind of policy proposals at all, knowing that at any moment the minister's appointees can veto anything they suggest, any expenditure they propose? This is absurd.

The transition team is to establish the new city's basic organizational structure. It is to hire department heads and other employees. Thus, municipal elections to the new council will be virtually meaningless, as the minister is given by this bill the authority to prevent their fulfilling most of the usual functions of a municipal council.

Another point: Clause (i) of this subsection instructs the transition team to "carry out any other prescribed duties" -- any other prescribed duties. What present or future ministers may choose to prescribe cannot be known, but it is clear that their appointees, rather than elected representatives, will have the authority to direct the affairs of the new city for an indefinite period if Bill 103 is passed.

While these extraordinary powers are granted to the trustees and transition team members and, through them, to the minister, at no time are they accountable to the population of the new city, either through the electoral process or through appeal to the courts. All of these provisions of Bill 103 are inconsistent with the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.

Supporters of the bill claim that the neighbourhood committees would deal with what the Toronto Star on Saturday calls "strictly local issues." The bill, however, leaves quite unspecified what will be defined as a local issue or what is meant by "deal with."

If decisions made by duly elected councillors are to be subject, on the one hand, to the approval of the minister's appointees and, on the other, by elected neighbourhood committees, how does this reduce the complications and levels of government, let alone increase local government accountability? I must say that I am getting rather sick of the rhetoric, buzzwords, waffly, vaguely nice-sounding words like "common sense," "accountability," "accessibility." They're wonderful words. You can always say them, but nobody really knows what they mean. They don't bind you to anything in particular. It's like sweet music behind a cigarette ad. It sort of creates the mood, but it doesn't bind anybody to anything, and I certainly noticed a lot of those words in the minister's presentation this morning.

If the neighbourhood committees are to have no more than an advisory role, with no executive authority or budgets -- and I doubt if the council's going to be able to afford to give them much of a budget -- what sort of role can they play that would make it worthwhile for anyone not an agent of ministerial policy to serve on them? Whether they are further instruments of ministerial direction or ineffectual talking shops, they can only serve to increase the disaffection and cynicism of the public toward the whole governmental process.

I am coming near the end of my time, so I'll hurry with my next section, which is on the vague, confusing and contradictory provisions for neighbourhood services in the bill. They're only mentioned twice. At one point in part II, the bill says, "The city council shall, by bylaw, establish neighbourhood committees and determine their functions." They're not mentioned again until part III, which says, "The transition team shall...hold public consultation on, (i) the functions to be assigned to neighbourhood committees and the method of choosing their members." There is no indication of what public consultations might consist of and no time is specified by which the committees may be in place. The bill allows their establishment to be indefinitely delayed.

No procedure is specified in case the policy of the council responsible for establishing the neighbourhood committees does not meet the approval of the transition team or the minister. On one thing the bill is specific: Neighbourhood committees are to be chosen by persons unspecified, not elected.

In conclusion, I claim that Bill 103 contains nothing that would prevent the new city from being run indefinitely by the minister through his appointees. The extent to which the government is willing to take into account the expressed wishes of citizens has been made clear in their response to the forthcoming municipal referenda. For all these reasons, I urge the committee to recommend that the government of Ontario withdraw this bill and instead, hold municipal elections in November 1997 under the existing act, with the addition of a referendum question asking whether the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto wish a bill providing for the amalgamation of the municipalities to be prepared. If the answer were yes, there would then be an appropriate length of time before the next municipal election for the contents of the bill to be examined, discussed and amended, according to customary parliamentary procedures.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You have used up your 10 minutes. I extend our appreciation to you for coming forward.

We will stand recessed until after the vote in the House.

The committee recessed from 1757 to 1808.

JACQUELINE LATTER

The Chair: Would Jacqueline Latter please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. You'll have 10 minutes today to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit.

Ms Jacqueline Latter: I can hardly hear you because of all the noise. I'm sure once I sit down I can hear you.

The Chair: Order, please, gentlemen.

Ms Latter: Thank you very much. I'm not a politician and I'm not a speech-maker, so you're not going to hear great eloquence from me. What you're going to hear is a straight-from-the-heart emotional reaction to this dreadfully undemocratic bill that's being proposed.

I've lived here for 27 years. When I first came here, the Spadina Expressway, which I'm sure all of you will remember, was a major issue. It was the first point at which I realized how powerful community groups could be in preserving things specifically for their community. It's there that I would like to begin.

I've always been incredibly impressed that in Toronto I can walk into my local city councillor's or Metro councillor's office at almost any time of the day or I can phone in and actually talk to a person, very often the elected representative. I can't imagine what's going to happen under the new so-called megacity if that goes through. I don't know if any of you have ever tried to deal with large bureaucracies, but I don't think they're as receptive in any way. There will be voice mail and there will be returned calls that will go to other people's voice mails and there will be telephone tag played, but you won't have the face-to-face contact we enjoy now with our local elected politicians.

I don't understand the logic of the megacity. In all the reports I've read and all the figures that have been thrown out, I don't see any demonstrated evidence that there's going to be any cost saving at all; in fact, I've seen the opposite demonstrated from other countries' research, where this type of megacity proposal has resulted in more expense rather than less expense to the local taxpayers.

I'm offended by this government's response to the proposed referendum. The notion that people want to hold a referendum on an issue that's so important being met with, "We don't really care about your referendum and we're not really going to listen to it; you can hold it anyway, but it doesn't matter to us," is unbelievable to me in a democratic country. The word "dictatorship" comes to mind over and over and over again when I think of these kinds of statements and what's happening in Bill 103.

I heard the previous speaker talk about the trustees that have been appointed. I agree with everything that was said by that previous speaker. Trustees are normally appointed when a bankruptcy situation is facing people. As far as I'm aware, none of the municipalities in Metro Toronto are facing that situation. To think that the democratically elected officials I and other people elected in this city have now had their powers stripped from them is again unbelievable to me. The fact that these trustees were able to meet with city bureaucrats is unbelievable to me. Why is my democratically elected politician not able to have any say in this process? Why are their democratically elected powers completely ignored in this process?

I'm the chair of an advisory council of a community centre in the city of Toronto. It causes me great concern that under the new megacity there may be no funding at all for these community centres to continue the way they have done, there may be no avenue for citizens like me to participate in the decision-making process at the community level, and there may be no more communities under the proposals this government is trying to bring in.

I'm a parent of two children in the Toronto school board, and I can't help but make the connection to Bill 104. I see these two bills as being completely interrelated. I see them as an attempt by this government to have a huge power grab and tax grab at the expense of the citizens of the Metropolitan Toronto area, and it's absolutely unconscionable. As I said before, there is no demonstrated evidence that there will be substantial, if any, cost saving in any of this, so why are you throwing us into complete chaos?

Citizens are going to the polls in November of this year to elect another municipal government of some sort. I wonder what powers these people are going to have in light of what the previous speaker said about the trustees who have been appointed to oversee almost everything at the city level.

Again I use the word "dictatorship." I don't use it lightly. I think you have to really reconsider what you're doing. You are a democratically elected government. Hopefully you can be democratically unelected the next provincial go-round. Hopefully you might see sense after listening to all the speakers over the next few weeks and consider withdrawing this dreadful piece of legislation.

The Chair: Thank you. We have about three minutes for questions from the Liberal caucus.

Mr Colle: Thank you, Ms Latter. How do you see community involvement being jeopardized with the megacity? You made the comment that you're afraid the type of community involvement you're involved in, the advisory council you sit on, might be jeopardized. Could you explain how that fear is more than just a notion.

Ms Latter: That community involvement is dependent on people having access to their locally elected, democratically elected representative. If that person has a responsibility for a greater number of people than they already have now, I don't imagine there will be that type of accessibility we now enjoy. I cannot imagine, under the megacity proposal, how any of this will be able to be accomplished the way we accomplish it at the local level. As an advisory council, we're able to meet with our locally elected politicians any time we want.

Mr Colle: In terms of this new government, this megacity government they're creating, people have talked about the trusteeship. The previous speaker was quite articulate in explaining that the trusteeship is the first phase of overseeing, or whatever you want to call it, local government. The second phase is going to be this transition team. This transition team is going to be able to hire department heads, hire staff and be in place indefinitely at the discretion of the minister. Do you think this transition team and its power over the new council will lead to that council having any kind of real autonomy or independence to deal with advisory groups or to deal independently from Queen's Park?

Ms Latter: To me, this transition team represents a complete undermining of the democratic process in the same way that the so-called Education Improvement Commission under Bill 104 is being appointed. These people are going to oversee all the decision-making that the locally elected politicians should be making and were elected to make.

Mr Gerretsen: There's an awful lot of doubletalk going on here about these neighbourhood committees and exactly what they're going to do. If you read the minister's statement from this morning, at one point he says they'll be able to tell their representatives on city council what they think local priorities should be and the people will be directly involved in making those decisions. He goes on to say they'll make local decision-making possible. Then he goes on further and says councillors will carry those local priorities with them when they sit down at the city council meetings.

It seems to me that he can't have it both ways. Either these local neighbourhood committees will be getting some real power or they're not getting any power. Unless we clearly define what they're going to do -- and I don't think that's anywhere in the legislation at all -- they won't have any direct say at all in how their neighbourhoods will be managed or looked after.

Ms Latter: I don't believe they can have any power without the power of the locally elected politician. This will sound disrespectful, but it's intended to be: Quite frankly, I don't have any faith in anything any of the ministers of this government have to say because they contradict each other on a constant basis.

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

Before we recess for the dinner hour, just a note that the subcommittee will meet at 9 o'clock in room 110. Thank you. We'll recess till 7 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1818 to 1902.

PETER TABUNS

The Chair: Welcome to the evening session of the standing committee on general government on the City of Toronto Act. Our next deputant is Peter Tabuns. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit.

Mr Peter Tabuns: Good evening, everyone. As the Chair has said, my name is Peter Tabuns. I'm the chair of the Toronto board of health and I represent Ward 8 in Toronto, the Riverdale area. I wanted to let you know, having done a lot of door-to-door work and phone canvassing in my ward, that the overwhelming majority of my constituents are opposed to this legislation you're bringing forward, not only Bill 103 but the whole mega-package that comes with it.

I am pleased, of course, that you are holding hearings. Hundreds of requests have come in and I understand you haven't even advertised yet for these hearings. I expect many hundreds more will want to appear before you. I want to add my voice to what I think you'll find is a growing chorus of outrage around this issue.

There's a great deal to say about this piece of legislation and I don't think much of it is polite. It's been described in various ways as "odious," "brutal," "stupid" and "just plain bad." I find that it's exhausting people's vocabulary as well as their patience, certainly mine.

I have to ask myself, where did this legislation come from? From the back of an envelope, from a dinner napkin, or was it Mr Leach exorcising a persistent nightmare? I know that you as legislators have gone through a variety of hoops to get where you are now and so I can't believe that you think this is a good idea, or was ever a good idea.

Even your own Conservative Party task force on Metro government back in 1994 concluded that the "government closest to the people is the most efficient, responsive and accountable." That sure isn't the megacity legislation you're dealing with at this point. Mr Leach was on that Conservative Party task force. I have to ask, what has changed in the past three years? I don't think the change is in the cities or in Metro Toronto itself. I think the change is in Mr Leach.

Just before the 1995 provincial election, Mike Harris went on record with the taxpayers federation saying that once he was elected he would not eliminate local municipalities and transfer their responsibilities to regional governments. Again I have to ask myself, what changed? I think the answer is: Mr Harris got elected.

I also say to myself, aren't you, the Conservative Party, the people who are always going on about big government being more expensive and less competitive? Even your own rhetoric doesn't support this legislation because the reality is you're creating a very big government, bigger than most provinces, a government that will open the door to very significant spending, something I thought was of concern to your administration. In fact, many experts agree on that analysis.

Wendell Cox, a consultant on international public policy, tells us that in the United States the unit costs of large amalgamated governments tend to move to the highest levels of the pre-existing municipalities. Sometimes they go more than 100% higher. These municipalities may not have the same services as we do in Metro Toronto, but whatever their services, it's clear they cost one heck of a lot more after amalgamation than they did before.

But you don't even have to look as far as the United States to look at the costs that come with amalgamation. Reports out of Halifax, where amalgamation is less than a year old, tell us it's already costing $18 million more than expected. You have to ask yourself, don't you think the people of Halifax wish they could go back and invest a mere $1 million now in a referendum to reject what was imposed on them?

The fact is, and I think you know it, that a megacity will certainly cost more. You also know that the municipalities of Metro Toronto are required by law to operate within a balanced budget and are streamlined to the bone. There are no costly overlaps, notwithstanding the steady barrage of media attacks on local government.

Services such as police, ambulance and transit are already amalgamated across the metropolitan area because that's the best way to operate them. Services such as public health are delivered by each separate municipality because that's the best way to make them effective. Even your own KPMG study only claims actual amalgamation savings of, at most, 2% to 3% of total spending of all amalgamated cities. I think that's something worth looking at. The amalgamation itself is not eliminating large amounts of duplication because there are not large amounts of duplication there.

I'm sure you've heard that last year, 1996, Fortune magazine named Toronto the number one international city for business and living. I'm sure I'm not the first person who's said that to you and I'm sure in the course of these hearings I won't be the last. But the reality is that the city of Toronto and the cities within Metro are regularly noted internationally for their success as urban centres. So I have to ask, what's the problem? There's an old saying that if something's not broken, don't fix it. You folks seem to think that if something's not broken, in this case you'd better break it, especially when it comes to Toronto.

All the ugly trappings of this bill -- the trustees, the megacity council, the sweeping powers -- are designed for one purpose only: to keep the people of Toronto away from the decisions that affect their lives, to make them powerless so that this provincial government can bleed our city to death. That is the outcome of the package you've brought forward. That death will come in the form of downloading social assistance, child care, housing, public health, long-term care and so on, on to the municipal tax base.

I think the megacity will make all this possible. The megacity functions as a Trojan Horse. It brings in a package of goods that will destroy that city from within. It's argued that the megacity will make things operate more efficiently, give us the tax room to cover these downloaded expenses. That simply is not the reality.

You're in a position, though, where it's no longer your problem. You can pass on this burden of funding huge amounts of essential services to municipal taxpayers even if they're old and on a fixed income or struggling to make ends meet on a small income. The lower their income, the bigger the blow. Unfortunately, we've come to the conclusion that your government doesn't care, you don't care, because it will make it possible for you to pass on a 30% tax cut to the big income earners. The higher their income, the bigger the tax break. Your scheme is one of the more creative income redistribution schemes: Tax the poor to give to the rich.

1910

If people complain -- and believe me they'll complain; they aren't going to roll over and play dead; they aren't going to be silent; they will be complaining -- you're in a position to say: "Sorry, it's not our problem any more. Talk to your municipal councillor. And by the way, he or she represents 50,000 other people, so good luck."

The megacity means all gain for the provincial government and no pain for the Tory government and its friends. But let me remind you of who will take the pain -- I'll pick one item and that's long-term care -- the very people who need the service most and are least able to pay for it through their property taxes: seniors and people with disabilities. Is this common sense? It certainly isn't common decency.

It's nothing less than obscene to download the increasing costs of long-term care on to an aging population. In only five years the number of seniors in Metro is projected to by 30%. Most of them will be people over age 85 who are likely to need the greatest amount of care. With all the other downloaded services competing for limited dollars, dollars that will become even more limited as business flees from tax increases to cover service costs, how are all the seniors who need care going to get it? How are all the people who have been released from hospital after a day or two going to get care? How are the people with serious or terminal diseases going to get care?

You know perfectly well that the long-term-care system, with all these pressures, is going to collapse. You have to ask yourselves, is this your problem? Perhaps you think it isn't. I think, if that's your perspective, you have to think again. Many of you live here, perhaps permanently, perhaps part of the time. You can't hide from the problem. You'll see it in your communities, you'll see it in your apartment building, you'll see it with the people down the street. If you figure the problem can be solved by privatizing long-term care to make it cheaper, just remember that cheaper service is certainly what you'll get, but not cheap enough to be covered by your 30% tax cut, because once you've decimated good, public, not-for-profit care, you'll never be able to buy it back on your own.

As a councillor for the city of Toronto and chair of the Toronto board of health, I deplore the megacity legislation because it will sacrifice the quality of life of this fine city and it will sacrifice the wellbeing of its residents to what I see as a senseless, corporatist ideology.

The 2.3 million residents of this great metropolitan area are quite capable of deciding what kind of city they want, and I am sure it is not the megacity. I'm joining with them in saying get rid of Bill 103 and get rid of the downloading mega-package that comes with it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Tabuns, for your presentation. You've used up your entire 10 minutes. I want to thank you for coming forward this evening to make your presentation to the committee.

SHEILA BROWN

The Chair: Would Sheila Brown please come forward. Good evening. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation. You may use that time as you see fit.

Ms Sheila Brown: My name is Sheila Brown. I'm a former public health nurse in North York and I am very unhappy about this megacity bill as well.

Premier Harris states that he's trying to strengthen downtown Toronto, not weaken it. I quote: "We want the same things that the board of trade wants, that the people of Toronto want: We want a strong Toronto." This bill will definitely not accomplish this goal.

After the passage of the omnibus bill a year ago, the Premier admitted that many MPPs voted for Bill 26 without understanding its implications or even having read and discussed all its details. Now the Legislature is asked to blindly pass a bill which fundamentally changes the structure of the six cities in Metro without having any documentation or studies of its impact on the lives of their constituents. There is plenty of evidence in large US cities -- New York, Chicago, Los Angeles -- that shows there is no efficiency in cities with populations over a million. Research demonstrates that municipal amalgamations do not save money either in the USA or in Canada.

Trustees and their power: The appointment of trustees to oversee the financial decisions of the duly elected councils is an odious aspect of this bill. Trustees are usually appointed when a municipality has mismanaged its financial affairs, is bankrupt or has committed some major error. In this case, trustees have been imposed on our elected councils that have committed none of the above. This is totally unacceptable, as are the broad powers given the trustees. The fact that they are solely responsible to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and that their costs are to be paid by the municipalities adds insult to the lack of democratic process.

The trampling of democratic principles contained in this act is breathtaking and is only exceeded by the power grab contained in the omnibus bill. This government was never given a mandate to create a megacity. There was nothing in the Common Sense Revolution that indicated this was in the offing, let alone that it would be pushed so precipitously through the Legislature. If this bill is passed, it will have deleterious effects not only on the citizens of the Metro area but on all of the province and perhaps Canada.

By downloading the costs of social services, long-term care and public health as well as the usual municipal services -- sewers, roads, policing and firefighting -- there will be an unfair burden placed on the municipal taxpayers of Metro. What will happen to the economy, the manufacturing sector and businesses such as real estate, when the impact of this is felt through spiralling taxes and increased costs to businesses and residents of Metro? User fees and decreased services will be the result.

The costs of public heath, social services, social housing, and long-term care do not belong at the local level. These require provincial standards to ensure that all citizens of the province have equal access to services. The Crombie report made that clear, yet the government has chosen to ignore its own expert advice, paid for by the taxpayers of the province, and the report now gathers dust.

What are the remedies? Withdraw the bill. Rethink the plan with consultation from the people involved. Reorganization of services can occur without amalgamation. Save the costs of transition and the cost of the trustees. Keep the local governments, which are providing cost-effective, efficient and accountable services in a city deemed the most liveable in North America.

The ramifications of Bill 103 will result in decreased services and increased costs. The users of social services, long-term care, public health and social housing will be the losers. Once again this government brings new meaning to the phrase "Women and children first."

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've left about four minutes for questions.

Mr Marchese: We are dealing here with the amalgamation issue alone, because that's what the bill speaks to. Sadly, the dumping of all the other services -- child care, housing, welfare, long-term care and public health -- is all linked to this. Although some people would love us to separate the two issues, in my mind they are now inseparably linked. I don't think it's possible to talk about one without linking it to the other.

The Tories argue that urban life will be improved, that we will have many more jobs, we'll be stronger and democracy will continue. But a number of speakers who have already spoken talked about why none of those things appear to be true in their minds. Is it your sense that once we amalgamate and once we pass on these other services, somehow the quality of your life will be improved?

1920

Ms Brown: I don't think the quality of anyone's life is going to be improved. The fact that the municipal tax base is the most regressive kind of tax that we can have and that our population is aging at a very rapid rate means that, as a previous speaker said, there's going to be a great deal of need for long-term care, for care for the elderly, and we don't have enough social housing as it is. If we have to pick up all these costs, these are going to be increased in the future and they will be dumped on the local taxpayer, who is increasingly less able to carry them. Since there's only one taxpayer altogether, I think it's totally unfair.

Besides that, one of the things that really worries me is, for instance, public health. Public health is supposed to have provincial standards. If the provincial government does not pay for any of the services that public health provides, how can you possibly enforce provincial standards? Are we going to have the same level of service in Toronto as they have in Kingston or in Peterborough or somewhere else? It will be impossible. Right now there's a 75%-25% split in the funding of public health. The province pays 75% and the municipalities pay 25% in those areas outside Metro. If the areas outside Metro have to pay 100%, how are they going to employ the health inspectors or how are we going to ensure that our water is safe or that communicable disease and so on will be followed?

Mr Marchese: We're certainly raising all those questions, and many are raising those questions. I want to ask you one other question before we run out of time. Outside of Metro, people are able to determine their own fate about whether they amalgamate or how. Mike Harris and his gang have decided that here in Metro we don't really deserve to have that right. I'm offended by it. Do you have an opinion around that?

Ms Brown: I'm certainly offended by it too. That's why I will work very hard to get people to understand the issues in the upcoming referendum.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. You still have about a minute, if you want.

Mr Marchese: One of the other questions I'm very concerned about has to do with our ability to have genuine democracy. Some journalists and others argue -- the Toronto Star editorial: "We're going to continue to have democracy, don't you worry. We're going to elect 44 Metro councillors in this new amalgamated city and so all of you will be able to have a say, so why are you fretting about that?" I'm a bit concerned about that. I think you probably have a feeling around that.

Ms Brown: I'm concerned because who is going to be able to afford to run as a councillor when you have to represent 50,000 people? Who is going to be able to afford to run as mayor when one mailing to 2.3 million people will cost half a million dollars? When you start reducing your representation, you start getting less democracy; there's no doubt about that. When you increase the number of people you represent, how can you represent them fairly?

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

JANE MARSLAND

The Chair: Would Jane Marsland please come forward. Good evening, Ms Marsland.

Ms Jane Marsland: Just for your information, I have lived in downtown Toronto for 25 years and I passionately love this city. I would like to thank the members of the Legislature for giving me this opportunity to express my concerns about Bill 103, which will put the seven municipal councils in Metropolitan Toronto under trusteeship and thus, as far as I'm concerned, temporarily end local democracy while it creates one new municipal council for all 2.5 million residents of Metro Toronto effective January 1, 1998.

I understand that Bill 103 also states that the new council may not overturn staff appointments or other decisions made by the provincial appointees and that none of the decisions of the transition team may be challenged in court. As well, Bill 103 gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs complete power to make any regulations he deems necessary to impose on the councils.

I must say I have profound concerns about Bill 103 and the autocratic nature of its implementation. It has always been my understanding that representative democracy is a process -- not just the right to vote every three or four years, but a process whereby the elected representatives of the people maintain their legitimacy through debate with and the active participation of the citizens. Just because a government receives a mandate in the course of an election does not mean it has the right to impose arbitrary measures on a confused or reluctant citizenry. Certainly major changes in governance require the input of citizens.

From what I have been able to glean from the newspapers and other news media, one of the government's reasons for the introduction of Bill 103 is to save money, to make Toronto more cost-effective. In order to save money, our representation in municipal government will be cut from 108 representatives to 44. This and the arbitrary nature of Bill 103 must mean that democracy itself is now too expensive. I wonder if the people who have died and continue to die fighting to gain or save democracy would also consider it too expensive.

A vital city is an enormously complex organism which depends on great diversity, strong civic institutions and the active participation of its citizens in the democratic tradition of due process and consultation to ensure its survival. It seems to me incredibly daunting to ask 44 people to take on the immensely increased responsibilities of a megacity for the delivery of not only hard services such as water, sewers, fire, policing, garbage collection, transit, the arts, regulatory planning etc, but now as well responsibilities for welfare, social housing, long-term care for the elderly and many other social services.

The citizens of a large city require enough decision-makers to ensure that local issues and problems are dealt with by someone who intimately knows the area and its unique characteristics. If the local issues get lost in the totality of one large government, local participatory democracy is at risk. Once the concerns of the big government override the local issues, people will begin to lose hope that their concerns will be listened to and will withdraw from the political process.

A few months ago, I read a couple of interesting books on urban affairs. One was called Here's the Deal by Ross Miller. It's an account of political corruption in Chicago. The other was City for Sale: Ed Koch and the Betrayal of New York, by Jack Newfield and Wayne Barrett. So I read with interest in the Globe and Mail the other day that both these cities were being used as good examples of the way Toronto should be governed. My reading of these two books led me to believe that corrupt practices take hold in a city because of too few politicians with too much power. A vigilant public with ready access to their politicians seems to me a better way to ensure financial effectiveness and accountability.

I know there are provisions in Bill 103 for advisory bodies, but it has been my experience on such advisory bodies that without any real responsibilities and authority to make decisions, advisory bodies can't solve problems and they just waste a lot of time.

I know that the government has already stated that it does not care what I think, that it will go ahead with what it believes is the only solution, that Bill 103 is the right answer to the problem. I believe, however, that the longer we focus all our attention on trying to come up with the right answer, to get it right the first time, the more fearful we as a society will become. What if we don't get it right? What if our problems don't disappear? What if things get worse? When we are so fearful of making a mistake, all our creativity ceases. Only fear and struggle persist, and paradoxically, we continue to make bigger mistakes.

We are paralysing ourselves as a society for fear of getting things wrong. I firmly believe that as long as people are fearful, they will not spend money. It's carefree people who spend money. I believe that even with the tax break, an economic turnaround won't happen until people feel confident. People will only start to feel confident when they are brought honestly into the democratic process.

It's very difficult to even comment on what the implications of a megacity may be when there are so many unknowns. I work in the arts and I know from experience that the only way to bring something new into the world is by having a vision which can be seen literally in the inner eye, communicated to others and felt by others as a vision. Everything else springs from this: the people, the timing, the resources, the production, right to the moment the curtain rises. As a result of this, people can understand the wholeness of the project, make creative suggestions and inspire others to join.

1930

I find it difficult to be asked to willingly give up on a city structure that, as far as I am concerned, is working very well and is obviously working well enough to be noted by influential magazines as the best city in North America in which to live, with absolutely no compelling vision of the new city to compare it to, just the constant refrain that it will cost less money, although this too seems to be in wide dispute.

I would not like you to think I oppose change. Everything is constantly changing all the time; even change changes. But it is also a process, a constant process of discovery and creation. As scientists have discovered and as artists have always known, fuzzy, messy, continuously exploring systems bent on discovering what works are far more practical and successful than any attempts at managed efficiency and control.

As I mentioned earlier, I work in a not-for-profit performing arts sector. The impact of amalgamation, along with the downloading of the costs for social services, could have a devastating effect on the arts, especially the small to mid-sized arts organizations, which have been built up with two levels of municipal funding. As this sector is already reeling from the cuts from all other government levels and is now in an extremely fragile state, a precipitous cut at the municipal level will cause many, if not most, to cease to exist, and I hope you will bear in mind that it is these organizations that are the backbone of the creation of Canadian works of art.

Local government belongs to and should be responsible to the local citizens who elected it and, therefore, I oppose Bill 103, which imposes amalgamation on the cities of Metropolitan Toronto. I also strongly oppose downloading the costs of social programs on to property taxes, which should properly be funded through the large base of tax revenues from income, corporate and sales taxes. As a person of very limited financial means, I intend to fight hard to maintain my roles, rights and responsibilities as a citizen and not to allow myself to become a mere consumer of privatized services.

The Chair: You've effectively used most of your 10 minutes. I appreciate your coming forward today to make a presentation to the committee.

ANNE FARQUHARSON

The Chair: Anne Farquharson, please. Good evening. Welcome to the committee. Go ahead.

Mrs Anne Farquharson: My name is Anne Farquharson. I've lived in Toronto for 36 years, raised my family here, watched as the place grew from a provincial town to a city among the world's great cities. I love the place, and that's why I feel obliged to stand up for Toronto when it's threatened. The threat that brings me here this evening is Bill 103, introduced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in December, to abolish Metro Toronto and its six constituent municipalities in order to reconstitute a single megacity.

I was dismayed that something as important and radically different as this was brought out just before the holidays, when people were too preoccupied to take notice of it, disappointed too that the minister was sufficiently contemptuous of the people of the city that he did not plan to take the time to hold public hearings on the bill. May I express my gratitude now for the change in heart that is allowing me and other terrified citizens a few minutes each to bring our concerns about this bill before our government.

My primary concern is on account of the threat to democracy in its provisions. I had to read a copy of the bill for myself before I could believe that the provincial government had actually abrogated the authority of my elected representative on Toronto city council, putting him under the control of three provincially appointed trustees, treating him as though he were not able to carry out the functions he was elected to perform or as though he were a part of a corporate body that is guilty of some sort of mismanagement requiring that he be subject to the control of a board of trustees who must scrutinize and give their prior approval for every act of importance in the governance of the city of Toronto for the next 12 months.

The provincial government has no mandate from the people to disempower our elected local government in this rather brutal and certainly undemocratic way, nor has it produced evidence of any expert advice that has counselled in favour of this kind of action. It's precisely in this way that democracies become vitiated by the reckless use of power unchecked by any general debate or thoughtful advice.

But the board of trustees is only one sign of the disdain for democracy in Bill 103. Even more terrifying is the transition team which is to be appointed later in the year by the cabinet with full authority to conduct next November's municipal election, to determine boundaries and structures of the proposed megacity wards, to second employees of the municipalities to do their will. This transition team will be paid for out of Metro funds but is accountable only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It will be completely insulated from any proceedings for damages or questioning of decisions in the courts, and it is expected to remain in place until at least January 31, 1998, and may continue beyond that date at the discretion of the cabinet.

I would have thought that a municipal government would need to be shown in flagrant dereliction of its duties or in dire financial straits to become subject to this sort of imposition of an authority accountable only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. How can this government explain to me why my duly elected city council is to be put under the control of a group of provincially appointed people, with names that I don't know, who are declared to be outside the purview of the law? This is not democratic. This cannot be good.

What is the rationale for this rush to create a megacity? The proponents of amalgamation have offered only one argument in favour, that it would save money, and this argument has been challenged by many academic studies, most recently by Wendell Cox Consultancy, which convincingly makes the case that costs go up dramatically in cities exceeding a million people. Against this deeply flawed argument based on presumed efficiencies in amalgamation, what we as citizens have to lose thereby is access to the human-scale local government that has been an integral part of our lives and the essential bedrock of every true democracy.

It is true that times are changing, and Toronto in 1997 finds itself at the heart of a greatly expanded, populous region so that new ways need to be found to coordinate services and facilitate partnership activities and allow for experiments with different solutions to problems throughout the 416 and 905 regions. But no one has made a good argument for an amalgamated Toronto as the best structure for adapting to change. In fact it will be too big to work cooperatively with the municipalities in the 905 region, and also too big to answer to the street-level needs of its constituents. Perhaps it is the Metro level of government which should be transformed into a greater Toronto area services board so that municipalities within 416 and 905 areas would sit together to coordinate regional services.

In any case, I am here to remind the government that citizens want to be consulted about changes in our governing structures. On March 3, the people will be speaking to this government through the referendum on amalgamation. I hope you will be listening then, and I thank you for listening now to some of my concerns about Bill 103.

1940

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Farquharson. You have about three minutes left. Will you entertain some questions from the government caucus?

Mrs Farquharson: I'd be happy to.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much, Mrs Farquharson, for your presentation. I just wanted to quickly go to the issue of democracy and the trustees to oversee the operations of the councils of the present municipalities for the coming year, to scrutinize the budget and to look at the budget of the first new council, but mostly to deal with the councils that are presently in existence.

One of the concerns, of course, that one would have is that the councils, upon realizing that they are going to be amalgamated, for some reason may decide they should do something with their assets and liabilities to benefit certain municipalities as opposed to the benefit of the larger group as they're amalgamated.

Do you see any possible way that we could deal with that other than those trustees to oversee it? I guess I would suggest one of the newspaper articles said something about one of the city councils -- and I don't remember which one -- but one of them suggesting they should find a way to put the city hall into a non-profit corporation so the new amalgamated city would not have those assets at their disposal. That, of course, would not be of benefit to any of the citizens.

Mr Gerretsen: What do you think they are going to do with it, Ernie?

Mrs Farquharson: I guess what you're suggesting is a very deep level of distrust between two levels of government. I would just suggest that I have a great sense of trust in the people who are representing me at city hall, and I don't know why you should distrust them.

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

ROBERT FARQUHARSON

The Chair: Could I have Robert Farquharson please come forward. Good evening, sir. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Robert Farquharson: I feel sorry for you people. You're going be listening to a number of things over and over again tonight and in the next few days. On the other hand, that's an inevitable consequence of a piece of legislation that has such egregious errors, weaknesses and faults in it, and I think the government side at least have brought this on themselves. So while I feel sorry for you, it's only to a certain extent.

The other thing I'll say is that at least each presentation is going to be individual because for my part at least, and I suspect on the part of most of the people you have heard tonight, it comes from the heart.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you tonight. First, I want to make clear where I'm coming from. I'm not a municipal politician, I'm not a municipal employee, and my house is fully assessed at market value and fully taxed, I assure you. I'm not trying to defend myself in any way.

I enjoy this city as it is now and I fear very much that Bill 103 will destroy it, or at least much that is enjoyable about it. When I first read Bill 103, a quote from Shakespeare came to my mind and I couldn't get rid of it. It's Hamlet soliloquizing on the precipitate remarriage of his mother: "O, most wicked speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets."

To declare a bill such as 103 without warning either in your -- I'm speaking to the government side -- pre-election promises or in the Legislature beforehand, to declare it retroactive to December 17 and then to require that it pass by the end of February -- thank God at least that has been amended a bit -- but to declare a bill with such far-reaching and unknown consequences with such impetuous haste is indeed posting with wicked speed to incestuous sheets.

Moreover, introducing the bill, unexpected and unannounced, at the Christmas season leads inevitably to the cynical suspicion that someone is trying to sweep something through behind our backs. Add to that the dictatorial and anti-democratic aspects of the process: The rights and responsibilities of our elected representatives are taken from them and vested in a board of trustees and a transition team appointed by the minister.

I really needn't say all of this; you know it all, don't you? The final decisions of staffing, of hiring contracts and all the financial decisions shall not be reviewed or questioned by the court. Nor shall the two agencies be subject -- that is, the board of trustees or the transitional team -- to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The main purpose of this act, in my understanding, is to require that any tribunal that exercises statutory powers be subject to, and act in accord with, the laws of natural justice, and the transitional team and the board of trustees are not to be subject, apparently, to the laws of natural justice.

Then consider the means used to persuade the public of the good in this bill: $100,000 for a very doubtful study, $300,000 for a mailing list that was judged in contempt of Parliament, faxes that contravene federal regulations. If your cause is so good, why does it stink so badly in all of these things I've just outlined to you? What I see in the process -- undue haste, cynical timing, autocratic appointments, dictatorial powers -- these things make me very suspicious of the bill itself.

When I look at the bill, I find good reason for those suspicions. The ostensible reason for amalgamation is that it will improve efficiency and save money. Yet nowhere has the government given us any argument to back up these reasons. The KPMG study, the one study that suggests there may be some savings in amalgamation, is very tentative. I know of no study that demonstrates where efficiencies will occur and how much they will save, or for that matter, how much they will cost.

Over against the lack of information from the government side we have the Crombie report, which begins and ends by saying that amalgamation of Metro without the simultaneous and coordinated introduction of a greater Toronto council board would be "absolutely the worst action that could be taken." There's also the Wendell Cox report that shows urban municipalities with more than one million inhabitants cost 21% more to run than municipalities of 500,000 inhabitants. There is no argument in any of this for what the Ontario government is trying to do.

There may be some aspects of Metro's operations which would benefit from amalgamation. The fact is that much of what would benefit from amalgamation is already amalgamated or is on the way to being amalgamated or could be readily amalgamated without the wholesale destruction of local government. If there are other aspects of municipal government which imperatively require amalgamation for the sake of economy or efficiency, I challenge you to show us where they are. I challenge you to show reasons for pushing amalgamation in this high-handed way. Show us the backing material which justifies Bill 103.

1950

Till you do that, we can only assume that there is a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with economies or efficiencies, that there is an undisclosed reason for some other purpose. Actually, I suspect we've seen that hidden agenda already. Until you show me otherwise, I further suspect that it has more to do with saving money for the provincial government than for the taxpayer of Toronto.

Until the public sees good reason for what you are doing, we can only fear that Bill 103 will replace locally responsible and locally responsive governments with a remote and ruinously expensive bureaucracy. On the way, there will be confusion confounded and chaos unimaginable. You've already seen what happens when so-called cost-saving procedures are undertaken without sufficient study and planning. I refer to the fiasco of the child support program, where husbands paid in their support money and wives waited two months to get it. This is an example that should be studied before anything is hasted any more than it's hasted already.

I sense this government's going to have its way regardless of what the people think. You've as much as told us that already. It reminds me of the Brecht poem, "If the electorate gets in your way, abolish it and elect a new one."

My final word is this: I plead with you, set aside your arrogance, your absolute conviction that you know what is right for us. Listen with some humility to the members of the public like myself who take the time to appear before you. And for God's sake, consider that you may be wrong.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Thank you very much, Mr Farquharson. We have a moment now for one quick question from the Liberals.

Mr Colle: Mr Farquharson, thank you for your eloquence. I think you've brought to light something that's hidden deep in this legislation. Not only is the trusteeship above the law in imposing its will over the municipally elected officials, but you've got this transition team now that is able to hire people, and these people even talk about their retirement plans, they have to be part of the retirement plans, and the city is bound by the resulting employment contract.

It really begs the question: What kind of independence will this new mega-government have? How will they ever be anything but a puppet government of the provincial government? The transition team itself, as you said, isn't even subject to the natural laws of justice in terms of how it operates. So in terms of an imposition of an autocratic regime, it's not even now with the trusteeship; the transition team in the future will do this. So you're getting a double dose --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Colle --

Mr Colle: Whatever, okay.

The Vice-Chair: There's just time to hear the answer.

Mr Farquharson: Mr Colle, you've made the point that there will be a long legacy, from either the transition team or the board of trustees, of incapability passed on to the new government, whatever form it takes, and of course we know nothing about that. If one is suspicious about --

The Vice-Chair: I must ask you to wind up your answer, please. We're running out of time.

Mr Farquharson: Very briefly, then, if there's suspicion on the part of the government about what the present municipal governments might do in the meantime and therefore a need for a transition team, as was suggested earlier, then surely there's some need for similar restrictions in the actions of the transition team and the board of trustees.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for being here this evening.

MARILYN ROY

The Vice-Chair: I'd like Marilyn Roy to come forward. Good evening, Ms Roy.

Ms Marilyn Roy: I am here tonight, as everyone else is, to address my concerns to you about Bill 103. It appears to be a simple response to a complex problem which in the end will satisfy no one. A megacity will reduce accessibility and will fail to take into account the uniqueness of each city and its planning solutions.

There has been no real business case for efficiencies to support cost savings. But what, you may ask, gives me the credibility to speak to you on this matter? If you listen to past press releases from the Premier, I'm everything that is to be despised: a leach on society, a cheat, a loud-mouthed rabble only interested in an easy life at the cost of other hardworking Ontarians. Well, I'm here to put a face on the statistics.

I and many other members of my family will be negatively affected by everything this bill seeks to do. Currently I'm on welfare, living in a housing co-op with a rent-geared-to-income subsidy, after the breakup of a 23-year marriage, and mother of a 16-year-old daughter. "Aha," you say clearly, "this woman can be ignored." But please listen; this has not always been the case.

I'm a third-generation Torontonian. I spent most of my youth growing up in Scarborough. As the eldest of five kids and the daughter of a truck driver, the pressure to go to work was high. The dream of going to university was just a fantasy that happened for other people. I worked part-time at 15 and full-time at 18. I was married at 19.

Even so, I already had a strong commitment to volunteer and to the ethic of always giving back to the community. I have been a hospital volunteer, a member of the St John Ambulance brigade, a Canadian Girls in Training leader, a Sunday school teacher and, in partnership with my husband, a volunteer in Big Brothers.

It's my activities in the last 10 years that I am most proud of, but first I'd like to let you know how I got here. I worked long hours in offices or restaurants, making enough money to get by but never able to get ahead. Diagnosed as hypothyroid, medication, pain and a lot of unanswered questions became part of my life. We moved around: Bolton, Maple, Etobicoke and Milton. I am quite familiar with all the distinct identities of the cities within Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area.

After the birth of my daughter I was diagnosed as clinically depressed and anti-depressant drugs also were added to the inventory. Living with a severely depressed person is not easy. I bore the shame of not being able to pull myself up by my bootstraps. Being married to someone who has never been sick took our marriage down a rocky road that did not survive. Work became impossible. I could no longer cover up periods of non-productivity. I've even fallen asleep at my desk. For some reason this is always frowned upon. I needed to remove myself from all the destructive environments and deal squarely with my mental illness.

What has this to do with the megacity? Since moving to Harbourfront in 1986, I've found a community that needed a lot of volunteers. With easy access and encouragement from city councillors, school trustees and city employees, I have devoted most of my volunteer time to learning city process and planning issues. As part of a large group, we established a temporary community centre and became part of the redesign of Harbourfront. I've also sat as a founding board member and chair of the working group that is now in the final stages of building a 30,000-square-foot community centre and a JK-to-grade-8 public school.

It is from this process, during the thousands of volunteer hours I have spent in budget debates, negotiations with the Toronto school board and other city departments, that I have gained a level of credibility within the planning circles.

My respect for the city of Toronto to maintain and promote a viable downtown core is what I firmly believe contributes to the great success of this city compared to other major world centres. My representation of my community on such projects as the Gardiner-Lakeshore task force, the Canada Malting selection committee and the Toronto bay project, as well as the support task I provide to the Ward 5 office, has given me a broad knowledge of the workings of the city of Toronto.

I have watched over the years as Toronto has worked at streamlining its administration while trying to mitigate its impact on its employees. There are still several years to go to finally finish the plan and prove that anything worth doing well takes time.

I was originally fearful about coming here tonight because it appears that Queen's Park takes retribution on anyone who speaks out. Fear is punitive and it freezes productivity. The frustration and anger are now the atmosphere all around me.

2000

MPP Leach said today that megacity will make this a great city, ready to take on world markets. I say the slash-and-burn techniques of this government take away hope, reduce productivity, stall growth. Strength and commitment is found in each member of the community in the security of belonging, being able to contribute and having that contribution recognized and respected. Democracy is messy and time-consuming, but essential for a healthy and promising future.

And what about me? Well, I calculate that with my subsidy, welfare payments and payment for my drugs, I receive from the public purse $12,900 a year. My housing charge goes mostly to our mortgage payment, which contributes to bank profits. I pay hydro, gas and phone bills, which keep people working. And I have $60 left a month to live on, which all gets put back into the economy at the retail level for food. My furniture mostly came from the garbage and from donations from friends. I receive some help from the food bank, but I also volunteer in the supper club and help promote basic cooking and life skills with my neighbours.

My daughter is a grade 11 student who has maintained honours throughout her high school career. She also understands the importance of post-secondary education. She has a strong volunteer ethic, as she's teaching drama to grade 6 students at Regent Park public school and reads to a blind senior citizen in the area. I also have a reputation to help in a crisis and often receive calls late at night when other community members need a friendly ear or emergency babysitting or help to fix a broken pipe. I'm very flexible.

There are no traditional solutions to my situation. To re-establish a link to the working world and support myself will take vision, cooperation and understanding. I am a vital member of my community, which understands and supports my limitations.

The province receives a windfall from my contributions. If they paid for my services, it would cost them at least three times more. I am putting my life back together slowly and in a great part from the support of a city able to deal with people one at a time. I am not alone and my story is not unique. My community could provide hundreds more with stories like mine. We are all trying to deal with the harshness of our life and bring up our children as responsible and contributing members of our future in a positive and caring way. I will survive. Being a member of poverty gives you a lot of skills that you don't get otherwise. I'm not so sure about the city of Toronto.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, and we have time for one quick question.

Mr Silipo: I won't ask a question, Ms Roy, but I will just say thank you for appearing and, as you said at the beginning of your presentation, for putting a face to the statistic.

Ms Roy: Thank you very much.

TIM JONES

The Vice-Chair: Next we have Tim Jones. Welcome, Mr Jones. You may begin.

Mr Tim Jones: Good evening. My name is Tim Jones. I am here this evening as the co-chair of ArtsVote, a non-partisan, multidisciplinary arts advocacy network. Our movement encompasses more than 200,000 individuals in Metro whose livelihood is directly or indirectly derived through the arts. Our mission is to promote the enhancement of the arts infrastructure and to ensure that Metropolitan Toronto maintains its position as a major international cultural centre through coherent policies and sustained municipal and regional arts funding.

Through the day and over the last few weeks as the debate over amalgamation and the downloading of responsibilities rages on, you have no doubt heard innumerable references to the impending threat to the quality of life which has made Toronto and the surrounding region the envy of the world. To some, this quality of life seems to be a nebulous concept, one which is difficult to measure and whose impending endangerment is not easily grasped. And yet quality of life is a central element in what attracts businesses and individuals to live and work in this region. In other words, it is something that a business-minded government should be centrally concerned with.

I'd like to ask you for a moment to consider the role artists have played in enhancing the quality of life in our region:

"Toronto's rich artistic and cultural life has been singled out again and again in local, federal and international studies as one of its most appealing features. Even citizens who have never attended a single arts event in Toronto have had their lives enriched by the presence of the arts sector here. A thriving cultural life with arts activities dispersed throughout the city has helped to keep our streets safe, populated and vibrant -- attractive to citizens and visitors alike."

Despite being among the most poorly paid for our work, artists are among the most constructive citizens not only in their particular craft, but as parents and volunteers engaged in every aspect of the community.

The most recent StatsCan data confirm that Toronto's arts and cultural sector is a bedrock industry that contributed $8.4 billion in 1993-94 to the gross domestic product in the greater Toronto area; employed a workforce of 224,875 individuals whose livelihood is directly or indirectly derived from cultural activities; and generated employment growth of 11% during the last recession, between 1988 and 1992, while employment in other sectors fell by 9%.

I could go on detailing the contributions of artists, arts organizations and cultural industries and their impact on our quality of life, our sense of pride and identity and our economy. I would like, however, to spend the few moments that I have to impress upon you how it is that all these seemingly intangible elements will be imperilled by the package of reforms which the provincial government is in such a rush to implement.

First, I would like to point out that the health and vitality of the arts sector is already seriously threatened. Since the current provincial government came to power, the budget of the Ontario Arts Council has been cut by 32%, a move which has sent many of our cultural institutions scrambling, with hospitals and other social service agencies, for other sources of revenue, which are increasingly difficult to find. Reductions in provincial transfer payments to municipalities have resulted in the further loss of 25% of the cultural grants budget at Metro over the last three years.

These cuts have not only eroded the volume of arts activity and its related economic spinoffs and benefits, they have created a climate of uncertainty for the entire industry. Banks are reducing or cutting off lines of credit. This is the reality. Newspaper headlines give all-too-regular accounts of the loss of another arts institution. The ecology of arts life in Metro, one which mixes non-profit and commercial activity, is gradually losing its infrastructure. That which has been built up over decades through carefully crafted public policy which supports and enhances the arts may now be swept away entirely.

What we have instead with Bills 103 and 104 and other proposed reforms is more of the crippling uncertainty which is currently devastating our sector. Despite artists' central role in enhancing the quality of our lives and generating economic prosperity, our community has not even been consulted.

David Crombie did not make time to meet with us; nor will Al Leach or the Premier. None of the proposed legislation makes but a passing reference to the arts. How, I would like to ask, in this climate of uncertainty, with the fate of our community hanging in the balance, are we to have any confidence in the future?

Experience at Metro Hall over the last three years has given us more reason for despair. When provincial transfer payments to municipalities were cut, we faced the serious possibility of the complete elimination of the cultural grants budget. Just imagine what will happen to our community once increased responsibility for welfare and social housing is added to the property tax bill. What will be the fate of our arm's-length funding agency, the Toronto Arts Council, which injects $5 million into Toronto's arts scene?

Artists are as prepared as ever to be constructive citizens, to continue to help build a healthy and vibrant Toronto for the next century. We aren't afraid of change. However, we demand to be listened to and respected. To date, we have been ignored. Where is the process for carefully considered public policy on the arts?

We in the arts community have great respect for process. Having a sound process is of course the key to any endeavour which combines creativity and collective will. Instead of a credible process, this government gives us a transition team of appointed officials who have the power to forever change our life and our city, and to do so without consultation and without any kind of impact study.

In the world of theatre, this is not how we develop a good play; this is how we create improvisational comedy. In effect, we have a government which is proposing the improvisational comedy approach to public policy.

2010

I'd like to ask members of this government what they would like us to conclude from all of this. Either the government knows exactly what it is doing -- that is, you've carefully considered the impact of Bill 103, you know that your actions will destroy the quality of life of Toronto, you know what you are doing and your intention is to destroy the urban character of Toronto -- or you have no idea what you are doing. You haven't had the time to study in detail the impact of your act on areas like the arts, but you're determined to find more ways and places to cut in order to fund your promised income tax break irrespective of what havoc and destruction you will wreak. In other words, you have no idea what you are doing and you don't care.

Or -- and this is what I sincerely hope to believe is the case -- you realize that you have made an error in judgment. You realize that developing good public policy requires more time and a credible process which examines the impact of changes, that downloading soft services on to municipalities will devastate their economies and quality of life, that the democratic will of the 2.3 million citizens of Toronto, Etobicoke, Scarborough, York, North York and East York is something of value, especially to politicians, and deserves not only to be listened to but respected.

I have to say that I don't envy the position that you're in; that is, that you know you have made a mistake and you're going to have to somehow find the courage to admit it. Do what David Crombie did: Pull back, reconsider, change your minds. It's not too late at this point.

Specifically, ArtsVote is asking you to allow time for a credible process to create coherent public policies in all areas, including the arts. What, after all, is the rush when so much is at stake and these decisions are going to be irreversible? We are also asking you to respect the democratically expressed will of the citizens of the region in the upcoming referendum.

Finally, we are asking all the members of the government to work constructively with our community to begin to rebuild confidence in our sector. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We have one minute to have a question from the government members.

Mr Gilchrist: I'll be pleased to pose one. I see, Mr Jones, that just this past year, Metro council and the Toronto Arts Council gave virtually identical grants to quite a long list of various dance companies and other recipients. Why would simply merging the budget change the mentality that right now has Metro being an equal player? If the budget increases proportionately, what leads you to believe that the kind of people who will be elected across Metro Toronto will have a different mindset towards cultural issues than they already have today?

Mr Jones: I'm happy to hear that you're proposing that the combined budget through Metro cultural affairs and the Toronto Arts Council be maintained. I don't think that's in the cards with the proposed legislation.

Mr Gilchrist: What would lead you to that conclusion, though? What arises from this bill that would change the mindset of the people you're electing right now all across Metro?

Mr Jones: It's simply our experience with the Metro government over the last three years. We know that as the transfers from the province to municipalities have been cut over the years, this last year we faced a battle where there were many Metro councillors who were opting for the complete elimination of the cultural grants budget. When we have to compete with the soft services on top of that, if the city dips into another recession, we are finished, and we're aware of that.

Mr Gilchrist: I think it would be just as realistic to speculate that when there are cost savings in the administrative side, it will take the pressure off, to paraphrase what you were saying, some of the marginal services if in fact that was how you were perceiving the Metro councillors dealing with you this past year.

Mr Jones: I beg to differ. I think there's no fat left at either the Toronto Arts Council or the --

Mr Gilchrist: No, no, not --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr Gilchrist: Within the total budget.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us. We appreciate your comments.

ROB FOTHERGILL

The Vice-Chair: Will Rob Fothergill come forward. Good evening. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Rob Fothergill: I'd like to thank the committee for affording all of us the opportunity to speak to the question of Bill 103. I'm sure you've had a long day and have heard a lot of opinions, and I don't want to go on at any length. I may not even need my 10 minutes.

I just want to add one more voice to the many voices you are hearing urging the government to at least reconsider the legislation advanced by Bill 103; to urge the government, notwithstanding the majority it has in the Legislature, not to act rapidly or rashly either for ideological reasons or for some kind of pride; to listen to the constructive analysis you've been hearing and will be hearing -- and I've already been impressed in the hour I've been here by the quality of analysis and argument that's being made -- of what might be the flaws in the planned changes.

Let us assume, as we must assume, that the present government has the common good as its highest value, that the common good is perceived to include fair, efficient, responsible and economical government at all levels; government that taxes individuals and corporations equitably according to their ability to pay and that spends the revenue intelligently and fairly on the services that are its responsibility; government that uses its control of economic levers to promote general prosperity and not blatant advantage and disadvantage and that uses its law-making power to promote long-range common good, such as the preservation of the environment, which only government can do because individuals and sectoral interests cannot think that highly.

We have to assume that we all, as individuals and political parties and governments, have the common good as an ideal. What the common good is can be argued about, how to achieve it can be argued about, but our kind of liberal democracy depends on the assumption that government is entrusted with the general wellbeing and not with limited party aims. We have to assume that or there's no point in discussing anything at all. There's no point in holding these hearings, debating, exchanging views on policies.

The fact that we are here addressing you and that you are here listening, and listening with attention and respect, for which I commend you, confirms this assumption and gives us confidence in the democratic process, as long as it's not a sham, as long as you're not just sitting here patiently waiting us out, having agreed to spend 15 days and so many hours a day listening to as many people as have put themselves on the list.

All governments come to power with policies and schemes and solutions to perceived problems that they believe will promote the common good as they understand it. Some of these plans are specifically presented as electoral promises -- "Vote for us and we will do this, that or the other thing" -- and some plans are developed or announced or sprung on us while the government is in power and are assumed to reflect the view of the common good that got them elected, assumed without any actual touchstone of whether or not they do.

In both cases it's possible and even inevitable that the plans and policies will sometimes be ill conceived, too rapidly conceived; otherwise, governments would have to be regarded as infallible. I'm sure during any period in which you've been in opposition you have not regarded governments as infallible, therefore you can hardly regard yourselves as infallible. Unless you do believe you're infallible, that you absolutely know what the common good is and how it can be achieved, then you must accept that there is a place and a need for second thought, for paying attention to reasoned criticism and advice.

Specifically, I would urge you to reconsider whether the amalgamation of the municipalities in Metro Toronto into one huge government will actually bring about the efficiencies and economies you propose and will actually avoid the damage and deterioration to civic life, when so many independent analysts, including some of your own advisers, predict that it won't.

I would urge you to reconsider also the proposed rebalancing of revenues and expenditures, the so-called offloading of welfare and social services to the municipal level, criticized so trenchantly in the Globe and Mail editorial of last Friday. I don't imagine the Globe and Mail is in general hostile to the approaches and interests of the Conservative government in Ontario. Its arguments presumably have considerable weight with our policy analysts.

I would urge you, despite what you have boasted as a government, to pay heed to the referendum debates and to make them an occasion to argue your case as articulately as you can, to explain and justify and persuade us to respond to criticisms and suggested modifications.

2020

If your plan really is a good one, well-thought-out and genuinely promoting the common good, your proposals may well win the referenda, may well be supported by the public when they vote on them. On the other hand, if you lose the referenda, if the majority reject the proposal even after you have explained it as carefully and clearly as you can, then to impose it unilaterally merely because you have the power to do so would be fundamentally anti-democratic in spirit and not even very smart.

I am here only to urge you to listen with open minds to people with much greater expertise and authority and insight into these issues than I could possibly have, to listen with open minds to what is being urged in opposition to the bill and to the accompanying offloading of responsibilities for social services and to make this process, which you have consented to and initiated and which you are so far carrying on with respect, to make this process real and to allow the possibility that other people and other analysts have something to contribute to this debate. I hope that's not too much to ask. I thank you for your time.

Mr Gerretsen: You spent quite a bit of time, sir, talking about the process and how good it is to have these hearings. I certainly concur with that; it's better than not having the hearings at all. But unfortunately, we're tied into a situation here at Queen's Park -- and I've only been here for the last year and a half -- whereby it's certainly my impression that these public hearings are not anything like the kind of public hearings you normally have at the municipal level, a level with which I am much more familiar. Unfortunately, these hearings take place after the bill has already had second reading and all parties have staked out their position on it.

I sometimes wonder if the public out there isn't left with the wrong idea about these hearings. We would all like to think -- I always think there's hope -- that maybe once we've listened to 600 people basically saying the same thing in a number of different ways, it will make a difference for the government members and there will be some radical changes made and maybe the bill will be withdrawn and much greater thought given to the whole process.

But I think there's something fundamentally wrong with our system, the way we operate here at Queen's Park. These public hearings, in my opinion, should take place before all different parties stake out their position on a bill like this. I am afraid, from my limited past experience, that these public hearings aren't going to do all that much good. I hope to be wrong, but I wouldn't want you to be left with any kind of misunderstanding that somehow if we have 600 people or 1,000 presenting us with the same viewpoint, it's going to make any difference to this government or indeed perhaps that it would have to any other government in the past.

Mr Fothergill: I'm very sorry to hear you as a representative express that fear. If that is the case, you are all wasting your time and wasting our time and merely politely, doggedly sitting through, listening to people like Jane Jacobs, who have a great deal --

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I don't feel that way.

Mr Gerretsen: You don't feel that way? Are you going to change this? Are you going to give me a commitment that you're going to change it after you hear 600 people say that? Come on.

Mr Newman: I said we don't feel the way that you do about the hearings process. Get real.

Mr Gerretsen: Be honest with the people out there. Your government has made up its mind and you're going to do it.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. We have a question being answered.

Mr Fothergill: If the member here is suggesting, as I think he is, that this is a genuine process, that you are genuinely listening to genuine concerned citizens with serious advice to give them, I am very glad to hear it and I look forward to your responsiveness to the referenda, which are a much larger public opinion poll than is normally taken, and that you seriously will have the grace and modesty to reconsider the proposals you're putting forward. I am very glad to hear it and I thank you.

Mr Sergio: I have time for one quick question. Thank you very much for your presentation, first of all. You have dealt with, as have many presenters before you, how the proposed legislation will be affecting the people up close, the various organizations as well, the arts groups and stuff like that. But we cannot overlook the business community. We have had the independent business association of Canada, I believe, and the board of trade. This also affects the homeowners. I think this is going to have severe implications for the business community in Metro, which can only help to decay the social fabric even further because the business community will be moving out of Metro Toronto into other areas or will close down, with job loss. Would you say it's an area where the government should rethink and say, "Let's wait and see how this will affect not only the residents but also the business community in Metro"?

Mr Fothergill: I would think arguments of that kind would be most persuasive with this government, whose concern is for economic rationality and the creation of jobs and so forth. I hope they also listen to arguments such as Mr Jones's about the function of the arts in this community, which I'm more engaged in.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity that you've given us tonight to hear your thoughts.

FRIEDA FORMAN

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call Frieda Forman. Good evening. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation. If there is time left, questions will be asked by the New Democratic Party.

Ms Frieda Forman: Good evening. I appreciate the opportunity of being here before you tonight. Many compelling arguments have been made in opposition to the proposal for a megacity, many well-reasoned presentations to halt the destruction of a city which has universally been recognized as a model of a magnificently functioning city.

Tonight I would like to address the issue from a personal point of view -- personal in form and in content. That is, I'd like to examine the significance of such a move to the individual as citizen of Toronto.

I came to Canada from the United States in 1970. I settled in Toronto because it seemed like such a livable city. I've since become a citizen. In a short time, I realized that this quality was in large measure due to its involved, engaged residents who cared about the issues confronting them and their neighbours. Not only were they concerned but they had the means of translating those concerns into action by working with their elected city councillors, by calling upon them for assistance, advice and intervention when necessary. In a word, city councillors and residents, whether as individuals or as ratepayers, were all in it together. We shared a common fate.

This association was not some abstract, remote form of democracy. It was the real thing: participation, responsiveness, responsibility. The greatest asset of Toronto was its caring citizenship, fostered by a sense that one mattered, that local issues were taken seriously by our local representatives, who were also our neighbours, in many cases. That was my understanding of Toronto's greatness.

In an increasingly technologized society, we are all losing the sense of ourselves as individuals who matter. With rapacious automation, the impersonal rules our lives. We no longer have a way to make our voices heard. Voice mail is not a substitute for interpersonal communication. A megacity which will have to be propelled by ever-encroaching automation will destroy the very sense of a personal connection with our elected representatives. It will make ciphers of us all.

This dehumanization will eventually lead to an apathetic, indifferent citizenry, if not immediately, certainly in the future. We know this from countless examples in the United States, where anonymity has led to so much urban decay. This is something I was very much familiar with, and I'm sure you are as well.

Once again turning to the publicly minded citizen, that most precious asset of a city, her or his identity is shaped and influenced by a sense of belonging to a civil society, a society in which rights and obligations are respected and expected. For that reality to emerge, we must be convinced that our democratic participation is authentic, that our relations with our elected officials are based on genuine, mutually responsive associations. Megacity will at best offer us an illusory representation.

The relation between a responsible and a responsive government and its citizens is dependent on familiarity, on interaction at the local level. Megacity will destroy this bond, this delicate balance between citizens and their elected representatives. It will take from us that cherished sense of belonging, of counting, of participating in a reciprocal relationship.

I have taken my own citizenship very seriously, and my contribution has been publicly recognized. I was awarded the Constance Hamilton Award by the city of Toronto for service to woman, and Canada's 125th Anniversary Award. My connection to the city is inextricably linked to the knowledge that my voice is heard, that my elected officials want to hear from me, indeed expect to hear from me, that we are engaged in a partnership.

2030

All this will be taken from me. It will be taken from all of us who care deeply about the human aspects of our city. With this theft will go our sense of safety, an issue in particular which confronts women in their lives, for we do not feel safe in a metropolis which will replace sentient human beings with machines.

It is because of our deep affection for Toronto, for what it is and what it stands for, that we are fighting. We have seen such an outpouring of feeling and action because we know on a personal level that what we stand to lose is the very heart of our city. We will not let that heart be sacrificed for dubious gains. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a little more than four minutes for questions.

Mr Silipo: I'm quite happy, Mr Chair, if you want to divide that up and keep the rotation, because I don't need four minutes.

Ms Forman, if the government members were asking you a question, they might listen to what you say and then say, "But you know, Ms Forman, we're going to make sure that in this new megacity we have structures to try to deal with exactly what you said in terms of the neighbourhood committees and that whole process." I was interested in what your response to that might be.

Ms Forman: First of all, we doubt that. Let us say, if we're charitable, that we accept it as a possibility. They would not be our elected officials in the same way as the elected officials we now have a relationship with. I think that makes a very, very different kind of connection, kind of relationship. It is the very fact that they represent us as elected officials. Of course, as the number of elected officials is reduced, our access to them is reduced and thereby our participation, our being able to be active citizens, is reduced. What I outlined in my presentation I think is inevitable.

Mr Ford: Frieda, I would like to explain something to you. Right now, 72% of Metro services are already consolidated. That's the police department, public transit, social services and ambulances. The six governments and city bureaucrats divide among themselves 28% of the leftover spending.

Ms Forman: Yes, I'm familiar with those figures.

Mr Ford: That's what has to be solved: the 28% spending, not the overall 100%, the great transition everybody is concerned about. That's what has to be consolidated and done. I believe personally that it can be done and that it can be done in a very equitable manner, that 28%.

Ms Forman: I find that hard to believe, given the fact that a reduction in the number of councillors is inevitable by the calculations that are being put forth. We are all human beings. How can we accept that the ever greater intrusion of technology will provide for the kind of contact that we cherish and that has made the city great? It's very important to realize that when we lose a citizenry that is involved, that feels connected and that belongs, and that can only happen when you feel that you have a responsive government, everything else really goes.

Mr Ford: I agree partially with what you're saying, but I still say that 72% of it has already being done and it hasn't had an effect yet. It has done nothing but good, because you couldn't run those various departments more economically.

Ms Forman: Nevertheless, at this moment we still have access to a Metro councillor and a local councillor, a city councillor, which means that we do have a way of speaking to government.

Mr Ford: Yes, but the mayors themselves wanted to cut down these councillors and different things. We're only from 106 down to 45. They were talking 48. There's a difference of approximately three in that figure. When I said that you looked a little confused, but they are facts.

Ms Forman: I don't think I'm confused about the major issues.

Mr Ford: I'm not saying you're confused, but you looked a little hesitant.

Ms Forman: The major issue is that we will have less contact with our elected officials. That is a great loss.

The Chair: On that note, we've come to the end of your 10 minutes.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The mere fact that the six mayors came up with councils that had a total of 48 doesn't mean that's what they really wanted. They felt pressured into that.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr Gerretsen. I think you're aware of that.

Thank you, Ms Forman, for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

DAVID COOKE

The Chair: Would David Cooke please come forward. Welcome, Mr Cooke.

Mr David Cooke: Thank you very much. Many years ago somebody remarked to me, "I imagine you were extremely surprised to find that governments could act against the best interests of the people." I've had plenty of time since then to reflect upon a childhood state of innocence and also upon successive waves of governments which have done precisely that: acted against the best interests of the people.

I think this is precisely what is going on in the current amalgamation move, because it's happening in a context, a climate of opinion which has been very carefully fostered worldwide by various very powerful corporate global forces and it's happening because the business press has done its job very well for the last 20 years.

One of the themes that I notice the Tory government picks up very much on is the theme of competition and believes, or claims to believe, that this is a driving force behind the whole move. But it's not just a climate of opinion; what is going on is a worldwide move which fits in with the corporate agenda. The idea of this is to make the world safe for corporations, and it's doing rather well.

I pointed out that this is a move which is against the best interests of the people and I think this is happening in two profound ways with the amalgamation bill. The first one is that it's so evident to the people that the reports which have been prepared by the people are being totally ignored. To the best of my knowledge and from the media reports and so on that I've come across, there's not a single report before this government which proposed the kind of amalgamation that's going on now, that's being proposed.

At the same time, I did not hear a whisper of citizen input to this bill before it hit the Legislature. Now, we all know that bills don't just come out of the ether; they come because there are various kinds of coordination and consultation that take place. But it didn't take place with citizenry that might have had an informed voice upon the whole thing, and I think it's highly significant that in the total context of the amalgamation bill and the offloading and various associated legislation even the chair of the Who Does What panel can't agree with the Tories in their current moves.

I agree with the previous speaker, who pointed out that with the existing system, no matter what consolidation has already taken place, there is a level of representation. You may argue over here about the difference between 48 and 44 representatives, or whatever. The point is not that; the point is that it's a decline from over 100 to less than 50. You'll have to talk very hard to explain to ordinary, dumb citizenry why that is not a reduction in representation.

Associated with this is the whole offloading, a thing which people find nauseous, the fact that in the current climate, in the globalization, in the move towards a corporate world, workers are being dumped. The whole idea is to streamline the economy and the effect of that is that a lot of people are going to be offloaded. They're going to be dumped. We're going to have Bantustans of workers in this country.

At the same time, we then clamp down -- at least we don't; you do. You clamp down on welfare and unemployment insurance, and the net effect is that those who are already out of work are further disadvantaged. All this is a move towards the control of workers and the control of citizenry.

2040

Minister Leach had it precisely wrong this morning when he was speaking. He claims that amalgamation is somehow going to make this city more competitive. I fail to see the logic of his position. He claims that this is going to improve the business climate and so on. I think it's going to have precisely the opposite effect. When businesses see that they are going to be working in a declining base, they are going to take the message and they're not going to invest here; they're going to get out of situations like this.

In talking about this piece of legislation, it's hard not to look at related legislation like education, because so many similar processes are going on. I think it's worth a sideways glance at the education bill to recognize that what's going on there is a similar move towards reducing representation, with the very careful reduction in the number of trustees and obviously their pay and the amount of work they would do. Right now we have full-time trustees who are paid for their labour. The labourers are worthy of their hire in this case. They do a more-than-full-time job, and the whole effect of the education restructuring is that there's going to be far less representation and they're going to do a much reduced job.

There is a related issue there which I want to mention in passing because I don't think it's had enough attention, and that is the notion of non-classroom personnel. Many statements about the education procedure and bill claim that there are far too many non-classroom personnel within the education system, within boards, within the ministry and so on. This is a piece of pernicious, blind nonsense.

If you were to spend any time working in a school, it would take you approximately half a day to realize that if you did not have the support of non-classroom personnel you'd never get through the day. I can give you one stunning example, which is the number of people who are social workers and corridor workers, police workers and all the rest of it. These are people who are absolutely indispensable. As we cut back on those, we cut back on the opportunities for teachers to do their job as teachers. I could give more, but let's get back to this current issue.

I've been stressing that I believe this amalgamation bill is against the interests of the people. In its procedures it has been against the interests of the people. In its effects it will be against the interests of the people. We might remember Shakespeare for a minute who said to us, "And now we have a little brief authority." The Tories have a little brief authority right now, but in a while, when they cease to be politicians or when they get turfed out, as in the next election, they will face the chance that they might again become people, and at that point they will be able to see some of the carnage they've created through this piece of legislative fascism.

Years ago Schumacher coined the phrase, "Small is beautiful." It's an interesting sort of notion and it has been operating in the very good service of the small boroughs around this city where people can be heard and make a difference and their interests can be enhanced. In this case, the opposite of "Small is beautiful" is "Large is loony," or you might say, "Amalgamation is awful." That's what I wanted to talk about.

Mr Colle: Mr Cooke, the point you made at the beginning is that this is not in the best interests of people. I know the other side has said, "The mayors' proposal was for 48 and we've got 44, so there's no difference," but I think what they fail to realize -- you made the point very well -- is that people did have a say in that, whether they wanted less or more elected officials, and the mayors' proposal was put forth with a gun to their heads. In other words, they knew they were on their deathbed or whatever it was and they had to come up with something. That's maybe what's fundamentally flawed here, that it's looking at pure numbers and not looking at whether it's good government or not.

Mr Cooke: I think you've analysed it right: They felt manoeuvred so they had to come up with a compromise position. But ultimately, I'm not prepared for democratic decisions to be based upon just the opinions of six or seven mayors. I realize they are elected and that they're representing, but behind them stand the people, and that's the voice that should be heard. The people are trying to shout to this Tory government, "We don't think this move is anywhere near good enough."

So I agree with your analysis, but I think we've got to go a step further and point out the inadequacy of being led by people who've been pushed into a corner.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cooke, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this evening.

JUDY HUNTER

The Chair: Judy Hunter, please. Good evening, Ms Hunter.

Ms Judy Hunter: I want to talk about how I see amalgamation as part of a larger movement towards increased inequality in our society in economic and political ways. I see it as a movement that makes the wealthy wealthier, that works to make the powerful more powerful. It works to make the rest of us have less voice in government, less participation in the way we're governed and get less information about what's happening. It makes the rest of us have a harder time getting jobs, have to work harder at the jobs we have and have a generally lower standard of living.

How do I see amalgamation as part of that movement? First, I see it in the motivation of this bill. I think there was no public mandate for this bill. There was nothing heard about it. Nobody was shouting for it. We first heard it announced by the government last fall. There was no recent expert mandate for this bill. In fact, even the recent expert study by the Tories has come out against it. The third thing is, it wasn't even in the Common Sense Revolution. It wasn't part of that, so the government cannot claim that people voted for it. No one knew it was in the government's mind.

Second, I see the process by which it's being implemented as very undemocratic. Its public promotion has been cited in the Legislature as being in contempt of the Legislature.

The other thing I see as anti-democratic is the transition trustees. I see them as taking the power of our elected officials and showing contempt in that way for the people's choices. The secret meetings with the closed doors we've been seeing on television show that we don't even know what's happening there. They seem to have no accountability to the public. I've heard they have the right to restructure how the new city will be organized, with no accountability to us because they will be appointed rather than elected.

The third thing I see as problematic is the planned structure of the new city. The government is claiming that we'll have community councils that will be the voice of the people, but who will these people be? Who will the community councils be? They don't seem to have any accountability; they won't be elected. They may be appointed or may be volunteer. They'll be chosen by people who are in power, who are their friends. They won't have to answer to us in any way. We won't be able to elect them or say that we won't elect them again. They'll just become another layer of bureaucracy and they may not even have to respond to us; another layer of bureaucracy for us to have to go through to get to the people we have elected, and the people we have elected will be farther away from us.

What do I think about the results of this? I've heard on the radio that the government says nothing in our neighbourhoods will change. People are quite concerned about them. Mike Harris says he lives in Willowdale, and Willowdale, even though it's now a part of North York, has kept its close-knit neighbourhood quality for all the time he's lived there. I lived in Willowdale for 12 years, and when I first moved there, there were a lot of small houses and tree-lined streets and small families that lived there. People knew each other on the streets. It was a fairly close-knit community.

But in the time that I lived there, the community changed drastically and the people were very angry about it. They went to city hall and they spoke out against it, but nothing happened. What happened is that the developers took over. They bypassed the city bylaws, they changed the neighbourhood, they cut down trees, despite repeated complaints by the people who lived in the neighbourhood. Now people look across the street at great, big garage doors; they don't see each other. People have big, high fences behind the buildings. They look out their side windows and see great, big brick walls. I don't think that neighbourhood has benefited at all. It has hardly kept anything more than its name. Maybe Mike Harris lives in a different part of it.

2050

The other thing I want to speak about is American cities. I grew up in American cities and I have a terrible feeling that's what's going to happen to Toronto. The tax bases get eroded in the core of American cities. Businesses tend to move out because they don't want to have to pay high taxes that support social programs, which may be what's happening here. The wealthy people either move out to the suburbs, to what was the equivalent of the 905 area here, or they barricade themselves in neighbourhoods with guards and fences and electronic equipment and guard dogs all around. Those people who are left living in the core tend to live in a dirty city that nobody wants to visit. When the people from the suburbs come to entertain themselves downtown, they drive down there in cars and they rush to their concert halls and rush back again. They don't stay there. They don't walk on the streets. They don't enjoy the city life. A lot of hopeless people live in the city now. They tend to get a lot of diseases like TB, which has become rampant in American cities. Violence, desperation and lots of drugs -- I don't think I have to say all this; everybody knows it.

Maybe some people think: "Well, this is okay. These people don't work hard." I remember Mike Harris saying the reason he doesn't have to eat baloney sandwiches any more is because he has worked hard all his life and these other people who have to eat baloney sandwiches may be undeserving and that this government will be more efficient.

But dictatorships are the most efficient form of government, and I don't think this will result in a better life for even the wealthy people. They will have to spend more money on trying to be healthy, more money isolating themselves from the riff-raff, more money on keeping themselves safe from violence, more money to have a leisure life that keeps them from having to walk on the streets and enables them to drive downtown and drive back, more money on private education because public education is no longer well funded.

I think these are important things that we need to think about in terms of amalgamation. This is the big problem with amalgamation and it's the same problem with much of what this government is doing. That's all.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You have about three minutes for any questions. Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: Thank you, Ms Hunter, for your presentation. I just want to go back to what you ended with, as well as what you began with, which is that you put this in the broader context of what you see the Harris government doing.

I think there are certainly days, and I'm sure we'll see more of this, when the government members will want to try and pull this piece out of the rest of the puzzle and say to us: "No, no, no, this isn't about the downloading; this isn't about the tax break. This is just about making government in Metropolitan Toronto more efficient."

What they won't be able to answer of course, if they take that line, is why they are, then, so bent on proceeding in this anti-democratic way, why they are proceeding in a way that doesn't allow any kind of process for real discussion about what the options are in Metropolitan Toronto while they're doing that in every other conceivable municipality that's looking at amalgamations.

The answer, as I see it, and I'd be interested in your thoughts, is because they want to score some cheap political points in saying to the rest of the province that they're beating up on Toronto, which will get them some mileage. They're also going to be able to say, "Look at all the politicians we got rid of. We took seven municipalities and moulded them into one. Aren't we great? We did all this. We're tough. We can make these big, tough decisions," and care not one bit about what it does to democracy and to local involvement of people and citizens on a day-to-day basis.

I don't really have a question out of that, other than perhaps inviting your comments further on that and perhaps further on how you see this really fitting in as part of the broader scheme of what Mike Harris and company are up to.

Ms Hunter: Yes, I agree. I think that so far the government has been somewhat lucky in getting support for its comments and its moves to make government leaner, but I think at some point people are going to realize that the leanest governments are also the most dictatorial. They are often the least democratic. It only takes one person plus an army to be very efficient. That's not democracy.

I think also the government is trading on the idea that it can kick Toronto. Toronto has often been seen by people outside, in northern Ontario, as the rich, leisure place that gets all the money and gets everything. But I think that now other municipalities that are also being amalgamated are beginning to see what the problems will be: the problems with farmers who are going to lose their tax break for education because of the downloading of this, the problems with other small municipalities that are going to lose their identity.

Mr Newman: That's not true.

Ms Hunter: Well then, maybe you need to make it clear if it's not true. There certainly is a feeling out there that these things are not being done democratically, that they are being oversimplified and presented in a way that makes us seem as if we're stupid enough that we can't understand it. Advertisements that show our society as a bunch of frayed wires really talk down to the public.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

KEN KLONSKY

The Chair: Would Ken Klonsky please come forward. Good evening, Mr Klonsky.

Mr Ken Klonsky: Thank you. First, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak on Bill 103. My understanding is that this committee is actually listening and not seeing this democratic exercise as an annoyance or a roadblock. I say this because there are times when I feel the members of this government have little patience for loyal opposition.

I find it ironic to sit here as a member of the NDP speaking in the role of small-c conservative, speaking out against a bill put forward by a supposedly Conservative government which seeks to sweep away the past with lightning speed. Some have called the movers of this bill evil, but I have found that such dichotomies as good versus evil are not always useful in politics. However, these so-called conservatives, the movers of Bill 103, must see themselves as well-motivated, as disciples of progress called upon to bring half the people of Ontario kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Is this not why Bill 103 feels like something of a juggernaut, the leaders of some of our cherished institutions being crushed beneath its wheels?

I oppose Bill 103 because it does not speak the language of compromise. I oppose the self-righteous attack on democratically elected officials through appointed trustees. Indeed the root of "trustee" is trust. It is plain that the movers of this bill do not trust the very people we have trusted to govern us. I do. Is ensuring future prosperity, which I am sure the movers of this bill seek for Ontario, an excuse to subvert the system which protects us all? Would the leaders of Ontario welcome a hostile takeover of this province by the federal government?

I oppose Bill 103 because I value local democracy. I see a loss of accessibility and accountability as the inevitable result of such a drastic cut in representation.

I came to this city in 1967 as a graduate student at the University of Toronto. I quickly learned about the vital and caring nature of the local politician. I lived in an apartment on College Street across from the university. Perhaps a small handful of other residents lived within a four-block radius. Soon after I moved in the city began to dig up the streetcar tracks from University Avenue to St George Street. Since the area was, and is, heavily trafficked, the work started at 1 in the morning, right until dawn.

Obviously I could not sleep with the noise of jackhammers, but I also understood that my apartment was not in a real residential area. Nevertheless, I called city hall early the next morning and was quickly routed to my alderman. Having come from the US, it shocked me to be able to actually speak to a politician and not a civil servant. I explained to him, probably not too politely, what the problem was. The next morning my sleep was uninterrupted, the work having been transferred to a daytime shift at considerable inconvenience to drivers. At the time I thought to myself, "What a wonderful place Toronto is." I had found my home for life.

Even now, living in the city of York, the area residents decided that something needed to be done about the deterioration of a small neighbourhood park. Our councillor, Mr Mihevc, organized a group out of my own house to address the problem. Funds were set aside and improvements have been phased in incrementally. This responsiveness is my idea of accountable and accessible local government.

2100

Don't you think the federal ridings are too populous and that neighbourhood councils lack the time and expertise to provide this type of leadership? Or was this dilution of effective power the goal of the legislation? If that is the case, then my fears about the loss of local democracy are altogether justified.

I would like to conclude by reminding the committee of an important principle: While every major decision must involve gain and loss, Bill 103 takes too much away from people and does so with such legislative violence that many local citizens are now violently angry. This anger should not be disregarded. It is a clear indication of a scientific principle, one of Newton's inviolable laws: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Is not what is true for physics also true for human interactions? Put in biblical terms, those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. You have about five minutes left for questions.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you for your presentation before us here tonight. Let me just bounce a couple of things that Chairman Tonks said to us this morning in his presentation:

"What has given us this quality of life is our values, beliefs and attitudes and a political culture of sharing and caring. I simply cannot believe that these will disappear with the elimination of some internal borders, a half-dozen city halls and a few thousand bylaws. Anyone who seriously believes that vastly underestimates the people of this city."

Do you disagree with the chairman that somehow artificial political boundaries are what make Toronto the caring community that it is?

Mr Klonsky: No. The system of democracy does.

Mr Gilchrist: Okay. Let's deal with that. Right now we have two distinct municipal governments, each doing one half of the services, not quite mathematically but sort of half in terms of the different tasks. Actually, Metro delivers 72% of all the services by dollar, which means the six cities are splitting the other 28% between them.

But let's just say 50-50. We have two councillors each doing half the job of representing what in, say, Barrie, London or Windsor is done by one councillor. Whether it's overseeing the police, the fire, the ambulance, the roads and all the other issues in all the other communities outside the 13 regional governments, in a place like London one councillor is your point of contact. The suggestion here is that you will now move to one councillor as the point of contact for all those services I've just mentioned.

Right now a Metro councillor represents, roughly speaking, about 70,000 people. In Scarborough, in fact overlapping my riding, the city councillor represents 60,000 people. The new standard will be 50,000 people. If we currently have Metro councillors delivering three quarters of the services in an area far bigger to a population base far larger than what the new councillors will face, how does that equate with the new councillors being less accessible, less accountable or incapable of doing the job?

Mr Klonsky: Forty-four is less than 100 and some odd, that's all I see. My feeling is that what you're doing to democracy here is much more serious, and that's the crux of my argument. I can't argue with your figures. I'm not an expert and I'm not an economist.

Mr Gilchrist: It's not a question of the specific numbers. It's the issue that if two people are each doing half of the administration of municipal services and now it's done by one person, how does that make it any less democratic? If London can do it --

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'm sure Mr Gilchrist would not want to knowingly mislead the committee. Every other municipality has two people representing people in the local municipal structure: the county level and the local level.

Mr Gilchrist: Not in those services. That's not a point of order.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: Let's put the facts on the table.

Mr Gilchrist: The specific services I listed are overseen by one London councillor or one Windsor councillor or one Sudbury councillor.

Mr Silipo: They have a second level of government.

Mr Gilchrist: Anyway, the point of the mathematical exercise was simply to get from you how you would conclude that if one person is now charged with that task of handling all those municipal services, and presumably you'll still vote for someone who lives in the area so that they share your concerns, and if that person is still operating in this jurisdiction -- Metro councillors work in downtown Toronto, so it's the same context -- how does that change it in any way from the status quo?

Mr Klonsky: I don't understand why these neighbourhood councils are necessary in this case if it weren't because of the reduction in representation. It seems to me the neighbourhood councils are meant to cover that.

I would wish that the people who moved the bill would respect the democratic process. That, to me, is still something very vital, and we've lost it here.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klonsky, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this evening.

Just a reminder: The subcommittee will meet at 9:08 in room 110 across the hall. This committee stands recessed until Wednesday at 9 am.

The committee adjourned at 2106.