Transcription du comité 1997-févr-17 | 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.

DAVE AUSTIN

The Acting Chair (Mr Dan Newman): Good morning and welcome to the standing committee on general government hearings on Bill 103. Our first presenter today is Mr Dave Austin. Welcome, Mr Austin. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation. If there's any time available within the 10 minutes after your presentation, there will be questions from the Liberal Party.

Mr Dave Austin: My name is Dave Austin. I reside in Scarborough in the Rouge Valley area. Just a very small background: I came to this country 40 years ago with not a penny in my pocket. Through the opportunities this country gave me, I think I've worked my way up to the lower middle class, if I can use that expression.

I was retired at 55 on a downsizing by the company I worked for, which was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. It gave me an opportunity to look at running a business, and with the way things were 10 years ago, I chose not to start a business because of the uncertainty within this province. I will leave it at that. So that's me.

All this has left me with a background mindset that big government, large bureaucracies and regulations stifle wealth generation. Wealth generation is the thing that will drive jobs, that will allow the people of Ontario -- all of them, not just the rich -- to become more affluent, more able to meet the needs of their lives. Throughout my career, throughout my life I've tried hard and I've looked for governments that do that. I find that big governments try to redistribute the pie, they take too much of the pie and they don't help in trying to make the pie larger. The government that I support looks to do that.

I'm not here to discuss the Who Does What or the AVA. I don't believe that's appropriate here. I think both of those would have been implemented regardless, in the first case to improve accountability, and in the second, tax fairness. I fully support those but I will leave them there. I'll stick to Bill 103.

Bill 103 eliminates completely one level of government. I have had the opportunity in the last few years to perceive the roadblocks that provides to business people. That was the reason why I chose not to go ahead with running a business. The roadblocks, the varying bylaws and things that are thrown in people's way are so high that it becomes not worth the trouble.

If amalgamation does go through to create wealth and job creation -- I think it will -- it also gets rid of 61 high-cost councillors and mayors. That's about a $12-million saving if you just take that on its own. Beyond that there are approximately 180,000 bylaws and regulations in Metro and the municipalities. It gives my heart great delight to see that we would only have one council producing more bylaws and regulations rather than seven.

I look at the numbers prepared by KPMG, and I've done many business cases myself. I understand the variables and I have some belief that should the bill pass, if the process of implementation is done well, then I think those savings can be accrued: $300 per taxpayer, not peanuts, and if spread appropriately comes to a great deal for poor people in this city and in the area.

One of the things that bothered me about previous presentations is that so many people have used the Halifax incident as, "What a disaster." I can only say that if as human beings we can't learn from Halifax and do it better, then we shouldn't be doing it.

I'll say no more on the mathematics and the statistics, because I think last week George Fierheller, the chairman of the Metro board of trade, said it eloquently and I think I'm wasting your time if I address that.

I'd like to go more into the democracy issue, which seems to be the area that's been raised by so many people presenting. Twenty years of studies and debate: Frankly, I had absolutely no question in my mind that the government was going to do something like this. I didn't know, exactly, the Common Sense Revolution document. I talked to my candidate and he told me they were going to reduce government in all levels if possible, in those under their jurisdiction, and I was well aware that municipal government was under provincial rule. I expected them to carry it out and I look forward to this going through in a well-done way.

One thing I would like to point out which really upset me: I received on Friday three pages of "No" propaganda in my mail, at my cost, from the city of Scarborough. I think it's absolutely impertinent. I'll go even further. This, which is my ballot, asks me to name it, sign it, has a stamp on it so I can mail it with my signature, my identification, my vote open to the public.

I thought we had secret ballot in this country. That was my understanding of democracy in this country when I came here. Further, I am awfully concerned that anything like this could be intercepted anywhere from when I drop it into whatever I drop it into and it comes out at the other end into a ballot box. I have serious concerns about the integrity of the process. No more.

There are some serious people issues about this that come through very clearly in the presentations I've seen, and I've seen many. People have been knowledgeable, they've been articulate, but the most obvious emotion was fear of change. Few of the arguments I have heard are any more credible or factual than Mr Leach's arguments. Quite frankly most were less convincing. Many were just statements of disaster -- Chicken Little. Clearly a number of speakers have been misinformed or misled by those who stand to lose, and that's not unreasonable; we understand the game. But some were fearful of change in itself and the uncertainty this whole thing was causing. The biggest concern I had was the fear that people appear to have of change, vision and change.

Margaret Thatcher was a visionary. She had the steel to focus all the resources, the people to make her vision reality. She didn't do anything except what drove the country towards that vision. Today Britain has the lowest debt per capita and the highest employment level in Europe. Pierre Trudeau was a great leader -- wrong vision. We have a very local situation: Mayor McCallion. You drive through Mississauga and you fully understand how she has driven to a vision, as opposed to some of the other leaders. This will possibly get under somebody's skin, but never mind.

I think Mike Harris has a vision of Ontario. He sees a larger pie, he sees a piece of pie for anyone willing to work for it, a safety net for the truly disadvantaged, no special status for any person or group, and that's where I would like Ontario to go for the rest of my life. Bill 103, I think, is part of that vision. Let's make it happen. It's a tough road. The people ramifications need to be articulated better and somehow the fears diminished in a rational way.

Mayor Holyday last week had what I thought was a good idea: elected chairmen of the local committees. That would put aside some of the concern of not being close enough to my elected representatives. Give them a stipend of $5,000 a year. It isn't going to cost very much and might cure a very big problem.

I believe the transition team is an absolute need, with the ability to steer the setup of this organization in the right direction. I believe the unions need to know what the rules will be when this thing is implemented and they need to be brought on side. Contracting out is absolutely imperative -- I agree with Mr Cox, the American consultant, who presented to you last week -- to gain the maximum advantage from the change. Let's start right. Let's not do it wrong and then try to change it again.

Finally, a sunset clause on all bylaws and regulations for this new organization should be put in place, along with a one-for-one law which says that if you create a new bylaw, you must kill another one. We have to stop this total proliferation of rules that everyone has to understand. Thank you.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Austin, I have several questions, actually, but I have one on the issue of process. Does it bother you a little bit or very much in terms of how this government has decided to deal with Metro? Here he's decided that we won't have a democratic right to decide how we amalgamate, if we're going to do that. He simply said, "This is good for Metro, and like it or lump it, this is what you get." Are you disturbed by that a little bit?

Mr Austin: No, I'm not, Mr Marchese. As I said, I understood full well that something like this was going to happen. I didn't know what for, but I understood very well that a level of government was going to be removed. I voted for that. I do not have any qualms about that. I think the people of Metro would have known that also.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Austin.

PETER PATERSON

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Peter Paterson. Good morning, Mr Paterson. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Peter Peterson: I was here on Wednesday night, so I got a lay of the land in this room. I find the setup a little bit confusing, that the Conservatives are on my left. I'm not sure why, but I always thought they were on the right.

I also want to apologize for the snowfall that covered up the 20,000 footprints on the front lawn that were left on Saturday afternoon. I'm not bouncing up the numbers. Each person has two feet, so there were 10,000 people in front of the Parliament Buildings on Saturday and it was quite a display of emotion and concern about Bill 103 and Bill 104.

I have a small business in downtown Toronto at College and Bathurst. I'm a commercial photographer. I own my own building, so of course I'm worried about taxes like everybody else. I'm what you call one of your 905ers. I live in Caledon and I have huge concerns on that side of the fence as well. It seems that the 416 exchange people are the only ones getting excited, but the 905ers are going to get very excited as well.

I got involved with Bill 103 in November, when I wrote a letter to Mr Harris asking him to have some common sense and stop the megacity bill. He wrote a nice letter back on December 6 saying, "We are considering all options very carefully," and that my "comments were a valued contribution to the review process" and that he would be sure to keep the points I raised in mind. It doesn't sound as though he has paid any attention to my views or any others who disagree with his agenda.

I read with humour in the debate in Saturday's Globe and Mail "Mega Forum" article Mr Gilchrist's statement, "People have the opportunity to come in and express their points of view, but I have no doubt that most people who want to speak on this issue have made their minds up." Of course we have; the same as you have. There is no movement here. There will be no movement unless -- well, I'm not sure what will stop it, but the Conservatives have their minds made up. We're coming here, we're expressing our views, it's very nice to be able to speak. It's a very democratic process, but the actual process is undemocratic because we have an elected group that is deciding everything for us.

I use an analogy of an innocent accused who has a gun pointed to their head while they're told to write a confession that the confessor wants to see and, in the end, has a few minutes to do it. This is how it was with the six mayors' report and the one month they had under the gun. The point is, the Conservatives have the gun, they have their finger on the trigger. I would like to see them put the gun down for a little while, in fact put it away forever and start talking to people and considering what other people's views are.

We are fighting a bill that is being set up so that it cannot even be challenged in court. You certainly have your minds made up. Megacity and mega-week are about money. Without amalgamation and then downloading you cannot pay for your promised 30% tax cut. This is what I think is at the root of the whole problem.

This tax cut is what got the Conservatives elected. Two weeks before the election, the Liberals were ahead at the polls. Then Mr Harris pushed what I call the candy button and now the candy has to be paid for. We have a debt that keeps growing every day which cannot be reversed until the deficit is brought to zero. It's like having a mortgage that you never ever pay any principal on and keep adding to every year. This has been going on for the last 40 years or so, mostly under Conservative rule. That is the truth. There have been a few Liberal years and there have been a few NDP years, but mostly under Conservative control. The people did not spend this money. Politicians and bureaucrats did.

0920

To me, the 30% tax cut makes no sense. No one in this province can afford it until the debt is reversed. It took 40 or more years to get in this mess and there are no quick fixes to get out. It will take years to pay off the debt -- maybe 35 or 40 more. It cannot be done by downloading to the next level of government. It is still our money that needs to be used to get your fiscal house in order. Stop looking to the lower level of government as your scapegoat. You must look for ways to save money within the provincial expenses. You cannot save money by giving a group of top bureaucrats 27% raises, and I would actually like one of the Conservative members to explain to me why that 27% raise had to be given.

You cannot save money by spending $1 million to advertise your agenda. That was the pamphlet that came to us -- this gentleman was saying he objects to money being spent by Scarborough for the pamphlet, but the pamphlet that came to the citizens early on about Bill 103 was paid for by provincial revenue and the advertising that went along with it added up to $1 million.

You cannot save money by building a national trade centre at the CNE for $180 million. Now that was a combination of federal, provincial and Metro money, but still it's money that's ill spent, and you cannot save money by allowing politicians to triple-dip. But I have an idea and this one is for free. You can save money by getting rid of the EHT.

I could never understand how a portion of the health care costs could be put on the backs of employers. This allowed health care costs to be advertised as free -- now we know this was brought in under the Liberal government, unfortunately, and the NDP government carried it on -- well, they are free for many, including all civil servants, whose EHT is paid for by the taxpayer. All of us should pay a portion towards health care and it should be done by a 2% add-on to income tax, singled out as a health tax.

The Minister of Revenue would be responsible for its collection and this means no more EHT bureaucracy, which was set up to handle this whole thing. It never made any sense to me. I want to pay for my health care. I'm a small employer right now. Under the $400,000 exemption, I get it free. I don't like that. I want to pay for my health care. I think everybody in this room should pay a portion of their income tax towards health care.

Stay within your own jurisdiction. Imagine the federal government looking at the 10 provinces and seeing 10 parks departments, 10 health departments etc, and saying, "Amalgamation, amalgamation." I think the provincial politicians would probably go ballistic and tell the feds to stay in national affairs.

It was interesting to listen to Mr Harris squeal when the federal Liberals announced the moving of an air force base from North Bay to Winnipeg. It was also interesting to listen to Mr Harris boasting in early January that his tax cut was working towards economic recovery. The first 15% had just kicked in a week earlier. The $2 or $3 more that people had received on one paycheque made the economic recovery. What political -- and I won't use the word; it's not very nice. I can't believe this man believes what he's saying. The economic recovery is happening slowly because we have low interest rates and our dollar is very low against the American dollar and our exports are very high. That's what's driving this, not a 30% tax cut that just kicked in.

I have no more notes, but I want to talk about the town of Caledon where I live. I think the city of Peel is coming at us. We have a facilitator in the 905 area named Milt Farrow and he's listening right now, but I think his agenda is to tell people what they should do. I believe it's going to be the city of Peel. We're 34,000 people in a large rural area. Put us with 750,000 people from Mississauga and Brampton, we will have one representative on a council of approximately 15, if you work it at 50,000 population per council member, and we will have no say.

It's a very unique area. Mr Leach has already stepped in and changed the gravel policy to the detriment of the whole region. This was originally set up by town council and also regional council and he has just overridden it. He has put thumb marks all over a map saying gravel can be extracted here, there and everywhere. It's devastating to us. We will find that we're just paved over, as Brampton was. Brampton was paved over by Bill Davis and Armstrong Bros and you can see the results. We do not want that in Caledon. We will fight with everything we can to stop an amalgamation of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon.

I'd like to say two more things. I'd like to introduce a new word to you that I heard from a fellow I used to work for. He was a German fellow and he had a lot of his language mixed up, but he had a word he called "idiocrasy." It's a combination of the word "bureaucracy" and "idiocy" and I think it applies in this case. I'm sorry, but that is my feeling.

Also, this is called a hearing. I don't think very many people are actually listening. Listening requires understanding as well.

One final thing: I'd like to thank John Sewell for all the work he has done. He's being labelled by the Conservatives as a lefty loose cannon. He's anything but. He has more integrity than any politician who has ever served in a jurisdiction in Ontario. Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Paterson. You've effectively exhausted your time.

Mr Paterson: That's okay. I hope everybody listened to me.

The Acting Chair: I'm sure they did. Our next presenter is Jason Kandankery. No? Then our next presenter is Carol Freeman.

Mr Marchese: He's here.

The Acting Chair: He's here. Great. Mr Kandankery.

Interjection: He's asking if he can reverse. Can he go after the next person?

Ms Carol Freeman: I'm ready to go, if that's all right.

CAROL FREEMAN

The Acting Chair: Carol Freeman then, please. Good morning.

Ms Freeman: Good morning.

Bill 103 is insulting and I am angry. That anger has motivated me to speak out and work towards the bill's withdrawal.

Why is this happening? How is this happening? Is there a different solution? What is this legislation about? It's about devaluing and reducing the number of elected persons, a play to a cynical public, which at the same time disfranchises them. It's about centralizing power at Queen's Park. It's about downloading to the lowest level of taxation to reduce provincial spending, an American neo-conservative strategy. It's about keeping an election promise to reduce taxes. It's about centralizing power in education to reduce costs. It's about privatizing services but it's also about the loss of local autonomy and accountability. There is a hidden agenda here disguised as amalgamation.

In Bill 103 there is little detail or explanation on how things are to be in North America's best city, but there are pages of detail about takeover powers of the trustees and the transition team. There will be no recourse for citizens to the courts for any changes made by these appointed officials. They will be above the law. They will be all-powerful -- too powerful.

The passage of this bill removes our duly elected representatives with the stroke of a pen. As we speak, the financial affairs in our city have been taken over by an appointed troika which has the power to reverse decisions taken since December 17. As well, there will be a transition team appointed to manage and to make recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on further legislative amendments. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. We want the public consultation now, before this legislation is passed; that is democracy.

This bill gives power to appointed officials to hire, to change and to decide on severance packages. These officials have the power to completely control reserve funds built up by municipal taxation for provincial purposes. Bill 103 is the cover for controlling any and all money each municipality might have. If this is not autocratic, what is it called? Do members of this committee supporting this legislation realize this and have they read the fine print? The government committee members would do well to refer to their own newspaper, the Globe and Mail, and the quote of Junius which appears on the masthead: "The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures."

0930

Your supporters perhaps don't realize the ramifications of this legislation for their future. It will take months, and perhaps years in some cases, for the effects to be felt in the pockets of the better-off, but the effects will be swift for the poorest in our community. As well, the costs of the trustees and transition team, who will be accountable only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will have to be paid for by the municipalities. This is insulting and contemptible at best.

There is an oxymoron here as well. The government rhetoric is about less government, more efficiencies, making things smaller and less complicated, yet the government is replacing the small and accountable councils with a larger, less accessible government. Megacity would have a population of more than two million served by 44 councillors and one head of council, which would begin business in January 1998. But it will possibly also have neighbourhood committees. Is it any wonder the population is confused and cynical?

I believe this legislation plays to that notion: Confuse them, get it done quickly, make it irreversible. Don't worry about democracy, which allows for discussion with those affected -- that takes time and costs money. The bottom line is this government's only consideration. We now have heard from a Conservative backbencher that your so-called savings have just been guesses, ones that sound good.

There's no research to show that amalgamating Metro Toronto will save money. On the other hand, we have heard that American cities, which this government likes to use as role models, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, are now looking at ways to reverse that move. Canadians often use US ideas as role models, but the megacity is one which should be discarded. It will not cost less but more. The cost to the quality of life will be unbearable.

The head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation states that their research shows, "This plan by the government will produce higher costs and higher taxes," the exact opposite effect of what everyone wants.

The megacity bill to amalgamate Metro Toronto is also about education and the downloading to municipalities of social services. This legislation not only affects Metro Toronto but all of Ontario. The people of Ontario who think Toronto is whining again should look closely at this legislation and know that it'll be coming to play in a council chamber and neighbourhood near them. I was at a meeting a few weeks ago and heard representatives from Flambororough, Elora, Kanata and Nepean who don't like or want amalgamation. It is being cynically forced on them by this provincial government.

The strategy to make changes in Ontario is being carried out in exactly the same way as a nasty corporate takeover: move in quick and dirty, make changes fast so people will not have a chance for analysis, let alone comprehension. This shows complete contempt for the intelligence of the electorate.

I would like to remind the committee there is only one taxpayer. What is downloaded still has to be paid for by the same citizens. This government is moving the tax bill to the most regressive kind of tax. This will cause a more divisive society. We will have the rich against the poor, the employed against the unemployed, the young against the old.

This is another hit to the poorest of our community. Municipalities, in order to survive, will have to introduce user fees for services which are now covered in property tax or privatize services. Higher-income earners will think and begin to believe that this is okay. They can afford user fees. This is what this government wants. Their policies are for the well-off, but they will punish the poor.

I believe another government strategy is to play to and encourage the divisive rhetoric that people in other parts of Ontario hate Toronto. But Toronto is the heart of Ontario, like it or not, and we all know when the heart is weak the limbs are also weakened. Toronto is the place where people from all over Ontario come for culture, for post-secondary education, for entertainment, for sports events, for special medical treatment; in short, to their capital city. Toronto will remain a livable city only if the heart is strengthened, and this will in turn strengthen the rest of the province.

Time and time again, the city of Toronto has been considered one of the best cities in the world. Large companies don't have to encourage their executives to move here. They clamour to come to a safe, livable city. Why would we then not improve upon that designation instead of escalating its decline? The city of Toronto has a lively, healthy and safe downtown core where business and commerce are balanced with neighbourhoods which abut those commercial districts. Toronto's strength is in its diverse neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods are similar to small towns within the large city, and that is why I have lived here so happily for almost 40 years.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, people in Toronto saved their city from a Metro plan to savage their neighbourhoods with expressways: the cross-town and the Spadina. We heard doom and gloom then, but the centre of Toronto was preserved for the commerce and tourism which we all enjoy today by a then enlightened Tory government, and might I suggest that you bring back Bill Davis.

In the 1994 Toronto municipal election, voters showed their preference for keeping local councils and eliminating the Metro tier of government. The provincial government is ignoring that result and now doing the opposite. As well, the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have stated many times that they will not take into consideration the results of any referenda held in the next few weeks. This kind of statement is more dangerous than the separatist government in Quebec. At least the Quebec government consults its constituents and abides by the referendum results.

My solution: Study Canadian and American amalgamated cities, look at the results and let us examine those results. The media have a responsibility to help provide the facts, not the ideologies. Review the Trimmer report, which was done for you in opposition. It recommended keeping local governments and getting rid of the Metro tier of government. Review the Golden and Crombie reports, which addressed the problems of Metro and the GTA. Look at how governments might work together for the greater good of the province as a whole. We all want the same things: efficiencies, reasonable costs, accountability, accessibility and neighbourhoods left intact.

Let's not take a jackhammer to a problem when a pair of scissors would do. I believe this can be accomplished without the destruction of communities by amalgamation. I ask you to withdraw this legislation and instead to put out a white paper for study and public discussion.

Remember that whatever hurt you inflict upon another, you also inflict upon yourself.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've effectively used up your allotted time, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward and making your presentation this morning.

JASON KANDANKERY

The Chair: Would Jason Kandankery please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr Jason Kandankery: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jason, as you heard. I'm a student at York University. Sorry for being late this morning. I had to come from class, but I'm here now. I'm actually taking urban planning and I've been studying this whole issue of amalgamation. My paper isn't finished, but to this point I really have been hard-pressed -- and I've looked at this with a very open, objective mind -- to find the benefits of doing something like this. I can see short-term fiscal savings. I don't see anything that will be beneficial towards Toronto, towards Metro, in the long-term.

One of the scariest prospects of amalgamation that I've come to discover is the fate of the urban planning departments of the various municipal governments, especially the city of Toronto, which has one of the most forward-thinking urban planning departments in the world, is world-renowned. What is the fate of such an entity?

The city of Toronto urban planning department right now is involved in very progressive initiatives such as the King-Spadina economic rejuvenation project. It's a mouthful, but it has to do with urban revitalization. The same type of project is being done on Dundas West. Under the plans of amalgamation, it sounds to me as though it's a measure in cost-cutting, obviously, and it's a measure in eliminating different services that seem to be redundant, but I don't think in any way can the different municipal urban planning departments be seen as redundant. They each serve a very specific and important function, and I hope in this whole process of amalgamation you do not forget the important function that they serve.

It's really scary when you think what would happen to areas such as the whole Dundas West area if this economic rejuvenation project had not been started. It's still in the process of working up to the level that the city of Toronto planning department would like to see it run at, and it needs direct supervision from people at the planning department. You cannot eliminate planners and the staff that they work with to have this sort of direct consultation. Without that, you will see an urban decay, a spiral, bringing us to the level of many American inner cities. There's a reason why the city of Toronto works. Don't forget this when you look into this whole amalgamation. Do not forget about the urban planning departments. They do serve such a vital role. I can only emphasize this so many times, in studying all the different rejuvenation projects. Those are just two that I'm citing right now. It's just amazing the kinds of work they've been able to do and the type of business and economic growth they've been able to spur within the city of Toronto.

0940

That's another thing. This issue of amalgamating the municipalities within Metro doesn't seem to address the core problem that the GTA/Metro is facing, especially the city of Toronto, and that is the exodus of business from 416 to 905. This is coming from someone who actually benefits somewhat in the short term from this. I'm a resident of 905. I live in Thornhill. But once again, in studying this whole issue of amalgamation, I've seen that the short-term savings do not in any way justify what's going to happen in the long term.

It's not fair for people like myself, who live in the suburbs, to enjoy all the amenities that Toronto has to offer and then run back into the 'burbs, being too afraid to stay here. It's not like that now. If we move very carefully in this area and do enough studying and really look into what we're doing and don't just try and ram this legislation through, maybe we can avert this. But I think the most important thing is to address these problems of business from 416 to 905 so that we do not have a loss in the tax base in the city of Toronto, within Metro, that will aid this urban decay. Maybe that's the next step in what you're going to do; I don't know. But please don't forget about that. That's the core issue here.

It's been mentioned I'm sure many times before and even in the last presentation, and this is something I haven't had enough of a chance to get fully into, but this is what I'm going to be looking into in the next couple of weeks: amalgamations that have occurred in other cities. I know in Halifax, for example, civic officials there are very unhappy with what's happened with amalgamation. The savings that they thought they were going to see, they saw in the first couple of years, but once again it's moving from this idea of short-term fiscal year-to-year savings and what happened in the bigger, broader picture, and they're not happy. They haven't seen the savings and they've seen more problems. So keep this in mind. That's it.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Thank you very much. You mentioned Halifax. How long have they been amalgamated now?

Mr Kandankery: I believe for six years.

Mr Parker: You made a number of points. You focused at some length --

Mr Kandankery: One second. In regards to Halifax, or any of the other amalgamations, as I stated before, I've just roughly looked into that. I'm going to be looking into that. I just heard about it and I just heard about some of the reports from civic officials, so I can't give you specifics on any of the other amalgamations.

Mr Parker: That's fine, thanks. Actually, I'm moving on from that. You commented on planning matters at some length and I wanted to just touch on that. I haven't heard anything in the Bill 103 proposal that would eliminate planning departments, but it's a matter of amalgamating the planning departments and making them leaner. What in that process puts good planning and good planning principles at risk?

Mr Kandankery: Because they'll be working with reduced staff, and they need the staff they have right now. They need the full staff if they're going to have the direct kind of consultations that they've been having with the different business groups, with the different neighbourhood groups, the different people in the communities where they're working. They need the full staff that they have, and this is one area where if you think you can save a couple of thousand dollars by cutting here and there, it's going to cost you millions in the long term.

Mr Parker: I've heard a number of people suggest that we have overlap in planning in this city right now with local planning and planning at the Metro level and that we don't need those two levels, that we are duplicating efforts and not adding any productive value. Any comments on that?

Mr Kandankery: Yes. The Metro level works at the Metro level. They don't have the resources or an understanding of the dynamics of neighbourhood planning per se as well as the different municipal planning departments do. They're working in direct consultation with people in those neighbourhoods. They have the staff to do that. The Metro planning department does not have the staff to be able to talk on an ongoing basis with the different business leaders, with the different community leaders, and to find out what the real core problems are and ways of addressing those problems and doing it on an ongoing basis. They need the staff; they need the people. If you don't have the people, you can't do work like that.

Mr Parker: We're not talking about how many people we'll wind up with in the end, but we're looking at --

Mr Kandankery: But you're talking about eliminating urban planning staff and streamlining it and trying to make it more effective. I'm saying that if you think you can cut costs in this area, you're wrong, because it's going to cost the city, the taxpayers, millions of dollars in the end.

Mr Parker: I haven't heard anything about eliminating vast numbers --

Mr Kandankery: I hope you're right.

Mr Parker: -- but I have heard about eliminating a layer, eliminating duplication. Let's just say for the moment that all the planning staff are put into one department for the whole city. Any reason why that couldn't be subdivided and sections of the planning staff zero in on the planning issues and planning priorities of particular neighbourhoods, similar to what we have now with separate planning staffs in separate municipalities?

Mr Kandankery: If you keep the numbers, sure. If you keep the staff there.

Mr Parker: Do we need all the staff we have now, when you total up all the local planning staff plus the entire Metro planning staff? Do we need all of those people?

Mr Kandankery: Yes, because Metro planning staff works at a different level. They're looking at a cohesive plan for the entire Metro region. Their function is completely different.

Mr Parker: If amalgamation kept all of the planners and all of the planning staff that are currently employed but put them into a single organization, would you support that?

Mr Kandankery: Can you repeat that?

Mr Parker: There's nothing in Bill 103 that fires a single planner. All it does is consolidate or give potential for consolidating the planning departments.

Mr Kandankery: That's why I'm here today, to make sure --

Mr Parker: If the planning departments were consolidated but everyone kept their jobs, would you support that?

Mr Kandankery: If the staff was kept, I could support that, but I just hope that's going to happen.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kandankery, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

FRANK FAUBERT

The Chair: Would Frank Faubert please come forward. Good morning, Your Worship. Welcome to the committee. You have half an hour this morning to make a presentation. If there's time left at the end, I'll divide it equally among the three caucuses for question-and-answer.

Mr Frank Faubert: I have a lot to say, but what I'll try to do is leave some time in the end because I wouldn't miss the questions for the world.

Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of my colleagues on Scarborough council and the residents of the city of Scarborough, I'm indeed pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee this morning to outline Scarborough's position on Bill 103 and to present our position in opposition to forced amalgamation as proposed by Bill 103.

Before I begin my remarks, however, I wish to make something very clear. The city of Scarborough recognizes the need for change and has never proposed a position in support of the status quo. That said, we are fundamentally opposed to the direction in which this government is headed, the speed at which they're attempting to get there, their almost contemptuous dismissal of all those who would disagree with them, and the methods they are using to implement this legislation.

Because others have addressed and will address the issues of neighbourhoods, community identity and personal considerations, I intend in my time allotted to touch on some history, governance, and a critique of the bill itself.

First let's look at history. George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Never has this been more true than in the context of the discussion of Bill 103. I come before you today representing a municipality that was first surveyed in 1791, named by John Graves Simcoe in 1796, and incorporated as a township in 1850 under the Baldwin Act. In other words, the historical underpinnings of the present-day city of Scarborough predate Confederation, predate the BNA Act, and in fact predate the province of Ontario. I think that's important to have as a matter of record.

I mention this to emphasize that I'm not only appearing today on behalf of the council and residents of the city of Scarborough, but on behalf of the history and past people and governments of the city of Scarborough. These are the people who built this city across the years with their sweat and with their taxes.

0950

There is also a history to the rejection of amalgamation as a governance option for Metropolitan Toronto that goes back to 1953, when the Ontario Municipal Board released the Cummings report and its findings, which rejected amalgamation for many of the same reasons that are as valid today as they were then.

In his rejection of amalgamation, Mr Cummings, who would later become Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, noted, "It would result in immediate and prolonged administrative confusion of the most serious kind...taxes would rise...it is unrealistic" and is "contrary to the spirit of local democracy." He went on in his rationale for rejecting amalgamation to say, "The practical and technical advantages of complete amalgamation...are comparable with similar advantages in a completely centralized totalitarian form of national government" -- chilling words indeed.

The Goldenberg commission of 1965, the Robarts commission of 1977 and the more recent examples of the Trimmer report, the Golden Task Force on the Future of the Greater Toronto Area, the Birnbaum review and the Crombie Who Does What panel all recommended against total amalgamation of local municipalities.

Three of these reports were directly commissioned by the current Premier and this government, and the minister himself was a member of the Trimmer task force prior to his election to the Legislature and current appointment as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Despite this and the recommendations against amalgamation contained in them and every other report in recent memory, they have been summarily dismissed with no further justification by the minister and this government.

The debate on Bill 103, and I use the word "debate" advisedly because in fact there was no public debate on amalgamation prior to the floating of a trial balloon by the minister and the introduction of legislation on December 17 last -- little real debate has taken place since that time. It has occurred largely in a vacuum because the government has essentially refused to debate the issue, preferring instead to declare, despite the complete absence of fact, that it is right. They have no report, no study, no body of evidence for amalgamation to support their proposal. They claim a business base and yet have no business case to support that claim.

The government has commended itself for taking action that "others before failed to take." I would suggest that before they continue patting themselves on the back they understand that past governments did not attempt to amalgamate Metro Toronto because they had read the studies, they understood the conclusions and they learned from history. They recognized that amalgamation was not a reasonable option and that the total body of evidence pointed to the fact that it is fundamentally the wrong thing to do. Golden said that, Robarts said that, Goldenberg said that and Cummings said that.

When one views the current government's actions in this matter and its insistence on forging ahead with this ill-conceived, badly flawed and incompletely drafted piece of legislation in the face of all evidence to the contrary, you have to ask yourself: Why? I would suggest everyone keep asking that.

For the record, we object to the following clauses of Bill 103. I am resisting the urge to dissect this bill clause by clause, simply because that would then indicate an acceptance of the remainder of the bill, when in fact I reject and our council rejects the basic proposition of this legislation, that of forced amalgamation.

However, for the record, what I find particularly odious are sections 9 through 15, the imposition of the board of trustees by this legislation in the absence of any evidence of malfeasance, and with the provisions for limiting the duly elected councils from carrying out the financial management of their respective municipalities. The need for this draconian provision has never been established and indeed the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing already has the ministerial authority to act if there is any claim or evidence of financial impropriety by any municipality in Ontario. You have to question why that's even in the bill. So I would recommend that clauses 9 through 15 and all its subsections be struck from the bill.

As well, I agree with the position of the Metro council regarding the transition team and its recommendations regarding sections 16 through 21.

I would point out that there is a complete absence of fact to support the government's position that amalgamation of local municipalities will promote effective and economically efficient government. In his 1977 report, former Ontario Premier John Robarts paid special attention to the theory that amalgamation would save money and concluded that the argument held no water. He stated, "Since there are no strong arguments for administrative savings to be realized from such a move, the commission has decided to discard the amalgamation option." I would suggest those are wise words indeed.

Where is Premier Harris in this debate? When he was Conservative leader, in a speech in Fergus in 1994, he said: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and our pride? I disagree with restructuring" -- this is still the Premier, remember -- "because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities." Can things really have changed that much in two and a half years?

What this government and the Premier want is effective and economically sound local government. That's what they state. I suggest to you that what they seek already exists.

I would like to read you a quote which appeared in the Scarborough Mirror on October 17, 1994:

"Scarborough's fiscal efficiency is a model that should be followed by other levels of government.... Scarborough's budgeting practices of the last four years are an example of the way government budgeting should be done." I am gratified that Premier Mike Harris, then Conservative leader, recognized the hard work and dedication by the government of Scarborough in his glowing recommendation then, but I must also wonder what has changed in the interim. Have we suddenly become incompetent? Or is the government, in its interests in "crass political gain" -- by the way, it's a phrase the Premier recently used for effect in connection with a federal issue in his own riding -- telling the city of Scarborough and other municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto that the Premier's favourable opinion of Scarborough is wrong now?

For the record, Scarborough has had a zero tax increase for five of the last six years. That's over a period when our population has increased by 5%, when taxpayers have won appeals to their assessment, eroding the base even further, and the provincial government grants were reduced by $55 million over a period when inflation increased by 11%. We held taxes to a zero increase while paying down our capital debt, which leaves us virtually debt free, a fact the minister's parliamentary assistant might want to acquaint himself with since just last week he suggested in this venue that Scarborough was in debt. I will expect a question on that, Mr Gilchrist.

At the same time, we reduced staff and restructured our workforce and administration, prompting Toronto Life magazine to recognize Scarborough as the city that provides its taxpayers with the most effective level of service and the fewest number of staff at the lowest cost per capita in Metro. This fact was also recognized by the province's own auditors, who said, "The lowest-cost service provider on a per capita and per household base in Metro is Scarborough."

And one thing I want to get on the public record: My Metro colleague Chairman Alan Tonks, who appeared before this committee, like many in support of amalgamation told you that Metro is already 72% amalgamated, so why not get on and finish the job? This position has already been repeated subsequently by many editorialists and provincial ministers in their defence of the amalgamation theory. However, this does not hold up to scrutiny. Metro does not deliver 72% of the services, as this claim is purported to indicate. The fact is Metro spends 72% of the municipal dollars that are expended in Metro, and since 68% of this is spent on only three services -- policing, social services and transit, two of which, police and transit, are not administered by Metro but are independent commissions or boards -- then almost half the services delivered in Metro come from the local municipalities.

I must also speak to the question of onus, to the issue of on whom rests the burden of proof in a democratic society. This committee and the House to which you report should need no reminder that in a democratic society the burden of proof to prove the merits of profound change rests solely and exclusively on he who is proposing it. But here in the province of Ontario, with a Premier who before the election stated he would abolish regions and strengthen local governments, and a minister who before his election actually signed a report recommending the elimination of Metro "as the cornerstone of the governance reform process" and stating "the present number of local governments will be retained," on what basis does the Premier and the minister now reverse themselves?

It is also a fact that one of the most compelling reasons for the growing public unrest around this legislation relates directly to the inability of the government to provide any of us with any evidence to support their case. Whether you disagree or agree with their actions, I firmly believe the public is entitled to know what the facts are, and it is the responsibility of the government proposing such legislation to make its data available to support its own case.

They have not and cannot, because they have no facts, they have no data and they have no business case or study to support their claims, with the sole exception of a hastily composed and totally discredited KPMG study. Its authors subsequently admitted that the study does not guarantee that the merger will produce any savings and that there has been no amalgamation elsewhere that would demonstrate the certainty of savings in Metropolitan Toronto and that costs could actually rise under amalgamation.

1000

I, for one, both resent and reject the attempt to marginalize legitimate concern as self-interest, a common defence of this government. I have been elected to speak out in the interests of my neighbourhoods, my communities and my city, not roll over while this government rushes the enactment of legislation which has the potential to damage our future both as a municipality and a region, and I'll make no apologies for that.

But putting that aside, I would challenge the government to present their facts, to make their case in clearly stated and supportable terms. Since last fall, when the minister floated his "gut feeling" theory and then dropped Bill 103, he has repeatedly suggested that local mayors, and by association their councils, have failed to present him with viable alternatives. He further suggested that local politicians only became involved once he tabled the legislation and they realized that their jobs were threatened.

This cynical response conveniently ignores the fact that until he actually tabled the bill, local councils had little from the government to respond to. They were instead forced to deal with a daily dose of trial balloons, unsubstantiated rumours, vague suggestions from the minister floating from press scrums, innuendo and policy through press release, sometimes contradicted within days by yet another press statement or new rumour offered by sound bite. Is this how the issue of governance and democratic institutional reform is to be decided?

Since the government has repeatedly insisted on quoting from the document known as the Common Sense Revolution, let me do likewise. On page 17 it clearly states: "We will sit down with municipalities to discuss ways of reducing government entanglement and bureaucracy, with an eye to eliminating waste and duplication, as well as unfair downloading by the province." Where is that consultation, so glibly promised? I'll deal with the latter portion of that statement in a moment.

The province's stated objective is to supposedly create efficient local government and effective delivery of services, but the mayors' offer to discuss how minimum benchmarking and service standards could be established in cooperation with the province to achieve this efficiency was rejected out of hand by the minister in meeting the mayors for the first and last time last fall.

The minister has repeatedly stated he has not received any viable alternatives from anyone. It would be more accurate to suggest that what the minister really means is he has not received any alternatives that he has bothered to listen to.

We have a statement here, and this is for the record, but aside from this I want to point out that we have made submissions to all the task forces, the panels that have been involved with the governance of Metropolitan Toronto and that we have made them long before the issue of amalgamation was floated.

The mayors' report, which was made in response following the proposal for amalgamation, outlined alternatives and suggestions to amalgamation. The total report was quickly rejected out of hand and characterized as proposals from self-serving politicians intent on saving their jobs and maintaining the status quo.

It sought to answer the question, where do we go from here?, and included proposals to downsize local councils, to achieve cost savings without amalgamation and the establishment of service boards which would replace the Metro function and link with the future service boards across the GTA, something Crombie subsequently recommended later in December. Some status quo.

Whether or not you agree with the recommendations contained in these and countless other proposals that have been submitted to the government for consideration, it is clear that a number of options have been presented and the government's claim that no one came forward with alternatives before the introduction of bill is simply not fact. By the way, put aside all the local politicians in this matter. There is a huge number of experts in this field who also point out that the amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto is seriously wrong. Andrew Sancton of the University of Western Ontario and Wendell Cox, a policy and legislative consultant from the United States, have written extensively on the issue, and on top of it there are informed and compelling comments and analysis from many newspaper columnists.

Despite all these and other examples of how difficult, complex, and often unworkable amalgamation can be, this government would have us believe, without any supporting data, that they can provide for the merger of seven governments, representing over 2.3 million people, involving 44,000 employees, dozens of collective agreements and over 100,000 bylaws, and do so within a time frame that can be shown as impossible to meet by municipalities only a tenth the size of the proposed new city. At the same time, this is the most complex merger of public corporations ever undertaken in this country, and it will be coupled with a multimillion-dollar downloading of new responsibilities and costs from the province and a comprehensive rewrite of the Municipal Act.

And to what end? The creation of an enormous institution that will take years to sort itself out and will be far more complex, sluggish and insensitive than anything we presently have and will cost more and require more, not less, layers of management than currently exist. This is not smaller, more efficient government; it is clearly larger government. And it is not local government.

Early on, it was clear that the introduction of Bill 103 was only the first phase of the government's total restructuring of local government and the urban landscape. Phase two came in the guise of "mega-week," a period in which the government undermined their promise in the Common Sense Revolution to "eliminate unfair downloading by the province," and dumped billions of dollars of costs for both hard and soft services on the municipal taxpayers. They did so contrary to their own Who Does What panel's recommendations, the panel that was established to study and report on which level of government best delivered entangled or shared-cost services most efficiently.

The net effect of their actions is not disentanglement, but rather disengagement and re-entanglement. For a government committed to the elimination of duplication and overlap, this is strange policy indeed.

Perhaps the most chilling response to the government's actions has come from the financial community and the business community. Both Moody's Canada and the Canadian Bond Rating Service have suggested that the impact of these reforms on the municipal sector could have the potential to affect the financial and debt profiles of the municipalities concerned. They also noted that municipalities might be forced to draw upon reserves, compromising financial flexibility, or make significant upward adjustments to property taxes. That means raising taxes, gentlemen. Just last week a senior economist at the CIBC also warned that downloading on local municipalities, particularly Metro Toronto, could force them into serious budgetary shortfalls.

Along with its communities and efficiencies of service delivery, Scarborough is proud of its relationship with its business community and has worked hard to retain business and attract new companies to our city. Our economic development division of the mayor's office has achieved a 7.6% increase in realty and business assessment across our non-residential assessment base. In 1995, we had the first annual increase since 1989-90.

Scarborough led all Metro municipalities in 1995 with 2.4% economic growth, and in 1996 with a 1.9% increase in employment growth -- that's 6,300 jobs -- a 4.7% reduction in vacant industrial space, and a 3.4% increase in new business. We are the only municipality that can show those figures. We have listened to the business community, worked hard to streamline the planning process, and offered incentives to attract and keep existing businesses that otherwise would have located outside of Metropolitan Toronto.

If the government insists on moving forward with its downloading proposals, this could result in undermining the stability of our economic development base, giving added reasons to accelerate the flight of industry to outside of Metro Toronto. We have already seen major offshore investors postpone planned development in the face of future uncertainties in taxation and governance. Amalgamation also threatens the recently established GTA economic development marketing alliance. This is recognized by the mayors both inside Metro and outside the GTA.

Mr Chairman, I have been directed by Scarborough council to clarify their position and put it on the record. The administrative committee of Scarborough council reaffirmed a set of principles of governance for the Metro area which will be before the full council tomorrow. These principles, which they feel could serve as a transition to the year 2000, are as follows:

First, they recommend the use of the new federal-provincial boundaries for the election of local councils in the fall of 1997. This would achieve the government's goal of reducing the number of local politicians from 106 to 48, a decrease of 45%, far greater than the 24% reduction of provincial politicians recently introduced by the government.

Second is the retention for one more term of Metro council, but with the 48 members elected locally serving both levels. The council would form the basis for the transition and the move to a GTA-wide service board by the elections of the next term in the year 2000.

Third, and again I must emphasize that this is a Scarborough standing committee recommendation, is the amalgamation of the city of York, and the borough of East York, into the city of Toronto, or Toronto and North York, and the retention of four strong municipal governments in Metro as provided for in the Crombie report.

1010

The objective is to provide for the phasing in of changes or to allow for any further changes to governance structure, to allow for the considered phasing in of Metro to a GTA service boards system, and to allow for discussion and negotiation of the disentanglement recommendations contained in the Crombie report.

In closing, Mr Chairman, over the last 26 years I have had the privilege to represent the people of Scarborough as an alderman, a city councillor, a Metro councillor, a member of this Legislature, and currently as the mayor of the city of Scarborough. In all that time, I can honestly say I cannot remember a piece of legislation being undertaken by a government that has involved such a mean-spirited attack on the bill's opponents while at the same time offering the protesting public absolutely no facts to back up the government's decisions for the introduction of the bill. This government's actions not only demonstrate a contempt for local politicians, but contempt for the people of Metro Toronto and, worse still, contempt for the democratic process.

I have never seen a minister of the crown so blatantly impugn people's character, reputation, morals and actions. For a government and a minister to flip-flop on the issue of referenda and then suggest that municipalities would blatantly rig the process is unheard of, but then again, this is a government that prides itself on breaking new ground.

Do I sound angry? You bet I am. But I am also more than a little sad. I am sad for the people of the city of Scarborough, indeed for people all across Metro Toronto, and apprehensive of what the future holds in store for them. Because of what I hear from my constituents, and because of what I see as my responsibility to represent and speak for them, I intend to see that we use every legal and political means available to us to challenge this government on this legislation.

My closing message to the committee and the government is this: Give us the facts, give us the figures, and listen to the people, the taxpayers of Scarborough and the other local municipalities, the very people you profess to represent also, the people who in the end pay the freight for all levels of government.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Faubert. Unfortunately, we only have about two minutes per caucus, starting with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Thank you, Mr Mayor. As you know, the then leader of the opposition, Mike Harris, went to Scarborough, and let me quote from the Scarborough Mirror: "`Scarborough's fiscal efficiency is a model that should be followed by other levels of government,' provincial Tory leader Mike Harris says." He praised Scarborough for freezing its portion, about 20%, of the property tax bill for three of the last four years.

I wonder -- because the parliamentary assistant to the minister was here bemoaning the fact that Scarborough's finances are being mismanaged, you're in debt -- what's happened in the last couple of years from when the then leader of the opposition was saying all governments should model themselves after Scarborough to now, when they're saying that Scarborough is on the verge of financial disaster here and that's why they have to amalgamate you?

Mr Faubert: First of all, I would point out to you that Scarborough is not in debt, that we're a model of financial management. I'd also like to bring to the attention of the Chairman of this committee the Legislative Assembly Act, section 45.1 regarding privilege, "breach," as defined in subsection (6): "giving false evidence and prevaricating before the assembly or a committee thereof" -- I would remind you to listen to those words very carefully -- "constitutes a breach of privilege and contempt of the Legislative Assembly." Anyone who is making statements like that is in breach of your standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act.

I would suggest that is simply not true. Neither is true the statement -- and I'm glad you asked that question, because on February 10, the same member indicated that last spring every mayor from the GTA, including the mayor from Toronto, was invited down here, and that those mayors knew full well what the end-game was. That's not true. I was never invited and I never attended such a meeting. I'd like to put that on the record too.

The city of Scarborough, first of all, is virtually debt-free, and in the end the statement by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough East, is patently untrue.

Mr Colle: On a point of order: I'm wondering if the Chair could look into that violation of the privileges of the members of this committee as a result of the reference the mayor made to the committee being misled by false information.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: I am getting sick and tired of Mr Colle misquoting, badgering witnesses, badgering members of the government. I never said --

The Chair: That's not a point of privilege.

Mr Gilchrist: This is a point of privilege. Mr Colle has suggested that I have said things on the record. Mr Colle knows that is not true, and I would suggest to Mr Colle, if he wants to get a copy of Hansard, read it again and bring it back to this committee, then perhaps he could raise something.

Mr Faubert: I have a copy of Hansard.

Mr Gilchrist: But the fact of the matter is I said none of those things that you have suggested to the mayor. I reject that and I reject your continued assault on the integrity of this committee.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Point of order, Mr Chairman.

Mr Faubert: I would suggest that I have a copy of Hansard and I could read it for the record.

The Chair: Mr Kwinter has the floor. Excuse me, Mayor Faubert.

Mr Kwinter: I've been listening to this latest interchange, and the suggestion that Mr Colle is badgering the witness is absurd.

The Chair: Which isn't a point of order, though.

Mr Kwinter: The point of order is that we have a witness who has claimed that these statements are untrue. He has a copy of Hansard with him. I think it's a very simple matter for the Chairman to look into it and make a determination. I don't think it serves anybody to have the parliamentary assistant trying to rewrite what has gone on.

The Chair: Thank you. I'll undertake to look into the situation if Mr Marchese would go forward with his two minutes, please.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Faubert, for your presentation, and I want to thank you for the quote that you provided about what Mr Harris had said prior to the election on the whole issue of amalgamation. "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and our pride?" said he. "I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities."

It's interesting because he knew there were no facts to the contrary. In fact, all the evidence speaks in support of what he had said then.

Mr Faubert: That's right.

Mr Marchese: Quite clearly he's taken an interesting U-turn. It's quite an illegal U-turn, I would say.

I want to ask you two quick things: On the issue of free votes -- because my sense is that Mike Harris is going to drive all the boys back into the fold on this matter -- do you think a free vote might help some of the members to take an independent position from Mike Harris on this?

Mr Faubert: The great problem with our parliamentary system is that free votes are really not free votes. I think if anyone has any future ambition within the government, which is not truly a parliamentary system but indeed is an executive system -- only the parliamentary system of England is a true parliamentary system, and indeed that's where legislation must be approved by the caucus prior to it even being introduced. That doesn't exist in Canadian parliamentary law. I think it would be interesting to have a free vote, but I'd suggest every member of the government who has future ambitions would simply fall victim to the process.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate that. On the whole issue of referenda, they passed Bill 86. There are some elements that were okay in that particular bill and some that were difficult, but on the whole issue of referenda, Bill 86 permits municipalities in between elections, at any time, to have a referendum. It permits phone balloting, it permits --

Mr Faubert: Mail balloting.

Mr Marchese: -- mail, and Internet voting as well. So I'm assuming that it's quite consistent, what all of you are doing, with that bill, and I'm not quite understanding how the government is pretending to get around their own particular bill. Do you have any further comments on this? Because it worries me in terms of their position.

Mr Faubert: What worries me is the position taken in opposition or an attempt to undermine the referendum by virtually sabotaging it, by telling people they shouldn't vote in it because it's not going to mean anything, and by attacking the methods and the variety of methods that the individual municipalities have selected within their own budgets, and, I should say, many of them within the provisions of Bill 86, and to simply experiment with different voting methods. I think the government should be delighted that the municipalities are showing initiative. Indeed, that's one genius of municipal government, that it can individually find different ways of reaching the same solution.

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Faubert. Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mayor. Just to put on the record, Scarborough's financial information return for 1995 says $3.992 million in debt. That was in fact the number I quoted.

Mr Faubert: The which?

Mr Gilchrist: The 1995 financial information return from the city of Scarborough shows $3.992 million in debt.

1020

Mr Faubert: In 1995, yes. This is 1997.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. That's the number I quoted -- those are the last figures the province has access to -- and I quoted it to contrast that the city of Toronto was $498 million in debt. I think if you look further in Hansard, you will see that my comments were directed to the point, "Why shouldn't all of the citizens of Metro Toronto have enjoyed the financial successes here in Scarborough?" I just wanted you to know that I had complimented the city of Scarborough to use it as the model to contrast the other cities.

Mayor, you will recall the Change for the Better report. Do you still subscribe to what you put in there?

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, what is the point of this intervention? How are you ruling on this matter?

The Chair: He has two minutes to make comments, just as everybody else has. Go ahead, Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: Mayor, do you still subscribe by what you signed your name to back in November?

Mr Faubert: I subscribe to certain principles within that, and flowing from that at a discussion with the minister we made particular offers to the minister to deal with such things as benchmarking and standardizing delivery of service.

Mr Gilchrist: I want to deal very quickly with principles because we've only got a few seconds. One of the principles you said in this report was equity. Right now, how does Scarborough benefit by being part of the Metro system of government? How many dollars do Scarborough taxpayers get extra, if I can phrase it that way, in terms of the pooling that comes into Scarborough by being part of Metro?

Mr Faubert: We only benefit through the pooling of education taxes.

Mr Gilchrist: Yes. How many dollars was it?

Mr Faubert: It's $168 million, but that is done clearly on the formula that's established for funding of education. It's a ratio of residential to industrial assessment.

The Chair: Mr Newman, you have about 10 seconds.

Mr Faubert: It's a basic principle of taxation within a particular area.

Mr Gilchrist: All right, I'm going to pass to Mr Newman.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a question for the mayor. I just want to begin by thanking you for coming down today and making your presentation. It has to do with the ballot. Many of my constituents, who are many of your constituents, have a great deal of concern and reservation about participating in the process because their signature and address are required and they feel that there's no privacy. They ask the question, what happens to these ballots when they're finished?

The Chair: Mr Newman, I'm sorry --

Mr Newman: I just want to finish, Chair, by saying that the ad in the Scarborough Mirror it states that anyone 18 years of age or older is eligible to vote. Must they be a Scarborough resident? Must they be a Canadian resident? How are we able to determine that? Given the fact that some people are calling it a referendum, some a plebiscite, some an opinion poll, some a referendum poll, or the city calling it a survey vote on the card --

The Chair: Mr Newman, I'm sorry to interrupt. We're well beyond the time.

Mr Newman: -- can the results be considered as a legitimate measure of support in Scarborough if the system is flawed the way it is?

The Chair: Is there consent on both sides? Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Yes, please.

Mr Faubert: Quickly, yes, they sign it. If they wish that it be confidential, they can use it to go to any recreation centre or library or the civic centre itself and actually put it in a ballot box. Those are destroyed immediately. That is a verification that the person does conform to the qualifications that you indicated earlier, because they're checked then against the voters' list. That is the validity of the person who is voting. Those are destroyed immediately, there's no list taken of them or kept of them, and many people, once that is explained to them, understand that that's the system by which they're checked against the voters' list.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Faubert, for coming forward to make your presentation to the committee this afternoon.

IVOR VAVASOUR

The Chair: Would Ivor Vavasour please come forward. Welcome, sir, to the committee.

Mr Ivor Vavasour: My presentation will be quite brief. I'm unequivocally in favour of the GTA, as it's known, for two fairly obvious reason. The economics are undeniable in that there will be a great saving of expenses, whether or not the savings will, shall we say, go back into the coffers. If not, they could be used in other areas that perhaps may need greater financing. Any time a change is made or something is instituted or constituted that will benefit the citizens of the community, then go for it. Perhaps economics are not the most important element in that situation, but in this instance I think the economics will be served extremely well and I believe the citizens will be served even more so than they are at the present time.

I've heard a lot of dissension, if you like, from various detractors of this plan, and it takes me back to 1953, when Fred Gardiner brought on something that we now know as Metropolitan Toronto. I believe it's worked quite well to this point in time. But one thought comes to my mind: The motivation of the detractors at that time appears to have advanced forward to the detractors of today, so really while everything changes, not a great deal does change, particularly in the political world.

Having said that, I recall just after the announcement was made, I think within a matter of a day or two, a couple of our eminent elected officials readily climbed into the fray and said, "We're prepared to cut our costs and expenses by 30%." My question to that is, what took them so long? Why did they have to be waked up by some affirmative action, which we have seen in the concept of GTA?

Again, I think it's a wonderful thing. I would only suggest that in implementing the financial structures involved in this new concept that perhaps a little professional help, other than from elected officials and certainly from public bureaucrats, be invited to make a contribution, because I really feel that professional people such as accountants, financial advisors and so on look at things in a different light than perhaps those who have to implement the program to hand and I think there should be some outside advice sought.

I'm sure it will work. I don't think I can add anything more to that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. We have a few minutes for questions from Mr Kwinter.

Mr Kwinter: Thank you, Mr Vavasour. In your opening statement you said something that is really at the hub of the whole debate, and that is you said there's no question that there will be great savings as a result of this amalgamation. The problem is that we haven't found anybody, even KPMG, who has said without question these will happen. What they're saying is they could happen, they may happen. There are others who are saying it's not going to happen, it's going to cost a lot more. My question to you is, what information do you have that gives you the comfort to be able to say that, without question, there are going to be savings as a result of this amalgamation?

Mr Vavasour: I have far less information than any of you folks here, but I do know on the basis of reason and logic and mathematics that when you eliminate a cost, whether it's an individual or a board or a committee, and still maintain a degree of efficiency and service, you've saved money. It's obvious.

I don't believe that at this point in time there is anyone who can unequivocally say there will be a greater cost or a greater financial benefit. With so many elements two and three years down the road, no one can possibly perceive whether it's going to be financially disastrous or financially favourable. But based on reason and logic, as I say, if you eliminate one cost from a production, you've saved money.

1030

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): One quick question, sir: It has been mentioned many times in here about Fortune magazine, that we are the best nation and the best city in the world to live in. Why is that? Is it one specific thing or more things?

Mr Vavasour: I would say it is because of the nature of the Canadian people. It has nothing whatsoever to do with its various governments. While our governments strive for what we know as fair play and democracy -- I think all our governments do that, whether it's provincial, municipal, federal or whatever -- Canadians are known as a very fair and honest people. In the Second World War, I had the privilege of working with Americans, Greeks, Poles, Italians, South Africans and many others, and our reputation then as Canadians was impeccable.

Mr Sergio: Our social system -- schools, health care, various programs, stuff like that -- has nothing to do with it?

Mr Vavasour: I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with it, but they are simply parts of a mosaic, if you like. People look at our school system and say it's very good. Then again, if they were to look at the school system that used to be in Newfoundland, the parochial system, that wasn't so good. There are many parts of our society which are above and beyond other parts of the world, but we have our weaknesses.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Vavasour, for making your presentation today.

GEORGE SLOAN

The Chair: Would George Sloan please come forward. Good morning, and welcome to the committee.

Mr George Sloan: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you all for not leaving the room. One of my nightmares, as I'm sure it is for all of us, is being the one who cleared the room, so thanks for staying.

My name, as the Chairman said, is George Cameron Sloan. I live in the Beach. My wife and I both spent some time wondering why the heck I would possibly come down here, and it really wasn't clear to me, as I sat last night thinking about what I wanted to say, just why. I finally appreciated that I'm here because I still believe.

My family settled here in 1810 and has since then acted on its central belief that it is our individual duty to be productive and useful citizens, happy and healthy in private, and active in public service. We have variously served as reeves, mayors, trustees, one as the treasurer of this House, as volunteers in hundreds of initiatives, and in the military. We have built and helped build town and city halls, community centres, schools and churches. I've tried to honour those who went before by doing my bit, in helping to provide housing for seniors and ex-psychiatric patients, by helping to prevent crime, and in volunteer work in youth sports, the community and charitable institutions. I do it because I believe my ancestors were right, that there is no better place to invest in the future than here, in our Ontario.

I believe that we, all of us, Ontarians, are a remarkable people. Nowhere else on this planet is the balance between individual freedoms and public responsibility more perfect.

In my family I'm the Tory, my brother is a Liberal and my father is a union leader. In Ontario, that means only that we disagree without being disagreeable. We share, no matter our party, a common goal, and that is to do our individual best to create, maintain and improve a culture in which no one is afraid or desperate or angry, but rather in which everyone is confident, purposeful and optimistic. We want what we think all rational people want, and that is to be part of something that only gets better.

I believe too that how we do things is often as important as what we do. I'd rather wait until my neighbour is ready to share in the building of a new mutual driveway than to force him to share in the costs or even to do it myself. Without him, I'm not building a mutually beneficial asset; I'm building resentment.

Bill 103, amalgamation, is the key issue around which pivot the other issues of actual value assessment, the redistribution of responsibilities for specific social supports from the province to the city and, in part, education reform. To speak only to amalgamation without acknowledging its related initiatives is like being asked to discuss community safety without mentioning the police or Neighbourhood Watch. The issues are related and only make sense together.

Wiser souls than I must already have asked you to accept the reality that for most Metropolitan Torontonians, were the issue simply amalgamation, with its inevitable AVA or equivalent, we would be content to accept it as long as the result was basically revenue-neutral, services stayed basically the same and there was to be no sudden negative impact on the quality of our neighbourhoods.

But the introduction into the mix of a redistribution of responsibility for social support is a red flag. The revenue-neutrality now seems unlikely. Some Ontarians, it seems, will benefit greatly and others will get hammered, and that's not neutral. The services and supports no longer look likely to be basically the same. Those of us with the least flexibility seem to have been pushed closer to the edge of an uncertain future. Now, fear and uncertainty, suspicion and resentment seem linked to what was once just a sensible step forward. I believe how we are doing this is not good for us and for those who will follow.

I have examples to illustrate what I will ultimately ask that you put before the minister for consideration. I was asked last week to compose a balanced article on the megacity debate for publication in local newspapers in the east end. In the course of my research, I referenced backgrounders from the province, the city of Toronto paper on Bill 103, local and Metro newspapers, flyers from opposition groups, the Toronto Works brochure, and I discussed it with my neighbours and with members of all three of the local parties.

The implications of some of what I read and heard were either disturbing or were, as my brother says about some of my less sound arguments, psychically dissonant. For instance, we live in a multicameral system in which this individual citizen can be taxed by more than one level of government. I have two points on this. First, I really do find it hard to believe that the province is wrong when it states that there are savings to be had in reducing the number of governments taxing me from five to three. On the other hand, I'm aware that when the feds download to the provinces and the province does the same to the municipalities, while the federal and provincial taxes may have been reduced, mine haven't been. When a magician pulls a loonie from my ear, I assure you that my real interest is not how he did it but whether I get my dollar back.

Democracy is said by some to be under attack. From my perspective, it isn't. I still get to vote. And I know that my councillor will or will not be available as a function of his or her character, not because of the burden of numbers. As a ratepayer and an activist, I know that an inaccessible politician is a defeated candidate in waiting.

One of my neighbours said, and it touched me: "I can save money by not eating. That doesn't mean it's sensible." I think she's right. This isn't just about saving money.

A few of us have found it odd that in this particular debate it is the champions of change who seem to be resisting change and it's the dinosaurs who seem to want change. It also seems odd to us that those who claim "United we stand" think we are better off staying divided.

While only tenuously related to this subject, the emasculation of full-time school trustees actually pleases me. In my crime prevention work, we quickly discovered that the trustees were the chief reason that principals and teachers, and therefore our kids, were working in an environment where education came second or third to political exigencies and job security. Before full-time trustees, teachers had as their primary objective to teach our children to love to learn, and failing that, how to learn. Now the primary objective is the political imperative to cover your butt.

1040

I was actually just a little taken aback when I heard that North York's mayor is fretting about the possibility of garbage removal going from twice to once a week subsequent to amalgamation, because in our neighbourhood the average number of bags per week of garbage is one per household; maybe there's some recycling to be done in his constituency.

I hear too that there's some concern about neighbourhood identity disappearing. Again from my crime prevention work, I can assure you that it is human nature to want to identify with some grouping, whether it's my co-op, my church, my party, my neighbourhood or my street gang. If the people who compose it are people of merit to me, I will want to be identified with them.

For me, as disturbed as I am by the anger and shouting, the invective and some of the exclusionary attitudes that have coloured some of this debate, there is an underlying assumption that I feel I must challenge, and to some extent both sides seem to have bought into it a little. I found it best illustrated in the East End Citizens for Democracy brochure wherein it is suggested in bold print that suburban councillors will not care about social issues.

The suggestion seems to be that anyone who lives east of Victoria Park, west of the Humber and north of the Toronto meander has no sense of social responsibility. I'm not obtuse. I can sense and see the threat to these social assets. But I remind both sides of the argument that while goodwill cannot be legislated, neither can it be removed from the people by an act of government. Yes, I see the threat, but I also see the prejudice from those who claim to want a world free of it, and it is not becoming. In all of this it is worth remembering that no government of the people can long stand immune from good ideas, reasonable concerns or the true character of the citizenry. To both sides, I implore you, do not underestimate the decency of Ontarians.

I would ask the minister therefore to take into account that although all of the initiatives are clearly consistent with the government's promise to eliminate waste and duplication, to find efficiencies and to increase accountability in government, and as delightful as it must be to some to see the left squirm, the people of Ontario, all of us, do care, will share, really don't think this is amusing and would now like some real assurances from the minister that no segment of the population and no neighbourhood or municipality will be diminished by amalgamation or its related acts.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sloan, for your presentation. You've effectively used up your allotted time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward this morning.

PEG LUSH

The Chair: Would Peg Lush please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Peg Lush: Good morning to my fellow welfare recipients and to all of us who feed at the public trough, some more so than others. Members of this committee and the government as a whole are, I assume, 100% welfare recipients. The difference between the high and the low is that by the time you allocate the largest portion to yourselves and for your schemes, there is very little left for those at the bottom.

Now under Bill 103, with this downloading of welfare, you further disdain and dehumanize the children, women and men who are in need, not to mention us, the seniors, who have been relegated to some amorphous level of society, especially those seniors requiring long-term care. To add insult to injury, you now plan to steal that part of my tax money which is held in reserve and in trust for me by the city of Toronto to preserve and protect my environment or even my life in an emergency situation.

I have a home, thanks to the generosity of my mother's cousin, a true humanitarian. In 1942 I made the purchase with a minuscule down payment and most lenient long-term arrangements, so that after years of the Depression and then the Second World War, my parents and their children would have a home. After 55 years of striving, I have no savings, no investments, but I do have my small pensions and I do have my home.

The one investment I do have is in that city of Toronto reserve fund, which is sacrosanct to me. Do not take it by fraudulent measures. That money was paid before your government covertly launched this nefarious scheme of high-level theft. If you think that I and thousands more like me will sit back with our hands folded and a smile pasted on our faces, you are mistaken.

I was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Canadian-born Canadian citizens. For almost seven years I lived with my parents and siblings in the state of Georgia, where my father had a thriving lumber business. He paid his workers, black and white, equal wages for work of equal value. One Friday several of dad's friends demanded, "Ross, you all will have to stop paying those niggers the same wages as the white folks or else there will be trouble." My father's answer: "In Canada, where I come from, we pay the same wages to everyone, as long as the work gets done." I wish that were true today. I suppose the friends might have donned their Ku Klux Klan whites and lynched him, but instead they took his business, railroaded him and his family, and we seemed to just disappear from that town forever.

The division in Georgia was, and I understand still is, on racial and colour grounds. I tie this in with the downloading of welfare, among other things, on to the cities. Here your discrimination is drawn on monetary lines: the haves and have-nots. The cities will have more destitute people, homeless, hungry, needing medical care; children living below the poverty line; there will be more deaths in the streets.

At least the Ku Klux Klan, although faceless, overtly leave their lynched victims hanging for all to see, while here the perpetrators of these heinous crimes against humanity also remain faceless but covertly active against the ever-increasing needy segment of society. Perhaps we should hang our frozen children, women and men over the entrance to this beautiful building at Queen's Park for all to witness the shame of this present Tory administration. The cities will not have sufficient funds to meet the needs of all segments of society.

As I grew older and was apprised of the story of my father's compassion and caring for the human condition, I felt an overwhelming and lasting pride in him. When your children or grandchildren grow up and learn the story of the infamous Bill 103, will they have the same pride in you and your actions?

When we relocated to Canada, I was unaware that I had been a non-person for all my life and would continue to be so until women were declared persons and given the right to vote.

During the Second World War I married a Canadian-born British citizen, which at that time automatically bestowed British citizenship on me. At some time along the line, unbeknownst to me, this citizenship was abrogated. Once again I was a non-person but did not find this out until 1973 when I applied for a passport. The wheels were set in motion for me to receive my Canadian citizenship certificate. Meanwhile, after much confusion and help from various levels of government, I was issued a temporary passport accompanied by dire threats that if I lost it I would not be allowed back into Canada but would be put on the bottom of the list of those wishing to emigrate from the United States to Canada. After three or four months of letter-writing, phone calls and seemingly endless red tape, I finally received my much-valued Canadian citizenship status.

In 1983, when I reached 65 years of age, I was told I had to produce the same proof again in order to apply for the old age pension. I wrote to Monique Bégin, then Minister of Health and Welfare, asking for her help, adding that I was incensed to learn that Carlos, the international terrorist, had no less than seven Canadian passports while I, who am and always have been a Canadian citizen, had been constantly denied acknowledgement of my status. She responded immediately, enclosing a personal letter authorizing the confirmation of my application and stating that I could have immediate access to her at any time. Could I have access to a lawless trustee in times of confusion? I doubt it.

1050

I have worked hard to establish my Canadian citizenship with my democratic right to vote. Do you wonder why I am enraged to learn that once again I am to be disfranchised at the age of 79? An appointed trustee can at any time or on any whim wipe out the decisions of my elected councillor without any recourse to the law, thus negating my democratic vote.

To me, this is the single most regressive, brutal and vicious act which has been perpetrated by a government anywhere in Canada during my long lifetime. This rapid descent into the abyss started with the bludgeoning of legally protesting workers by baton-wielding police summoned by the Tory government. Visions of the jackbooted, goose-stepping, fanatic Nazi SS, followed by the tanks rolling and rumbling through peaceful and peace-loving nations are reawakened by these hate-filled and vicious actions by this notorious Tory government.

I am truly sorry to look around this room and see otherwise reasonable, thinking and caring people allowing yourselves to be bullied and blindly led by an invisible steel wire attached to an invisible ring through your nose. I do not believe you really know who is leading you. Thus was the Third Reich born.

It is my opinion that Mike Harris is nothing but a front for Al Leach, but I do not know for whom Al Leach is a front. I suspect there are links to the multinational corporations and the financial institutions whose credo is: "The bottom line is the dollar." I would like to say that the bottom line is the same for all of us: In the end, it is six feet under the ground, not the dollar.

I will close with a brief remark made on the day of infamy, January 21, 1997. On that day, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Al Leach, was ruled by the Speaker, Chris Stockwell, to be in contempt of the House because of misuse of public funds in the production of a pamphlet designed to influence the taxpayers. That same day the Progressive Conservatives voted to ignore and negate the ruling of the Speaker of the House, which should have been inviolate. Is this democracy? We can never again trust the Progressive Conservative of Ontario.

I finish on the following, with apologies to Dylan Thomas and William Shakespeare: "Go not gently into this dark night, but rage, rage to the last syllable of recorded time." I am enraged by this Bill 103.

The Chair: Ms Lush, you've used your time for your presentation and I thank you for coming forward to the committee this morning.

PAUL SCHERER

The Chair: Would Paul Scherer please come forward. Good morning, Mr Scherer. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Paul Scherer: Paul Scherer is my name and I want to thank you for hearing me today. I've come to speak in favour of this initiative, Bill 103, of the amalgamation of the city of Toronto.

I was born in Toronto, raised in the city of North York and I've worked in Toronto all my life. Driving around the city and being on the road, I've never been able to figure out where one city ends and the other one begins, but I'm astounded to find out that this seamless city is controlled by 106 municipal politicians. There are seven planning departments, seven roads departments, seven parks departments, seven human resources departments and six fire departments. This is overkill.

I know that this is largely an issue of taxation. I understand a couple of studies have been done and these studies all show that there is a minimum of $250 million and probably $300 million to be saved through this initiative.

I also know that there is only one taxpayer in this country and this taxpayer must pay taxes to the city, to the region, to the province and to the federal government. In the past 15 or 20 years, each one of these entities has admitted only to small tax increases, but the cumulative effect has been terrifying for middle-class citizens of this province.

Bill 103 could save $300 million a year. This is a substantial amount that cannot be overlooked by the legislators of our day. Gone are the days when spending can be taken for granted. The electorate is demanding that all levels of governments look towards cost reductions and achieve efficiencies that reflect the same kind of sacrifice they themselves have made in their own lives.

If you, as a legislator, could save the taxpayer this kind of money, then why not consider what you could do with $300 million. A socialist might say, "Let's enhance a social program," or "Let's wipe out food banks." A capitalist might say, "Let's give a tax cut back to the citizens." In either case, this money could be used for a definite advantage to society. In fact, if this program is going to be revenue-neutral, as the government of Ontario would like to have happen, then the money must necessarily be targeted towards social programs because there will be downloading of welfare costs and welfare costs will be borne in a greater percentage by the municipality.

In this proposal, I like the idea that there will be fewer politicians. We will go from 106 elected politicians to 44 politicians. To my mind, there has been a cost and thrust in the last decade or so to replace community involvement with elected politicians. Elected politicians take away a taxpayer's say in the ongoing management of their community and make them feel estranged from the process of government.

This proposal will establish community councils and neighbourhood committees that will provide the necessary management structure needed to run an efficient city. It will allow the local inhabitants of a community to once again have a say in how their neighbourhoods look and run. This will protect the nature of their communities and assist in the management of them. This is more community, not less.

The proposal to have two councillors for every federal riding just makes common sense, which is long overdue in our political system. It makes it easy to understand who represents you and makes teamwork possible across all political lines. What could be more constructive?

As a business person and a citizen, I feel I must address the most shocking thing that I have read in this whole debate. I have learned that the combined total of all the bylaws in the seven municipalities is 184,000. I am left to wonder if there is anything that I can do in my daily routine that is not against some law. Even if you divide it by seven, 27,000 per municipality, it's overkill. It's time to rethink things. Is this what our parents came to this country for, 184,000 bylaws?

Last, I'd just like to speak a little bit about the referendum being imposed on the citizens of the seven municipalities involved here. I've never seen a more self-serving exercise than this in my life. There is a huge amount of money being spent on this endeavour in the guise of fairness and public input. In fact, this referendum is so unfair that it should be relegated to a simple public opinion poll or, at best, a petition. The question is unfair, the sponsors are public about the desired result, and public money is being spent to skew the result in the favour of a few elected politicians whose desire is to preserve their own bailiwick.

To me, this is probably the most compelling reason to enact Bill 103. When our elected politicians act on their own behalf instead of the people they represent, then it's time for a change. Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Scherer. Mr Marchese, there's about three minutes for questions.

1100

Mr Marchese: Mr Scherer, thank you for coming. I've got quite a few questions actually. You find the referendum that the mayors are doing self-serving. Do you also find that newsletter the government produced, which the Speaker found in contempt, self-serving?

Mr Scherer: I don't know the details behind all that. I think political parties will put out their message and, yes, that's self-serving.

Mr Marchese: I thought you would want to be able to comment on that; given what one level of government has done you find self-serving, that you might think the same for the other level of government.

Mike Harris said before the election: "I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities." That's what he said before the election. What do you think of that?

Mr Scherer: I understand Mike Harris to have said before the election that he was in favour of one-tier government.

Mr Marchese: Before the election he was in favour of local government and in favour of getting rid of Metro.

Mr Scherer: My understanding was that he always had said, "We're going to go to a one-tier government."

Mr Marchese: You also say that the bill could save $130 million, but every study --

Mr Scherer: I said $300 million.

Mr Marchese: Three hundred?

Mr Scherer: Yes, $300 million.

Mr Marchese: Every study that we have looked at, other than that quickly put together report that was done in two weeks which has been discredited by most people of note -- every professor who's looked at it, Professor Sancton, Professor Kitchen and this consultant Mr Cox who appeared before this committee, says there are no savings in fact, that bigger is not obviously better in this particular matter and that the costs are likely to be higher than what the gut feeling of this government is all about. How do you defend this gut feeling of savings versus the researched evidence that says that isn't the case?

Mr Scherer: First of all, if you don't do it, you don't have a chance. So you must do it and you must go down the road and savings will be found. It only makes sense that when you amalgamate and you get rid of seven parks departments, seven human resources departments, six fire departments, there are going to be savings. That only makes sense.

Mr Marchese: Yes, I realize that, and Mr Leach says the same thing as you all of the time. He says: "There are going to be savings. Trust me. When you amalgamate these services, there are going to be savings." Yet people of note, of a great deal of credibility, say that's not the case. I guess you believe Leach, and I understand that. But I would like some firm foundation before I take a position and I'd like to believe that someone is supporting me. Mr Leach has very few to support him except this gut feeling, that you obviously share.

Mr Scherer: Of course I share it because I've always seen savings in these kinds of efficiencies and I've never seen it fail.

Mr Marchese: All the evidence speaks against it, but I thought I'd make that point.

Now you say community involvement has been replaced by politicians. That's a very interesting point of view. I've never heard that before.

When I was a trustee with the Toronto Board of Education, we fought hard to get parents involved because we knew that in getting parents involved, achievement of their own children would increase. The research speaks to that. So we had to fight hard as trustees in the Toronto Board of Education to do that. I'm not saying that if we weren't there that might not have happened. But it was me, for example, who had to argue to set up a parent involvement work group, and as a result we have found ways to get people involved. That was the intent of what we existed for as politicians, but you're saying quite the opposite. You're saying community involvement has been stopped literally because of politicians.

Mr Scherer: Yes, it's stopped because a politician will naturally try -- in my experience in politics in my lifetime you will try to set up a paid entity that will replace the community involvement, and that's where I always see it starting to break down. In other words, instead of people involved in a community, it's "Let's get the government to do it."

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Scherer, for coming forward this morning to make your presentation to the committee.

Would Marwyn Syed please come forward. No? How about Stig Harvor?

STIG HARVOR

The Chair: Would Stig Harvor be in the room? Good morning, sir. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Stig Harvor: Thank you for inviting me. My name is Stig Harvor. I am a retired architect. I propose two parts for my presentation. In the first, I want to state my specific reasons for opposing a megacity based on my life experience and professional training as an architect. In the second part, I want to comment on the process chosen by our provincial government to establish a megacity within Metro Toronto.

In architecture, we often talk of the human scale. By that we mean how buildings relate to us. Are the buildings too big or bulky or too impersonal for us to feel comfortable? Is attention paid to small details that can engage us and delight us?

Successful human organization has the same attributes of human scale. Organizations on a human scale, whether public or private, it does not matter, invite participation. They encourage creativity in people, which leads to new ideas and solutions. People feel valued. They can see the results of their efforts. They feel good about themselves. They see how they fit in with others. This is how we build healthy, strong communities.

One city government for 2.3 million people is no longer a human scale organization. It's as if the drafters of Bill 103 had an inkling of this when they included a brief reference to neighbourhood committees. The interesting thing about these neighbourhood committees is that they seem to be pale and powerless substitutes for existing municipalities. There is not even an assurance they will be elected.

If there is a need for such committees to introduce a human scale to city government, why destroy the existing structure of municipal government which has successfully encouraged and established citizen participation and public-private partnerships within Metro Toronto? It's exactly this citizen involvement which has greatly contributed to the Toronto area's position as the most livable and lively major city in North America, perhaps in the world.

Why destroy that complex organization and create something new on an inhuman scale? It defies logic. Why fix it if it ain't broke? It defies economics. Beyond one-half million to one million people, the economy of scale is reversed. It defies basic human nature and experience, which we all share, even in this room.

We also know, if we have lived in the real world for many years, that human organizations are frail creatures, especially democratic institutions. You do not establish a well-functioning organization with the stroke of a pen or a new organizational chart on a piece of paper.

In the 1990s, large private corporations have been seduced by theories of restructuring and downsizing. The results have been mixed, often disappointing, sometimes disastrous. Looking back, an American guru of these theories said recently that since he was an engineer by training, perhaps he had not taken sufficient account of the human factor. Our provincial government is making the same basic mistake and the citizens of Metro Toronto will suffer the sad consequences.

Now for part two, the process. These days I wonder if I am still living In Ontario. I've lived here for 40 years. I have seen my province grow and prosper. Progressive Conservative governments have ruled for most of those years. Although progress in social policy was slow, the governments listened to their critics and to the people and brought about orderly change. No more. Today I am faced with a government which is Progressive Conservative in name only. It is a government dedicated to what it calls a Common Sense Revolution. We are getting the revolution all right, but not the common sense.

It is a rigid, arrogant government which has simplistic solutions to society's complex problems. It has an absolute fixation on two ideas: first, eliminate the deficit and, second, eliminate anything that stands in the way of business interests.

1110

In order to get its way, our provincial government deliberately creates a crisis atmosphere where there is no true crisis and then bullies its way through. It has adopted the tactics of the blitzkrieg. It overwhelms the public and the opposition with a simultaneous avalanche of issues and actions so there is no time to understand what is happening. It sows chaos and confusion. It provides insufficient time for informed public debate. I ask myself again: Do I still live in Ontario?

The abuse of the democratic process has created a wide groundswell of citizen opposition to Bill 103. Our government would do well to remember that the originators of the blitzkrieg in the Second World War won early victories but lost the war.

In spite of its disregard for basic democratic processes, the provincial government still appears to ride high in the polls. Why? Civilization is a veneer below which lurk dark forces of our human nature. Many people today are fearful and insecure in the face of rapid social and technological change and lasting economic uncertainty. Under these stressful conditions, people seek strong leaders who have simple answers to complex problems -- cut first and ask questions later -- who can create scapegoats: welfare recipients, civil servants, unions, what they call excess politicians, lefties; leaders who say what they will do and do it, even when they never mentioned a megacity before.

It is the führer principle that I experienced as a boy in Europe. By this, and I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this government is fascist. What I do say is that the same mass psychology is at work. I ask myself: Where is my Ontario heading?

In closing, I would like to mention some comments by Mr Steve Gilchrist -- I wonder where he is. He said he would be here; I asked him before I started. In the Toronto Star of February 6, he is reported as saying that some of the speakers, possibly like me, who oppose Bill 103 have crafted our submissions consistent with the guidelines of the group called Citizens for Local Democracy, which I incidentally proudly support. I deeply resent the implication by Mr Gilchrist that I am a parrot of someone else's instructions or views. I'm not a trained seal. I'm a citizen of what you might call mature years. I can engage in a civil discourse without promptings from anyone. I have formed my own opinions based on my varied life experience. For Mr Gilchrist to imply that I and others like me are tools of someone else is truly shameful. I would like Mr Gilchrist to apologize for his insulting slur, for belittling honest citizens who happen to disagree with him. I await his answer.

The Acting Chair: Does that conclude your presentation?

Mr Harvor: Yes. Do you know where Mr Gilchrist is?

The Acting Chair: I think he's just stepped out for a moment.

Mr Harvor: I saw him leave and I asked him if he could stay. He said he was coming back. He was just picking up a copy of Hansard.

The Acting Chair: Okay. Is that the end of your presentation? We have about 30 seconds for questions from the government side.

Mr Harvor: Okay, so Mr Gilchrist won't be here.

Mr Colle: Mr Chairman, could I suggest that we hold that 30 seconds down to when Mr Gilchrist returns, so he can have that 30 seconds?

The Acting Chair: Is there unanimous consent for Mr Colle's motion to put off --

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would like to ask that I be designated to ask questions.

The Acting Chair: So there's not unanimous consent then?

Mr Hastings: I'd like to ask Mr Harvor a question regarding this --

Mr Colle: Excuse me. If I could just clarify that. I made a motion for 30 seconds to the Chair --

The Acting Chair: Mr Colle, I asked for unanimous consent and in my opinion there was not unanimous consent.

Mr Colle: I didn't hear anybody say no.

The Acting Chair: Mr Hastings has a question and Mr Hastings has 30 seconds.

Mr Hastings: Do I have an opportunity to ask a question and do I get 30 seconds?

The Acting Chair: You get 30 seconds, Mr Hastings.

Mr Harvor: Do I have a chance to ask Mr Gilchrist what I asked him?

The Acting Chair: That's the 10 minutes for your presentation, Mr Harvor. Mr Gilchrist, I believe, will be back in a moment and you can ask him that question at that time.

Mr Harvor: I can't ask the question?

The Acting Chair: You can ask, but we do have other presentations.

Mr Harvor: Yes, but can I ask it then after the next presentation?

The Acting Chair: No. You've effectively used up your 10 minutes.

Mr Harvor: But Mr Hastings just said that he would forgo --

Mr Hastings: Not forgo.

Mr Harvor: Not forgo, but at least ask this question.

The Acting Chair: No. We've used the 10 minutes. Thank you, Mr Harvor. Our next presentation is Mark Magner.

Mr Colle: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The gentleman asked for 30 seconds --

The Acting Chair: Mr Colle, we asked for unanimous consent. There was not unanimous consent. We were past the time --

Mr Colle: No one has said no to the 30 seconds.

The Acting Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

Mr Marchese: Two thirds unanimous consent.

Mr Colle: Yes, give him 30 seconds.

The Acting Chair: There is a no.

Mr Harvor: Who said no?

Mr Marchese: All the Tories.

Mr Hastings: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Chair: I had a question to ask of Mr Harvor. I didn't have an opportunity to ask it. Mr Colle, in fact, has inserted himself into the questioning. I try not to do that when the Liberal side is doing it. He makes a proposal regarding the deputant's situation, and then Mr Marchese comes along and says that they have now refused to deal with the no.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, is that a point of order?

Mr Hastings: Mr Chairman, point of order. Please.

Mr Marchese: Is that a point of order, Mr Chairman?

Mr Hastings: It is a point of order.

The Acting Chair: Mr Hastings has the floor.

Mr Hastings: Point of personal privilege, then.

Mr Marchese: It's not a point of order, Mr Chair.

The Acting Chair: Mr Hastings has the floor.

Mr Marchese: I realize that --

Mr Hastings: Mr Chairman, I will relinquish the floor. We will just give these gentlemen the questioning all the time. It's just absolutely appalling to see this happen.

The Acting Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Magner.

Mr Hastings: It's okay for them to do it, but when we want to ask a question --

The Acting Chair: Mr Hastings, please.

Mr Hastings: -- no, it's not proper or appropriate.

The Acting Chair: Mr Harvor, we've used up the 10 minutes.

Mr Hastings: My apologies, Mr Harvor, but --

Mr Harvor: Well, I feel I really deserve an apology and I would like that apology to come from Mr Gilchrist.

Interruption.

The Acting Chair: Order from the audience. I will not tolerate that.

MARK MAGNER

The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Magner. Mr Magner, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Mark Magner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you. I live just outside Metro Toronto, and have many friends who live in its cities.

One of them lives in the Bloor and Jane area with his wife and daughter. Nearly every day, they walk to do their grocery shopping, often creating their meals from a selection of offerings at unique shops that have settled in their neighbourhood. On the way, they often meet people, stop for a moment to say hello. The daughter's school is a few blocks away, where they again regularly meet people from the area who have become friends through frequent meetings on the streets or in the parks or at various events in the area. Various community parties, meetings, dances, and other events occur so frequently that our friends often feel guilty at having to miss one or another community event due to conflicts in their schedules. They know their neighbours and the various happenings in their area with an intimacy that my wife and I have come to envy. We, who years ago decided to live outside the city because we wanted a sense of community in our children's lives, sometimes feel that our friends in the big city have a tighter and closer community than we do.

1120

If you ask our friends where they live, they don't say "Toronto." They tell people they live in Swansea. But Swansea doesn't exist, at least not in the sense that some critics of Bill 103 seem to believe it should exist. At one time it did. It had official boundaries. It had a town hall, with a mayor and a local council of elected politicians. It had its own fire department, tax department, and other well-meaning staff and officials. It has none of those things now.

More than 30 years ago, the provincial government amalgamated the village of Swansea into the city of Toronto. A number of other municipal governments disappeared at the same time: Forest Hill, Weston, Mimico, Leaside and others. In each of these municipalities, critics attacked the government's amalgamation plans. My friends and I -- I'd like to think we were pretty youthful then -- remember some of the debate. People said their communities would disappear, be swallowed up by the larger municipalities they were being amalgamated with. They said they would lose their identity. They said they would suffer from poor political representation because they would have fewer politicians elected by them to focus on their interests. These were understandable concerns, but the status quo at the time was becoming inefficient and costly for all residents. It had to be changed.

More than 30 years later, it's clear that the concerns were unwarranted. People I know in Swansea and Forest Hill and Mimico are proud of their communities. They continue to have an identity both within and outside of their old borders. While it must be admitted that some of my friends don't feel well represented by their local elected councillors, that problem is not unique to the communities in which they live.

Close to my home, the venerable town of Thornhill disappeared years ago. It wasn't just amalgamated with another city, it was split right down the middle, with half of it being amalgamated into the town of Markham and half of it being amalgamated into the city of Vaughan. Years later, ask virtually any resident of the area, on either side of that split, where they live and you will hear "Thornhill." My own town of Richmond Hill is likely to disappear as a municipality, maybe in the next year or two. I'm not worried.

I'm confident that Swansea and Forest Hill and Thornhill and Richmond Hill are going to continue to exist, in all ways that are really important, for many years to come because communities and neighbourhoods are not defined by governments. In fact, I and my friends and neighbours would argue that typical municipal government attempts to define the communities they are supposed to represent are often dismal failures.

Our communities are defined by the people who live in them. They, and not governments, are the reason we have so many interesting communities in the greater Toronto area and why we will continue to have them long after the unnecessary governments are gone.

Communities are neighbourhoods and people, not municipal governments or municipal boundaries. The artificial and invisible barriers between current municipalities should be removed, and the communities and neighbourhoods will be strengthened as a result.

As a provincial taxpayer, my interest in this committee's proceedings is also keen. I know that the taxes I pay to the province are being used in part to subsidize each of the area municipal governments that is currently clamouring for its continued existence. My taxes help pay for separate transit systems, separate roads departments and other duplicated services and their bureaucracies in each municipality.

I also know that other duplicated facilities and services that may not be provincially subsidized are also, in the end, subsidized by me. I travel here several times per week, park here, do business here, eat in restaurants here, shop here, all of which cost more because the people I'm dealing with have to pay taxes to support an inefficient and wasteful scheme of interlaced municipal government. It has to be changed.

I understand that about 70% of municipal services are already delivered Metro-wide. It just doesn't seem to make sense to have seven governments, seven parks departments, seven roads departments, seven human resources departments, six fire departments, seven planning departments, and a number of other duplicated groups of bureaucrats, all of those to deliver just 30% of the services required by the citizens living here.

It doesn't make sense to have these governments competing with each other for growth and jobs, often by offering various incentives which in the end cost all of us money, and sometimes more valuable things such as security and safety and quality of life. It is surely possible to get the same services, probably better services, for less tax through a more efficient promotion and delivery system which has just one set of managers.

It has seemed to me from the start that the current provincial government has followed at least five basic principles in planning these changes and others that it is considering. These principles seem elementary to me and my friends and neighbours, but they have seemed incomprehensible to most bureaucrats and politicians until Premier Harris came along. I am completely persuaded that they make sense.

1. There is only one taxpayer. Whatever shell games are played, one of the latest ones being garbage bag tags, there's only one of us who is going to have to pay that tax in the end.

2. Ontarians are entitled, I am entitled to know how my tax dollars are spent on services, and we deserve accountability from those making the spending decisions.

3. Whenever possible, one level of government should be fully responsible for a service, instead of the current duplication and overlap.

4. Local services should be delivered at the local level unless there is a really compelling case for delivery on a broader scale requiring uniform standards.

5. Taxpayer savings must be realized, can be realized, should be realized by ending administrative overlap, not by compromising the quality of the services themselves.

The government's goals of less government, better services and lower taxes should remain firm. When it discusses its plans with the municipalities, the unions, the school boards and, most of all, with the citizens of Ontario, it should not lose sight of those goals.

For 10 years prior to the current government our province and the greater Toronto area were losing their place as the economic powerhouse of a strong, united and prosperous Canada, and for 10 years I and my friends and neighbours have suffered as debt soared, taxes climbed and jobs left. I believe Ontario needs major change if we are to turn ourselves around and that this bill is just part of the change that needs to be made.

There was a pretty serious recession in the 1980's and it seems that governments that came before the Mike Harris government came to power want us to believe that all of these problems are the result of the recession. But I don't believe that's true. I believe the huge tax increases imposed on us in the past 10 years are a big part of the problem. I believe the provincial management of our welfare system --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Magner. You've come to the end of your time. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up.

Mr Magner: Okay, thank you.

Our welfare cost increase of 600% in 10 years is part of the problem. I believe that an increasingly byzantine system of provincial, regional and municipal government is part of the problem.

It seems to me that Premier Harris is about making government more efficient. He's about delivering compassionate, high-quality services well. He's about leaving more money in my pocket to support my family, to pay for my daughters' education and to save so I can support myself in my retirement. He sounds like good common sense to me and I hope he continues his revolution.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Magner, for coming forward to make your presentation today.

Interruption.

The Chair: Mr Grimes, we've had the conversation several times. I've heard five interruptions from you during that last speaker. We've had the discussion. If you can't be quiet and remain in the room, then don't remain in the room. Room 230 is an overflow room where your input wouldn't disturb any of the presenters.

ONTARIO COALITION OF SENIOR CITIZENS' ORGANIZATIONS

The Chair: Would Bea Levis come forward, please. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Bea Levis: Thank you very much. I want to introduce my colleague, Don Wackley, who will also participate in this. We want to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today.

The Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations is a coalition of over 95 seniors groups and numerous individuals from across Ontario, representing the concerns of over 500,000 senior citizens. OCSCO unites both large and small groups, from community groups, women's, ethnic, native, union and veterans organizations on matters affecting the quality of life of the senior citizens community.

1130

Bill 103 is all-encompassing and has serious implications for all members of society. We see three areas of Bill 103 that will cause the greatest damage. One of the most detrimental consequences will be the dumping of health and social services on to municipalities. The second negative ramification is actual value assessment and the effect it will have on property taxes, and the last is the dismantling of local democracy and accountability.

The dumping of health and social services, one of the most disturbing problems that arises from Bill 103: Transferring such services as old age homes, nursing homes, community-based services for seniors, public health services, social housing, welfare, ambulance services and a wide range of other health and social services to the municipalities will be disastrous. This is especially true for Metro Toronto, where the majority of the most vulnerable, such as welfare recipients, the disabled and seniors live. This dumping of services will intensify the inequities between Metro and the surrounding communities; however, all municipalities will face the same choice: cut services, increase taxes and increase user fees.

The Harris government is only looking at the short-term gain on the province's books, not the long-term impact on health and social services. This government has not accounted for escalating demands for social programs in periods of economic decline and the growing needs of an aging population for long-term-care programs, housing and related services.

Seniors fear that one of the most drastic consequences of Bill 103 will be the cost-cutting measures taken within the health care system. Health care, under the Constitution, is a provincial responsibility and there is a great risk of fragmenting the system when municipalities are expected to cover 50% of long-term-care funding. In particular, northern and rural communities will have great difficulty delivering long-term-care programs. With hospital closures throughout the province, there will be an increased demand for home care services and long-term-care facilities. As the numbers of frail seniors increase, municipalities will face implementing user fees, cutting services and privatization as their only choices.

Non-profit housing will also be drastically affected. This is especially important for seniors because social housing enables them to have a decent quality of life within a limited income. In addition, many non-profit homes offer programs and services to help seniors and the disabled with basic living needs. Many of these support services will be jeopardized. Within the first year of the Harris government, new construction of co-op and non-profit housing stopped, and rent control will in effect be soon ended.

The Conservative government is about to make the municipalities pay mega-millions in annual subsidies for social housing. This is in addition to much-needed repairs to the older non-profit housing buildings. OCSCO fears that municipalities will cease to subsidize non-profit homes since financial pressure to carry social housing will be too much.

Public transportation will also suffer. Many low-income individuals rely on public transportation because they can't afford to drive or take a taxi. This system gives seniors, the disabled, students and low-income families accessibility and safe access to their destination. With new responsibilities, municipalities may choose between increasing fares or privatization to keep the transportation system viable. With the certainty of increased fares, many seniors will be unable to attend the programs and services which keep them active and independent. The weak and marginalized groups in our society will be dealt a harsh blow. I want to assure you that isolation is a terrible thing and I hope none of you ever have to face that in your old age.

I'm going to ask my colleague now to continue with actual value assessment.

Mr Don Wackley: The government states that actual value assessment will allow municipalities to get their fair share in property taxes. However, homeowners and renters alike will pay higher property taxes. The Conservative government has said there will be a phase-in period and seniors may not have to pay the increase until they sell their home. This government does not want to acknowledge that for many seniors, all they have left is the equity in their home. Therefore, many will rely on the sale of their house to pay for long-term care and other retirement costs. When they sell their houses, they'll be hit by high property taxes and higher fees for long-term care. The government will make low-income homeowners pay their increased taxes up front. These families will have nothing left over for when they need it the most. This is a further blow to those who are the weakest.

Democracy and accountability: The megacity redefines what local government and accountability means. One of the strongest points selling Bill 103 is that the megacity will be "more efficient and effective." I would remind you that local governments are already doing a good job. As part of their responsibility, they stay close to the people who elect them. How can making one large government make it any more efficient and effective? Each community has its own programs and services that are specialized for that population. Having one large government will only make it more bureaucratic and less individualistic. Citizens now have a voice in municipal government. Where will our voices be when we must deal with one large bureaucratic maze? The megacity will force a reduction in democratic representation and accountability of local governments.

In conclusion, Bill 103 will lead to a deterioration of the once proud provincial standards for programs which provide support services to seniors, the disabled, the frail, the poor and the community at large. We will all pay more and we'll all get less.

Mr Hastings: Thank you, Mr Wackley and Ms Levis, for coming in today. My question concerns the actual issue of property taxes. First, before I get into that, I'd like to ask you, how many members does your organization represent, approximately? How many members are in your organization?

Ms Levis: With all the organizations that are members, approximately 500,000.

1140

Mr Hastings: Within that number, what would be the distribution within the suburban cities of Metro Toronto, say, East York, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke?

Ms Levis: We have a large representation from outside Metro, you understand, throughout the province, but within Metro, I would say that the suburban -- they're not suburban any more, Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough -- account for at least half or more. We don't have a very large inner-city Toronto population.

Mr Hastings: Given that your organization opposes, I presume, both market value assessment and actual value assessment, can you explain to me how you represent the seniors in those areas, in the suburban situations, whereby in most instances, a large majority of seniors living in Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York are probably paying under the existing property assessment system a significant higher tax.

In my own area, for example, if market value assessment had ever been implemented by the previous government through Metro council, there would have been a reduction by at least $500. That's a very conservative, fair average. Many of the properties would have been $1,000 off. I have many seniors who have been paying significantly higher taxes under the existing system in Metro for the last 30 years. How do you reconcile your position on MVA or AVA when you talk to those seniors who would have benefited under those decisions if they had been implemented by both the previous Metro councils and the previous governments?

Ms Levis: I can only say that balancing that is the fact that within the city of Toronto most of the seniors we're acquainted with are widowed or divorced older women whose only equity is in their house. They are people who eventually face the prospect of having to sell their houses to go into a long-term-care facility of some sort. Those are the people we're particularly speaking for at the present because they are people who are going to face a double whammy.

They will face higher costs for long-term-care facilities, which are higher now than they were and will presumably go up; user fees for a number of services that they didn't have before; plus having to pay an extra property tax when they sell their house on top of what they had before. While it's true that some of the people in the suburban areas have been paying less, it's also true that many older women in particular within the city of Toronto are going to be faced with a very difficult situation.

Mr Hastings: In other words, you're saying to me then that my reality of what I heard for many years, at least 12 years in politics, is completely off the wall, isn't a reality at all. Are you saying to me, Ms Levis, that the elderly living in Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York etc are paying lower taxes under the existing system, when my message that I have heard for the last decade is the total reverse of that reality? They're paying significantly higher taxes.

Ms Levis: No, sir, I did not say that they were paying lower taxes. All I'm saying is that balancing off the seniors you're speaking of are the other seniors in the city of Toronto who will be faced with a very significant increase at a time when they can least afford it. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Mr Hastings: But you did say, did you not, that it was less for seniors?

The Chair: We've come to the end of your time. Thank you very much for coming forward to make your presentation today.

BLACK CREEK BUSINESS CORRIDOR INTERMUNICIPAL TASK FORCE

The Chair: Would Jim Fleming and the Black Creek Business Corridor group please come forward? Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the committee. Before you begin, could each of you read your names into the record for Hansard.

Mr Jim Fleming: On my left is Phil Shnier of G.E. Shnier Co Ltd from the Black Creek corridor. On my right is Maggie Knap of Maggie K's fashions as well as representing western ratepayers on our task force. On my far right is John Bailie of Kodak Canada. My name is Jim Fleming. I work with Dumez Real Estate North America, who are the developers of the York city centre, or whatever it shall be named in the future, at Black Creek and Eglinton.

We have our comments written out and we have distributed copies to you, if that will be helpful. We expect to be seven or eight minutes and hope we'll have a chance for some questions.

We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and to briefly present a number of concerns which we hope you will give your most serious consideration as you proceed with the legislation. Perhaps the quickest way to explain who we are and why we are here is to tell you we represent residents, ratepayers and small and large business people living in or near the Black Creek corridor from Lawrence Avenue in the north, south to Eglinton Avenue.

This corridor, which once was home to names like Dominion Bridge, CCM, Bauhaus and Ferranti-Packard is still, we're glad to say, the home of Kodak Canada and Procter and Gamble's Facelle division. We have an abundance of empty factories, however, environmentally damaged properties and decaying spaces. We have faced serious problems of crime and safety. For example, Constable Todd Baylis was shot and killed in this area. As you probably know, a street in the area has been named in his memory.

If we come with a set of challenges and a checkered past, we want you to know we are a non-partisan community group working to attack the problems, identify solutions and work to apply those solutions.

In May 1995 the councils of the two municipalities endorsed the establishment of our task force and directed the staffs of those municipalities to provide the required support services. We have been meeting at three-week intervals, roughly, since then.

The merits and benefits of a cooperative effort by both municipalities and community representatives to revitalize this aging industrial basin were obvious to both councils. Since then the task force has operated as a single unit unencumbered by the municipal boundary that cuts through its core. City staffs have shared administrative responsibilities, costs and work assignments to provide the task force with the best possible service and a considerable amount of data. We are currently working on a cost-effective marketing initiative with support from the economic development staff of both cities.

The Black Creek Business Corridor Intermunicipal Task Force operates with four principal subgroups: the community cleanup and appearances subcommittee, headed by our colleague who is with us today, John Bailie of Kodak Canada; the taxation subcommittee, chaired by John Filice of CB Commercial and co-chaired by Phil Shnier, who is with us today; the police, public safety and community liaison subcommittee, chaired by Barbara Spyropoulos of JFS Restaurant Equipment; and the marketing and communications subcommittee, co-chaired by Maggie Knap of Maggie K's, who's with us today and whom I introduced earlier; as well as Frank Silverthorn from the Royal Bank. My role reflects, as I said, my position with Dumez Real Estate North America.

We have held successful cleanup campaigns; we have had a safety audit of the area completed by police experts; we have formulated positions on taxation issues and relayed those positions to the Premier and other government levels; we have conducted issues surveys within the corridor. The task force has listened to, discussed and debated relevant issues with urban planners, and for instance, in the case of taxes, education administrators. We have pursued absentee landlords; we have successfully taken action to improve lighting, resolve conflicts among competing business interests; we have produced and distributed several newsletters. We have copies with us today which we'll make available to you if you're interested.

That explains who we are and why we wanted to have some input here. We think we're a real example of community contributing to the betterment and improvement of a seriously troubled area.

Ms Maggie Knap: There are essentially four issues relating to this legislation that cause us concern: First, the impact of the political and administration restructuring on community-based grass-roots initiatives like our own; second, both the potentially good and potentially disastrous tax reforms this legislation clears the way for; third, the basis or lack of studies, planning and investigation needed to ensure this action will net substantial benefits; and finally, the issue of timing.

On amalgamation itself our task force has not reached a consensus for or against. We have, however, reached a consensus on our concerns. We wonder if, on average, one elected representative per 50,000 in population and the related centralization of a huge bureaucracy won't threaten the viability of community-based volunteer initiatives like our own. Our two municipal councillors regularly attend and contribute. When we have needs and problems, we can relate directly to senior staff. We doubt that this kind of traditional municipal relationship can be successfully duplicated under the restructuring this legislation proposes.

1150

If voluntarism and grass-roots solution-making is sacrificed to bottom-line cost efficiencies yet to be clearly identified, we are very concerned about the survival and encouragement of community, which we now know is vital to keeping our urban core alive. This is not just a lifestyles issue. It is also an issue of the viability of small business in a big, cold city. It is also an issue of retaining the proximity of labour if we are to retain existing industry and commerce and attract new business. Please look closely at the potential impact of this restructuring on urban core communities.

The second issue, while not directly in the legislation before you, relates to it and arises from it. Tax inequities, both business and property, were constantly identified to the task force as a major part of both the blight in the Black Creek corridor and a disincentive to rejuvenation. Municipal taxation across one large municipality levied on an equalized basis would undoubtedly benefit York, as would for the majority the proposed property tax reform. However, downloading cyclically sensitive costs like social services would, for lack of any proof to the contrary, be devastating particularly to business.

We have witnessed a mass exodus of business from our area specifically as well as the whole of Metro over the last few years as companies grope for whatever will give them an edge over competitors. The tenure of those companies that still remain is tenuous. If AVA does not extend tax equalization throughout the whole GTA area as well, the loss of commerce and industry here will continue to escalate.

The third issue arises, in a manner, from the second. Successful business, large or small, survives on sound planning based on the best possible experience as well as the most trustworthy forecasts. We have been able to find little evidence of the business plan that led to this bill. Simplistically, amalgamating services makes sense, but we read and hear that this kind of initiative done elsewhere previously has led to added, not reduced, costs.

For example, will various collective agreements and varying levels of services evolve with amalgamation toward the most costly and most extensive services or to the least and poorest? Worst of all, is there any evidence that it will not cost more and provide less? Has anyone tried to identify precedents to at least establish an educated guess at where this will lead? Only reasonable research and investigation will provide responsible answers for the serious questions amalgamation raises.

Our final concern again flows from the previous issue of evidence and investigation. We are deeply concerned about the timing of this initiative. We know that no time is the right time, but we don't know what time, in terms of the interests of Metropolitan Toronto, could be worse.

Metro is only now in the recovery stage from a prolonged and particularly damaging recession. The uncertainty created by this bill and tax restructuring and shifting will, without a doubt, create a further period of uncertainty within Metro. We believe that the best possible way to minimize the level and impact of that uncertainty is to ensure there are credible answers produced to the issues being rased so that at least some of that renewed uncertainty is put to rest. Thank you.

Mr Colle: Thank you all for being here. I think you've put into context the many concerns everybody has in terms of, what's the impact on business, on communities?

The board of trade has specifically said that this downloading will impact in a disastrous way on Metro; David Crombie has said that; even some of their own members, like Gordon Chong, have said that. Yet the government is saying that no, it will not; not to worry, that this is a wash. The question I have for you is, what makes you think the government is going to listen to your argument as opposed to the board of trade and others who are saying that this downloading and the megacity are a recipe for disaster if done at the same time?

Mr Fleming: Mr Shnier will respond, if that's all right.

Mr Philip Shnier: We are concerned that any change that is made should not increase the burden on Metro Toronto versus the 905 area. This is not being addressed directly, but this is really the concern. As we mentioned, there are a lot of vacant buildings, and the reason for this is the differential in taxation within Metro compared to the 905 area. We certainly would hope that any changes made won't make that worse and should alleviate that situation.

Mr Colle: I guess the government is saying it's not going to make it worse because this new downloading is going to be done across the province, so why should Metro be concerned?

Mr Shnier: We just don't want it made any worse, and it should improve it.

Mr Fleming: If I can add, just because downloading is across the province, that doesn't mean that downloading may be a disaster. We're business people and we'd like to see proof that the reason for downloading over the longer term isn't just a way of solving current problems that have passed down from government levels but really will make the systems work better. Our great concern is that downloading, as we understand it, is going to deal largely with cyclical issues like social services, and if social services lead to cyclical pressure on business as a major source of revenue municipally, it'll be disastrous. If that's an uncertainty at this point in time, it's a double disaster for Metropolitan Toronto right now, which has had a very heavy burden anyway just picking up its traditional proportion of social services.

Mr Colle: I think the government fails to acknowledge that Metro has certainly 50% -- I can't remember the exact number -- a disproportionate number of people on social assistance, a growing number of seniors, and child care demands are all disproportionately higher in Metro. That's what they fail to recognize and that's the scary thing about this downloading. The thing is that it is creating this uncertainty in the business community. The government is saying: "Be calm. Don't worry. This thing will work out."

Have you seen any business plan? Metro has put out figures of impacts on this. Has the government produced any business plan numbers in terms of what this will mean in taxes and services? Is there anything they've communicated with you?

Mr Fleming: No, we've seen nothing of that. We had resolutions, we had discussions and debate, as our brief mentioned, and we then sent letters to the Premier and to the appropriate ministers, I think, about the need to resolve the tax issue. That's why we're quite concerned that the resolution offered doesn't appear to address the inequity between Metro. We have an inequity within Metro, which indeed amalgamation in a way may respond to, which is the equalization. But if it's only equalization within Metro and doesn't deal with 905, it continues.

Mr Colle: That brings to mind that greenfield site. Is it still vacant? We developed the works yard with Metro there a few years ago. We cleared the old works yard. It's just on the southeast side where the city of York works --

Mr Fleming: The Dominion Bridge property?

Mr Colle: Not the Dominion Bridge. I just forgot the name. But you're still having trouble attracting new industries. In fact, you still have the exodus of industries.

Mr Fleming: Frankly, we have a number of land owners who are simply going to ground. We can't even get them to come to our meetings because they see no potential to sell their land or any development potential there at this time.

We don't see anything in these solutions that's going to change that. Our whole purpose of being is to try and find ways to revitalize and bring this place back to what it once was. We may not be able to have manufacturing in the same manner in the future, but we don't want to lose Kodak; we don't want to lose the principal tenants we have in the area. "Tenants" isn't the right word -- property owners.

We have huge environmental problems. We're a piece of that inner core of Toronto that was once very vibrant which is really very sick. We think we may have added problems rather than fewer problems because of these recommendations.

Mr Colle: So this is compounding the government's decision to spend $100 million on digging a hole for the Eglinton subway and then arbitrarily closing that down. Now you've got this second shoe that's fallen.

Mr Fleming: That's a different issue, but the cancellation of the subway largely cut us off at the knees. York for a long time has suffered as a municipality, and our people are torn apart on whether amalgamation is for better or for worse. What we're worried about are the attached pieces. We're a disadvantaged corner of Toronto. We happen to have a heavy amount of new labour, of inexpensive labour, but lots of settlement problems and challenges, a huge old area that's largely blighted and dirty and needs cleanup, and we don't have anything out there to offer them in the way of tomorrow as a resolution of the tax dilemma. We don't see it unless 905 is included. We've been working for three years and the last four or five months have really set us back, we think.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this morning. The committee is in recess until 3:30 this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1201 to 1532.

LUBA ELEEN

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Would Luba Eleen please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Ms Luba Eleen: I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to make a presentation. I am a retired professor of the history of art at the University of Toronto. Like many others who have spoken, I regard Toronto, where I have lived all my life, as a supremely livable city, and I should not wish to see it go the way of large metropolitan areas in the United States. I believe Bill 103 and the accompanying announcements are wrongheaded, introduced in a manufactured atmosphere of haste and crisis, and undemocratic in their tendency. I have decided to confine my remarks, however, to a comparison with the ways in which amalgamation has been carried out in the United States, in the hope that their experience can serve as a paradigm and as a warning.

I am not usually an admirer of the American system of government, but in the matter of decision-making in the ordering of municipal jurisdiction, they have something to say to us, and I would like to share with you some of the things I discovered when I looked into this question. Over the past 20 or so years, a fever for amalgamation, which they call consolidation, has gripped all parts of the country, and therefore an abundance of data is available. Whether they get what they bargain for is another question, which I shall touch on briefly below, but first, it is important to understand the normal process leading to consolidation.

Although state constitutions give their legislatures control over the chartering and dissolution of cities, there has never been an instance of consolidation imposed from above. The impulse for a change in structure invariably comes from below. Typically, a group of reform-minded citizens gets together, usually in an attempt to remedy the terrible conditions in the decaying city core, or in response to corruption in city politics, or in the hope of more efficient and more economical government. In other words, they begin with the kind of mess that we are sure to end up with as a result of amalgamation.

Augusta, Georgia is a typical example, where private citizens began advocating consolidation as early as 1948. Not until 1974, however, did they manage to hold a referendum, which, like all of the other references to referendums I have encountered, required a majority vote of each of the constituent parts as well as of the whole. This referendum was defeated, as were two further attempts. Finally, the required majorities were achieved only in 1994, and a charter was drawn up for presentation to the state Legislature. The small community of Hephzibah voted against the referendum and was therefore excluded from the enlarged municipality.

They gave serious attention to the transition mechanism, overseen by a transition task force made up of representatives of the constituent communities and local members of the Legislature. They sought advice from citizens, holding hearings at sites throughout the county. Everything in this process was the opposite of the one we are currently undergoing: the impetus from below, the leisurely pace, the democratic choice, the wide participation in the transition.

Will the citizens of Augusta achieve their desired aim of efficient, economical government? With careful planning -- remember that they have only two constituent parts, not seven -- can they avoid the confusion experienced by four city governments in Virginia, where "Merger and incorporation did little more than place an additional burden on already strained resources and most of the efforts of the merged cities had to be directed towards immediate service needs"?

Will they experience the disappointment of nearby Athens, Georgia, where city employees, despite the fact that they had retained their jobs and improved their salaries, after three years of consolidation were of the opinion that "Mergers do not create efficiency, effectiveness, fairness or responsiveness," according to a study by Dan Durning? This author reviews a broad spectrum of literature on the subject of consolidation, and he comments on the findings of public choice researchers and political economists. This is a general conclusion drawn from many studies: "Metropolitan fragmentation -- not consolidation -- has substantial benefits," and, in connection with the supposed economic advantage, "The preponderance of research has supported the conclusion that greater fragmentation is associated with lower government costs in large metropolitan areas."

All of the communities I have referred to so far are quite small, in the 250,000 population range, often consisting of only two original units. How much greater are the problems resulting from the consolidation of Indianapolis, a city of 731,000, still only one third the size of Metropolitan Toronto but with a similar configuration of old city surrounded by newer suburbs. Consolidation came about in 1968, when Republicans won control of the state, county and city governments, and cooperated to put through a charter for a consolidated municipality, called unigov. Unlike megacity, unigov was not completely imposed from above, yet it lacked the usual referendum-generated impetus.

1540

The resulting enlarged city council has carried through some mega-projects, such as a domed stadium and a convention centre, but the disadvantaged sectors of the community have failed to benefit. According to a study by Blomquist and Parks: "Public finance in Indianapolis shows little effect from the unigov reorganization. In particular, the structure of public finance under unigov does not reflect significant efforts to use the larger jurisdiction of the city-county government to effect wealth or income distribution within the metropolitan area."

In the meantime, the centre of the city, old Indianapolis, continues to decay. The houses in the centre of the city are in bad condition, and you have already heard the story of residents raising money to repair their streets. The reason they had to do this is that infrastructure improvements tend to favour the former suburbs.

There is a political dimension to this disparity: Since consolidation, the unigov city council has been in the hands of a Republican majority elected by the strength of numbers in the former suburbs. Old Indianapolis, which tends to vote Democrat, has therefore never been able to have a strong representation of its interests. As a result, voter participation has declined to 17.5%. Obviously the inhabitants of the centre consider their position hopeless. Some of you who, if you were American, would vote Republican might view this as a desirable state of affairs, but I say that such a situation of permanent majority is bad for democracy and disastrous for the city. I don't want to see this happen in Toronto. The centre of the city and the surrounding municipalities, both in Indianapolis and Toronto, have different interests and different ways of life and should be allowed to maintain political control over them.

The examples I have cited here indicate that amalgamation, even when carried out in the most democratic and careful way, is not a guaranteed path to more efficient and economical government. In the context of Bill 103 and the accompanying downloading, it is a formula for decay and crisis. Bill 103 will increase, not solve, Toronto's problems. I urge you to withdraw it and start afresh with the full participation of all those involved.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Eleen, for coming forward and making your presentation today. You've effectively exhausted your allotted time, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward.

DAN BAXTER

The Chair: Would Dan Baxter please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Mr Dan Baxter: Good afternoon. Thanks very much for having me, ladies and gentlemen. As Mr Maves was just saying, my name is Dan Baxter. I'm a Toronto resident as well as a student of business in my fourth year.

I'm here today to appeal to your sense of reason, I guess, which is a quality that I feel has been strangely absent among the forces fighting against the megacity. What I've been hearing from those people is that the provincial government is tampering with a system that works. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that this system in fact is working right now.

For instance, this morning when I got up, after our huge snowfall last night, my street still hadn't been plowed. It wasn't plowed all day yesterday. Even Queen Street -- I live in the Beaches area -- which is, I guess, a relatively main thoroughfare, didn't show any evidence of being plowed. Another example would be the TTC. If you call Wheel-Trans, it takes 45 minutes to an hour and a half to get Wheel-Trans up and running. I don't see that as a system that works.

Another assertion of the anti-amalgamation forces is that the provincial government cannot be trusted to fairly and equitably conduct reform in Metro. I guess my question is, if the provincial government can't be trusted, then who can?

My grandfather was a pork farmer in southwestern Ontario and he always said you can't ask a hog to butcher itself. We've asked both the cities and Metropolitan Toronto to draft a proposal. We've seen these proposals. The cities essentially advocated Metro council being eliminated, Metro council advocated the cities being eliminated, and somewhere the cash-strapped town of Toronto managed to scrape together $900,000 to launch an anti-amalgamation campaign. Basically what we are seeing is that any other body other than the provincial government is only intent on saving its own existence and protecting and building its own fiefdoms.

I also see no good ideas coming out of any kind of anti-amalgamation proceedings. I just see a great deal of criticism. I've yet to hear any decent proposals coming out that will come anywhere close to matching the efficiencies, benefits or cost savings of the plan being proposed.

Another yarn that we're being spun in this debate is that big business wants amalgamation. So what? I believe small business, if you look very closely, wants it as well. When I was graduating high school, I had an ice cream store. I started it from scratch. I went through the entire business licensing procedure and all that kind of thing and I can tell you there's a whole lot of red tape out there. The red tape is a lot worse here in Toronto and that red tape standing in the middle of small businesses really limits the imperative that can be created with entrepreneurship.

My question is, who creates the jobs and who pays the majority of taxes? The benefits to business of amalgamation are a reduction in costs, greater responsiveness, reduction in red tape, especially with one-stop shopping, greater investment in Toronto and the fact that everyone will compete on an even playing field. As well, the amalgamation will work to protect Toronto's reputation as a great place to set up business. Being a business student, of course this is very important to me.

I think my favourite argument in favour of maintaining the status quo is that the megacity will destroy our communities. When was the last time a political organization in Canada destroyed a vibrant community through any kind of realignment of government? As far as I know, Little Portugal out on College Street west is still very much alive and vibrant. Forest Hill is still very much Forest Hill. Chinatown is very much Chinatown. No one has the time or desire in politics these days to meddle with these communities and remove their distinctive character. There's no political end; there's no point to doing that. If destruction were imminent, entire communities would be wiped out every few years at election time. That would be just following the logic down from that argument.

At any rate, it shouldn't be up to us to preserve any kind of communities. If you look at the history of Canada, for instance, there have been several distinctive groups that have been destroyed by governmental meddling, versus the Mennonites in southwestern Ontario, for instance, who have achieved successfully a very distinct, very vibrant culture in spite of the fact that there has been no government involvement whatsoever to preserve that. As soon as we start preserving any kind of culture actively, we take that culture away. It becomes ours; it doesn't become theirs.

All change is not bad, and through the evolutionary process any of these cultures will change naturally. If that weren't the case, then we would all really still be monkeys in the jungle and, quite frankly, I don't think any of us want to be monkeys right now.

It's obviously clear with amalgamation that there will be winners and losers. Admittedly, the system isn't perfect. That's true of any kind of system that we would contrive. There's no system of government in he world that's perfect. If that were possible, there would be no need for any kind of public discussion like we're having right now.

It seems strangely absent in any press coverage that I've seen that those who scream the loudest often have ulterior motives. We should look hard at the credibility of these detractors before we take anything that they say seriously. Therefore, the province, with no vested interest in outcome, is the only political organization that can objectively review and make changes in Metro. I think we should give the megacity a chance.

Pardon me while I shuffle through my notes here.

Before the last provincial election, Mr Harris promised more efficient local government. What he said then is being implemented now with Bill 103. To me, that's democracy in action. The Harris Tories did not take Queen's Park by force. To refer to them using the names of tyrants is to merely demean the memory of the many people who suffered under those tyrants. It shows that the people who came before this committee and used those terms, having been given a truly democratic forum in which to voice their opinions, are being irresponsible and in fact are showing contempt for our democratic parliamentary system.

1550

The Harris Tories, like the Liberals and the NDP, have been given power by the people. Their mandate lasts as long as the next provincial election. They must earn the majority of the people's confidence and trust before they can be returned to office. That is not dictatorship; that is democracy.

Unlike any of his detractors, Mr Harris is at least trying to repair a system that's fundamentally broken. No one appears to be volunteering to help him with this rather onerous task. Instead, they feel content to block his progress at every turn.

If, on the face of it, the average citizen has difficulty understanding the implications of Bill 103, it's because of the loaded terminology, such as "megacity," and when it comes to the mail-in referenda that the municipalities are involved in, because of the loaded questions, implying that one can either be against amalgamation or in favour of destroying the city in which one lives. Well, I'm not in favour of destroying anything. Toronto has too much going for it, excluding the Leafs of course, to talk about any sort of Armageddon in that way. What is clear to me is that those who oppose amalgamation cannot see beyond their political biases to provide even someone like me with some basic facts to help me in my own thinking about Bill 103 so that I can reach my conclusion in my own way. After all, isn't that real democracy?

The people who are needlessly --

The Chair: Mr Baxter, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. You're getting to the end of your time.

Mr Baxter: Sure. I'd just like to say in closing that it's a crime to deliberately lead the public down the garden path full of misinformation and self-serving rhetoric and to subject them to fearmongering and unjustified panic about the future. For the sake of Toronto and for the sake of my children, I urge you to support the megacity.

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

SOPHIA ZAHUMENY-PHILLIPS

The Chair: Would Sophia Phillips please come forward.

Ms Sophia Zahumeny-Phillips: My name is Sophia Zahumeny-Phillips and I am resident of the city of Toronto.

Napoleon's blind rush for empire. Hitler's blind rush for empire. Where did it get them? Disgrace, dishonour, death in shame. Where did it get their countries? Bankruptcy, revolt, division, disgrace.

Harris's blind rush for empire. Leach's blind rush for empire. Where will it get them? Where will it get Ontario? You are on the road to destroying yourselves, but we will not let you destroy us, the citizens, nor our cities, nor our democratic rights.

What are the consequences of rushing blindly? What are the reasons for rushing blindly? Is there not more wisdom in taking our time, in looking at all possibilities? "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread."

Let us learn from our children. They rarely rush. When rushing is imposed on them, there is chaos and harm. They seem to understand that it is more useful to ponder.

Nature too illustrates the consequences of rushing. A rush in nature is a tornado, a flood, an avalanche. All of these events cause destruction and high costs for everyone. Your actions will surely lead to destruction, a high cost to everyone, and probably to yourselves.

Why are you ignoring every bit of evidence that tells you that a megacity is not the answer? Jane Jacobs, Joyce Trimmer, Wendell Cox and Professor Andrew Sancton have all expressed serious misgivings about the viability and value of amalgamation.

What is broken that has to be fixed by amalgamation? What problems have you enunciated to the public and how will these problems be solved by amalgamating cities that, by and large, are not in distress?

To begin, you seem to think that efficiency will be improved through amalgamation. On what do you base this conclusion? The overwhelming majority of consultants and experts have stated categorically that a megacity would cost more to run and that savings, if any, would be short-term and minimal, compared to the overall cost and disruption.

The real problems in Toronto, and there are many -- how will these be solved in this great monolith? As I see it, some of the real issues that require attention are unemployment, especially among the youth, crime, violence, racism, the homeless, child poverty, the lack of adequate and affordable housing and the growing numbers of elderly people, especially women, living in poverty. Wouldn't our energies be better invested in finding solutions to these concerns?

Who among you would deny that we have problems with violence and racism, with poverty among children, women and the elderly? How will you justify amalgamation in the face of such high unemployment among our youth, the future of our society? How will amalgamation feed the growing numbers of homeless men, women and children? How will amalgamation break the cycle of poverty, hopelessness, violence and crime? If anything, amalgamation will increase these problems. Just look at Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles. Is our city to become a fortress town where the haves live outside and the have-nots struggle to survive inside?

We're talking about people here, not numbers. Statistics can say whatever you want them to, as the government knows very well.

To me, the proposal of amalgamation is like a smokescreen distracting the population from the real issues at hand. This proposal of amalgamation distracts city governments from dealing with the real issues. Instead of fighting the provincial government, the cities could be using this time, energy and money furthering their visions for their own cities. We can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt on your part to force the cities' attention away from local concerns so that you can impose you own agenda: the downloading of provincial responsibilities on to the property tax base in order to save money to fund your provincial income tax cuts. It is deceitful, sinister and an affront to the democratic process.

My second point refers to this violation of the democratic process. Does Mr Harris need to be reminded that our country was built on the ideals of consensus and mutual respect for local, provincial and federal concerns and rights? Has Mr Harris forgotten that it was his own party which worked for the creation of our federal system and its divisions of power?

By this initiative of amalgamation, you are abusing the Canadian tradition of consultation, a tradition that has garnered for our nation deep respect and admiration. Let us not forget how many of us come from families who chose our nation as their new home to escape this same degree of oppression and lack of democracy in their former countries. Specifically, the appointment of trustees and a transition team illustrates serious disregard for democratic principles. This you are doing unilaterally, without justification, against widespread opposition and in spite of overwhelming disagreement during this consultation process.

If a government can act in such a way with apparent impunity, what will it dare to do next? Is this the beginning of the end of the democratic process in the province of Ontario? I say the Tories must be stopped now. Stop and rethink. Amalgamation is not the answer. Say no to amalgamation and say no to a megacity.

1600

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): We have time for a couple of questions, and it's Mr Silipo's turn to ask questions.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Just one question: I take it from your comments that you would be in favour of some period of time, as some people have suggested, some delay in this whole process. I know you feel very strongly, as I do, that the megacity should just be stopped, but do you find any sense in the notion that some have put forward, saying, "Let's just stop things, take some time, whether it's six months, a year, and try to look at what the alternatives might be and come up with some more sensible solutions"?

Mrs Zahumeny-Phillips: I feel that time is necessary, and an awful lot of rethinking. There is so much evidence out there that tells us this isn't the way to go, the way things are happening right now.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks you very much, Mrs Phillips.

AMY KATZ

The Vice-Chair: I call Amy Katz to come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Amy Katz: I'm really pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the committee today on the subject of the proposed amalgamation. My name is Amy Katz. I have lived my whole life in Toronto. I have been educated here, first through the public school French immersion program and later at the University of Toronto. I have opened my own small business in the downtown core with the help of provincial loans -- which have since been cut -- and presently employ three people.

Toronto has provided a wonderful environment in which to innovate and experiment with small business. I found my dealings with the city of Toronto -- unlike the comments of the previous speaker -- to be simple and expedient. My myriad questions have always been answered promptly and in a manner that has facilitated the efficiency of my operation. Much of the information that I and my business partner, Kate Cassidy, used to start from scratch was obtained through the small business self-help centre at Toronto's city hall. City hall has always seemed an accessible place to me; it is 15 minutes away from my store by streetcar and I always know where to find the appropriate office.

Toronto as a city has also proved extremely hospitable to our business. Our particular downtown neighbourhood, College and Bathurst, is vibrant and diverse. People have accepted our unlikely business -- a café/clothing store -- without question. We have had the opportunity to reach and cater to many different groups, all of whom live and work within a few blocks of the store. I continue to be thrilled by the creativity, energy and organization of Toronto's diverse communities.

We carry only local designers in the boutique portion of our store, and Toronto has so much serious young talent to offer. Many of them flourish in the context of the city's fashion incubator and vend their wares at the city's annual fashion street festival. This kind of exposure is essential to Toronto designers. In my experience, the city of Toronto has provided consistent, essential and, most notably, specific support for both its creative and entrepreneurial citizens.

I feel a tremendous sense of agency in Toronto. I don't have a car; I have been able to operate effectively using the TTC. I dealt with city hall for the first time two years ago and soon felt comfortable visiting and calling. My business partner and I both felt the confidence and the sense of promise to attempt to open a small business in this city, and I attribute that to the city. It never even occurred to us that the infrastructure of the city would fail us in any way, and it hasn't.

I want to have a say in the running of my city. I want a councillor who lives near me and understands my neighbourhood. I do not wish to be represented by a volunteer whose only mandate is time on their hands and who cannot be held accountable simply by virtue of not being paid. I want to elect officials, both city councillors and school trustees, who have the time, the expertise and the mandate to represent my interests and the interests of the children I plan on having some day.

I cannot and do not expect a councillor or citizen from Etobicoke or North York to be concerned with the particulars of Toronto's urban life and the nuances of administering its various communities. I cannot and do not expect them to make informed and interested decisions for my neighbourhood. We are as unique to Toronto as Toronto is to Metro and must be dealt with as such.

It is my personal belief that government should be about empowering the electorate through strong representation on many levels. I do not want to learn how to run a neighbourhood or how to administer a school. I want to elect a politician to do it for me, and once I elect that politician, or somebody else does, I want them to make informed decisions about a community in which they have a stake while remaining accountable to its citizens.

This is, to the best of my experience, the way in which our own local government is currently structured. If there are problems with the system, which there inevitably must be, there is no question that they should be addressed. I just don't understand how firing mayors and trustees will improve cities and schools. Aren't these the exact professionals we should be turning to for both short-term and long-term solutions and advice? If we are not happy with their performance, should we not require more from these positions instead of eliminating them completely and giving volunteers the mandate to deal with some of the most important aspects of our society?

If regional government must be expanded realistically in order to include the greater Toronto area, as many reports have asserted, this should be discussed and perhaps slowly implemented. If some services are duplicated, this should also be addressed. But we have been presented with no evidence that the entire system should be trashed.

At this point, I would like to address some of the comments made this weekend by Steve Gilchrist in the Globe and Mail's "Mega Forum." In reference to his comment regarding the presentation of a better urban model than the proposed megacity and the paucity of real suggestions and improvements to the bill posited here at these hearings, I would like to say this:

First of all, as a constituent in Metro, I am at worst mildly irritated by the inefficiencies in local government referred to by Mr Gilchrist. From my own point of view, I accept the status quo as it pertains to the structure of my city level of government. Given this, it is difficult to discuss Bill 103 at all. As articulated, the big problem is of course the placement of our elected officials into trusteeship. Beyond that, the premise of Bill 103 seems, to the layperson anyway, so flawed as to preclude constructive criticism completely.

Second, I would like to assert emphatically that it is not my responsibility to come up with a better urban model than the proposed megacity. The onus is on your government to come up with something better than what we have now if you do indeed honestly feel that sweeping change is necessary, and Bill 103, with its dubious savings, bulky bureaucracy, inaccessible number of councillors and frightening scheme to have neighbourhood volunteer councils advise the megacity council on our behalf, is clearly not a better alternative to our present situation. To propose unacceptable legislation while blaming the constituents for not being provincial politicians, who have the time, money and mandate to propose good legislation, is clearly an abrogation of the responsibilities of government.

My fear is not of change but of arbitrary and ill-planned action for action's sake. Whatever your political reasons for considering Bill 103, please realize that the practical consequences for us will far outlive your time in office.

I have found it consistently difficult to penetrate either the logic or the practices of this provincial government. Today I feel unrepresented by your provincial government. Fine. I didn't elect you, but I respect your mandate to govern. But I did elect Barbara Hall and I would expect you to respect her mandate to govern as well.

At this point, with the flurry of changes you are making in my city, I no longer know what to do or how to begin calculating the consequences. I do know that I will not stay in a place where I am unrepresented and where I know that others are also consistently going unheard. I will not operate a business in a city that does not -- and cannot, by virtue of the way it is structured -- reflect my interest.

Someday I expect to have children. I will not raise children in a city that does not have a public school system run by professionals at the board level. I will not buy a home in a city where my property taxes do not go to the maintenance of my property and the education of my children and where my income taxes do not go to the redistribution of wealth through social services. I will not remain somewhere where the interests of the electorate cannot be adequately answered by an adequate number of officials. And I will not stay in a city or a province where the ultimate goal is not to produce a sustainable and healthy standard of living for everyone, but only to produce a balanced chequebook and a substantial tax cut. I need something more to strive for; I think most of us do.

There are many young people like myself who prefer to live and work in an urban setting. If this urban setting is not maintained and considered in all its singularity, it will not flourish and we will leave. I, personally, will not raise children here. I will take my education, my expertise, my business and my high hopes elsewhere, where I feel I can have a voice.

The events of the next few months will literally determine my future and the future of many other young citizens who have not yet started families and still have some degree of mobility. I anticipate the results of your deliberations with anxiety, both for myself and for those who do not have the luxury of considering this exodus.

Ontario and Toronto in particular have given me so much: universal health care, a public school education in French, a university education I could afford, a jumpstart for my business and a healthy community in which to operate. I look forward to contributing both socially and economically to the city. I have been preparing for it all my life. I hope you do not deny me this opportunity. Thank you very much for listening.

1610

The Chair: Thank you. We've got about a minute and a half for questions from Mrs Munro.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Thank you very much. I just wanted to understand your comment that people have suggested you have a role to play in making suggestions and you said, "No, people are elected to do that job and provide that kind of leadership." I'm just wondering if you had any specific comment on the need to maintain the status quo.

Ms Katz: In terms of local government, through my personal experience, the status quo has served me quite well. I opened a business in a very short frame of time. I felt that my dealings with the city were efficient and expedient. I feel represented, I feel empowered and I feel a tremendous sense of agency.

It is my understanding, having read all the different reports, that coordination on the GTA level of government seems to be a necessary step and I would support the undertaking of that. If there are inefficiencies, they should be targeted as inefficiencies and dealt with as inefficiencies. My personal understanding of it is that the problem is not structural and should not be addressed as such.

Mrs Munro: But you would support the need to have some kind of bigger agency, if you like, speaking on behalf of the greater Toronto area?

Ms Katz: I would think the Metro level of government is perhaps slightly anachronistic at this point and perhaps the GTA, but I don't think that precludes local government at all. In fact, I think it would encourage local government.

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

GORD MOORE

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

Mr Gord Moore: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to be heard on this issue. I'm a lifelong resident of a part of southeast Toronto known as the Beach. For over 20 years I operated a business in the city of Toronto and for the last four years of that time our head office was in Scarborough, while we operated in Toronto and Mississauga as well.

I remember the surprise I had when I noticed that the regulations in Scarborough, compared to those in Toronto, were so different on issues such as taxes, signage and zoning. Even where the zoning classification would be the same, what was allowable was different in the two cities.

During my time in business I attended conventions and seminars all over North America and I found I was constantly explaining to other attendees the difference between Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto. In fact, when I was asked where I was from, I would always say Toronto but my business card said Scarborough, and I found I was constantly having to explain that to people from all over the world.

In fact, on one occasion I was asked the population of Toronto and I said, "A little over two million." Someone else in the group said: "But I saw a map recently that showed the populations of major cities in North America and it said the population of Toronto was only 560,000." They thought I was boasting and trying to exaggerate the population of Toronto.

I mention these things because my reaction to this proposal of amalgamation initially was very favourable. It still is, but I consider myself a reasonable person and I like to look at opposing arguments before I make a firm decision. Let's take a look at some of the arguments we've heard, the first one being that property taxes would go up -- in fact one reporter said by a factor of three to four times -- in the city of Toronto.

This rather shocked me, because with seven mayors, seven staffs, seven limousines, seven economic development departments, zoning departments, planning departments etc etc, ad nauseam, I find it hard to understand how there cannot be some cost savings involved. The Metro planning department has grown from 12 to 99 in the past 15 years, and that's in addition to Toronto's 176 planners.

Last year I understand more than one mayor in the six cities visited Hong Kong. In fact, I've been told that one mayor went on more than one occasion. Hopefully, this would not continue because there wouldn't be more than one mayor, my point being, of course, that there are lots of places where expenses can be trimmed.

In my own community in the Beach there's a park which has the grass cut partly by the city of Toronto and partly by Metro, but I guess that's understandable because there's an obvious boundary line between the two sections of park, that is, a park bench.

I find it difficult to understand why costs and therefore my taxes should go up, but that's a typical response of some municipal politicians: "When you get into some sort of financial crunch, raise taxes." If they do look at cutting expenses, the first things that come to their mouths are skating rinks, swimming pools and recreation centres. For those members of the committee who are from outside of Toronto, you may find it hard to believe, but it's true. Time after time, those are the services and the method that municipal politicians talk about for cutting expenses.

My other comment on the rising costs would be that I've seen it reported that there is a study by KPMG that shows savings over the first three to five years in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I find it difficult to understand why a reporter would say that city taxes would go up by a factor of three to four times or that Mayor Hall would say taxes would go up by 11%.

Another argument is that this amalgamation process would destroy communities. Having lived in the Beach all my life, I've seen lots of change in my community, but I can't recall one single change that I can attribute to the previous amalgamations in Metro Toronto. Toronto, Scarborough, North York -- these are not communities. Riverdale, the Annex, Bloor West Village, the Beach -- these are communities. It's the people, the activities, the events and the shopping areas that make those communities, not boundary lines. They will continue to thrive just the same whether Toronto is large or larger or smaller.

What will destroy our cities is the petty competition and bickering among our local politicians. For example, when Toronto passed a restrictive smoking bylaw for restaurants, a North York councillor immediately wanted his city to take advantage of the situation by mounting a campaign to attract Toronto restaurateurs. Isn't that brilliant? It's this type of parochial thinking that causes people to think that the competition is from the other cities. Don't they understand and realize that the true competition is from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, as well as the other provinces? During my 20 years in business I saw an awful lot of our suppliers either move their entire operation out of Ontario to some of those states I have named or at least put major plants into those states while keeping a sort of shell head office located in Toronto.

Another objection the opponents use is the rushing. The previous presenter mentioned this, that we are being rushed into this. Barbara Hall, when she appeared in front of this committee, kept using the phrase, "Slow down and get it right." That confused me a little bit because I was under the impression she was totally opposed to amalgamation, yet when she appeared here a week ago she said, "Slow down and get it right." Maybe she is in favour, but not in favour of the timing. I'm not quite sure.

From the time this was initially discussed to the time of implementation will be some 16 months. There have been myriad reports and studies conducted, I believe some 15, and it's my feeling that with those 15 studies and reports and an additional 16 months, that's plenty of time and there's no rush. Indeed I know this committee is sitting listening to hundreds of presentations from the public.

1620

Another objection -- and we hear this from Mel Lastman of North York. He says we'll get reduced services, and his example is garbage collection; in North York it may have to be reduced from twice a week to once a week. Well, Mayor Mel, I live in Toronto and we've been having once-a-week garbage pickup for years now and I'm sure the good folks of North York are equally as capable as Torontonians of recycling. My average garbage in a week is one bag. Twice-a-week garbage pickup is an unnecessary luxury we don't need and shouldn't have to pay for.

Another objection is the accountability factor, that there will be fewer politicians and they won't be as close to the citizens. My understanding of the legislation is that each councillor will represent approximately 50,000 voters. I believe that's just about half the number that each of you will represent under the redistributed boundaries and that federal MPs represent. That, combined with the municipal volunteer groups that are being established, I think will give anyone ample accessibility to be heard and to have input.

The Chair: Mr Moore, I'll have to ask you to wrap up. We're coming to the end of your allotted time.

Mr Moore: I will, thank you. Mayor Hall said she finds it insulting that she needs a trustee to monitor her, yet she is the same one who established a fund to provide money to folks who wanted to fight this amalgamation but provided nothing to people who were in favour of it and wanted to mount a campaign in that regard. East York even talked about transferring their city hall out of their assets to a private corporation so it wouldn't be counted within the assets at the time of amalgamation. Stick with the board of trustees. With these kinds of actions by our municipal politicians, we need it.

I'd like to sum up by saying that this is a continuation of a natural process that started years ago. Let's get on with it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Moore, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this afternoon.

RUTH LUNEL

The Chair: Would Ruth Lunel please come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee.

Mrs Ruth Lunel: First of all, I'm not going to go on about this megacity, because I'm dead set against it. But I do have an awful lot of problems, and my presentation will be short but right to the point.

I'm here again having to voice not only my opinion but that of numerous seniors, also handicapped, with whom I deal on a daily basis and who are now trying to remain independent but are having their ability to do so eroded by the lack of foresight of our present provincial government. Downloading of transit, housing, welfare as well as numerous other responsibilities on to municipalities is ludicrous.

The now Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing made a real mess of the Toronto Transit Commission, and to allow this person to do likewise with numerous other areas without any forethought or the actual funds to bring these transfers about is certainly not the way to treat taxpayers, who don't like to see our dollars being wasted. We demand that these facilities being transferred be brought up to local community standards before even thinking of dumping them on the communities.

However, funds supposedly set aside to cover any need of the municipalities does not make sense but just proves that the lack of good repair has been eroded because of the lack of stability within our Progressive Conservative government in Ontario.

Mr Leach, and this is a message for him, you certainly picked a good member to be your parliamentary assistant: the backbencher who is the most talkative politician, who speaks the most and says nothing. I believe he was given an award for this recently. You, Mr Leach, also received an award for the politician with the worst management record. You certainly run our transit system into a state of disrepair.

Do backbenchers not understand that they are being used as mouthpieces for your so-called peers who do not have the fortitude or confidence in what they are doing to appear before the taxpayers themselves?

We in Scarborough have had more public housing dumped into our community than any other area of Metro. This means more child poverty and welfare. Since joining Metro, we have paid taxes into the pot, so to speak, for a lot of Metro needs, as our taxes have been raised higher since becoming a part of Metro. Downloading, such as you have set out to do, will cause more hardship for those of us who at present are having a hard time coping and, as I said before, we will face a real problem because of your lack of foresight.

We are actually going backwards to the late 1930s and early 1940s. People at that time used to knock on doors and ask for some food, but now they break, enter, molest, rob, and yes, even murder, and cutbacks in police services makes them unable to cope with the ongoing crimes, especially against the elderly.

I do not believe that any of you who are now in the government know of hard times in the period mentioned above, but you must be made to realize that not everyone was born with silver spoon in their mouth but learned the hard way to survive through the school of hard knocks.

Seemingly the time has come for every taxpayer to stand up and be counted and make our demands known to persons we have elected and trusted to use our hard-earned funds for the real necessities of life. Otherwise you can and will be replaced and will no longer be able to pick others' pockets. Maybe a way to go would be a tax revolt. Without your paycheque you may learn what it is to be without and think twice about what you are doing. Also, a person who hits a golf ball around a golf course in North Bay does not a good politician make. Any jackass can do that.

I am also enclosing a copy of just what a taxpayer is and how we fit into your lives.

I'd like to add that we have no ministers with experience in education, housing, health, welfare or transportation, or they'd use their heads.

I've got a thing here that I've written out that fits every one of you:

What is a taxpayer?

A taxpayer is the most important person in a politician's life.

A taxpayer is not dependent on us; we are dependent on him.

A taxpayer is not an interruption in our work, but he is the purpose of it.

A taxpayer does us a favour when he comes to us. We are doing him a favour by listening to him.

A taxpayer is an essential part of this office, not an outsider.

A taxpayer is not just money in our pockets, he is a human being with feelings and deserves to be treated with respect.

A taxpayer is a person who comes to us with his needs and concerns. It is our job to look after him.

A taxpayer deserves the most courteous attention we can give him. That leaves a lot to be desired with this present government. He is the lifeblood of this and every government. He pays our salary. Without him we would be out of our jobs -- just plain nobodies, and don't you ever forget it.

Whatever has happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people? This is not a dictatorship here in Canada, and we don't intend to put up with it, so you may as well get used to the idea of being replaced if you don't smarten up.

I have a question for Mr Newman. He happens to be my parliamentary representative.

How come I got two of these in my mailbox? I would like you to explain to me where Kennedy and Midland meet at Kingston Road.

Mr Newman: I can't see it. I'm not going to comment unless I can see it.

The Chair: Mr Newman, one second, please. Mrs Lunel, you've finished your presentation. There are two and a half minutes remaining for questions from the Liberal caucus. If they would like to allot some time, it's the only time she can get Mr Newman to answer the question.

1630

Mrs Lunel: I would like to finish this because, as you might not know, Mr Newman, Kennedy and Midland both run north and south, and Kennedy does not go to Kingston Road.

Mr Newman: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I do not know what the speaker is talking about. If she has a piece of paper, I'd be pleased to look at it and answer her question.

The Chair: That's fine, Mr Newman. You can either do that in committee or outside of the committee, but it's up to the Liberal caucus at this point in time. They have about a minute and a half for questions. If they want to allot that time now or if they want to ask some questions --

Mr Colle: Mrs Lunel, I wonder if you could present that to the committee for evidence. We'd like to see what you got in the mail from the PC member.

Mr Newman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The member has accused me of sending something out in the mail, and I have not sent anything out as MPP. I'd like the member to retract that accusation.

The Chair: Mr Colle, that's the clerk's --

Mr Newman: Chair, I'd like you to rule on my point of order.

The Chair: Mr Colle, if something is being handed to the committee, it's the clerk's job --

Mr Newman: I'd like a retraction from Mr Colle, please.

The Chair: Mr Newman, you have every opportunity to have a look at this piece of paper and let us know if you want to make any comment whatsoever.

Mr Newman: If I could see -- I'd like an apology from Mr Colle, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Mr Colle, you have a minute. Would you like to ask questions or would you like to give that time to Mr Newman, or what would you like to do?

Mr Colle: I would like to just clarify. Mrs Lunel, did you receive that in the mail?

Mrs Lunel: The flyer I just gave you? Yes.

Mr Colle: Was there a return address on it?

Mrs Lunel: "Government of Ontario."

Mr Colle: So it was from the government of Ontario.

Mr Newman: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Please let me have an opportunity to respond. Mr Colle obviously knows that he's going down the wrong path here by asking these questions.

The Chair: Your point of order is not a point of order right now. Everything is in order, and Mr Colle has the floor for another 30 seconds.

Mr Newman: Can members accuse members of anything?

The Chair: No. That's a point of privilege he can take up as soon as we're done with his questioning. Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: Mrs Lunel, you received this in the mail and the return address was the government of Ontario.

Mrs Lunel: Yes. The other one had no return address on it.

Mr Colle: One had no return address. What was in the envelope?

Mrs Lunel: Just exactly what I gave you: a letter and a flyer announcing a meeting on Wednesday the 19th in Scarborough, south of Kingston Road, and the directions were Kennedy and Midland.

Mr Colle: Who was inviting you to this meeting?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Colle. We've gone beyond the 10 minutes. Thank you, Mrs Lunel, for coming forward to make a presentation today.

Interjection.

The Chair: Sorry, Mrs Lunel. You've completed your time.

Mrs Lunel: Stand back, sir.

You're allowed to speak as the chauffeur for Mr Harris.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Lunel, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

Mr Newman, someone can submit something like this as an exhibit to the committee. That's in order.

Mr Newman: The member for Oakwood accused me of sending something out. I want him to respond. I've not sent anything out. I would like Mr Colle, the member for Oakwood, to withdraw that comment.

The Chair: That's a point of privilege. If you want to have a look at what's been distributed, and if you did not, then that's fine; you can tell the committee that.

Mr Newman: I would like the opportunity to respond. It says here that there is a town hall meeting for the residents of Scarborough Centre, Wednesday, February 19, 1997, 7:30 pm at Cliffside Public School. I'd been invited by an organization within the riding of Scarborough Centre to be the guest speaker there.

This did not come from my office, Mr Colle. Perhaps that's how you conduct your business, but that's not how I conduct my business.

Mr Colle: I guess the deputant --

The Chair: Gentlemen, can I just say it's really not a point of privilege; it's a point of contention between members. As a matter of privilege, if Mr Newman says he didn't send this out and you've kind of said --

Mr Newman: Show me where it has my name on it, Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: Well, the deputant said that you sent it to her.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Newman: This does not have my name on it.

Mr Colle: The deputant said that you, her MPP --

Mr Newman: Did not. She said the "government of Ontario."

The Chair: All right, gentlemen.

Mr Colle: Okay, government of Ontario.

The Chair: Now we no longer have a point of order, because we're not going to debate about what the deputant said.

Mr Colle: Could I have the rest of the mailing that was sent to this lady?

The Chair: No.

Mr Colle: I know they're worried about what they're putting in the mail. Obviously a lot of people --

Interjection: No, we're worried about listening to the presenters here, not your theatrics.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll have a two-minute recess until we regain order.

The committee recessed from 1635 to 1637.

The Chair: Mr Colle has made a presentation and some comments that you disagree with and you took the opportunity to disagree with what Mr Colle said. Hansard will cite that disagreement between members, and it is a disagreement between members, not a point of privilege between members, nor is there anything out of order at this point in time.

Mr Newman: What about imputing motives, Chair?

The Chair: He didn't really impute motives. He talked about something he had been told had come from your office, and you've --

Mr Newman: Point of --

The Chair: Just a minute. Let me finish, please, Mr Newman -- and you've been on the record as saying that's not the case, so I think both people have had an opportunity to have a say on this issue which Hansard has picked up. Any further disagreement the two of you have is really outside of this committee room.

Mr Newman: But Chair, I'm asking you to rule that he's accused me of doing something that is not true. I'd like you to ask him to make an apology. Any honourable member would make an apology when he accuses another honourable member of something that did not happen.

The Chair: I think you've gone clearly on record to say that. If Mr Colle --

Mr Newman: I'd like you to give Mr Colle an opportunity to apologize and retract his statement.

Mr Colle: I'll just relate again what --

The Chair: No, Mr Colle, you won't. The Chair has the microphone, please, and it's the only microphone that's on. Gentlemen, I ruled on the point of privilege. I'm not forcing anyone to tell anyone anything. Mr Newman, you've had your say on the matter and Mr Colle has had his say on the matter. I have a lot of people still to make presentations today and that's what we're going to get to.

JIM RAMSAY

The Chair: Would Jim Ramsay please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Ramsay. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make your presentation.

Mr Jim Ramsay: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Jim Ramsay. I've lived in Toronto some 37 years. I started off as an economist in the Ontario government in 1959, when Leslie Frost was Premier. Over the period of time I worked on Ontario's participation at Expo 67, I built Ontario Place and a number of other projects, and I had the opportunity to see and be around the fringes of a lot of major developments that took place: the merger of Toronto from 13 municipalities down to six, greenbelts, 45-foot holding bylaws etc, like that. In that total period of time, I've never seen anything where there has been such an aura, such wild charges, accusations of wrongdoing, on the part of the people who have been involved in the campaign. I've never seen such a disgrace. The current campaign features attacks on people who are involved in this campaign. You've got honourable members screaming that another member lies. It's very unparliamentary and not conducive to debate; the standard is very low.

1640

What I think it is, of course, is the hijacking of an issue that many people legitimately have major concerns about. It's a hijacking by a leadership that has an agenda that ranges far from Bill 103. It's an attack on most of the actions that the current government wishes to follow.

I think in many cases this leadership is composed in large part of those people who, when they were in power, almost brought Ontario to its knees, who doubled the debt from $50 billion to $100 billion, and who were afraid to bring in a budget in the last year. And in the last year, as I recall, when we finally did get the figures, there was something wrong by about $2 billion. As for Mr Sewell, his comments to the effect that people should be charged with treason and jailed for their opposition to Bill 103 are anti-democratic and unworthy of comment.

This sound and fury has brought the usual bunch slithering out from the rocks. For example, I went down to watch the parade on Saturday. There was a group handing out, and they were participants in the parade, "Revolution, 80 years. Russia 1917." Anyone who would commemorate something like that, which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people -- so they're all out. Another thing here, the Socialist Workers, "Stuff the megacity," like this. This was being passed out along the way.

More specifically, I think there's an effort here to take away the decision and the role of the committee, the elected representatives of the people, which you are. You were elected by us to represent us. We are relying on your good judgement to evaluate this bill and report on it. I urge you not to be swayed by the goon show.

Other things that have come up that I find are very disturbing about this include the massive use of millions of dollars of public funds to fund the No side. It specifically says the No side gets the money; the Yes side doesn't. There is also the use of many civil servants who are being urged in Scarborough and other areas to get out and work for the No side, but if you want to work for the Yes side, you can't. That's a point of concern.

Then there's the $200-million savings that the six mayors magically came up with. This, as a citizen of Toronto, causes me a lot of distress. If they could come up with that $200 million that quickly, why didn't they come up with it earlier? So I've been gouged.

Another point is the plebiscite, because it's not a referendum, it's not a vote, it's a joke. It's fan mail. It's open to abuse and ridicule. If you compare some of the requirements to a plebiscite such as was done on Charlottetown, first, the legislation called for consultation of the federal opposition parties on the content of the question. None of this was done. There's the requirement for a specific polling day. In other words, everyone, with some limited exceptions, is required to vote on the same day. The voting process is governed by the rules of the Canada Elections Act, so there are formally appointed returning officers. There is an official voters' list, which is compiled through a formal enumeration process. For example, my wife and my son got ballots in the Toronto one; I have not. I called down to see about getting one. You can't get through. There's one number and it's busy. It's rigged. It's phoney.

I guess my time is running out. I think what we have, in summary, is a campaign that is characterized by threats, intimidation and lies. We have a massive use of public funds and public servants to fund one part's point of view. And third, we have a ballot process which isn't worthy of the name, which is a fraud. I would, in conclusion, urge you to bear these points in mind when you report on the bill. There are other aspects that I would like to comment on but they've all been covered by many people, many times.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. We have about three minutes for Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: Mr Ramsay, I'm a little surprised that someone who would come in front of us to be critical of those who are opposed to the amalgamation would use the kinds of words that you have, because you're putting down their tactics and their approach. You then use phrases like "slithering out from the rocks," "the goon show." It seems to me you're using the same kind of tactics and approach that you're blaming those individuals for using.

Mr Ramsay: I think, sir, that if you say I'm using the same types of tactics, then you acknowledge that they are using those tactics.

Mr Silipo: No, I'm acknowledging that you said that, sir.

Mr Ramsay: No, you said "the same," sir.

Mr Silipo: I'm acknowledging that you said that and you're then turning around and using the same kind of language that you're charging them with using. But I want to get more into the substance of one of the other points that you made, and that is around the referendum process.

It's my understanding, and this doesn't apply across because there is one municipality that is doing a poll type of system, but the ones that are holding the actual referendum are indeed using mechanisms that were passed by this government recently, just before Christmas, in Bill 86. All the alternatives to the traditional voting system that we've used here in all sorts of elections are there in the law of the province as adopted, as I say, just recently in Bill 86. At that time, Mr Leach and the government were praising those as cost-effective ways of holding votes, including referenda. Now you, as well as he, I must note, are decrying municipalities for using exactly those same methods.

Mr Ramsay: I've consulted with a number of people who are considered to be expert in polling. I might suggest to the Chairman that you might want to bring some before your committee, and I don't think you will find anyone to speak in favour of the process that's being followed.

I'm not familiar with the points raised by Mr Leach or the legislation that you're talking about that came in before Christmas, so therefore I don't feel I can comment on it.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate that, and that's fair enough. I just say to you that all of those alternatives -- the phone-in ballot, the mail-in ballot -- were all exactly set out in the law that was passed under Bill 86. I just bring that to your attention because that is what the municipalities are following.

Again, to go beyond that to the bigger issue of the referendum, are you of the position that a referendum should not be held in this case? Because again, the problem that we have here is that the provincial government has refused, as I'm sure you know, to have a referendum held on this question. We have from time to time asked the minister and the Premier to work out with the mayors a system of holding the referendum that would include an agreement on the wording that would be put in front of people as well as a process that everyone would be satisfied would be fair and beyond reproach.

Mr Ramsay: I've got a list here that I received. It might not be up-to-date with respect to Ontario but, for example, it reviews what the position is in various provinces. For example, New Brunswick: No referenda are permitted. Newfoundland: Whenever it appears that an expression of the opinion of the voters is desirable on any matter of public concern, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct that a plebiscite be held. Northwest Territories: Plebiscites can be issued. Nova Scotia: Only in respect to sale of alcoholic beverages in communities. Ontario: At that time, and this is dated June 4, 1996, there were no legislative provisions.

Mr Silipo: Right.

Mr Ramsay: Prince Edward Island: The Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct it. Quebec: The government may order a referendum --

Mr Silipo: But the point is, sir --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Ramsay and Mr Silipo. I apologize, but we've exhausted the allotted time. Thank you, Mr Ramsay, for coming forward to the committee today.

1650

MIRIAM WYMAN

The Chair: Would Miriam Wyman please come forward. Good afternoon, Ms Wyman, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Miriam Wyman: Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Wyman. I'm a citizen of Metropolitan Toronto. I'm self-employed, a taxpayer and a property owner.

A little over one year ago I appeared before the standing committee on general government to express my concerns about Bill 8, the bill to restore merit-based employment in Ontario. At that time, I was clearly told by members of the committee that it was my right to speak but that expressing my concerns was an exercise in futility. I am again exercising my right to speak, and this time my voice is one of many thousands speaking out about the proposed megacity legislation. This time I hope it will not be an exercise in futility.

I work to involve members of the public in making decisions about projects and issues, mainly environmental ones, in their communities. I've been doing this professionally and also as a volunteer for 20 years. People are entitled to speak. We should have every opportunity to do so and we should be able to do so at times and locations that are convenient and accessible. This government has not always made it easy to participate.

I know that when people are involved in making decisions that affect our lives, the decisions are better because of our input and we're more committed to carrying them out. When we cannot have a voice in these decisions and when plans are made on our behalf, especially when we do not understand those plans, we are frustrated and angry, particularly with the people who are shutting us out.

The government's plans to foist amalgamation on people and communities in Metropolitan Toronto are wrong. They are wrong because they violate the participatory democracy that is a characteristic of life in this country, and they are wrong because the government has yet to put before us good and clear reasons for why these changes should take place and why they should take place in Metropolitan Toronto and not as part of a thoughtful and carefully developed approach to the entire greater Toronto area.

Although the newsletter of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing cites many recent reports related to restructuring in the GTA, these studies do not appear to form the basis for this proposal. Citizens of Ontario do not have credible, reliable information about the rationale for this proposal, its costs or its benefits.

From 1990 to 1993, I worked on Agenda 21 with members of Canadian non-government organizations as well as with representatives of similar organizations from around the world. Agenda 21 is the blueprint for the 21st century created by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It promotes cooperation between governments and all the major groups in society in creating healthy environments and healthy economies.

Canada took a leading role in negotiating Agenda 21 and I was proud to be part of the Canadian delegation. Under federal Conservative leadership, Canada defined participatory democracy for the world and called it the Rio Way. The Rio Way has three defining characteristics:

Transparency: This means that how decisions are made and how goals are set are visible and understood and that the decisions themselves are clear and understandable.

Accountability: This means that responsibilities for finding solutions and achieving goals are clearly defined and that everyone knows where responsibility rests.

Inclusion: This means that everyone who wants to be involved and has an interest has the opportunity to be involved, and above all, that we can see our input in the outcomes.

What this government is doing has none of these characteristics. By contrast, this Conservative government operates in ways that are not transparent, not accountable and far from inclusive. It has in fact declared that people's input will be ignored.

I'm proud of the concern for democracy that people in Ontario are expressing in meetings, marches, newsletters and on the Internet. As a result, people around the world know that democracy is threatened in Ontario.

I'm pleased that the cities of Metropolitan Toronto have found efficient and cost-effective ways to determine how people feel about amalgamation. I hope the government of Ontario will find the wisdom to hear not only what it wants to hear but all that the people of Metropolitan Toronto have to say.

The greater Toronto area is the economic engine for Ontario. It is also the import-export centre for all of Canada. The destabilization that will result from these proposals violates local interests as well as national interests. I for one would welcome a move to create a new province of southern Ontario, the secession of the greater Toronto area from Ontario, created to be accountable to its citizens and to the government of Canada.

I am not proud of the ways this government is exercising its power. The current batch of proposals is not about business, it is not about fairness, it is not about the best use of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and it is definitely not about what would be best for Ontario. The actions of this government reflect an abuse of power by people who in their opposition to big cities are proposing a huge city and who do not seem to understand that power can be used for good.

People who truly understand the nature of power do not impose their power on those with less power. Those who do, kick cats, hit children or beat women. True exercise of power would mean doing the best for the largest number, not doing the most harm to the largest number.

Building a sustainable future requires processes that reconcile competing interests, forge new cooperative partnerships and explore innovative solutions. These processes need to draw on the abilities of all parties and all people, not the force and power of one group, to enhance the quality of life for present and future generations. Thank you.

Mr Parker: You spoke at some length on the subject of the process involved in Bill 103. I'd like to ask you a question about process. What would you think of a process of a vote that's taken where the votes are collected by one of the parties that claims to have a stake in the outcome of the election and those ballots that are used in that vote are required to bear the name and address and signature of the person who's participating in the vote?

Ms Wyman: I think this is a veiled question, actually.

Mr Parker: It's not veiled at all. That's exactly the way the current referendum is being structured in the city of Scarborough. Here's one of the ballots. The ballot says: "Are you in favour of eliminating Scarborough and all other existing municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and amalgamating them into a megacity? Yes or No." Then, "Print your name, your address and your signature." You mail it in to the city clerk's office in the city of Scarborough. What do you think of that process?

Ms Wyman: I think there are many situations where people have a choice between a secret ballot and an open vote, and the Legislature of this province is one of those places. It's very often very clear just who is voting and on what side of a particular issue, and in that sense this is no different.

Mr Parker: Is that a proper way to run a public referendum?

Ms Wyman: If it's an agreed-to process, yes. The point is that it be an agreed-to process.

Mr Parker: How about if the name and address of a participant in the vote is on an envelope and the ballot is inside the envelope and it all goes to the municipality that's running the election?

Ms Wyman: I'm sorry, I don't understand the situation that you're describing.

Mr Parker: I'm posing another question to you, not the city of Scarborough in this case. I'm posing a situation where the ballot with the yes or no answer is put inside an envelope and on that envelope is the name and address of the person who has cast the vote. That is all sent in to the municipality which is running the vote so that when the municipality receives the envelope there's the name and address of the person who's participating in the vote, and they open it up and there's the result, yes or no. Is that a proper way to run an election? What do you think about that process?

Ms Wyman: I think the important thing about process is that it be well known to people who are participating and that the terms of participation be very clear to everyone. In that way we can participate or not, as we choose, with clear rules.

The Chair: I'm sorry, we've come to the end of the allotted time. Thank you, Ms Wyman, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

1700

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS' GROUP

The Chair: Would Harry Pelissero please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Pelissero. Welcome to the committee. If the gentleman with you would introduce himself at the beginning of the presentation for Hansard, I'd appreciate that.

Mr John Bridges: My name is John Bridges. I have lived in Metropolitan Toronto for 31 years.

Mr Harry Pelissero: Good afternoon. Mr Chairman and committee members, I'm here today on behalf of the Independent Contractors' Group. The Independent Contractors' Group is an organization of open-shop and unionized construction employers that work to ensure the tendering process in public sector contracts is open to all to bid and perform work.

We've been following with interest the issue of amalgamation of public sector agencies such as municipalities and school boards. The concern of the Independent Contractors' Group relating to Bill 103 is, what would happen to those municipalities that have an open bidding process for taxpayer-funded projects which merge with a municipality that does not have an open bidding process?

The following is taken from our brief, Freedom of Choice, which is attached for your information:

Metropolitan Toronto, amendment to section 39 of general conditions reads, "The Metropolitan corporation being bound by the collective agreement between the carpenters' employer bargaining agency and the Ontario provincial council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, any work that is the work of the carpenters' district council of Toronto and vicinity under the provision of the aforesaid collective agreement shall only be performed by an employer bound by such an agreement."

When our members and their employees pay taxes, they're not identified as union or open shop. It should not matter when bidding on taxpayer-funded projects. We do not want to see the expansion of restrictive clauses as a result of amalgamation. Our goal is to ensure that there's an open bidding process.

Think of the messages this restrictive clause sends to those employees who freely choose not to belong to a union and other taxpayers. The messages are: (1) We have set up an arbitrary barrier which gives a monopoly to international unions; and (2) we're prepared to take your tax dollars but we're not prepared to allow you to work on publicly funded projects.

Imagine the unions crying foul or unfair if those same public sector agencies had a clause which allowed only open-shop contractors to bid and perform work. They would want, and rightly so, to demand fairness. This is all we're asking for, fairness in the public sector tendering process.

In closing, we would ask the committee to bring forward the necessary amendments to Bill 103 to ensure there is an open bidding process for taxpayer-funded projects in the new city of Toronto.

Thank you for allowing us the time to share our concerns with you. We'd be more than prepared to answer any questions that you would have.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Good afternoon, gentlemen. Which municipalities, by the way, have closed or open arrangements?

Mr Pelissero: Metro Toronto.

Mr Patten: Has a closed arrangement?

Mr Pelissero: That's correct. The way I read it, none of the municipalities that are going to be amalgamated into the new city of Toronto have restrictive clauses with respect to taxpayer-funded projects.

Mr Patten: Obviously your recommendation is that it be open for those open shops or union shops to bid --

Mr Pelissero: Both. We'd be making the same presentation if Metro Toronto had a clause that said the only way to bid and perform work would be to be open-shop or non-union. That isn't fair. We don't think that talks to the issue of fairness or the issue of equality with respect to a taxpayer-funded project.

Mr Patten: Just before I pass it over to my colleague, you're suggesting that this is another area in which negotiations have to take place?

Mr Pelissero: We hope that it's not just a mere matter of negotiations. We appeal to the sense of fairness and equality of the committee and the government.

Mr Sergio: Thanks for coming down and making a presentation to our committee here. Does it worry you that the government is moving in the area of privatizing as much as possible?

Mr Pelissero: With respect to how it affects Bill 103, or are you talking on a broader range?

Mr Sergio: Bill 103 and in general.

Mr Pelissero: On a broader range, our members really haven't come to a position with respect to the amalgamation of the six or seven municipalities into the city of Toronto. Our primary focus is to ensure that regardless of the public sector agency -- and our brief highlights not only municipalities, but boards of education, provincial agencies, all that have restrictive clauses in terms of being able to bid and perform work.

Mr Sergio: The government, in support of its legislation, Bill 103, has been saying that this will be more efficient, will save money, will do a number of positive things. At the same time, we haven't been able to get any information from the government -- any facts, any figures, any statistics. Do you think we should be proceeding with this bill at this present time or not until we have more information in our hands?

Mr Pelissero: Reality tells me that the bill will be passed. What you would like in an ideal world is a different scenario. Reality tells me that all you've got to do is count up the votes with respect to how the legislation is going to unfold, and the mandate of our membership, both unionized and open-shop employers, is to ensure that there's an open bid process.

Mr Sergio: This brings me to another question, since you may be right that this will be law according to the system of government. Do you think that the government, given the referendum and plebiscite that we are going to with the various municipalities, won't be paying any heed if the majority were to say, "We don't like it"?

Mr Pelissero: The organization, as the Independent Contractors' Group, has no position on that. If you were to ask me separately outside, I'd give you my personal opinion.

Mr Sergio: What makes you think that this is going to be law, that the government's going to approve it? What makes you say that?

Mr Pelissero: The first, second and third reading process, which I understand, with respect to passing of legislation. Been there, done that.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Mr Pelissero and your partner there, I just wondered what your opinion was on what the Premier and the municipal affairs minister promised, the big saving in dollars to the taxpayers of Metro Toronto. I know your partner said that he's lived here for 31 years, so I imagine we'd be interested in your comments on that.

Mr Pelissero: I guess we're going to have to wait and see, but I'll give John an opportunity to talk about the company that he runs, Summit Restoration, and how he has been shut out from being able to bid on work within the city of Toronto, even at the Canadian National Exhibition.

Mr Bridges: Prior to the NDP getting power, as of four or five years ago, our company used to do a lot of work at the Canadian National Exhibition -- buildings such as the Princes' Gates, the arts, crafts and hobby building, and numerous other buildings -- but while the NDP were in power, us being an independent contractor, we were completely wiped out of that. I personally resented this, as I am a property owner and I pay substantial property taxes in Metropolitan Toronto. What we're all trying to do is to get things back on an equal playing field where we know the scores are equal for everybody, whether you are a union or an independent contractor.

Mr Pelissero: Our members, and their employees in particular -- because it's not just the owners of the firms -- in most cases feel like second-class citizens because they're unable to bid and perform work within their own city.

Mr Cleary: Do you feel that we're moving too fast on a number of these issues? I know it's difficult even to be inside Queen's Park and keep up, so I just wondered how you felt about it on the outside.

Mr Pelissero: Our members have a difficult time maintaining and surviving in today's economy without necessarily monitoring what's happening at Queen's Park. To a degree, that's what I get paid for. My advice to them is: Make sure that all your ducks are in line with respect to employee relations and maintaining good employee relations with your members, whether they're unionized or open-shop. The world is changing at a fast pace and you could talk about the strategy that's being unfolded, not just with this piece of legislation but with other pieces of legislation. Individuals will just have to cope in one format or another.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We've come to the end of the time. Mr Pelissero, I was remiss in not welcoming you back to the Legislature. I recognize you as a former member for the riding of Lincoln riding, I believe.

Mr Pelissero: That's correct, and a former chair of the standing committee on general government. Been there, done that.

The Chair: Thank you for coming today and giving your presentation.

1710

TIM ROURKE

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

Interjection.

The Chair: Mr Sutherland is taking a different time. I'm sorry, I thought that the clerk would have alerted everyone to that. Tim Rourke is in the place of Paul Sutherland.

Mr Sergio: When is he coming?

The Chair: He's rescheduled for another time. I don't know. I'd have to ask the clerk.

Welcome, Mr Rourke.

Mr Tim Rourke: I'm not your typical middle-class property owner; I'm somebody who's poor. I'm somebody who's life is going to be hanging between pothole patching and my physical existence if social services come to depend totally on the property tax.

I used to be from Alberta. I came here about three years ago to get away from all that kind of stuff. It sort of followed me out here. I really love it in Toronto. It's all being destroyed now. The lesson there is that there's really nowhere to run from this kind of thing.

I have been impressed by the way resistance to it just keeps building and building, as opposed to the way things went back where I came from, where everybody just sort of rolled over and stuck their tails between their legs when the government started the thug stuff. It's invigorating to see and participate in.

I'm not going to go on about the deranged, totalitarian nature of what the government is doing with Bill 103 and the related programs that go along with it. I'm sure enough people have been down here to go over that. I think my message is basically directed at Tory backbenchers.

I have a sister who has been living in England about 20 years. She participated in the riots over the poll tax there in 1991, when mad Maggie Thatcher finally started to lose it. It took her about 12 years to finally get to that stage. It's taken mad Mike about a year and a half it seems. This is about as cracked as it gets. What happened with her was she just plain got thrown out by her own party, which realized that it had gone far enough, enough was enough, and it continued then. The government was going to lose all possible authority and it was going to become completely ungovernable and there was going to be some very dangerous instability.

The question is, where within the Conservative caucus do we have a Michael Heseltine? It's about time that Mikey came to a caucus meeting and got told that he's not the Premier any more. This is what eventually has to happen, because you cannot do this kind of thing and pretend to be a democracy.

I should also comment briefly on this business about Ms Wyman. Somebody was telling her -- I believe her name was Wyman -- about the propriety of the Scarborough process. Coming from anybody connected to the present Conservative Party, any questioning of the fairness of any kind of process about a referendum or about anything is a pretty sick joke.

That's about it. Question time.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo: I just wanted to pick up on a point you made at the beginning of your presentation about the fact that the resistance to the megacity is growing. I've been in politics for about 18 years and I think I'd have to go back to some of the early years that I was involved on the school board, when parents were, as now, very upset about some things that were going on and began to get active, to see the kind of activism that we're seeing.

One of the previous presenters, I think, was implying that somehow we as a political party are fermenting or had something to do with organizing this. I wish that were true. But it seems to me that it's quite a genuine citizens' movement that we're seeing of people just saying, "This is not the way to make decisions, especially about such important things that are going to impact on us not just tomorrow but for the years to come."

Mr Rourke: You're NDP, aren't you?

Mr Silipo: Yes.

Mr Rourke: Well, I don't know what other people feel. Like, me, it's just a question of there's no place to run to. It's going on everywhere. At some point you've got to take a stand and fight. I think with most people, especially informed people, they've read about what goes on in Alberta, what happened in New Zealand with the old Rogernomics, and now 12 years of Thatcherism in England. They have, by now, the gist of what's in store if they don't do something about it.

Mr Silipo: A number of people, both presenting here and just in the general discussions and meetings that we've all been attending, have been saying more and more in the last couple of weeks that one alternative the government should look at seriously is to just decide, "Yes, there will be some changes, but we're going to take another six months to a year and try to do this properly, try to look at the other alternatives to the one-city model and look at whether there aren't other models that would make sense." Is that something you would support?

Mr Rourke: I'm not interested in how long they decide to take as long as they just drop it, kill it, get rid of it, period. A year later it's still going to be the same nonsense with the same object of crushing opposition.

Mr Silipo: But if it was six months to a year that would allow some serious discussion about the alternatives to this, and that the government was open to those alternatives, then would that process be worthwhile?

Mr Rourke: The government has more or less shown that it's not open to any alternatives, any time, anywhere, and they're going to try to just jam through what they want to do until they're finally -- until somebody shoves back harder.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Rourke, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

BOB HARRIS

The Chair: Would Bob Harris please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Harris, and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make your presentation. If there's some time left at the end of your presentation for questions, I'll ask the government caucus to do so.

Mr Bob Harris: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you today.

Let me first give you a little bit of relevant background on me. I was born in Toronto at the end of the Second World War and I've watched with pride the development of our city over the past 50 years. In fact, until recently, I've always felt that Toronto was probably the most livable city on the face of the Earth.

I am a former executive director of the Ontario PC Party during Bill Davis's premiership. In 1986-87, I served as project director of the parliamentary task force on child care. Currently I am a director on the board of the University Settlement House in downtown Toronto. In short, I am a Torontonian, a Tory, and I believe in a strong, viable safety net. My views on amalgamation are very personal.

In the post-war era, Toronto and the communities around the city that make up the GTA have been part of one of the world's great urban success stories. Many things contributed to this success -- geography, excellent transportation routes, immigration, education -- but certainly an important contributing factor was the structure of municipal government in the GTA.

As Toronto and the immediate surrounding communities grew in the 1950s and 1960s, the provincial government of the day responded with the creation of Metropolitan Toronto. As similar growth occurred in the areas around Metro, the provincial government responded with the creation of the regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham. It is my belief that these structures, put in place 25 to 40 years ago, facilitated the orderly and effective growth and development of the area we now call the GTA.

1720

However, we now face basically the same challenges in the GTA that decision-makers faced in the 1950s with regard to the boroughs and cities that now make up Metropolitan Toronto. In the 1950s, the cities of Toronto, Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York, East York and York all had become part of one economic unit, and it was important for government decision-makers of the day to achieve coordination on basic issues such as transportation, planning, land use and economic development.

Today, the GTA needs the same coordination. It has become, for all intents and purposes, one integrated economic unit and there is a compelling need for coordination across the GTA of the same basic issues that faced the communities in Metro 40 years ago.

For me this is one of the prime objectives of municipal restructuring in this area of southern Ontario: the coordination of transportation, planning, land use, economic development and environmental protection within the GTA. I believe the provincial government is making the correct decision in addressing the issue of Metropolitan Toronto first.

I'm sure it has been said many times during these committee hearings but it is no less true that a strong Toronto benefits the entire GTA. Equally so, a weak Toronto hurts the entire GTA. We are part of a global economy, and whether we all like it or not the entire GTA is seen by cities and states around the world to be Toronto. That is why it is essential that Toronto be viable socially, economically and politically.

I'm here today in support of the provincial government's proposed unified Toronto. I must tell you I have come to this position slowly. Like many, I have always favoured smaller units of governance, if the units are working effectively. However, I am no longer certain that the current setup is working to the benefit of citizens within Metro.

The reason government in Metro is not working as effectively as it should is due in part to the changing world economy. Friendly competition between Etobicoke and North York or the city of Toronto was seen as healthy 15 or 20 years ago. In today's highly competitive world economy this friendly competition has on occasion become an impediment to effective economic growth.

Similarly, 15 years ago it was a virtue for municipal politicians to protect their own turf. Today, turf protection sometimes can have negative results. Turf protection can never nor should ever be eliminated, but there is a need for greater cooperation among our municipal politicians to facilitate the continued economic and social growth within Metro.

I am supporting the unified Toronto proposal for five reasons:

(1) The proposed structure would encourage a unified approach to economic and social development within the current Metro area. With a more focused economic strategy and an appreciation for all parts of the new city, every part will benefit.

(2) It should bring citizens closer to their municipal government because they would have a far better understanding of who is responsible for what.

(3) I think this has been discussed a great deal and I agree with it -- it would eliminate considerable duplication.

(4) It would reposition Toronto as an effective, unified centre in the next stage of integration of common services across the GTA.

(5) I am convinced that with the effective integration of services within the Metro area and across the GTA, we will be positioned to continue to grow and succeed as we enter the 21st century.

With economic prosperity we will have the resources we need to maintain and hopefully improve the safety net that has made living in Canada and southern Ontario so unique and special.

In conclusion, I know that there will be concerns to face with an amalgamated city, but these concerns are nothing compared to the benefits I believe can be gained for the communities within the unified Toronto and ultimately for all the communities in the GTA.

In addition, any bold new initiative requires sensitive and effective management and attention to detail. I am confident that a unified Toronto will receive that effective leadership.

I hope the committee will study the American experiences with larger urban centres and ensure that we can avoid similar experiences here. There were many factors other than municipal structure that contributed to the decay and economic decline of US cities, and I am confident that among the benefits of an integrated, unified Toronto we can maintain a strong sense of community within the city coupled with positive economic and social development.

Thank you again. I look forward to the results of these hearings and your deliberations.

Mr Parker: Thank you very much, Mr Harris. Your comments will come as no surprise to many of the people who have appeared before us and spoken against the megacity. We've heard a lot of people say: "You Tories, all you care about is the bottom line, you care about money, you care about something that's going to address the economic challenges, but I have a different focus. I'm concerned about my community, I'm concerned about my neighbourhood and I'm concerned that by integrating our municipal governments across the Metro-wide area my neighbourhood will somehow be put in jeopardy, my sense of community will be lost." What answer do you give to that argument?

Mr Harris: My grandfather was an alderman in West Toronto and represented the High Park area. High Park's still there, and he represented it in the 1920s. I live in an area called Bloor West Village. I'm three blocks over from Baby Point. I went to school very close to Baby Point. It was Baby Point in 1950; it's still Baby Point. Mimico and New Toronto, when they talked about amalgamation in the 1950s, were screaming about the fact that they were not going to exist. The GO train stops are still for New Toronto and Mimico. Nothing's changed as far as that's concerned. I think that communities within a city are natural. They will come; they will stay if they make sense; they will not stay if they don't make sense. But I think a sense of community is not the issue here; I think community will remain.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Harris, it's good to see you again. It's been many, many years. I'm pleased you could come before us here. Just a brief point I'd like you to comment on, if you would: You mentioned in your address that you had worked on this consideration, your personal consideration over some time, and that you had come to this position slowly. We had Mayor Barbara Hall come before the committee and suggest, "Slow down and do it right." The suggestion was that we needed more studies, we needed more time to review, more time to go over the same ground again. Do you believe that this process -- not just the current legislative process but the whole issue of municipal reform -- has in fact been a long enough debate and the time to act is now?

As a second question, do you believe that the current framework of Bill 103 has afforded people enough time to formulate a position, as you have, and express it?

Mr Harris: I think that on one count you could say, why didn't it happen a long time ago? On the other hand you could say you can always use more time to arrive at decisions. This is the time frame the government of the day was given. Certainly it was a major issue near the end of Bob Rae's term, something that was receiving a great deal of attention, both Metro and the GTA. Again, nothing's perfect and opponents will always like more time. I'm sure the people who are trying to put it together would always like more time as well, but I don't think that really should be the issue. The issue is the benefits.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for coming today.

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC REAL ESTATE COMPANIES

The Vice-Chair: I would like to call on the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, Ron Daniel. Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Mr Lorne Braithwaite: I'm Lorne Braithwaite, president of CIPREC and president and CEO of Cambridge Shopping Centres, which is a public real estate company. David Weinberg is a member of CIPREC's executive committee and president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Development Corp. Ron Daniels is the executive director of CIPREC.

I'd like to start out by saying up front that CIPREC members endorse Bill 103. A little bit on the background of the role and function of CIPREC so that you understand that the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies is an important voice for the Canadian real estate development industry. It serves as a forum for discussion of principal issues affecting this major industry and as a vehicle for presentation of its views to the public and the government.

Its member firms include most of Canada's large real estate investment and development companies whose shares are publicly traded, plus real estate subsidiaries of public companies, large, privately owned real estate development companies, trust companies, insurance companies pension funds and banks. It's a big organization. It represents over $50-billion worth of real estate in this country.

1730

CIPREC members pay significant amounts of taxes in Canada and in Ontario. The total property and property-related taxes in Canada paid in 1995 exceeded $1 billion and in Ontario over $600 million, of which 80% is in Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA.

Despite the past severe recession leading to the dramatically lower rents and higher vacancies between 1989 and 1994, CIPREC's annual tax survey shows that taxes per square foot in Metropolitan Toronto rose by 79% while during the same time period inflation rose only 21%. At that same time taxes went up, municipal services such as garbage collection and snow removal have been withdrawn from many commercial and industrial properties and the property owners pay private sector contractors for these services with no reduction in municipal taxes.

CIPREC believes that the property and property-related taxes are too high and have a negative impact on Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto's competitive position and the ability to attract new investment and create new jobs. CIPREC, as I mentioned earlier, supports the amalgamation of the Metro municipalities into one city. In CIPREC's presentations to all levels of government and to various commissions and committees over the past several years, we have urged the following:

(1) Removal of the education component from property tax, residential and commercial, replacing it with alternative sources of funding over a 10-year time frame.

(2) Amalgamation of municipalities in the GTA and Metro to reduce the total number, thereby creating the potential for reduced costs of governance and duplication of services. For example, in a study completed for the GTA Task Force, the Golden commission, for Metropolitan Toronto and the regions of the GTA, it was shown that there were 35 separate planning departments, 1,300 staff members and budgets in excess of $100 million. There are more planners than there are developers in this entire region, if you can imagine. Amalgamation must be designed and implemented to provide opportunities to reduce costs and thereby lower taxes and to find ways of improving the effective delivery of services.

(3) For the same basic reasons, we also urge and support the proposed legislation to reform the education system and to restructuring the financing of education and municipal responsibilities.

Moving on, major changes undoubtedly will have some problems. Some cautionary comments we would make to the government in this regard: Be sensitive to the need for appropriate transition methodologies and time frame. For instance, the existing assessment system has decayed for over 40 years. It cannot be fixed overnight but it can be phased in over a number of years. We note that the government has made provision to ease the burden of increased taxes for various groups of property owners and we commend that initiative.

In response to criticism concerning the possible reduction in community involvement, we urge you to not respond by cluttering the new amalgamated single city with too many community committees or boards. It will slow down policymaking and decision-making.

We urge also that in restructuring responsibilities for funding and delivering services such as welfare you provide a fiscal safety net to assist municipalities that could face program costs well above current estimates as a result of disaster or economic recession.

In summary, CIPREC supports Bill 103 but urges the government to do it right, do it now and make sure that this more efficient and less costly new government structure emerges as soon as possible.

Mr Sergio: Thanks for coming down and making a presentation to our committee. How do you feel with respect to the social services being dumped on the property tax?

Mr Braithwaite: In our analysis of that we were hopeful that the education tax would come out right across not only the residential side but the commercial side as well. We were disappointed that the education side is remaining in. We think having the administration of social services closer to the people, right at the different communities, will end up in a more efficient, more responsive system.

Mr Sergio: It has been said that a healthy Toronto is good for the GTA. At the same time, as you very well know, Metro Toronto is subsidizing by 20%, 30% taxes in the regions. If the system is so good, why do we still have this inequity? Why wouldn't you support that this inequity be lifted now?

Mr Braithwaite: We have indicated, as I mentioned in one of the last points in our presentation, that they've got to make sure they have a safety net to cover off unusual circumstances.

Mr Sergio: When you say, "Do it now, do it right," do you think the government should take that into consideration before it goes ahead with this legislation?

Mr Braithwaite: I think it has to be considered for all the areas, not just Toronto.

Mr Patten: On your point of taking education off property tax, I think most people wanted that because they wouldn't have to pay it; it seems to me as simple as that. But as you know, the money that's being taken off that will now go towards other services and, at least according to the figures from most of the municipalities I've read, there's a great discrepancy. You've taken off $5.4 billion province-wide in education tax but dumped $6.4 billion of social services on that property tax. If that's so, you're going to have increases in some of the property tax because the assessment hasn't been taken for a long time.

What do you think this is going to do to a lot of residential property taxes, let alone commercial, in the downtown area? Are they not going to be the ones to have to pay a much greater burden of property tax in the future?

Mr Braithwaite: Undoubtedly they'll have to. That's why we're recommending that phase-in periods be 10 years.

Mr Patten: Do you think this is going to help maintain a good, healthy core?

Mr Braithwaite: David, you should comment as well because you have lots of experience in this area. We think you cannot let the inequities that have evolved over 40 years just bypass a major reorganization and restructuring such as we're going through. You have to figure out a way to keep the fairness in the system and you have to do that recognizing that when you've had 40 years moving in one direction and huge distortions, you've got to have long phase-in periods to correct them. Do you have anything to add to that?

Mr David Weinberg: The only thing I would add is that I think it benefits all the citizens of Metro Toronto if we can have a strong downtown and a strong economy in general. Our concern is that the level that taxes have reached in relation to commercial and industrial development is discouraging businesses from locating here and tending to lead them to locate elsewhere and that this is gradually making the economy of Toronto more and more difficult. I think that causes problems for the residents. I realize that in equalizing taxes under the new regime, owners of residential property may pay more. It's our view that if that can be phased in in a reasonable way and over a reasonable time period, that is reasonable to do.

Mr Braithwaite: I didn't mention it earlier, but copies of our brief will be provided to the chairman.

Mr Patten: Right now there are companies moving out of, say, Toronto proper because you get more space for your dollar and you pay lower taxes if you move out to Oakville or Mississauga or the farther extremities. Are you saying that just Metro Toronto should be the new base or that the whole GTA should have an equalization in terms of the balance between residential property tax and commercial taxation?

Mr Weinberg: It's our position that in principle the property tax should pay for hard services. That's a very difficult thing to do, given the amount of money involved in funding education and social services. I guess our position would be that over time that's what we'd like to move towards. In relation to localities paying their own taxes, we think it works when you're funding hard services.

When you get into larger social services and education, I think one has to take into account the fact that it may be necessary for a larger tax base to fund some of those services. It's our understanding that education is going to be funded at the provincial level now, so that's all the people of Ontario, and that social services will be funded from Metro citizens, but that there would be some mechanism to deal with potential excesses or lack of funds available to ensure that property taxes don't go up dramatically; so there's, in a way, a safety valve that would be funded by a broader population base.

1740

Mr Patten: It seems to me you've suggested that it should be related: property tax, property services. This bill is proposing that the soft services are really what's going to go on that property tax, which is not what Mr Crombie had recommended.

Mr Weinberg: Ideally we would like it to go the other way. We recognize that's a difficult thing to do immediately and we feel that the bill is a step in the right direction. Hopefully over time, as we can get more efficient in education and social services and generally have a lower deficit, it may be possible to take those services off the property tax as well.

Mr Patten: So we can look at an amendment on your behalf related to pushing for the hard services rather than soft services on residential property tax. We can make amendments. We still have time. The bill isn't a fait accompli, I don't think, because I know these people are listening.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us today.

HARBOURFRONT CENTRE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Nadine Nowlan of the Harbourfront Centre. Good afternoon, Ms Nowlan, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 15 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Ms Nadine Nowlan: I'd like to thank members of the Legislature for giving me this opportunity to comment on Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, 1996. My name is Nadine Nowlan and I'm president of the board of directors of Harbourfront Centre.

At a board of directors meeting held on Tuesday, January 28, 1997, the following motion was adopted unanimously: "Resolved that authority be granted to the chair to express, on behalf of the Harbourfront Centre board, its opposition to Bill 103 and provincial downloading due to its impact on the arts and the viability of the city."

I know you, as MPPs, are all striving to improve the economic wellbeing of our province. For Conservative members it is the driving principle of your blue book.

Last January, when the Golden report was completed and made public, the focus derived from the mandate of the task force was on how best to provide direction for the future prosperity of the GTA. This is the appropriate focus. We all recognize that the health and prosperity of the GTA are the key not only to the wellbeing of Toronto but to the whole province.

Bill 103 does not meet these objectives and will work against these goals. Amalgamation will create a behemoth megacity of 2.3 million people, or half the population of the GTA. Its size would so dominate other governments in the GTA that its existence would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to create a balanced, GTA-wide governing structure.

To collapse seven municipalities within Metro and create an entirely new structure within nine months is foolhardy. It will create confusion and uncertainty, exactly the wrong climate to attract business and investment. The downloading to the municipal property tax base that will be the net result of the megacity package will mean severe cuts in service and/or unacceptable increases in property tax for both residents and businesses.

The livability of our cities and our investment in the arts will be the first to go. They are easy targets in times of fiscal crisis but are fundamental to the health of the municipality.

Downloading will mean less money will be available for investment in the arts and entertainment sectors. This sector is a growth sector for job creation especially in central Toronto. For example, there are now more arts and entertainment jobs in the central area of the city of Toronto than manufacturing jobs, which are in decline.

Amalgamation will mean that megacity councillors will be less accessible and have less time to work with and on behalf of arts, culture and community groups. As president of Harbourfront Centre and as a former member of city council, I can testify to the responsiveness and support of my local government to these groups. After all, Toronto's entertainment and cultural activities are predominantly downtown, and it's important to have a central city level of government to help nourish this sector of our economy. The combination of downloading and amalgamation threatens the livability of the city and the vitality of the arts.

Last November Fortune magazine rated Toronto as "#1 International Best City," and I quote: "Toronto...remains the safest city in North America. It has avoided the soulless suburbs by nurturing its downtown and lakefront neighbourhoods; desirable residential areas have sprung up, along with restaurants, galleries, clubs and lots of parkland." There are many other well-documented studies which demonstrate the importance of investment in the arts and entertainment sectors for the creation of jobs and the attractiveness of a region for investment and tourism.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing claims that Bill 103 will save money and reduce confusion about who does what. It will cost more -- much more -- believe me. Every serious study on costs of amalgamation confirms that big government costs more than smaller decentralized units such as we have now in our local city governments. The claim of cost savings is not credible.

Governance under the megacity will be more complicated and convoluted. The existing system within Metro is a two-tier system consisting of city government and Metro. What is proposed in its place in Metro is a confusing four levels of governance: a GTA services board, a megacity of 44 councillors plus a directly elected mayor, then seven or eight community councils with the same 44 councillors, as well as 44 appointed ward volunteer neighbourhood committees to advise the community/megacity councillors on local issues. As someone who has been a municipal councillor within the current system, I can tell you my mind boggles at the prospect of trying to relate to this proposed political structure either as a citizen or on behalf of an organization like Harbourfront Centre. It just won't work.

Megacity, with one councillor for every 52,000 constituents, has less than half the number of councillors currently in office. This will ensure that our municipal representatives are run ragged attending council and committee meetings at four levels of government. It will also mean that we, the taxpayers, are isolated and kept away from the real decision-making power of megacity bureaucrats who with a small, powerful executive committee will be calling the shots on what kinds of neighbourhoods and city we are going to live in. Megacity will ensure that our elected representatives have much less time to consult with us, our neighbourhoods and our organizations and much less influence on decisions that will affect us.

What adds insult to injury is the proposed suspension of democracy at the municipal level. If Bill 103 becomes law, then provincially appointed bureaucrats will make crucial decisions about our city and our region's future. This is unacceptable. We have had 164 years of democratically elected local government in the city of Toronto, and we like it just fine, thank you. Bill 103, and Bill 104, for that matter, greatly offend the principles of democratic government.

1750

Bill Davis would not have handled things the way this government has. Even if Bill 103, with its proposed amalgamation, were a good idea -- and it's a very bad idea, with no evidence to support its justification -- Bill Davis would not have rammed it through as your government is proposing to do. I, along with many others, was deeply involved in the successful opposition to the Spadina Expressway. As a result, in the period from 1969 to 1985 I got to know Bill Davis and how his government worked. In his time he was criticized for being indecisive by the "Full speed ahead, damn the torpedos" types, but believe me, development of good policy takes time, patience, meaningful consultation, a willingness to take time for sober second thought and for drawing back and rethinking. Bill Davis understood all of this.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "Democracy takes too many evenings." It's true that it does take time and patience, but it's often how we get things right. The citizens of this great city have kept its governments out of trouble on many, many occasions. As politicians, you have a responsibility to listen to the voices of those who disagree with you. After all, they might just be right.

When I hear ministers of the crown proclaim that they are not going to listen to the people or pay any attention to the municipal referendums on Bill 103, it gravely concerns me.

Think about what you are doing. If Bill 103 and the rest of the megacity package is passed into law, the impact of the huge changes will be evident by the time you face re-election. The impact on the property taxpayer, the impact on municipal services, the impact on the livability of the city, the impact on municipal governance, cost-effectiveness and accessibility, the impact on social services and the impact on the arts will all be too painfully obvious to your constituents.

The way out is to withdraw Bill 103 and other misguided legislation now. By your next election, it will be too late.

Mr Silipo: I have a couple of questions. The first is specifically to the arts. There are some who would argue that we have got to the point now where people understand generally, at all levels of government, the importance of the arts, not just for themselves but economically as well, and therefore, your fear that cuts in the arts would be one of the first things to happen may not be well founded. What is your response to that?

Ms Nowlan: If I were a municipal councillor faced with the decision between cutting off funding to chronic care hospitals or funding the arts, even though I love the arts it would be game over; I would vote to fund chronic care hospitals. It's logical. That's the order of first priority. Although arts are important for the economic climate and important for the livability of the city, there are some things that have to come first.

Mr Silipo: I have a question with respect to the whole process we've been going through; I've been asking people this as I've had the chance. There have been, as I'm sure you know, some suggestions made that what the government should do with this legislation is stop it, put it aside, and over a period of six months to a year engage in some serious discussions about what some alternatives to the one-city model might be and look within that at how that links into the GTA board and model. I'd be interested in your comments on that.

Ms Nowlan: I completely agree with you. The whole idea of amalgamation sprung suddenly out of nowhere in the middle of October. The Anne Golden commission hadn't recommended amalgamation and the Who Does What panel did not recommend it. None of the other commissions that have looked at government structures ever recommended amalgamation. The idea was just floated and then took off from there.

There are other models that I personally would support and I think others would support. The four-city model proposed by Anne Golden, strengthening local governments while having coordinating, planning and service delivery at the GTA level with an indirectly-elected GTA services board, makes a lot of sense to me. I think Golden was on the right track and I think the process got very seriously and unfortunately derailed. I don't quite understand how that happened, but it did happen.

The Chair: Thank you, ma'am, for coming forward to make your presentation today.

Mr Hastings: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'd like to request unanimous consent to ask a question of Ms Nowlan.

The Chair: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Hastings: Ms Nowlan, very briefly, your board of directors is made up, I presume, of many people across Metro and the greater Toronto area.

Ms Nowlan: Yes, we have 26 people drawn from various sectors in the community: business, arts etc.

Mr Hastings: Do you receive funds from Metro government, any kind of grants?

Ms Nowlan: We do not.

Mr Hastings: But have you ever in the past?

Ms Nowlan: We've received them indirectly in the sense that they will fund particular projects; they'll provide project funding for something their Metro arts council process is interested in funding.

Mr Hastings: My line of questioning is this: I'm absolutely astounded that your board takes this position when it's supposedly in the business of promoting international tourism, entertainment etc, and your focus would be less parochial than the occupation-utilization rates of hotel rooms in downtown Toronto when there are all kinds of entertainment and other stuff of an international flavour in other parts of Metro.

Ms Nowlan: I think the vast majority of the entertainment sector is actually physically located in the downtown area. The customer base is the whole GTA, of course, but they are located in downtown Toronto, and they have traditionally received more support, for example, from the city of Toronto proportionately than they have from Metro, but that's understandable.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Ms Nowlan, for coming forward and making your presentation today. Thank you, Mr Hastings.

WALLY BROOKER

The Chair: Walter Brooker, please. Good evening, Mr Brooker. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Wally Brooker: Mr Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to address you on Bill 103. I am grateful to live in a democratic country where I have the right to be heard by my elected representatives as a matter of due course and without fear of reprisal.

I am a lifelong resident of Toronto. I was born and raised in the Beaches area and subsequently lived for many years in the west end of the city. I have worked for the past 10 years in the field of scholarly publishing with the University of Toronto Press and I'm also a professional musician.

I wish to speak to you as an ordinary citizen. Webster's Dictionary defines a "citizen" as "an inhabitant of a city or town" before it talks about country or nation. I find this appropriate because the concept of the citizen was born in a city somewhere in ancient Greece, I believe. Because of that, because of the localness of the birth of democracy, I want to talk about what local democracy means to me, about some of the content of Bill 103 and its manner of implementation in light of my beliefs about local democracy, and about the alternative to Bill 103.

I'd like the members of the governing party present to know that I appreciate the contribution that many adherents to their philosophy have made to our country, especially great scholars like the philosopher George Grant and the historian Donald Creighton. I am proud of my ancestors who came to Upper Canada as pioneers from Scotland and Ireland and England, who cleared the wilderness and settled in small towns like Woodstock, Owen Sound, Mount Forest, Palmerston and Stirling.

Like the honourable Minister for Municipal Affairs, my grandfather worked for some 40 years with the TTC; I still have his cap badge. My father was a Diefenbaker supporter. We accepted the monarchy without question. When my older brother was married in 1963, I remember that his reception toast was to our sovereign the Queen. I must say that I never fully appreciated the significance of my brother's toast to the Queen until I began to follow the debate on Bill 103, but more on that later.

1800

Some members of this committee may be wondering why people like myself are getting so worked up about municipal affairs that we will tramp out in the cold snow of a Toronto winter to attend public meetings and marches. With all due respect to the commercial and financial affairs so important to the life of a city, our passion is not because Toronto is a corporation; it's because municipalities are the most basic and essential form of democracy.

My first intervention as a citizen in public affairs was in 1970, when I joined a ward 9 residents' group concerned with waterfront development issues and a proposed Scarborough expressway. It was there I learned my first practical lessons in what used to be called "civics." I learned how to participate. I learned how to run a meeting. From my local councillor at the time, I learned elements of the day-to-day business of democracy such as the letting out of tenders for public contracts and so on.

I believe the amalgamation proposed in Bill 103 will reduce the contact citizens' groups and individuals currently enjoy with their elected representatives in the six cities of Metro. This reduced contact will result in a decline in grass-roots participation, which is one of local democracy's greatest virtues.

Since the days of Pericles in ancient Athens, the city has been a laboratory of democracy as well as a centre for trade; it has been a meeting place for ideas, including the great idea of democracy. St Augustine saw the city as the embodiment of a sacred ideal. However, it has been a long, slow march, and there has not always been progress. The period of European history which we call the Dark Ages is so called largely because during that time urban civilization collapsed. I'm working up to something here; you'll see.

The revival of European civilization really began in the 12th century with the revival of the towns. It is noteworthy that Magna Carta, the document signed by King John in 1215 and rightly claimed to be the cornerstone of our British derived Constitution proclaimed: "The city of London is to have all its ancient liberties and free customs. Furthermore, we will grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs."

Democracy evolved through the English Revolution in the 17th century and the American Revolution in the 18th century; in the latter, the battle-cry was, "No taxation without representation." Today a small body of trustees appointed by the minister have seized effective control of the six cities' finances at a time when a drastic restructuring of taxation is expected -- by the board of trade, no less -- to have a devastating effect upon the economic and social fabric of Metro Toronto. Without a provincial government commitment to respect the results of the referenda in the six cities, we are in a situation where taxes are being introduced by one level of government upon another without representation; more proof that the forward march of democracy is not inevitable.

Today the question of entrenched constitutional rights for cities is more important than ever. Soon half of the world's population will be living in towns or cities. When I look at Bill 103, so hastily introduced and so lacking in a mandate, so dubious in its promises and, above all, so undemocratic, I think of the struggles for municipal democracy in Hong Kong and the former Yugoslavia that are so much in the news these days.

I am aware that under the Canadian Constitution provinces have jurisdiction over municipalities. But I am also aware that Canadians live under an unwritten Constitution as well. We live under our inherited British common law with the abovementioned "ancient liberties and free customs," which affect communities as well as individuals. Since the Reform Act of the British Parliament in 1832, we have "the sovereignty of the people," which means that government policies and programs must be based upon principles that have been submitted to the electorate. As the Conservative Prime Minister of Britain Benjamin Disraeli observed at that time, "All power is a trust; we" -- and he meant politicians -- "are accountable for its exercise; from the people and for the people all springs and all must exist."

Members of the committee, I refer to Disraeli's statement because Bill 103 has no mandate; and without a mandate, there is a betrayal of that power held in trust.

On January 3, 1997, there appeared in the Globe and Mail an article by Toronto city councillor Michael Walker; in it, Walker declared that the future Premier Mike Harris, in response to a 1995 pre-election questionnaire submitted by the Ontario Taxpayers Federation, had stated:

(1) If elected, his party would not eliminate local municipalities;

(2) If elected, his party was "looking at favourably" the idea of eliminating regional governments, which one might read "Metro;" and

(3) Provincial public policy and financial issues are not too complicated for the average citizen to decide by voting in a referendum.

Walker's article stated, furthermore -- and to my knowledge, his article has not been publicly refuted -- that Mr Harris had responded to these questions on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. If Bill 103 is not a betrayal of trust with the electorate and taxpayers of Ontario, I don't know what is.

When I read accounts of the Minister of Municipal Affairs defending the hastiness of this legislation with the insinuation that previous governments lacked the political will to effect big structural changes because elections got in the way, I wonder about his commitment to due process. I also wonder about the board of trustees which, we are told in the explanatory note to Bill 103, "will oversee the financial affairs of the seven existing municipal governments" effective on the date of the bill's introduction, last December 17.

Last month, the Speaker, Mr Stockwell, ruled that Mr Leach had acted in contempt of the Legislature in the manner of presenting brochures on amalgamation to the public. I would also like to ask, is not the replacement of democratically elected officials by appointed officials prior to the passage of a bill also in contempt? Is this not an abuse of power? Then there is clause 24, which gives the minister very broad powers indeed, and one might call them arbitrary, a clause that has already been used by Mr Leach in the order prohibiting the trustees from speaking to the media.

There is more. Clause 12(1) states, "The decisions of the board of trustees are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court." Clause 12(2) states, "The Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to the board of trustees."

Members of the committee, for generations the Globe and Mail has published its editorials under the banner of a motto from the 18th-century journalist who wrote under the pen name of Junius -- and we all know it -- "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate" -- ie, the Queen -- "will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Now I know what my brother was talking about. I implore you not to advise or submit to arbitrary measures.

Today the citizens of the six cities of Metro Toronto are preparing to cast a vote in referenda, which the minister has pledged to ignore. If such blatant disregard for the will of the people prevails at Queen's Park, I would hope and pray that the Lieutenant Governor will heed the advice she is now receiving to intervene in accordance with the crown's prerogative to dissolve Parliament and declare new provincial elections to ensure that the will of the electorate may be heard on these hasty and untested government policy initiatives.

I have focused my attention on the question of democracy, due process and the rule of law. Time prevents me from speaking on the claims of efficiency in the proposed amalgamations. However, I would like to state that there is an alternative to Bill 103. It will take more time.

The Chair: Mr Brooker, excuse me for interrupting, but we're beyond your allotted time. We have the brief. I wonder if you could maybe sum up and finish up.

Mr Brooker: Could I conclude by reading my last two paragraphs?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr Brooker: Thank you. I call upon the Conservative members to remember that conservatism is more than a philosophy of the marketplace; it's also about nurturing our communities. It is more about decentralizing than centralizing, and it's about compromise rather than confrontation. I call upon the government to respect the will of the people as expressed in their local referenda here in Metro's six cities and indeed throughout all of Ontario. If the people of Metro's six cities vote to retain their local governments, then withdraw the bill and get on with building a truly non-partisan reform of the GTA. I urge members of the governing party to demand a free vote on Bill 103. It is not right to ignore the wishes of the people.

In conclusion, I would like to offer the following words from Edmund Burke, a man often considered the founder of modern conservatism: "All government...indeed every benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and prudent act is founded upon compromise and barter." I say to the government, it's time to compromise and barter.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Brooker, for coming forward this evening.

Ladies and gentlemen, just before we recess for the evening, members have the interim summary of recommendations provided by research. If you have any questions on that, we can entertain them at the 7 to 9 session or on your own time with Mr Richmond and Susan Swift.

We'll recess until 7 pm.

The committee recessed from 1810 to 1903.

ALOY RATNASINGHAM

The Chair: Good evening. Would Mr Aloy Ratnasingham please come forward. Welcome, sir.

Mr Aloy Ratnasingham: Good evening. I am presenting to you as the past president of the Senior Tamils' Centre of Ontario.

The megacity move actually started in 1953 when 13 municipalities were amalgamated into a Metropolitan federation, and later reorganized in 1967 as the Metro council with six municipalities: the city of Toronto, York, East York etc.

I wish to recall the prophetic words of then-Mayor McCallum who was responsible for the amalgamation. His words were as follows: "We have adequate governments in this country and we have today a government called Metropolitan council and within years it will be changed into one unit of government responsible directly to the people." Bill 103 translates the dream of the then mayor into a reality today.

Do we require a mathematical wizard to show us savings if we have one government instead of seven? One study alone by Ernst and Young, which included only two items, fire and health services, showed a savings of $49 million if Metro takes over these two items from the six municipalities. Furthermore, what about the savings in dropping 106 councillors and the six self-preservation-driven mayors?

Honourable members of the committee, I wish to draw your attention to the handbook published by the Metro Council, Metro and You. On one page we have the caption, "Who is responsible for what." Here we find 22 sole responsibilities of the Metro council. To name a few: police, TTC, ambulance, welfare etc. In addition, it has 15 shared responsibilities such as parks, planning, minor roads etc. The six city councils take over the leftover responsibilities such as fire protection, health services, sidewalks etc. For Metro, bigger is the reality. Already 78% of the services and taxes in Metro are amalgamated, a fact hidden in the duplication of governments. Thus we now see Metro government as the megacity in the making from 1953.

What is this referendum for? Just to transfer the remaining 22% of the services to Metro or not? Was a referendum held in 1953 or 1967 when most of the services were unified in one Metro government? Should not this anomalous situation of roads being looked after by Metro and sidewalks by the local municipalities end? Should not the fire trucks that accompany the police and the ambulance be under the same management? Should the borough of East York, one fifth the size of North York or Scarborough, with a population of one federal riding, be allowed to continue as a city? The six mayors who are leading the anti-megacity campaign should pose these simple questions to their supporters, instead of wasting funds on a meaningless referendum.

What has this question of unloading and downloading got to do with the concept of a unified city? Cannot the provincial government do all these fiscal changes without the creation of a unified city? Surely they can. The provincial government is aware of its responsibilities and it can ill afford to discriminate against a section of the population of Ontario, in fact against the residents of the capital city of Ontario.

Transition has to be effectively managed. Housing, and seniors' housing in particular, can be transferred in stages. In short, as suggested by the Metro council, the effects of the transition have to be cost-free and revenue-neutral for the new Toronto municipality to be successful.

We have the assurances of the Premier and the minister of local government that they will look into the financial crunch, if any, of the newborn municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Therefore, permit me to congratulate Premier Mike Harris for the bold and brave steps he is taking to unify the seven cities into one, an act that is long overdue.

Metro government, though 44 years old, failed to project itself as the main government of Metro in charge of 2.3 million people with a budget of $3.2 billion and in control of most services in Toronto. Even though they had put up a huge building in downtown, and named it Metro Hall instead of Metro Secretariat, often when people are asked to come to Metro Hall, they end up in the well-known city hall.

1910

Many community organizations in existence in Metro did not know of the existence of Metro government and its functions for a long time. Undoubtedly, honourable members, Metro failed to say who does what until ex-mayor David Crombie wrote his report on unification. One of the most meritorious points in his report was the easy identification and clear-cut boundaries of the new wards of the new municipality of Toronto, the unified city. His proposal is that the wards will be patterned after the 22 federal ridings in Metro Toronto. To elect the 44 Metro councillors to the new unified city, he suggests that the federal ridings be divided into two.

I respectfully wish to differ on this one point only: dividing each federal riding into two. Instead, I suggest we leave the 22 federal ridings well alone. Each federal riding can remain as a multimember constituency to elect two councillors to the new municipality of Toronto. Then we can have a community around this federal riding, besides others, to include the federal MP, the provincial MPP and the two municipal councillors.

I am introducing this concept of multimember large constituencies, as this will provide an excellent way of satisfying the needs and aspirations of significant groups of special interests. These can be a group of minorities, visible minorities or some workers with special interests. Under this system they can pool their votes and thereby get a better chance of electing more of their own members.

At present, 24% of Toronto residents are visible minorities. They are underrepresented in all municipal councils in Toronto. As municipal elections are not contested on party lines, multimember ridings, as suggested, may be one way to ensure adequate representation of special interest groups, and in particular the visible minorities, the people of colour.

We had this system of multimember constituencies in Sri Lanka, with remarkable success. This system of election is permissible under our laws in Canada. This is accepted all over the world as a vehicle to give effective representation to underrepresented groups. Germany adopts this system in some areas. Therefore, why not try this out in Toronto, the multicultural haven of Canada?

The Chair: Excuse me, sir. We're coming near the end of your allotted time, if you could perhaps sum up.

Mr Ratnasingham: In suggesting this change, I have a message for Premier Mike Harris and his party caucus. There is a perception among the ethno-racial groups in Toronto that nothing good can come their way from the provincial Conservatives. However, this is not the way they look at the federal Progressive Conservatives, particularly after the heroic statement made by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney when some refugees showed up off the coast of Newfoundland: "I am the son of an immigrant. Do you expect me to send these people away?" He made this courageous statement on the floor of the House of Commons. These words still reverberate in our hearts and minds.

Here is an opportunity for our Premier, the Honourable Mike Harris, to change the existing perception of the visible minorities in Toronto by acceding to this democratic request. Declare the 22 electorates of Toronto as multimember constituencies, to elect two councillors per riding, to make the total of 44 councillors required to form the megacity, the new municipality of Toronto.

This will hasten the birth of the megacity as scheduled for January 1, 1998, without wasting much time in consultations and delimitation. Most important, this system will rightly ensure adequate representation for ethnic and racial minorities and other groups and make the new municipality of Toronto truly represent the composition of Toronto.

In concluding, I wish to say that I am sad to note that the opposition parties at Queen's Park have made a political issue of this sound proposal to unify the seven governments into one structurally strong and economically viable government. Thank you for listening.

The Chair: And thank you for coming forward to make your presentation this evening.

ROBERT ZEIDLER

The Chair: Would Robert Zeidler please come forward. Good evening and welcome to the committee.

Mr Robert Zeidler: Thank you very much. I personally firmly support cost-cutting within the Ontario government. I also firmly support the need for less government. I also firmly support the concept that there is too much duplication of services and wasted spending among the various governments within the greater Toronto area. Therefore, one would expect to hear a vote of support for Bill 103. However, you shall not. I stand firmly opposed to Bill 103, a bill whose thought process has been poor and whose execution is worse.

I oppose it for two basic reasons. First, it will not do what it has been created to do: bring better government to Toronto and the surrounding areas. Second, it has been created and is being forced upon the citizens of the greater Toronto area in a manner that shows a complete lack of respect for the democratic process upon which our country is based.

How does it fail to bring better government to Toronto? There are four basic ways. The first is that Toronto is an exception within the North American context. In most North American cities, people live in the city because they are too poor to move to the suburbs. Yet in Toronto people buy in the suburbs because they can't afford to live in the city. This is not because Toronto is a great city. People don't live in Toronto; they live in the Beaches, in the Annex, in Little Italy or in Chinatown. Toronto has allowed itself to develop as a collection of great communities. Mega-projects do not make great communities; attention to detail does. That means making sure that the traffic lights are there for pedestrian safety and not for better commuter flow. How on earth can a group of citizens who have a concern about what is happening on their street make their voice heard when their entire ward has one vote in the new council? Our communities flourish because of local government. Bill 103 will kill that.

Second, this bill creates no incentive to save. I lived in London, England, when the greater London council was abolished and I watched services improve and the costs for those services go down. Why? Because under the new system, while it was centrally organized, the services were locally run. In any mammoth organization, no one has enough power to change anything without a lot of political alliance-building. No one builds friends in alliances with cost-cutting. Toronto will be a city where politicians build alliances by supporting each other's spending bills.

The third reason is that Bill 103 discusses the legal issues of who will have what powers and how the transition will be handled, yet I was struck by its complete lack of vision. There was no formula for success here. It merely says: "You're out; we're in. The rest we'll deal with later." There is no discussion on how the complex issues which are involved with the continued development of Toronto will be dealt with.

The fourth reason: It is ludicrous to consider such a bill as Bill 103 without the inclusion of Mississauga. This is a topic which has been totally overlooked and yet most clearly illustrates how illogical and poorly though out the bill is. How can Scarborough be so vital to the development of a new city of Toronto, yet its direct counterpart to the west of Toronto is considered not to be? Clearly the Harris government fears the political backlash from such a true cost-cutter as Hazel McCallion

The second aspect of this, and this is just as important as the first, is that this bill is a threat to the democratic society upon which our country has been built. While no democracy is perfect, ours does not have the system of checks and balances that our American neighbours have, because until now we have trusted our politicians to act in a manner consistent with democracy. That does not include getting elected on one platform and then, once elected, introducing new, unmentioned legislation. It does not include invoking closure because you simply don't want to hear any discussion on the issues. It does not mean announcing a bill will go ahead regardless of referendums or what the public might have to say to any committees. It does not mean stripping democratically elected officials of their power and replacing them with appointees.

1920

I should not speak too poorly about Bill 103. In one sense, it has been extremely useful. Having served on three peacekeeping missions and having patrolled the Berlin Wall, I have seen what happens when people have their democratic rights taken away from them and others decide how they will live their lives and run their governments. This has been a wake-up call to Ontarians that their democratic rights are not so self-evident and firmly entrenched. I have been thrilled to watch ordinary citizens stand up for something they truly believe in. If the Harris government lives up to its promise not to listen to its citizens, then I wait for the next election when we, the people of Ontario, will take great pleasure in throwing them, like the Mulroney Conservatives, out as a lesson to all who follow. By the way, I live in Al Leach's ward.

Mr Hastings: Sir, my apologies for not being here earlier, but I got your remarks about Mayor McCallion and I think you're accurate in terms of at least, to give her her due, cost-cutting. But I would like you to appreciate and hear my comments about how Mississauga really got its moneys over the years. It's not only from cost-cutting, which has come in the last few years, but primarily from what was called the old lot levy that was instituted by Mississauga city council as early as 1970. Essentially, the old lot levy was --

Mr Zeidler: No, no. I'm not sure if I quite understand you. The point I'm saying is, how on earth can you introduce a bill and say the east of the city of Toronto is vital, it must be part, but the west, no, that's irrelevant, that has nothing to do with the city of Toronto? That's my argument. It has nothing to do with how they got their lot levies or not.

Mr Hastings: It's important in the context in which Mississauga has become a wealthy city. It's primarily from two sources: The way they have taxed residential versus commercial-industrial, where those councils made a deliberate decision to tax commercial-industrial at a lower level compared to residential, whereas for their next-door neighbour in Etobicoke the reverse was true, and lot levies were the second major source of funding that the city got.

With respect to why Mississauga ought not to be included in the rationale for these proposals, there are many reasons. Primarily, Peel region and the way Mississauga and Brampton have evolved and have been developed are completely separate from the way in which Metropolitan Toronto has evolved. That is also true --

Mr Zeidler: I thought you were supposed to be asking questions.

Mr Hastings: It's true. It's particularly true with respect to taxation. So that is why -- you're asking why that's not included. It does have a significantly different history and tradition, aside from the taxation issues.

Mr Zeidler: I'm sure East York has a different tradition and I'm sure Toronto has a different tradition, and I'm sure Scarborough has a different tradition than North York.

Mr Hastings: At the beginning, that's probably true in terms of how they evolved, but once the Metro federation came into being in 1953, those traditions to a great extent got watered down, whether one likes that reality or not, probably with the exception of the city of Toronto, which wants to distinguish itself from the way in which the other five evolved.

Mr Zeidler: I was under the impression that I was to come here to speak and you were here to find out my opinion. I've just been lectured at for five minutes out of my --

Mr Hastings: No, I haven't been lecturing you. I've been pointing out some history.

Mr Zeidler: All right, you've been explaining something. You certainly haven't been asking a question. I thought that was the whole point: You were here to find out what I think of Bill 103; I was not here to hear what you think about it.

Mr Hastings: I would like you to elaborate on your specific rationale as to why you believe Mississauga and Peel region ought to be included in this overall review, in these proposals, in these amalgamations.

Mr Zeidler: It's very simple. I'm not entirely against a lot of the concepts in regional development, having centrally organized regional developments. It makes no sense whatsoever to just say: "This has nothing to do with Toronto. Mississauga has nothing to do with Toronto." But I think it's impossible to look at Toronto and say suddenly somehow or other Scarborough, which is vital to the growth of Toronto -- I mean, why do we have Scarborough? Because Toronto has grown so big and gotten so expensive that people have had to move out to Scarborough. The exact same is true for Mississauga. All of the factors which resulted in the creation of people living in Scarborough are the exact same factors creating Mississauga. So if the Harris government is going to come to me and say, "We have to do this; this is vital to the growth of Toronto," it has to stand up and say, "Okay, it has to be done in Scarborough and in Mississauga." I just find it's a point which shows how illogical and poorly thought out this bill is.

Mr Hastings: Many people have suggested that the only way you can resolve the problem in terms of not having to have any sort of amalgamation is to have greater coordination. What I can't figure out, and I'm not sure what your position is on this in terms of a new unified city -- it would seem to me much more rational and logical, that you could have greater coordination on cross-boundary issues, like cross-boundary transit, than you can from the proponents I hear on the other side who maintain we should be dealing with the Golden commission in terms of having greater coordination the way she proposed it, that is a supercouncil, mainly with no taxing authority; 35 members, probably even more, and you could get greater coordination. Your thoughts, sir?

Mr Zeidler: My thoughts are very simple. I think you cannot look at all these issues in isolation. You need to have some sort of coordination to ensure that Toronto's growth is not stifled by any actions which will hurt it. On the other hand, I think what has made Toronto strong is the strength of its communities. By amalgamating under one city, you will ensure that you will have a bureaucracy which will grow out of control and local governments which will be destroyed. The results will be such wondrous things as expressways through the middle of our city, and in 10 years we can take great pride in all of you having protective bodyguards and protective vehicles because it's unsafe to be in downtown Toronto just as your American counterparts find in their cities.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Zeidler, for coming forward and making your presentation tonight.

DAVID NOWLAN

The Chair: Would David Nowlan please come forward. Good evening, Mr Nowlan and welcome to the committee.

Mr David Nowlan: Thank you for inviting me. I'm David Nowlan, professor of economics at the University of Toronto and one of the university's former vice-presidents. My area of specialization is in urban and regional land use economics and in the economics of regulation, taxation and transportation. I've been a frequent consultant to all levels of government, from the United Nations down to the city of Toronto. I've consulted for Metro Toronto. I've been an executive member of the Metro planning board when it existed. I've been a volunteer member of two advisory committees to the greater Toronto area task force and a number of my publications are referenced in their task force.

I'm here to speak about Bill 103 and the significance of municipal government size. I think it's an important issue and I'd like to start with the point that if the local governments in Metro Toronto are amalgamated into a single government, the process, in my view, will be irreversible, that we can't take that omelette apart at some subsequent date. It's always possible to create an amalgamated unicity, megacity government but not possible to uncreate one. That alone, I think, would give us reason to want to think very carefully about the creation of this kind of government.

Creating a proper, useful size of government is certainly not an exact science and there are tradeoffs. There are reasons to want smaller local governments and there are reasons to want larger local governments. Frequently what one is trying to balance in this issue, which is present in many cities of the world today, what one is trying to get as a reasonable tradeoff -- you give up something by having a larger government but you hope you gain something. It's important to try to have an appreciation of what we lose and what we gain when we look at the size of government that's being proposed.

Why do we want larger governments? We want larger governments -- and forgive me if I sound a little professorial in doing this. I'm trying not to deal in slogans and I am a professor and I only have 10 minutes so I'll do it quickly. We want larger-scale governments really for three reasons.

One is to try to achieve economies of administrative scale. On that point, all the studies, both political and economic, clearly demonstrate that we lose our administrative economies of scale at sizes even lower than the current major local governments in Toronto, that is less than the city of Toronto, North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke.

This was demonstrated most fully in the royal commission on local government in Britain in the late 1960s. A series of academic writings in the United States have been published more recently in the 1990s, and work that economists have done attempting to measure economies of administrative scale show that they're really exhausted in the order of 100,000- or 200,000-people municipalities. So that, I think, is not an issue in this case.

1930

We want larger governments for redistributive purposes. This is an issue the Americans often don't understand. In Canada we have a much greater concern about redistributing among people in our communities from the better-off to the less well-off. That's a very important consideration in thinking about the size of government. Redistribution at present in Metro takes place, as it should, as the Metro level of government. There's a very strong argument for thinking about redistribution in the Toronto area on a GTA level now, not on a Metro Toronto area. It's important that municipalities outside the core cities don't get a free ride on the social services the inner cities are providing. It's the free ride that has created so much of the difficulty in the fragmented American cities. The level, in my view, at which we should think of redistribution is at the GTA, not the Metro level.

The final reason for wanting larger governments is in order to achieve a measure of coordination for our infrastructure and our planning functions. Once again in my view, the proper level of infrastructure and planning coordination today in the Toronto area is the GTA, not Metro Toronto. It's an argument that's often made. It was at the Metro level in the mid-1950s. We're now 50 years beyond that. The region has grown enormously, it has assumed a much greater importance in the economy of this province and this country, and the region across which planning coordination is needed is the GTA.

What do we lose if we go to larger units of government? What do we gain as we think of smaller units of government? Principally we gain a responsiveness to local preferences and an ability to try different ways of delivering services and different service types across citizens in a very complex area. You've just heard that Metro Toronto and the GTA are certainly not a region where people are homogenous from a number of different points of view and that their preferences aren't homogenous. They have different orientations towards their community. It's important to try to reflect that orientation in the scale and type of government we have. This is the sort of "reinventing government" approach. This is the reason that so much of what I interpret as the Conservative government pre-election approach favoured local government, responsive local government.

I live in the city. I've worked closely with the city and with Metro over many decades now. Within the city, one policy theme has been consistent that initially was opposed by the Metro level of government: It was seeking to intensify the residential base of the central city; to stabilize neighbourhoods and bring more people into the central city. That theme began to be enunciated in the 1970s, found some expression in the official plan of the city in the 1970s, was commented on again during the 1980s and late 1980s and finds particular expression in the current city plan. It's been enormously successful. Experimentation attempting to achieve the same end is illustrated by, for example, the Colonnade on Bloor Street. This was the first mixed-use building in Metro Toronto. It was a bold experiment at the time the Colonnade was developed. Here's a mixed-use commercial and residential, unheard of by bureaucratic planners, unheard of at levels other than the city at that time.

I was able to measure the significance of intensifying residential communities, the density of people living downtown in the late 1980s. I had a series of data that were actually from the Metro planning department, which is the level of government that had to exist to create those data. I was able to show exactly what, in terms of reduced commuting, additional people living in the central area meant, and able to calculate what the saving was in infrastructure of having that intensification. It took a long time -- in fact it was only really within the last couple of years that I've been able to persuade Metro of the significance of that finding and to persuade them to adopt the same perspective the city has towards intensification -- just an example of a perspective of a singular level of government.

It's an illustration as well of the importance of having a level of government that relates to the central part of this great metropolis. The Metro level, at 2.3 million people, is just too big to relate to the central core, no matter how narrowly or widely you define that core. We need a level of government that's really responsive to issues in the central core, business issues as well as residential issues.

I think that Bill 103 gets the structure of government wrong. I'm not the first to say that a single Metro-wide government is too large to be locally responsive and experimental, to deal with issues of the central city, to deal with those issues, but too small to deal with the GTA-wide issues. I fear that if we create a megacity, we'll not then later be able to create the kind of structure over the greater Toronto area that we really need at this point.

One final set of comments; The problems that I believe exist for the central part of Metropolitan Toronto that would be created by a single city are going to be exacerbated by companion pieces of legislation: market value assessment and proposed legislation on disentanglement. Many aspects of disentanglement are admirable, and the Conservative government has certainly got the right end of the stick in attempting to deal with disentanglement issues, but the net effect of downloading welfare, social housing and chronic care costs is going to be very hard not just on Toronto but on many municipalities, coupled with market value assessment.

I realize that, unlike amalgamation, many people have recommended market value assessment. The difficulty with it for the central city is that it is taxing according to location, according to value of property. Lots can be said about municipal property tax and many different ways of taxing; one isn't more fair than another. What is clear is that if you tax according to location, essentially taxing on value, which is market value assessment, you discourage the development both of business and residences in the high-valued areas. It's a fairly simple equation, and that works against concentration rather than for concentration, which is what we want. I'm concerned that Bill 103 alone, but packaged with other pieces of legislation, is going to work against the very things that I think we all would like to see happen in Toronto/GTA.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr Nowlan, for interrupting you, but we've already gone a little bit beyond your allotted time. I want to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for coming forward today and making a presentation. Thank you very much.

KAREN MCMILLAN-AVER

The Chair: Would Karen McMillan-Aver come forward, please. Good evening and welcome to the committee.

Ms Karen McMillan-Aver: Good evening. As has been noted, my name is Karen McMillan-Aver. I would like to thank you for allowing me the time to come and address this committee and explain why I am supportive of Bill 103. I'd like to begin my presentation with an illustrative story.

Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded, but thereafter man had fire to keep him warm, to cook his food, to light his caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory, but thereafter men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the doors of the world.

1940

That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadow of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this is in common: The step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed and the response they received was hatred. The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anaesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

In my opinion, Bill 103 is only a first step to returning power to the local level, only a first step to reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly.

I am a small business person who works and lives in the city of Etobicoke. As you are all aware, small business is the engine that is driving job creation both in this city and in this province. As a city, we should be doing whatever is possible to help the creation and the fostering of these small businesses.

For someone who is interested in opening a small business, the current system of approvals and regulations is a complete nightmare. The six municipalities have different rules on everything from how to put a sign outside your business to whether or not people can smoke in your restaurant. There are currently over 184,300 bylaws among the seven municipal governments. Once you figure out what the rules are and you get approvals from the local municipality, you may have to go through the same routine to get the go-ahead from Metro. It's a waste of time, and in business time is money.

People often say that today's municipal boundaries are artificial, that they don't mean anything. But to many small businesses they mean a lot. They mean that your business may be facing unfair competition because of the municipality you happen to be in. For example, if you own a restaurant on a boundary road like Victoria Park, you may have different hydro rates and smoking regulations than the restaurant across the street, just because the local councils made different rules. It's not fair and it's not good business.

I ask you, what major corporation has the luxury of maintaining a corporate head office with six autonomous divisions within a 15-mile radius? It's not only unthinkable; it's absurd.

Small businesses are important to the health and prosperity of neighbourhoods. They also add and respond to the unique characteristics of their community. It is important that community needs are reflected in how communities are planned and developed. Neighbourhood committees will be established to provide advice and feedback to council, and consultation will take place about other ways to ensure local needs are considered in the planning process.

A unified Toronto will have more clout internationally and will have a better chance of attracting investment to the area and boosting the local economy. That's good news for small businesses. When the local economy is strong and people have jobs, they spend money in their communities and in your businesses.

Local governments have a significant influence over how cities grow and develop. The Toronto area is seen internationally and locally as a good place to live, to work, and to visit. But the current system is faltering. You are not here to be managers of decline. Not adaptable to today's environment is a metropolitan area with boundaries that don't make sense, an area that cannot compete effectively internationally because it doesn't speak with one voice. A unified Toronto allows us to remain a diverse, exciting, friendly place to live and work. That kind of positive environment is needed for your businesses to thrive.

My father remembers the last time Toronto went through the amalgamation process. Today many of the concerns that were made at the time have been borne out to be inaccurate. We might no longer have the communities of Weston, Swansea and Mimico, but these communities still exist and thrive.

Since 1970 Toronto has become suburbanized to an extent that was rarely thought of even in the mid-1950s. Although it's tempting to consider these suburban areas as outer cities, with characteristics somewhat independent from those in the inner city, a corollary to the major theme of decentralization is that the suburbs are linked to the central city and the future of Toronto depends on a more coordinated management of all its parts, suburbs included.

In the context of the Metro-wide government, what is needed to address many of the disparities between the suburbs and the urban GTA are government policies. The extent to which these policies are possible depends not only on the willingness of governments to implement corrective policies, but also on their ability to do so. This government has that mandate and it is about time a democratically elected government made these needed changes.

It is one of the tasks of urban government to ensure that all services and opportunities over which it has jurisdiction are available to all the inhabitants of an urban area. For the last 43 years, a Metro-wide government has propelled our growth, providing emergency services and an expanding network of community and social services, and has done so smoothly and accurately; so well, in fact, that there is an inherent misconception which exists in Toronto that citizens think it's their local cities and mayors that provide many of these services. In reality, Metro regional government delivers almost three quarters of the services on an amalgamated basis right now. Bill 103 and one unified city will be able to fulfil delivery of the other quarter of the services.

We cannot forget that culture and ethnicity are profound factors in shaping cities in this part of the world. This is because the Toronto experience is the product of mobility, with people coming from many different parts of the world and bringing with them a variety of cultural backgrounds. When people settle, they move into a neighbourhood, not a ward or a municipality. Hence we have Little Italy, Little Portugal, Chinatown and Greektown, to name a few. If you haven't already noticed, these generally transcend municipal boundaries. Most social spaces within urban areas arise from the wide variety of cultural and economic attributes of individuals and households.

The profusion of local governments in the Toronto area is enormous. Although Metropolitan Toronto consists of a federation of five municipalities and one central city, there are also 94 special government bodies that are variously concerned with providing services, management, regulation and utilities. This confusing and highly fragmented pattern of local government here in Toronto is considered by other cities and countries as a bureaucratic nightmare, and almost impossible to comprehend.

The Chair: Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt, ma'am, but you're going to have to wind up. You've come to the end of your allotted time.

Ms McMillan-Aver: I believe that we will more likely notice very little change. The big change will be that the system will more than likely be less confusing.

I believe the whole issue comes down to one fundamental question, are you entitled to the fruits of your own labour or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend? It seems to me that those opposing Bill 103 would simply adopt the following philosophy: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Change is necessary. Toronto cannot continue to be great without it. Bill 103 is part of this government's commitment to continue to bring hope, growth and opportunity to the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

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

1950

GORDON BREMNER

The Chair: Would Gordon Bremner please come forward. Good evening, Mr Bremner, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Gordon Bremner: I don't want to put everybody to sleep tonight. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm a small businessman in Scarborough. We're in the transportation business, we're in the warehousing business and we're in the international freight-forwarding business. If anybody wants any freight moved, just give us a call.

As a small businessman, opposition to the megacity proposal is not an issue on which I am prepared to take time during regular business hours. Consequently, I'm here tonight and I hope I don't bore you.

We've lived in the now city of Scarborough since 1967; started our own business in Scarborough in 1982, locating in a rental unit in the Morningside-Sheppard area, enjoying all of the same amenities -- garbage collection, snow removal, police and fire protection etc -- as we do at our residence.

My concerns here tonight include law enforcement. We had our home broken into twice during the 1980s, which necessitated our acquiring a monitored alarm system. At both break-ins the investigating officers told us they knew who the offenders were but could do nothing about it. We were advised there was not enough money for police protection in our area. We're in 42 Division. I don't know, we might have five cruisers now, maybe seven, but they don't have a lot of equipment. The other reason they gave us was the Young Offenders Act. I don't have the smarts to have a lot of knowledge about all of these rules, regulations and all of that kind of thing. I'm just saying to you we've got a problem with law enforcement.

The other area that has bothered us is garbage collection. First of all, we got it reduced. Garbage collection was reduced from twice to once per week -- apparently to save money, according to the politicians -- at both our business and our residence. In 1988, we expanded our business and purchased a condominium farther north and west of our previous location. We installed a monitored burglar and fire alarm system and in 1996 our industrial condominium was burglarized.

We were told again that there was not enough money for proper police protection. No restaurants up in our area, so the policemen don't go up there because they don't get any free coffees up there. That's what was told to us and I guess we've got to somehow or another find some restaurants for the policemen so they'll get up to the north end of the city and get our police protection looked after.

All through the 1990s we paid to have garbage removed from our industrial premises that's been dumped by people on weekends, who apparently have nowhere else to dispose of their old mattresses, cement blocks, toys and everything else; a real problem in our part of Scarborough, in the industrial areas and where we live in Scarborough.

Next thing: Garbage collection is eliminated. "Businessmen have got lots of money. They can afford to get rid of everything. Businessmen can pay whatever they have to pay. Residents are the people we've got to look after." In December 1996 we were advised that garbage collection would be eliminated on December 10. In response to my letter to the mayor, he advised that garbage collection was being discontinued to all industrial establishments. After lengthy research and review, I'm leaving you a copy of the mayor's letter.

Our mayor yells from the rooftops that there must be dialogue before changes are made. Our Scarborough mayor is seeking support from the business community for his fight against the megacity while he has discontinued garbage collection for all of us in Scarborough, so I don't know where his support's coming from. Just ask one business owner when they knew discontinuation of garbage collection to businesses was being discussed at council.

Mr Parker: Consultation.

Mr Bremner: That's consultation. The reality is that almost all, if not all, business in Scarborough no longer receives garbage collection, according to Scarborough works department personnel who attended our premises. Most garbage collection to business was discontinued in August 1996 and the balance when it happened to us in December 1996.

Recently I attended a megacity meeting at my local public school. At least 50 people were there. I only saw, sat beside and talked to one member of my community and the president of the association, also a long-time resident. We've resided in Scarborough since 1967. My wife and I raised a family of three. All my local neighbours were not there. I don't know who all these other people were. I really don't know, honestly. Who were these other people? I never saw them before. We've lived and raised three children there since 1967. Quite honestly, I haven't talked to many neighbours recently because of the cold winter and working at our business, but I suspect that their non-attendance mirrors my position. They are happy with the proposed changes.

Who supports the government's initiative? My neighbours did not attend the megacity meetings held in our local school. Does it mean my neighbours are not interested or does it mean that as paying property owners they agree with the provincial government's actions? Who wants a continuation of this dog-and-pony show the local politicians are orchestrating? Who wants the mayor of Scarborough, a former Liberal provincial member of Parliament, spending our money running a so-called plebescite, and what is a plebiscite? An expression of the popular will. We don't need a popular will on this. It's garbage. If people are not interested and don't participate in the mayor's plebiscite and the totals are in favour of the status quo, what does that mean?

Our local Metro councillor published the results of his survey, which indicated a vast majority in favour of the megacity, but what was the number of responses in relation to the number asked? What does it mean or not mean? Who legitimately opposes the megacity issue? Not the local politicians; not the opposition; not the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto.

If they are legitimate, what are their alternatives? The issue has been studied to death. Opponents seem to attempt to add some legitimacy to the opposition of the megacity issue because apparently the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto opposes this issue. Let's examine their motives. Just like other cities, we have a Scarborough chamber of commerce. Who is the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto speaking for? The business and property owners of the city of Toronto who will be charged the same tax level as every other business in the surrounding cities have been paying for years.

Today at our condominium we, like most businesses in Scarborough, are paying our realty taxes, in our case $12,000 for 9,400 square feet of warehouse space -- it used to be $16,000 before we appealed -- paying to have our garbage removed, which used to be part of the cost of our realty taxes. In addition to that, we pay business taxes and, like every other resident, pay hydro, water etc. What are we paying business tax for? What are we paying realty taxes for?

The megacity proposal is a business decision. As a businessman, common sense tells me the megacity proposal will result in less cost to the taxpayer; fewer politicians -- less cost; elimination of duplication -- less cost; financial responsibility -- you mean to say we're finally going to get these politicians, put our finger on them and say, "Guys, you're not increasing the taxes. You can't blame it on Metro. You can't blame it on Ontario. You can't blame it on Ottawa." Hopefully, we're going to have them right where we want them and when we have them right where we want them, at last we're going to have one city, Toronto.

Interestingly -- I know you people have been sitting here and I apologize for taking your time -- if we had put together all of the financial and human resources that we have used up here into job creation, everybody would be back to work. There's an old saying: If you're hard at work rowing the boat, you're too busy to rock it. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bremner. You've used up exactly your allotted time. Thank you for coming forward to make your presentation tonight.

2000

CLIFF FLAHERTY

The Chair: Mr Cliff Flaherty, please. Good evening, Mr Flaherty, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Cliff Flaherty: My name is Cliff Flaherty. I was born and raised in the city of Toronto. I own my own business and I have actively participated in the Toronto business community for over 30 years. I, like a great many of my business associates, am very concerned about the circus atmosphere that's been created by some special interest groups regarding the amalgamation.

The process that seeks to reform government is not unique to Toronto. The search for ways to make government more efficient and less costly has been going on for many years in all centres around the world. There are 19 mega-metropolis areas in the world, and from a global perspective, these centres are designated as the world's true megacities because they have a population of more than 10 million residents.

An important fact that I found out in my research on megacities is that their neighbourhoods are flourishing, crime is no more a problem than here in Toronto, and the municipal costs are lower. So it's easy to understand when I tell you that governments like these continually search for ways to reduce waste and duplication and lower the taxes, and we should be no different. The trouble is that we in Ontario were left behind in meeting these challenges, and now we are just beginning to deal with some of these restructuring issues.

To give this process some perspective, it's worth reviewing that in preparation for the last election, business people like myself were asked what were their serious concerns with the government. They wanted government to get out of the way of their business, to deregulate, to simplify and do what it could to return the province to responsible fiscal management. At the same time, the residents said they wanted to eliminate waste, duplication and overlap and to reduce the taxes. We do not need every layer -- federal, municipal, quasi-governmental bodies, regional, municipal and school boards -- that we now have. We must rationalize the region and the municipal levels to avoid the overlap and duplication that now exists.

Toronto is recognized as one of the most vibrant cities in the world and among the best to live in, to work and to raise a family. It is also the driving force behind Canada's economy. Most of us recognize that a single Toronto means savings for Metro taxpayers. Polls indicate that greater percentages of residents support a unified city, and even Metro council favours the obvious savings that can be realized from having one unified city.

In fact, up to $865 million over three years could be saved by having one government for the city of Toronto instead of the current seven. My research tells me that Metro will realize $40 million a year in savings because of changes made to the welfare system; another $100 million will be saved, because that's how much we're wasting on property tax appeals; $65 million will be saved annually through the shift of education costs to the province; and $200 million was the amount of savings identified by the six Metro mayors since this process began.

To ensure there are no financial glitches, I'm told there is a $2.5-billion fund available to assist in the transition. That $2.5 billion breaks down in the form of a $1-billion reinvestment fund, an $800-million capital and restructuring fund and a $700-million social assistance fund.

We must have a simplified, equitable arrangement between the province and the municipalities. In exchange for removing the spiralling cost of education from the property tax bill, local government will control services that it makes more sense to have delivered locally. By integrating the delivery of these at the municipal level, the taxpayer receives a higher quality of service at less cost.

Many residents are concerned that the downloading of social costs will spiral costs upwards. I believe this will not be the case, and quite frankly, a lot of high-decibel complaining about this is nothing more than fearmongering. As has been noted, welfare costs have dropped dramatically in the last year, and with proper programs in place there is no reason to believe they will suddenly balloon out of control again. Those who believe these costs can't be controlled give little credit to the abilities of their local representatives.

On the question of referendums, it is too bad that there has been such confusion about this process. I believe the confusion centres around the various referendums that are planned. The question is, how can they actively reflect what residents feel about the proposal? They are nothing more really than opinion surveys. Referendums really don't work when it comes to improving the delivery of government services. Referendums are great for issues like beer in the ballpark or whether we should allow sports on Sunday, but to ask a resident, "Yes or no, do you support the unified Toronto?" is really only asking, "Do you want the status quo or not?" It leaves no room for most residents who genuinely feel they must look for ways to reduce waste and duplication in government.

Looking from outside Canada's borders, as I do in my business a great deal, no one knows where North York, Etobicoke, East York, Scarborough or York are located, but they recognize Toronto. A unified Toronto will attract more investment, boost the local economy and create jobs. It will allow Torontonians to speak to the world with one voice and put an end to lost opportunities.

I believe that if Toronto had been a unified city, we wouldn't have lost the Olympic bid to Atlanta. We would have been able to prepare a much stronger proposal as a unified economic, business and cultural centre.

A unified Toronto will enhance neighbourhood input because people will have input into decisions through the formation of neighbourhood committees. Volunteer bodies will advise the new city council, and that means more accountability at the local level.

It is worth noting, as was recently written in a Toronto Star editorial, that 72% of services in Metro are already delivered region-wide, exactly as they would be under the new proposal. The Toronto Star added that this system has quietly gone about keeping the metropolitan area ticking, but all the while there has been a common misconception: Most residents still believe their local cities and mayors provide the ambulance, the water, the TTC, the police, the hostels and the day care.

In the Toronto Sun yesterday there was an interesting article, and I quote:

"I was reading recently where a committee recommended expansion of the metropolitan area far beyond the present.... This group wanted to go east to Port Union, north to Aurora, northwest to Brampton and west to Oakville.

"The proposed governance was quite radical and lean, with each powerful commissioner looking after several things, such as health, water and sewers."

Excuse me, the Toronto air has given me asthma and I have a little trouble sometimes.

Mr Silipo: Unified air too.

Mr Flaherty: Bring some in from Hamilton maybe.

"I tipped my hand by that mention of Port Union, now remembered just as a big road. The clipping was from the Evening Telegram of September 3, 1913. But then there are those who say, hey, we've got plenty of time, why rush into this? Let's take another year, or even 80."

In closing, I would like to just make a point for you folks on the committee. I know you have been very busy listening to all sorts of deputations, but I would just like to say that you were not elected to manage an out-of-date system; you were elected because you're the leaders in your various ridings. You have been given a mandate and you will be evaluated at the next election. I wish you every success and I encourage you to please get on with the job.

I support this bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Flaherty. You too have effectively used up all of your allotted time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward this evening and making your presentation.

2010

GREGORY SOKOLOFF

The Chair: Would Gregory Sokoloff please come forward. I hope I've pronounced that right, sir.

Mr Gregory Sokoloff: Perfectly, thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: You have 10 minutes this evening to make your presentation. If there's some time remaining at the end of your presentation I'll ask Mr Colle from the Liberal caucus to ask questions.

Mr Sokoloff: I'll try to break with tradition and leave some time.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to express my opinions on Bill 103. I'm a businessman and a resident of Rosedale in Toronto and, to be more specific, I work in the computer software sector. In my career I've worked for big companies like IBM. I've started up successful new firms and I spent a better part of a decade as vice-president in one of the largest software firms in the world.

I have, in my career, made decisions about whether to place jobs in Toronto or to move them to the United States. Today I'd like to address Bill 103 from my personal experience. I'd like to look at one aspect of it. I don't think it's the most important aspect, but nevertheless it might be interesting to you folks, and that is the effect the bill would have on the software industry in my opinion. I think this might also be interesting to the government members since I believe they would like strongly to promote industries like the software industry.

Before beginning, let me just state a couple of assumptions that I don't think are very controversial. The first is that the primary benefit of having high-technology industries in Ontario is the high-wage jobs they produce and all of the attendant benefits of high-wage jobs. They bring a lot of money into the consumer sector, they promote local investment, and of course they produce larger tax revenues under our progressive tax scheme which can be used to fund social programs. I think both sides of the House would like to see more of these kinds of jobs created in Ontario.

The software industry tends to have a very high proportion of high-wage jobs since the major costs in the business are for the engineering staff salaries and for marketing and sales. Another benefit of high-tech industries of course is that they tend to be very much export-driven. Domestic markets tend to make a small proportion of their total revenues. This, of course, helps the balance of trade and has many other economic benefits.

The second assumption I would like to state is that you can develop software successfully anywhere that you can convince engineers and managers to live. You will find software firms of various sizes all over North America in the most surprising places. The key factor is whether you can recruit and convince people to live in a certain location. There are other factors, but I think that is the most important factor.

Now let me proceed to my main argument. I believe that Toronto has three competitive advantages in attracting these kinds of jobs.

The first is education. Ontario has a number of universities like the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo that have world-class computer science and engineering programs, and the graduates from those programs are sought after by firms all over North America. They're very actively recruited. I know because I've been in competitions to recruit these individuals against companies from all over North America, like Microsoft, and companies like Microsoft are successful in luring a certain number of these candidates to move out of the province.

The second comparative advantage of Toronto is its cost structure. Ever since the Canadian dollar dropped into the 70-cent region, Toronto has been a cheaper place to develop software than comparable locations in the United States. A couple of years ago an accounting firm did a detailed study on this and the bottom line, as I recall, was that it was roughly 17% cheaper. That was a very complicated study, but the net effect for the life of a firm was 17% less expense. That's primarily due to lower wages once you translate the currency.

The third comparative advantage of Toronto is the amenities. The quality of life in Toronto attracts and retains engineers and managers. I don't need to go into listing these ingredients. You've probably heard them a million times from all the deputations here. I'll just say the good schools, low crime rate, cultural offerings and so forth make for a place where people want to stay.

I want to emphasize that these are not theories of mine. I just bring these points up because I've actually had personal experience of them. At one point in my career I was given the choice of locating a growing development organization in Seattle, moving it to Seattle from Toronto. It was my decision, it could work either way, and I chose to keep it in Toronto because I like living in Toronto and I thought Toronto would help to make this operation successful. I thought I could attract top-quality engineers and I thought I could retain top-quality management and build up a very good team.

To the extent that government policy strengthens the comparative advantages of education, cost structure and amenities, I believe the software sector and high-tech in general will add more jobs to the GTA. Conversely, to weaken these advantages I believe will shortchange us of good jobs.

I don't think anything I've said so far leads automatically to support or opposition to Bill 103. In fact, I was hoping that by now some of you would be on the edge of your seat wondering which way I was going go. I guess I succeeded. Let me state a couple of concerns I have about Bill 103 that I would be interested in hearing the government address.

The first concern is that the downloading of social costs to the new Toronto has a good possibility of increasing the cost structure for doing business in Toronto through higher office rents and higher housing costs, residential housing costs. At the same time, I believe the 905 area will become too cheap to pass up by comparison and more companies will move up there. If you go up to Richmond Hill today you'll find a very quickly growing community of high technology firms like Compaq and so forth. If the only cost-justifiable place to locate is outside Toronto, then why not locate just as easily in an American suburb. Richmond Hill loses some of the comparative advantages that Toronto has.

My second fear is that the cocktail changes proposed by the government will hurt the quality of life within Toronto. My concern here is mostly based on the government not adopting the priorities of the Golden report and the Crombie panel of providing a GTA regional government first, then tackling amalgamation or some degree of municipal reorganization.

Having expressed these concerns, I must make one unequivocal point. The government has not made a remotely convincing case for its plan. Even if it's a good plan, it has not done a good job of convincing many people that it's a good plan. If I had a marketing department in a corporation charged with selling the virtues of Bill 103 and the sibling bills, and they had in three short months provoked the ire of every conceivable expert, natural ally and a good number of normally docile citizens without, as far as I can see, winning many converts, I would have invited whoever was in charge to a great career in another company.

Does the government sincerely believe that the sweeping changes it proposes will indeed benefit the GTA, despite the fact that it seems unable to argue its case effectively? Or, more sinisterly, is the government competent but insincere, intentionally dividing to rule by writing off Toronto in the belief that it will gain support from the rest of the province? I don't know the answer to this question. It's maybe the most intriguing political question I've seen from a tactical point of view in the last decade.

However, I will say until I see a convincing case that the path the government is on will not lead to Toronto becoming another American-style city, as its critics contend, I will be voting with I imagine the majority of Metro residents against the megacity.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We have one minute remaining. Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: I could give that to the government side. They would maybe like to answer Mr Sokoloff's question.

The Vice-Chair: Go ahead, Mr Hastings.

2020

Mr Hastings: One of the major justifications, in my estimation, for amalgamation is tax competitiveness. If you look at Statistics Canada studies, we are the tax champion of the western world, no doubt about it: 4.1% of gross national product is taken out by property taxes, compared to the United States at 3.1%, Germany at 1.1%, the UK at 2.1% approximately. Those are my recalls of the statistics.

Given that situation, that is a terrible inhibitor, I would think in your estimation, to job creation, which you've alluded to, and that's one of the fundamental justifications for the bill in my estimation. When you have a non-competitive tax situation like that, then you must do something about it. Whether you do not like the fair tax system, MVA, AVA, unit value, the existing property tax system in Metropolitan Toronto is fundamentally broken. It's a job inhibitor, and I would think, from your perspective as a businessperson, that in itself would be one central thing that you would take into your consideration before you cast your ballot in whatever city you're in within Metro from February 27 through to March 3.

Mr Sokoloff: I think you've raised a number of complicated issues. As far as the overall tax regime and how it affects business, of course you can't treat property tax in isolation. From my reading, in the Economist anyway, Canada places somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as overall taxes go, if you take into account all of the taxes involved.

Nevertheless, the main point I made was that if you look at the overall cost of doing business, right now Toronto is more competitive than the United States, based on the current tax regime. What I object to, and I've had to justify this in front of corporate executives in the United States, is the fact that there is a big differential developing in office rents between the city and the surrounding area, and I believe this is going to have a deleterious effect.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt. I realize you're into a very complicated discussion here, but we're well over time. Thank you very much for presenting here this evening.

NICK EGNATIS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Nick Egnatis. Good evening and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Nick Egnatis: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm happy to be here. I'm sorry but I don't have anything to present to you that's documented in evidence as an expert. A neighbour of mine was supposed to be here and I'm taking his place. What I have to say to you will come as a private citizen and it will come from the heart.

I first came to Canada in 1948. We lived at Queen and Coxwell. After that, we moved to Broadview and Danforth, then we lived at Mortimer and Greenwood in East York, and currently I'm in North York. I've had businesses in every section of the city. I have a sister buried in Prospect Cemetery. My father and mother are buried in Pine Hills in Scarborough. In my opinion, I think you're behind me. This is my city and it's not East York and it's not Scarborough and it's not North York, even though Mel Lastman would not like to hear that. This is my Toronto. I'm proud of it. If I thought that what you're trying to do was wrong, I would say it is.

I'm also a small businessman and in my particular business -- I'm a real estate broker -- from time to time I appear in front of councils, of which I'm sure most of you are aware. My father and I bought a property in Scarborough in 1965 and I tried to develop it. Let me tell you, I was discouraged from the outside by the janitor when I walked into the planners because they figured I'm the owner and I'm going to bungle it and I'm going to spoil the neighbourhood. They tried every which way from Sunday to discourage me and I said: "I bought it. I'm going to develop it and if you don't deal fairly with me, you've got my three sons coming after me," but I'll tell you, it's impossible to do anything.

I plead with you, because you're all in positions of responsibility, and I'm not talking about one side or the other; all of you are the same in this respect. It's impossible for the small man to compete. There are so many rules, so many regulations, so many professionals, so many studies, so many referrals, that you're making it a game for the big man only. What happens is that the small people pay, because there's no competition.

I opened a restaurant with my father in West Hill in 1960. There were 160 to 170 builders who used to come for coffee in the morning. A builder right now is afraid to touch a lot because he doesn't know if it's going to take him two days, two months or 20 years to build. If you go to the banker and you can't give him an estimate of time, you won't get the loan, so it's impossible. I'm getting away from what I came here for.

I just wanted to let you know that when you make all the rules and all the regulations to catch everybody, a lot of innocent people get caught in that big net. It's the little guys who create the jobs. I'm a little guy today. Some people think I'm a developer and they put a big title on me, but I'm not embarrassed to tell you that I still work seven days a week. If you want to come and see me on my site, you can; you're welcome.

Am I in favour of less government? You want to believe it. Am I in favour of taking shortcuts? No, I'm not. Am I in favour of protecting the environment? Yes, I am. I have three children, I have grandchildren, and I want to leave a better place for them. But I want to have even rules. I don't want the guys in front of me because something happened to waltz through but I have to comply with it. It should be even for all.

AVA assessment: In my business, when I take a young couple through a town house in Scarborough or in other parts of town and they have to pay more taxes than someone living in a large house, that's not fair. I'm advocating that and it's going to cost me personally more money, but there's got to be fairness in the system. Just like you, we've got to practise what we preach. Fair is fair. I also have very deep feelings that I don't think someone who has worked all their life should be under adverse conditions. I have a client in East York in Parkview Hill. His taxes are more than what he built the house for. I don't think that gentleman should be forced to go out of his house; I'm not coming from that address. But I think fairness should be in the system.

School boards: The property tax not being on the education bill I'm very strongly in favour of. Welfare, public housing, non-profit housing -- I don't think they belong on the property tax bill. In my opinion, even if the tax bill were to be smaller, judging from the public I serve, there would be too much anxiety and too much worry about not being able to budget and foresee and know what their tax bill would be next year. People are already worried right now. Sometimes there's not the right impression out in the marketplace. To some people, a home is more important than other things, and just because they have a better home they don't have a bigger income; they sacrifice in other areas in order to stay in the home. Using the home for this end of the government on the property tax, I don't think I can support that.

Having said that, as a businessman I also don't believe in saying to my son or a member of my family: "Here, son. Here's my credit card. You go and spend it, and for every dollar you spend, I'll pay 80 cents." I like to have control of the card, so maybe if the government wants to have some kind of control, that's something for you people to figure out. That's what your job is.

There's something else that bothers me as an individual that I have to let you know. This is my first visit to this building ever since I came to Canada. I'm not normally a political animal. Maybe it's because I'm older -- I don't want to repeat myself -- but I want to leave a better place for my kids and grandkids. I'm getting a little bit tired of special interest groups just pounding and pounding and pounding away. I don't begrudge them in what they're after or for promoting what they want, but please respect my rights too. I've voted for governments that got elected; I've voted for governments that got defeated. I always obey it.

As a matter of fact, one of the things I'm very proud of -- I don't think there are better people than Canadian people in the fact that I just can't stand having the Bloc as the opposition, but I cannot respect Canadians more for allowing them the democratic right to be the official opposition until they get voted out or whatever happens. That's a beautiful system that we have and it's to be admired. I know in other places in other parts of the world they wouldn't have that. I really admire that. I say again, I don't disrespect the special interests, but please don't speak for all of us, because you don't speak for me. I don't like to see my city close.

2030

I've been a small businessman all my life. To me, even to a multimillionaire, a customer is a customer and you look after them. If you don't want to look after them, close your door. But it's not someone you disrespect.

I used to take my children, put them in the car and go skating at Nathan Phillips Square. I've gone skating in the Scarborough Town Centre. I live at Victoria Park and Sheppard. I do more business and have more friends in Scarborough. North York is where my address is. I have a lot of connections in Scarborough. I can't understand what the big difficulty is. This is our city. What is the problem?

I hear experts coming from all over the place. I'm doing a project in Highland Creek. I have people there from all over the place. We're crossing borders. Mr Gilchrist over there, I'm around the corner from him, but he doesn't know it.

It's our city. Please take care of it. We all want to make it better. One thing I always say: Who's bringing these reforms in? Well, we know who's bringing them in, so if all of a sudden my taxes go higher and my clients' taxes go higher, in the next election I'll get off my fanny and I'll start to work and I'll elect somebody else. It's very simple.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here this evening.

JAMES WADDELL

The Vice-Chair: Is James Waddell here, please. Good evening, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr James Waddell: To the Chair and to the members of the committee, thank you for providing the opportunity to speak to you this evening.

I will begin by commending the official opposition and the members of the third party for their determined and effective efforts at holding the government to account both here and in the Legislature. This is one of your roles in a democracy. I'd also like to thank the numerous deputants who preceded me. In the main, they have been sincere. They addressed many of the feelings we all share when reconciling the need for change with the difficult tradeoffs which come with it.

To the women and men of the government, I bring thanks and commendation for your efforts to re-establish rational governance, integrity and common sense to the provincial domain. To Messrs Gilchrist and Leach particularly, my household apologizes for the ill manners and near slanders which have been visited upon you. These have come from less-than-well-meaning citizens, some of their municipally elected representatives and particularly the doubly left-footed visionaries of previous electoral fame and folly whose timeless charm, when outflanked and outmanoeuvred, is to respond with that age-old cry to man the barricades, fill the trenches and fight the good fight once again. The insolvency of these so-called reformers and activists is encapsulated in their arguments. What is most glaring to even the most casual observer, though, is that the group that once stood for change, progressivity and responsiveness now asks us to revolt for the status quo. But on to the issue of amalgamation and the facts as our household sees them.

The current system of municipal government highlights the degree to which Canadians are the most overgoverned democratic nation on earth. At the municipal level, we have a proliferation of organizations which address the needs of narrow interest groups, with minimal accountability back to the elected officials who advocated them or to the taxpayer who pays for them. This is a divisive process for taxpayers, who turn off, tune out and stop voting. Your bill, as proposed, will lead to less government; it will refocus much-deserved attention, accountability and broader participation at the municipal level.

Much has been made of the issue of accessibility. Speaking as a resident of Toronto, I find the issue primarily moot, based upon the following simple numeric reasoning: I currently have a municipal councillor serving approximately 40,000 people and a Metro councillor serving approximately 90,000; after amalgamation, my councillor will serve 50,000 people.

The numbers speak for themselves. A 25% increase in constituents will not diminish accessibility. In fact, the decrease in the size of a Metro constituency by nearly 45% may lead to more accessibility to that level of government, which, it is proposed, will spend 100% of the municipal revenue. Understanding that money is the grease that makes politics function leads me to believe that the guys and gals at the new level of government will be making themselves pretty accessible.

Accessibility is also a geographic issue. Again, as a Torontonian I have little to complain about when it comes to the proposed changes and how they relate to accessibility. The worst-case scenario is that my municipal government moves two or three blocks to the west. No, I guess the worst-case scenario is that they might dream up another Metro Hall. I am confident that the new government can and will find innovative ways to deliver governance to all of us.

As an aside, the suburban vote at Metro has had an absolute majority over the urban core for some time now. There is little evidence which shows that Toronto proper has been ill treated during this time.

I would now like to address some of the elements of this debate which have raised, or perhaps lowered, the level of discussion to rhetoric, hyperbole and cliché, so what better way to start off than with a cliché?

Just as big is not always better, small is not always beautiful. Nowhere is this more evident than in Toronto. While we have much to be credited with for responding to people and soft issues, we have been markedly negligent in delivering the hard services which are at the core of municipal government. From the embarrassing ratio of management to hourly staff, to the featherbedding within parks and recreation, public works and sanitation, we have not delivered value for money.

These disparities in effectiveness are not, as our council weakly suggests, because our population doubles in size daily. While perhaps not doubling, each of our sister municipalities and borough experience the same phenomenon every working day. Does this explain twice-weekly garbage pickup in some areas, publicly shovelled walks in others, and recreational facilities every bit our equal and programs often exceeding our own in quality and quantity? I think not.

Like other presenters to this committee, I too had wished to bring a few props, namely, my property tax bills. My residential property bill is $2,400 per year for a semidetached home of 2,500 square feet. A multi-unit dwelling I have an interest in, with units approximating 800 square feet in area, pays more than $1,700 per unit. The ratios are progressively odious for commercial strip developments and multifloored commercial buildings. I thank Mr Seiling of the hotel and restaurant association for reminding me of the tax liability per room burdening the job-creating dynamism of his industry.

Listen to my council: The true democrats defend democracy and taxation without representation. When I hear the Toronto council on this and many other hard-service issues, I hear the distasteful sound of simultaneous sucking and blowing, which brings me to a second core responsibility of municipal government, namely, careful nurturing of the residential and commercial tax base, with particular emphasis upon the central business district. Since 1985 our council has completely lost its compass on this issue. Whether it be Ataratiri, development of the docklands, the rail lands or Cathedral Square, succeeding councils have managed the dubious distinction of choking off meaningful expansion of the tax base on some of the most desirable land in Canada; its development could have been done at private expense and risk.

2040

Providence does smile upon us again, though, because these properties now represent the most modestly priced commercial real estate in a rapidly globalizing world. I ask you, is a city of Toronto council the best level of government to be managing the progress of this region, considering that they gave us an executive golf course in place of a mixed-use, privately funded development? Is an inward-looking city of Toronto council which continues to dither over unshackling a proven job creator, namely the Island Airport, the best level of government to be nurturing the progress of a region?

The facts speak for themselves. Toronto has a long-term debt approaching half a billion dollars and hard infrastructure, pipes, roads and sewers crying out for repair. Our rival for development, Mississauga, has zero debt and a reserve fund of half a billion dollars. Our prospective amalgamees also have good balance sheets. A few more convention centres, racetracks or casinos are not the answer to the revitalization of the central core or the region; I know that renewed private capital investment, fully at risk and not backstopped by any level of government guarantee is. I believe that the majority of these opportunities have wider implications and require a single level of municipal governance to realize the vision rather than just the platitude of being a world-class city.

A number of reports concerning amalgamation have focused on the potential for hard dollar savings. I analysed the mayors' and Metro's effort and was doubly amused. I have also read the KPMG report and Professor Sancton's contribution. The salient point is that arguing about how much or how little savings is a mug's game. Mr Cox provided the most important element to realizing savings in this amalgamation when he stated that the only way to get hard dollar savings is through the mandatory tendering of municipal services. My conclusion: I believe that the forecasts of savings represent the tip of the iceberg. Please include an amendment requiring mandatory tendering of municipal services in this legislation.

I had thought of closing today by pointing out how similar much of the No rhetoric is to the type of argument we hear from separatists in Quebec. I probably would have had some pretty good parallels: a group which funds only one side of the debate; leaders who mix facts, misrepresent numbers and constantly shift their position based upon the latest hot button from the latest opinion poll or focus group. But I will not; I wish to end the way I began, with congratulations and a short, sincere apology.

The commendation goes to the current government. Any group that has the political will to skewer all of the sacred cows in Ontario has intestinal fortitude. The braying from each respective sector also speaks mountains. You men and very able women are on to something here. Continue your good works. Leadership has pitfalls, but in the norm it is duly rewarded.

My apology is to the borough of East York. As a small municipality competing among behemoths, you have displayed nimbleness, innovation, parsimony and accessibility. Amalgamation, I agree, is an unjust reward for you. I would ask the committee to include two alterations to Bill 103 and title them the East York amendments. The first alteration would see that the steering committee for the design of the proposed local councils would have a designated member from East York in its composition. The second alteration would mandate that the cost of general and administration in the new, unified municipality be capped at 8% of gross revenues.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Waddell. You've used your allotted time to the fullest. I want to thank you for coming and making your presentation before the committee this evening.

RICHARD STREN

The Chair: Would Richard Stren please come forward. Good evening, Mr Stren. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Richard Stren: Thank you very much for giving me the chance to address this committee. I'm speaking as an individual and as a local taxpayer in Mr Leach's riding, but I have a long history and experience in the urban field. Currently I'm a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and I'm a director of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies.

In case you didn't know, this is one of the four major urban research centres in Canada and it's the only one of its kind in Ontario. We manage about 40 projects on various urban subjects and we have a faculty complement of 15, and another 15 professionals and administrators. We handle an overall level of projects from $8 million to $10 million at any one time. That's some of the background from which I come.

I want to make two very simple points during the time I have available. Perhaps there will be some time for questions after that.

First of all, I think that some reorganization of the powers and functions of the Metro and GTA area is long overdue. This is a point which has been made by many previous speakers and has been made throughout the community. This is particularly important in view of intergovernmental stress, what is happening between the federal and provincial governments right now, and because of the singular role of large cities in the global economy. It doesn't apply as much to smaller cities.

What this reorganization should look like is quite unclear to me, having read the research literature and having lived in a lot of places and observed a lot of different municipal units. It's not clear what is optimal size of any municipal unit should be or exactly which powers should be vested at which level. Those decisions often have to be left to local experience and to local citizens to work out.

Another question which is unclear is how this should take place. If one is going to massively reorganize a city such as Toronto, how should you do it? Should you simply announce a new structure, as has happened in this Bill 103, or should you do it in another way? That's really a question I have.

Given the enormous numbers of studies on the subject, it seems to me there are at least four major alternatives: One could simply have promoted the status quo and not done very much about the present situation. It might have been possible to reduce the number of municipalities -- some of them are very small and some are financially very weak -- with a reorganized Metro. That would be a second alternative. A third alternative might have been to develop a Metro for the 416 region, which effectively is being done in Bill 103, and also a Metro area for the 905 region including the four large regions outside, Halton, Peel, York and Durham, and to have regulated relations between them by some overarching body. Finally, one might have thought of doing exactly what this bill is doing. I wouldn't say this is the worst possible alternative, but it's not the best. However, it is superior to doing nothing.

Given the alternatives, my preference and that of many of my colleagues would be for a structure that integrated both the 416 and the 905 areas because:

(1) The region is an economic and largely environmentally integrated unit and needs to be administered as one in order to gain maximum benefit for the whole province. If you have something powerful which works, why not take advantage of it?

(2) This solution was the considered opinion of the excellent Golden report and the Who Does What panel, appointed by the government, under David Crombie.

(3) I have heard no good reasons given by the government against doing this, aside from a commitment not to change the government in the four 905 regions.

I would also like to talk about the question of process. As everyone in Toronto and probably outside Toronto knows, there is now a major political movement -- this term was used by the Toronto Star -- against the changes the government wishes to introduce. As you know, this is very unusual in Toronto. Since the Stop Spadina movement of the early 1970s I haven't seen this happen. It has come about for complex reasons, but essentially because of the rapidity and extent of the changes and the failure to adequately consult the community being affected.

In my opinion the sensitivity of many Torontonians, and I include myself very much in this group as I was born here, to this issue resides partly in the fact that municipal institutions are becoming increasingly important in our daily lives, and there are surveys which demonstrate this throughout North America. At the same time, they are going to be even more important over the years because more and more functions and services and perhaps expenditures are going to be downloaded on to us at the municipal level from higher levels of government.

2050

In Canada, unfortunately municipal institutions have no constitutional protection under the BNA Act, where they rate the most minor mention in section 92, sandwiched in between eleemosynary institutions on the one hand and saloons, taverns, auctioneers and other licences, both of which are almost throwaway institutions that the provincial government is responsible for. Of course at the time of Confederation there were very few large cities. Toronto, I think, was about 58,000 at the time, so it wasn't very important, but Toronto is very important now and so are many other cities in the province.

Unfortunately we don't have anything in our Constitution which really speaks to the importance of our cities or to the very real importance we as citizens have vested emotionally, historically and in terms of our use of services in these local institutions.

How unlike the new South African Constitution, which devotes a whole chapter to local government and states that "national and provincial governments may not compromise or impede a municipality's ability or right to exercise its power or perform its functions." Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from our Commonwealth cousins who have fought bitterly for the reinstatement of their democratic institutions.

I don't throw in this example to be sarcastic. I'm very concerned, as I think we all should be as Ontarians who are thinking about the future of our cities, that as municipal institutions we really have no place in the constitutional structure. I believe this is one of the major reasons why people are so sensitive to the changes that are going on now. Thank you.

Mr Silipo: Professor Stren, one of the suggestions that has been made to try to deal with what we have in front of us now and the sense, as you have outlined, from a number of people that the process is as much to blame as the content of what the government is doing, is that the government should pause, take six months to a year if that's what it takes, if it involves even postponing the municipal elections, and really look at some of the other options you've outlined here.

I don't hear too many people at this point in the game trying to defend very hard the status quo. I think there is very much a willingness to look at a different mix, but it seems to me I hear more and more from people out there something that looks closer to what you're suggesting in terms of integrating the two regions, knowing that the unit is really one now, that the concerns that once stopped at Metro don't any more, that somehow we have to come up with solutions that make some changes both at the regional level and at the local level, but to do that in a systematic way that involves people, both politicians and citizens, in a real discussion. Is that something you would encourage the government to do?

Mr Stren: Yes, I agree with that. I think there would be a lot of very good feeling towards such a move on the part of the government from people on all sides of the spectrum. Toronto has been here since 1834, I think, municipal institutions in Ontario have been with us as legislation since 1849 and this is one of the first major changes we've had in Toronto.

I think people would be willing to wait at least a few months or maybe half a year for more discussion of some alternatives. It may be that the alternatives supported would be similar to what the government is suggesting now, but we haven't heard enough arguments for the various alternatives.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Stren, for coming forward and making a presentation this evening.

CAROL BURTIN FRIPP

The Chair: Carol Fripp, good evening and welcome to the committee.

Ms Carol Burtin Fripp: Good evening. My name is Carol Burtin Fripp and I'm president of the Leaside Property Owners' Association, which marks its 50th anniversary this year. We represent 4,000 homes in Leaside, which has been part of the borough of East York since 1967.

Leasiders, by and large, are fairly conservative people. They tend to vote Conservative; they're fiscally cautious; they do not like big government. Leasiders participate actively in how they are governed, coming to LPOA monthly meetings, telling our elected councillors where they stand on the issues and showing up at committee and council meetings to voice their opinions. We are big on volunteerism, giving our time to good causes, joining the home and school associations, belonging to neighbourhood hockey and baseball leagues and historical groups.

A high proportion of Leasiders are pensioners on fixed incomes. We also have a lot of young families. There is a tremendous sense of what Leaside is and of having a community worth working for and, when necessary, worth fighting for.

Leasiders generally favour moves to eliminate overlapping and duplication in government and to rationalize levels of government, but we believe that change, when it comes, should be change for the better, not just for its own sake. We want to know what that change will cost, what it will mean to how we are governed and how we can maintain and protect our neighbourhood.

Now that Bill 103 is upon us, I can assure you that I've heard a lot of comments from our community about the bill and its implications, and about the questions that Bill 103 raises. I'm here tonight to share those comments and questions and concerns with you. Please listen carefully. These are your friends speaking.

Leasiders are asking whether this whole exercise is really about savings and simplifying government. We know there are savings from cutting the number of politicians from 106 to 45, but we ask how many bureaucrats will have to be hired to handle the work of the much larger wards each councillor has to represent. "Politician" may be a dirty word to a lot of people, but "bureaucrat" is worse. For one thing, it's harder to influence bureaucrats than it is to influence politicians. We have a deep and instinctive liking for accountability and a preference for the accountability we can exercise at the ballot box.

The other consideration, of course, is the cost of a bureaucrat versus the cost of a politician. Our local politicians in East York are part-time and we pay them a part-time salary. In East York terms, a full-time bureaucrat at $65,000 a year costs what we pay for three councillors. How many full-time, salaried bureaucrats will we need to hire to replace the part-time politicians which Bill 103 eliminates?

We read in the newspapers that in Halifax central administrative staff increased by 600% after amalgamation. We read that in Winnipeg the full-time politicians with full-time salaries -- they used to be part-time with part-time salaries before amalgamation -- each need ward communication allowances of $45,000 to be able to communicate properly with their constituents. All of this makes Leasiders more than a little uneasy. They are asking, where is the benefit to taxpayers?

We are also reading every day new and different dollar figures for the cost of downloading social services on to our property taxes. Leasiders, by and large, are very nice people, but if you want to enrage them all you have to do is raise their property taxes. We all pay income taxes, but it's property taxes we really notice. They hit, if you will pardon the pun, very close to home.

Ever since I can remember, people at public meetings have said, "If only we could get education off the property tax," and now for the first time ever people are saying, "Leave it there."

There is a tremendous fear of the impact of downloading social welfare and housing on our property tax bill. People are worried that they will lose their homes. Remember, a lot of Leasiders are cash poor and only house rich -- and not just the elderly either.

The tax reform being recommended by the province is also being questioned. Leasiders have long been on record in opposing market value assessment, and by extension, actual or annual value assessment. We think it is too unstable a system on which to base long-range planning. We think that it is unfair to base property taxes solely on market value rather than on the amount of municipal services used or the size of the lot. We think it's wrong to assess a property's value based on sales nearby. We think that value is too subjective a measurement. If you've ever tried to sell your house you'll remember that if you asked six different realtors for a suggested listing price, you probably got six different answers.

We think that ability to pay should factor in somewhere. We think it's grossly unfair to allow a property to be taxed based on what the property could have on it -- potential use -- rather than what is on it.

2100

We think that AVA will lead to more appeals, not fewer appeals, the very problem that AVA proponents say they want to eliminate. I should tell you that in the last municipal campaign when I went from door to door to proselytise on behalf of my candidate, over and over homeowners said, "Just tell me one thing: Is he for or against MVA?" When told that he was against, they said: "Good. That's all I need to know."

Moving right along to amalgamation of the municipalities -- and moving is something that a lot of Leasiders may have to do if the things we are reading about daily are true -- a lot of Leasiders are business people. Many manage or run companies which have merged with other companies. Some are corporate lawyers who have arranged mergers. They are familiar with the complexities merging creates. They know that it takes years to massage corporate cultures, work out everything from regulations to process to human resources to business forms. Bill 103's recommendations will require merging hundreds of thousands of bylaws and over 60 collective agreements. Whether you favour amalgamation or not, this is a formidable challenge, not accomplishable in just a few months.

I mentioned when I began that Leasiders prefer small government to big government. In fact, when Leasiders voted for the Common Sense Revolution, they assumed from comments made by Mr Harris and the recommendations of the Tories' own task force headed by Joyce Trimmer, Al Leach, and Dave Johnson, that it would be the bigger and more costly level of government, the Metro level, which would be eliminated in the name of simplifying government, reducing duplication and cutting costs. Imagine our surprise, to say the least, when Bill 103 recommended erasing the local level of government instead.

Leasiders have not been shy in voicing their reaction. Leaside will go from being one small ward out of four small wards to being a very small piece of a giant ward in a megacity of 44 giant wards. We will go from being the tail which sometimes wags the dog to being the tip of the tail that wags nothing at all, even our local environment. Despite the rhetoric from the minister, that is the clear result of Bill 103.

Again I'll mention the word "accountability." We Leasiders prefer governments which are accessible. That's why we have so much more to do with our local government than with the Metro one. We prefer to deal with the politicians directly, not with appointed community councils made up of volunteers -- chosen by whom? with what criteria? -- a whole third layer of municipal government, and unelected at that. Over and over, people are asking: "How are three layers of municipal government more accountable than the two we have now? How are three layers of municipal government cheaper than what we've got now?" They are also asking: "What happened to getting rid of the Metro layer? We thought this government favoured small government which is closer to the people."

And all of this has happened very quickly; too quickly for most people. I have to tell you that although Leasiders want reform, they resent being pushed into making fast decisions based on uncertain facts and figures. Minister Al Leach has said this has to be done quickly because of deadlines -- I believe he called it a small window -- so that potential candidates can register in time to start raising campaign funds. Also, the actual ward boundaries have not yet been discussed. By the way, did you know that Leaside is in two federal ridings -- Rosedale and Don Valley West -- not just one? What happens to us municipally under Bill 103?

Leasiders ask, "What's the rush all of a sudden?" It has happened so fast that there hasn't been time to set up proper channels for discussion and real public input of a detailed nature. These hearings, though welcome, are not enough. Most Leasiders see the referendum as the only real way they are being given to express an opinion.

My ratepayer group represents a community which has always favoured, demanded even, to be consulted on the issues. Yet Mr Leach has said that no matter what, the government is not willing to consider major changes in the legislation. Mr Harris has said that if people are being repetitive "that doesn't have much impact on us." What does this sort of comment from our leaders do? It gives those who simply want more facts and time to think about them no cautious option other than to vote no. These are not people who go out and, say, buy a car without knowing what it costs, what features it has and whether it has a warranty. Would you? Why would you expect people to go out and buy a megacity without knowing those things?

Mr Gilchrist, you were quoted in the Globe and Mail this weekend as saying that there have been no real suggestions and improvements to the bill proposed at these hearings so far. There is a reason for that: There hasn't been time. We've been given a complex and rather overwhelming bill to react to, a bill which in large measure contradicts the recommendations from earlier studies and task forces.

To get real suggestions and real improvements your government -- our government -- needs to give us time: time to get the figures straight; time to work out the exact details of how each major recommendation will affect our neighbourhood as well as the larger metropolitan area; time to point out flaws when we see them; time to ensure that the patient, Metro Toronto, is being given the right medication for what ails it; time for diagnosis before the surgery. Just because the operating room has been booked doesn't mean the surgery should go ahead.

We strongly recommend that the window Mr Leach referred to be opened further by delaying the 1997 municipal elections for six months or a year to allow for the principle of orderly government. We think the government would be showing both wisdom and consideration by doing this, and would ensure that things are done right. In that time we would like to look at alternatives, such as the arrangement which existed before 1988, when some local councillors also sat on Metro, or versions thereof, which require less staffing and duplication. We would like to look at what we thought the Common Sense Revolution was supposed to be all about: the strengthening of local government and broadening of regional coordination while seeking efficiencies.

Our MPP, Mr Parker, who is here tonight, told a large public meeting last week that in his opinion Leasiders had already implicitly empowered the government to implement Bill 103 when they voted for the Common Sense Revolution because somewhere in the document it says Mr Harris promised change. The voters in my community did not intend for that single word "change" to be interpreted as a blank cheque. Leasiders have simply not heard enough facts to convince them that Bill 103 will ensure both cost savings and good government.

True, the issue of municipal reform is far from new, but the measures in Bill 103 are new, and different from anything recommended before. Leasiders do not favour the status quo. We are used to a local government which is close to the ground, accessible and accountable. We like that. We may not always agree with East York council, but we know we can go and speak to each councillor and present our perspective and be effective. We know each councillor is familiar with the Leaside community and considers our priorities in planning policy. If a new form of governance is proposed, we want to make sure that in local issues our accessibility, differences and community values are maintained. We would rather be safe than sorry.

I was encouraged to read, Mr Gilchrist, your statement that, "If someone was to present a model that showed better savings and a better way of delivering service and something that would address all the other concerns that we think this bill addresses, of course we'd be open to them." We will only find that improved model if you give us a period in which to examine Bill 103 like a balance sheet, both in terms of dollars and in terms of governance. We urge this government to make that time available by delaying the civic elections. We will be glad to work with you, if you will work with us.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Ms Fripp. We appreciate your coming in this evening and making a very detailed presentation before us.

With only a minute and a half let me ask one point, if I can, because I think it comes back perhaps to the root of the concern about accessibility and accountability. Would you agree with me that one of the underpinnings of democracy, or real democracy, is representation by population, that when we go to the ballot box we should each have, roughly -- it's not a perfect size -- the same power from our one vote?

Ms Fripp: I would certainly agree with you that that's the ideal, although when we look at this country we notice that Prince Edward Island, for example, has maybe fewer people than East York.

Mr Gilchrist: We've got our hands full solving the problems provincially; federally is another question.

One of the things we saw with some interest was that when the mayors produced their report in December, using their model including the changes they proposed for East York, it came out to 48 councillors. Our model, based on the provincial and federal boundaries, is 44. First off, would you agree that 48 or 44 is not an appreciable difference?

Ms Fripp: It's fairly similar.

Mr Gilchrist: Would you agree with me that would at least restore a balance, that every person across Metro would have that equal say? Right now, just to use a Scarborough example, there are some wards with 24,000 voters and others with 60,000, so clearly you have two and a half times the voting power in one. Would that at least be an accomplishment from this goal and something that, even if we had another six months, as you suggest, you would accept as one of the enhancements?

Ms Fripp: It certainly could be if it were done right, if the wards were arranged in such a way that made sense, yes.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm sure the Chair is going to tell me I'm running out of time. The one thing I would encourage you to do is that, as we look at the ward boundaries and how the federal ridings are broken up, I think you actually have an advantage, that you would have two councillors. Because of the way Leaside is divided between federal boundaries, you're guaranteed to have two councillors articulating the viewpoints of your community, and I would encourage you to work with East York and with the transition team to bring that about. Thank you again. Sorry we didn't have more time.

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

Before we break members, earlier in the day Mr Colle raised a point with respect to a presentation of Mayor Faubert which I said I would look into. Just quickly, my comments on that are the following:

Many members make many assertions about other members and many members paraphrase other members and many statements are made by all members every day.

It would be an impossible and untenable situation to have Chairs or the Speaker running around verifying all members' statements that other members might take exception to.

Therefore, as the tradition of my position dictates, it is not the Chair's duty to judge or determine the validity or veracity of points made by a member. For the most part, except for unparliamentary language, members should honourably self-regulate themselves in their conduct.

Thank you very much. We stand in recess until Wednesday morning at 9 am.

The committee adjourned at 2111.