Transcription du comité 1997-mars-05 | 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.

JUDY WALKER

The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. Our first deputant this morning is Judy Walker. Good morning. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make a presentation. If there's some time left at the end of your presentation, I'll ask the Liberal caucus to ask some questions.

Ms Judy Walker: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak. It's my sincerest hope that you will choose to listen, not only to me but to all of those who have voiced their opinions throughout the past weeks of public comment and most recently and resoundingly through the referenda in cities across Metro Toronto.

I am here to tell you that while some in this government, including Mr Harris, Mr Leach and Mr Gilchrist, may be confused, the people are not. You have heard that there is no empirical evidence that shows that amalgamations of the type this government proposes save money. On the contrary, research shows they cost more. You have heard that a large percentage of the public believe that the process this government has undertaken is hasty, reckless, undemocratic and not substantiated by sound facts, planning or public input. I'd like to point out to Mr Harris that taking your time to get it right cannot be accomplished between now and April 1.

You've heard repeatedly that the critical problem faced by the metropolitan urban centre relates to the needs for a larger coordinating regional governance structure or board that addresses issues across the greater Toronto area, not within the Metro area. You have heard repeated statements of confidence in the broad findings and recommendations of the Golden task force. Even the Crombie Who Does What panel underscored the need to address the issue of a larger regional structure before undertaking any attempt to address the issues facing the six cities.

I have heard these arguments. I understand them. The people, the voters understand them. I do not believe you should be confused. So I will not repeat what experts like Jane Jacobs, Andrew Sancton, members of the Golden task force and many others have already so eloquently stated. I will try to give you the perspective of yet another of this city of Toronto's residents, one who greatly values this city and the opportunities it affords the average person to contribute to its continued success.

I'd like to begin by responding to a question posed by Mr Harris on several occasions in recent weeks. It now should be very clear to him and to this government that fundamentally and very, very simply what people are really concerned about is maintaining their local city governments, where the voice of the people is valued in decision-making about their local communities. People are not suggesting amendments to Bill 103. They are not saying it can be fixed or improved. They are saying it is completely wrong and ill-conceived. The people are not confused about this. They are saying they want to maintain the autonomy of their local city governments. They are recognizing that scale is an important factor in allowing their voice to be heard. Megacities can't respond to people.

The mayors and councillors of the six local governments listen to the comments of their citizens and respond to their concerns. There are, therefore, different issues, different bylaws and different priorities in each of these communities, reflecting the priorities of the local community.

Mr Harris has said that leadership and reflecting the will of the people must go hand in hand, yet this government has indicated its unwillingness to honour the voice of the people as expressed in this week's referenda. Because of the provincial government's response to the referenda and the lack of public input in the creation of this bill, there is very little hope that a megacity constructed by this government will be inclined or able to respond to the disparate voices of Metro Toronto's diverse communities and neighbourhoods.

The government's halfhearted, vague plans for community councils that would be based on population concentrations and not on existing neighbourhoods reflects a lack of understanding of the important role of communities in maintaining a strong, vital city. This response harks back to the 1960s in the US, when urban planning focused on big, community-busting development. It failed.

The existing city governments, in contrast to this provincial government and its approach, respond to the very specific and unique voices living within their boundaries. My husband was born and raised in Scarborough, where his parents still live. We live in a very busy downtown neighbourhood in the heart of Toronto. Our local governments understand and respond to our very, very divergent needs.

I personally view this city through the eyes of a landed immigrant. I come here from the United States. In my past experience, I was a partner in an advertising and communications company headquartered in New York City. I lived in Brooklyn, which coincidentally is a borough of the city of New York whose population is approximately 2.3 million people -- almost the exact size that this government proposes for the new megacity of Toronto. The comparison makes me shudder. I honestly love Brooklyn, but citizens there have to fight with every ounce of their energy, every day of their lives, to ensure their personal quality of life. It is not a given there.

It was my experience in this very unsustainable urban environment that prompted me to focus my energy and intellectual pursuit on finding models for building economically, socially and environmentally sustainable cities. I left a very gratifying business career to pursue this endeavour.

I came to Canada six years ago to pursue a master's degree that focused on urban sustainability and in particular on city core neighbourhoods and the dynamics of livability and equity that contribute to making them strong and prosperous. The city of Toronto, and in particular one of its downtown neighbourhoods, provided the case study for my research. You should know that people from cities around the world come to Toronto to learn from its example.

Now I work with municipalities from around the world that are engaging in urban management practices designed to achieve urban economic, social and environmental sustainability -- cities that are positioning themselves to thrive in the coming century. The active engagement of the public, all stakeholders, in the process is recognized worldwide as key to success.

My research and experience indicate that diversity, variety, choice in terms of work, lifestyle, housing stock and free-time activities all contribute to an economically and socially healthy environment. Jane Jacobs and others have articulated so convincingly why this is so. Additionally, where the local community, including its divergent voices, is actively involved in decision-making, the predisposition for positive economic, social and environmental outcomes is dramatically increased. If you distance local government from the community, you lessen this potential.

You all know, I am sure, that Toronto is considered a jewel among cities worldwide in terms of its livability. Toronto is recognized internationally for its ability to support and nurture the diverse communities that thrive within it. Fortune magazine, in its October 1996 issue, recognizes the city of Toronto as the most livable city in the world for work and family. This is not by accident. This is not a result of skilful salesmanship or marketing or skilled business development expertise.

The city of Toronto is livable in practice, in reality, and that reality, this city's livability, is a direct result of the existing relationship between citizens and local governments, who work together to ensure the services the city's diverse communities require in order to thrive economically, socially and environmentally.

The local city councillors and mayors of the six cities within the Metro region are close to their communities. They know these communities, they listen to their voices, they treat them with equal respect and they respond to their needs. They listen to the people.

As a foreigner, I can reaffirm what I believe you know: People outside of Canada view Toronto as the gem I mentioned earlier. Over the past six years I have recognized and admired the very real process of local governments working with their communities that produces this wonderful result. People here and abroad know that this city, filled with tremendous cultural diversity from all parts of the world, works exceptionally well. It is safe, tolerant, green and vital.

I can tell you that places like Brooklyn are certainly equally culturally diverse. Why doesn't it work there as well? Although the answer may be complex, I can assure you that one large megacity, one mega-bureaucracy, further removed from its local neighbourhoods and communities, will diminish Toronto's potential to maintain the qualities of responsiveness, flexibility, equity of access and the resulting livability that is now the envy of the world.

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Walker, we're coming to the end of your allotted time.

Ms Walker: Yes, I know. Thank you.

I urge you as individuals, as decent people who have heard recently an unprecedented, clear, unambiguous no to the provincial proposal for a megacity, to respond not only to the voice and preference of the majority of citizens affected by your decision who believe that a megacity is wrong, but also to the overwhelming evidence that a megacity is not in the best economic or social interests of those who live here.

Use your common sense. In 1996, Toronto was named the number one international city for work and family in a Fortune magazine poll, and it was also chosen by the Corporate Research Group as one of the two best cities in the world. It is plain to see that local government here is not broken, but rather, working better than anywhere else in the world. A decision to move forward with Bill 103 puts this in jeopardy.

Finally, I especially ask you to live up to this government's view of itself as one that promotes direct democracy. Listen to the people. At least they are not confused. They simply said no to Bill 103 on Monday.

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

0920

CARL SKELTON

The Chair: Carl Skelton, please. Good morning, Mr Skelton.

Mr Carl Skelton: I am Carl Skelton. I'm the president of the Niagara Neighbourhood Association in ward 4. I got here early, so I had rather more of the coffee than I should have. I hope you'll bear with me. I may be in such a hurry to get my point across that I'll forget where I'm going by the time I finish, if you catch my drift.

This is my second year as president at the Niagara Neighbourhood Association. I live in my own home at the corner of Wellington and Tecumseth, which is a block from a slaughterhouse and two blocks from one of the most famous restaurants in the country. I am around the corner from the Ydessa Hendeles Art Foundation and down the street from Streetcity, which is a semiexperimental social housing project in a semirestored wrecked warehouse.

The Indians pass by my house and occasionally pee on the fire hydrant there adjacent on their way from the liquor store to underneath the bridge, the bridge being at Fort York, which is only one of a zillion issues we deal with, and indeed the neighbourhood association has to come to terms with a variety of what we conventionally might think of as competing interests.

There are large industrial landholders in the area and there are tiny little micro-enterprises also in the area. I am also a sculptor, and this is one of the reasons I suppose it's so important for me to live in this kind of an environment, which is accessible and vital both in terms of the development of the city's cultural life, which is to say, cheap places to live next to cheap places to eat and cheap places to drink, and at the same time access to some of the very most important cultural facilities and institutions in the country.

What I've found, of course, in the process of getting more and more involved with these local issues that arise, whether it be questions of the airport or the reconfiguration of Wellington Street or Spadina or the LRT or the decommissioning of the lead smelter at Bathurst and Front, is that it is indeed sometimes an awful nuisance to have to deal with both the city and Metro. Thus, for instance, if somebody has a clever idea about getting a little bit of traffic calming happening -- which, as you know, is very popular with ratepayers' associations these days for, notably, the reason that they tend to live on the streets in question and so do their children and cats -- getting a Stop sign at Wellington and Bathurst is quite a project, because not only do we have to persuade our city councillor that it's a clever idea, but then he has to go and persuade our Metro councillor that it's a good idea, and then they both have to convince two sets of engineers that it's a good idea.

In the course of the average day, we often have occasion to complain of this nuisance and duplication. Regrettably, Bill 103 seems to have been a way to make all of that seem like a paradise, a heaven on earth. Clearly, the replacement of six local governments and one partial regional government with one partial regional government and a variety of committees of appointed local delegates is not an elimination of duplication. Indeed, it's simply a rerouting of nuisance, in the same way that we suspect that some of the initiatives for downloading, while they may make it technically possible to advertise the accomplishment of a provincial income tax break in so far as they do this simply by transferring that tax burden on to property owners at the municipal level, do not seem to be an accomplishment and indeed are rather more of a nuisance, particularly in so far as they violently disrupt the balance of nuisance and potential in the downtown cores.

For the record, I'd like to say that I for one am not interested at all in the preservation of Toronto neighbourhoods but rather in the protection of their possibility for developing and thriving according to their own aspirations, needs and desires as they develop independently in time.

I must say in particular that we find at this point the local government we have got is almost too big to function. Our area councillor is a very, very busy man. In ward 4 we have the Gardiner Expressway reconstruction to deal with. We have Ontario Place. We have Harbourfront. We have the redevelopment of lands adjacent to and indeed the railway lands themselves to deal with. We have 100 different sets of social needs. Frankly, we like it that way.

We do not see the advantage of setting up a government which is neither regional nor local, which in effect the megacity would be. Its boundaries are as artificial and as far short of true regional government or the possibility of the coordination of regional services and transportation as Metro, while at the same time providing for less of what we think of as access to that process.

If you are involved in a developing civil society where the people that live in the city, the citizens, undertake to live up to their own responsibilities as citizens, one of the most useful people you can have on hand is a politician. They're not actually terribly expensive, as we find, and they are constitutionally inclined, and I mean "constitutionally" more in terms of temperament really than the Constitution itself, to return your calls.

Indeed, we think of politicians as people who are delegated to direct the civil service on our behalf. Therefore, it's very important to us that there be a proper balance between the number of politicians and the jobs and the complexity of the jobs they have to do in that regard. Indeed, we may be at critical on that now.

The reduction of the number of politicians is not a positive prospect from the point of view of the Niagara Neighbourhood Association, nor is it in reality a positive prospect from the point of view of any citizen who proposes to do what citizens must do in order for a participatory democracy to be such.

Having said that, I feel it's tremendously important for those duly elected officials to actually have the option of doing what we think of as their job as they proceed, and obviously, in so far as there are localities, municipalities which are and must be allowed to continue to be different in their character, in the scale of their development, in the types of lives that can be lived in them, it's particularly important that the structure of municipal government be complex enough for that to be viable.

My principal experience bearing on this has been in the process of dealing with traffic/transportation issues through the neighbourhood association. What we've found generally is that transportation engineers at city hall tend to be just about able to grasp the concept of viability of downtown neighbourhoods in relation to the viability of pedestrian environments on retail streets and residential streets, and the understanding that people in cars are not actually in shops and therefore the sidewalks have to be habitable in the sense of not being terrifying or too loud or too hot or too cold for people to actually get on them.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr Skelton, you're coming to the end of your allotted time. I would ask you to wrap up.

Mr Skelton: I understand. At the Metro level it's much harder to get people to grasp these things because of course they go to shopping malls, which are differently ordered and which are entirely more appropriate to a suburban environment. That's one tiny little for instance. Downtown areas have a million of these little differences that have to be respected and that simply cannot be respected if every decision has to be made at a Metro level, at least. The city level of government must continue to exist, and if it has to go underground, that'll be a damned nuisance, which is, as I understand it, not the purpose of the Common Sense Revolution.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Skelton, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this morning. We appreciate it.

0930

MAHED FATHY

The Chair: Would Mahed Fathy please come forward. Good morning, sir. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Mahed Fathy: I came to Canada as a landed immigrant in 1966; that is, 13 years after the new Metro regime began to take shape in 1953. It included then 13 municipalities. In 1967 the 13 municipalities merged with Metro and dropped to six. Since that date there has been talk of too many levels of government and duplication, which has cost more money to taxpayers.

Thirty years have elapsed and various governments that came to power since then did nothing to improve the situation; I repeat, nothing. That was only true until we got an elected responsible government, a government oriented towards reform. This reform is the Common Sense Revolution. It stated:

"Canadians are probably the most overgoverned people in the world. We do not need every layer -- federal, provincial, quasi-governmental bodies, regional, municipal and school boards -- that we have now. We must rationalize the regional and the municipal levels to avoid the overlap and duplication that now exists."

The government has kept its promise with Bill 103 and has the constitutional power, the public responsibility and the political mandate to act. It is not necessary to have a referendum on this issue. Amalgamation is nothing new. When Metro was first created there were 13 municipalities, today there are six and tomorrow there will be one new government in Toronto.

The Harris government proposals are mainly the following:

To have a municipal council of 44 members, two for every federal/provincial riding, and a mayor directly elected by the people.

Establishing six community councils, each composed of six or seven wards. These councils will deal with local issues, like minor variances in planning and building permits, that are of direct concern to community groups.

Councillors will provide ongoing input and advice on municipal issues and concerns through neighbourhood committees established by them.

The new city will be coordinated with the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board, which will examine services like transit and economic development on a GTA-wide basis.

Resolving the issue of efficient local government took a great deal of hard work. It must happen. The provincial government is now resolving this problem conclusively. The Harris government has kept its promise to undertake reforms that will benefit Toronto taxpayers in the following manner.

More money in the classroom: Recently proposed legislation will remove $5.4 billion in education costs from property taxes and let the province assume the funding. The province wants to ensure that each student has an equal opportunity to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy.

A fair and equitable property tax system: This will replace Ontario's antiquated property tax. Under the newly proposed Ontario fair assessment system, similar properties with similar value within a municipality will pay similar taxes.

Local services managed locally: The government's proposed legislation will allow municipalities to take full control of local services. It just makes good sense for services like transportation, community housing, public health programs and water and sewage systems to be managed locally, where they can respond better to local needs. It's also more efficient and accountable and less costly to taxpayers.

The reaction spearheaded by the six municipalities and the NDP was fierce and well organized. It aimed at securing a majority of No votes in a plebiscite by using scare tactics. The distributed literature hinged upon an orchestrated advertising campaign that flooded the area with poisonous literature that incensed people against the proposed legislation. It specifically targeted weak and vulnerable people such as seniors and welfare mothers as well as homeowners, tenants and small businesses, spreading the fear that amalgamation will result in higher taxes and lesser services; in other words, huge tax increases for all Torontonians due mainly to the downloading of welfare, health, social services and transit since January 1997.

This is not entirely true. Metro Toronto residents do not want a megacity if it means paying more taxes, but they would reconsider their position if they could be assured their taxes will not increase. A recent poll conducted for the Toronto Star by Strategic Counsel Inc shows 45% support the merger if there is no tax increase linked to the merger, while 35% oppose it. The rest were undecided. As expected, Metro voters rejected amalgamation by a majority of 75.6% on March 3.

In order to solve the problem of the downloading of the abovementioned services, negotiations between the province and municipalities over their fiscal relationship have already started, on February 21, 1997. The Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services, and Terry Mundell, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, agreed to create two transition teams that will discuss the details of the province's plan to make social and community health services a municipal responsibility. One team will deal with social and community health; the other will deal with more general municipal matters such as the operation of the restructuring funds the province has promised and retraining of municipal staff. Mr Mundell told reporters, "I believe these working groups will have a large amount of substance to them." He added, "I also believe we will be able to, in conjunction with our partner the province, get to the stage where we can in fact get the job done."

It is my sincere belief, and there is no doubt in my mind, that a unified Toronto is good news for Metro taxpayers that will benefit them in several ways.

It will create jobs and attract investment. It will allow Torontonians to speak to the world with one voice and put an end to lost opportunities through administrative bickering by the current local and Metro politicians.

It will reduce duplication and overlap. A unified city will ensure that services are delivered more efficiently.

It will be more accountable and less confusing to many people. A unified Toronto will make things a lot simpler for residents and less confusing.

It will enhance neighbourhood input. Under a unified city of Toronto, people will have input into decisions that affect their neighbourhoods through the formation of neighbourhood committees.

It will mean better decision-making. The new city council will be able to look at the big picture to create a vision for the unified city to keep it livable, to keep its place as one of the international cities.

It is my personal opinion, as well as that of the business community, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, David Lewis Stein of the Toronto Star and many ordinary citizens, that a unified Toronto is common sense.

Toronto is acclaimed as one of the most vibrant cities in the world and among the best in which to live, work or raise a family. It is also the driving force behind Canada's economy. We are now living in a fast-changing world, a world where in order to compete with other nations it is paramount for us to adapt our economy and ourselves to the 21st century. Toronto has to be better than its competitors in order to win new jobs and investment in the future. It has successfully met the challenges of this century and must now prepare for the next.

Toronto is now at the crossroads of its future. It's not growing as fast as rival American cities and jobs are not being created quickly enough. The municipal tax base is shrinking while the demand for services continues to grow. Businesses and industries are leaving. Outdated infrastructure is not meeting the needs of companies that must compete globally.

In conclusion, I can only say that the government should look at the plebiscite results, the polling data and representations made to this legislative committee and adjust its plans accordingly. I am optimistic and confident that the ongoing government negotiations with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will culminate in an agreement that will benefit the interests of the people of Ontario in general and those of Toronto in particular.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Fathy. You've gone a little bit beyond the allotted time. I want to thank you for coming forward to the committee and making your presentation this morning.

We may not have some of the next presenters but I'm going to call out some names: Eric Zhelka, Christina Montes, George Teichman?

0940

HUNGERWATCH COALITION

The Chair: We do have the next group, with Sue Cox, Loren Freid, Tina Conlon and Debbie Field. Sorry to get you on earlier than you expected.

Ms Sue Cox: Not at all. I'm Sue Cox. I'm executive director of the Daily Bread Food Bank. Loren Freid is the executive director of North York Harvest Food Bank. Debbie Field is the executive director of FoodShare in Toronto. We're part of HungerWatch Coalition, a coalition of organizations concerned about issues of hunger. We include the Red Cross, Oxfam and St Vincent de Paul. We've been meeting together for at least six months about some of our concerns.

Our concerns primarily arise out of public policy issues that can increase hunger and about the impact of policies on low-income people and the people whom we serve with a variety of programs, both community development programs and food relief programs.

We have a particular concern today about the issue of downloading and find that it's very integrally involved in issues with amalgamation right now, and that's primarily what we'd like to speak to. We have had an experience in the past which makes us very apprehensive about downloading, and I'd like to just quickly outline that to you. We believe that when Metro has to pay an increased percentage of the costs of welfare there's going to be an enormous impact on hungry people and also on our particular agencies and that, in spite of our collective services, people will go hungry, as they do now.

Our concerns particularly are drawn from our experiences in the recession of the early 1990s when high rents, high unemployment and inadequate welfare drove food bank use to unprecedented heights. Faced with that growing burden, food banks were unable to cope, as indeed they are not able to cope with the burdens placed upon them right now.

In 1992 the agencies who served the poor found themselves fighting a losing battle. Metro could no longer afford welfare and it significantly cut special services to welfare recipients, and those services included things like dental care, moving costs, first and last month's rent, bedding, transportation, a variety of things that helped people survive. During that period of time, if you were to look at a graph -- and in fact we have a handout with such a graph on it -- you would find that the increase in food bank use during the recession, particularly from 1991 to 1992, rose significantly more rapidly than the numbers of people on welfare, and the basic reason for that was because of these cuts to special services. While welfare rates rose 26%, food bank need rose 62% from 1991 to 1992. The only thing that stemmed the tide was the introduction of the federal child tax benefit.

In addition, there were incredible increases in the number of people who turned to a food bank because they had to pay for additional school expenses and increases in the number of people who needed food banks because they had to pay for moving, clothing and items like that. Metro staff were not able to really shoulder the burden of the load of people they were seeing, so in addition we had significant increases in the numbers of people who had to show up at a food bank simply because their cheques were lost or late. There were procedural errors within Metro that they simply could not deal with.

There was a 70% increase in the number of welfare workers referring people to food banks, so Metro itself had become dependent on food banks in order to deal with the people in such desperate need. We believe that the same thing will happen in another economic downturn if Metro has to pay 50% of the freight for welfare and simply is not able to do it.

Let me turn now to Loren, from North York Harvest. He'll try to outline some of the charitable aspect.

Mr Loren Freid: By proposing to increase Toronto's share of welfare costs from 20% to 50%, we're not only witnessing a downloading of services by the province, but we're also witnessing a downloading of their responsibility to care for the less fortunate. Much of that added responsibility will inevitably fall on to the shoulders of food banks and the charitable sector in general.

The problem is that food banks in Toronto already conduct the largest food drives in North America. We already utilize over 100,000 hours of volunteer time a year; we already distribute over 12 million pounds a year to people in need in Metropolitan Toronto. Despite this monumental effort and this huge collective use of resources, it has not been enough, yet how much more can you do when you are already working at maximum levels? Unlike governments, we do not have the luxury to download.

As a result, food banks are placed in a dubious position. We have to do more in order to sustain our current levels of service, but now, as a result of downloading, we find ourselves becoming a new kind of standard-bearer for societal morality at a time when our own capabilities to cope are pushed to the ultimate limit.

Reducing a province's debt is a praiseworthy goal, but only if the welfare and the wellbeing of the country's poorest citizens are protected. Downloading on the charitable sector is wrong.

Ms Debbie Field: First of all we want to address why we're here today, since primarily we are concerned with downloading and obviously your committee, on the last day of its hearings, is looking at amalgamation. It is our contention, as a coalition and as people who work with some of the poorest in our community, that downloading and your debates on megacity are totally intertwined. Like the majority of voters who came out two days ago to vote, over 75% average across the board, we believe that in your own logic and in your own construction of the megacity you have intertwined three issues inextricably, which are the creation of a megacity, changes in education and downloading.

They are all connected because they are connected in your own financial understanding of them. We've heard the Chair of this committee and the Premier yesterday and everyone from your government who has spoken to the press say that you think the majority of us voted against the megacity because we were concerned about downloading; that's right, because it doesn't make any financial sense unless you connect them. The only way you can save money through megacity is if you do the downloading. If you want us as voters to disconnect the issues, you have to disconnect them, and you haven't done that yet.

How this is connected to Bill 103 and amalgamation and the only way you can show any savings in amalgamation is if you download costs, particularly for welfare, on to the municipality, and that is why so many voters have voted against it. If you look at the financing of it there is no way to save money on the amalgamation unless you download welfare costs. Everybody has told you that is a disaster. Even your strongest supporters, the board of trade, Crombie yesterday, anybody who has studied this issue has told you over and over again you will wreck Metropolitan Toronto if you download welfare costs on to it.

We, as people who work on a daily basis with people who use food banks, with people who are homeless, with people who are on welfare, tell you that you will destroy the texture of this community if you insist on continuing to believe that it is possible to transfer welfare costs to the tax base at the level where the municipalities collect it.

You said, Steve Gilchrist has said, the Premier said this morning, the papers are full of people in your government saying that you're going to have amendments and rethink. This is one of the crucial things you have to rethink. Any logic that is pushing you to say that education should be collected from a more fair tax system, which is the provincial income tax, has to lead you to say that welfare should be collected in the same way. In fact, welfare should probably be collected 100%, not just 80%, from a more fair tax system. To put welfare on to the municipalities will put on them a terrible burden.

I want to just raise some points around some things that have been happening between AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and your government in the last two weeks, because I think this is something that has not come out in the press that is very dangerous. Two weeks ago there was a meeting of the leaders of AMO and Al Leach. Coming out of that meeting, Al Leach said they would bow to the requests of AMO and allow municipalities to set their own rates for welfare. I've spoken to other leaders in AMO, including Howard Moscoe, who sits on the executive of AMO, and he says that's not AMO's position. This is a very dangerous thing that happened; this is probably one of the most dangerous things, and again, if there's anybody here from the press, it has not been reported adequately.

0950

If we create a situation where welfare rates can be set differently across the province in different municipalities, we have gone down the American road in such a big way that we will see thousands of homeless people sleeping all throughout this city of Toronto. You understand the logic of it. If they can set welfare rates lower in Barrie, then all the poor in Barrie will move to Toronto because we in Toronto hopefully will be able to set welfare rates at a higher rate and convince our municipalities to do that. Then there was a debate. Janet Ecker came out a few minutes later and said that no, you will set provincial standards. At a meeting in the west end, where I went as a constituent at Derwyn Shea's meeting and Janet Ecker was there, she said Al Leach was wrong, she was right, that you were going to set provincial standards.

We are here to say yes, set provincial standards. This has to be central to what you do in the rethink. Do not download any welfare costs to the municipalities, because you will create bedlam at the municipal level. Rethink what you are saying around amalgamation. Put in some provisions to ensure that welfare rates cannot go any lower than they are. It is our contention that they are already too low. In the next few months, as an anti-hunger coalition, we are going to be providing you research from a medical and nutritional point of view to point out that the rates you already have are too low, that people are not able to eat adequately, and we're going to be bringing a nutritional market basket approach to your government to try to convince you that's the way you should be looking at welfare rates. In editorials in the Globe recently, there have been many arguments that welfare rates should be set on what the minimum standard has to be to live at any one point in a community. We do not believe even the current rates do that, let alone lower rates.

We are also going to be coming to your government to look at issues around rent and the need to protect the most vulnerable.

Ms Cox: Just one more thing: I'm very concerned about some discussions about restraining municipalities from raising taxes. If municipalities cannot raise their taxes in order to ensure that people are fed during a recession, we would have an extremely dangerous situation. There would only be welfare to cut; there would be nothing else left.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward this morning, especially a little earlier than expected, to make your presentation to the committee.

ERIC ZHELKA

The Chair: Would Eric Zhelka please come forward. Good morning, sir. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Eric Zhelka: Good morning. Honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Eric Zhelka. I'm a professional engineer. I was born and raised and I reside in the city of Toronto.

As an engineer I study, design and build things. I wish to thank all of you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and also for the opportunity I have had over the past while to study this great city. I am here to talk about Bill 103. From my study I wish to share with you some of my thoughts and, if I may, offer some suggestions on ways this situation may be improved.

With the proposed amalgamation of all the various departments across Metropolitan Toronto, I felt concerned with the size and especially the complexity of the new city that the new mayor and staff would be asked to administrate. As a systems engineer I know that if a system, or a proposed city in this case, is too complex for people to comprehend, or in this case to manage, then the system will break down.

My research on the issue of urban complexity drew me to one of the most eminent urban planners alive today, none other than our own Toronto resident, Jane Jacobs. The following is a quote from her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities:

"Every great American city is at a similar impasse.

"When human affairs reach, in truth and in fact, new levels of complications, the only thing that can be done is to devise means of maintaining things well at the new level. The alternative is what Lewis Mumford has aptly called `unbuilding,' the fate of a society which cannot maintain the complexity on which it is built and on which it depends.

"The ruthless, oversimplified, pseudo-city planning and pseudo-city design we get is a form of `unbuilding' cities. But although is was shaped and sanctified by reactionary theories actually glorifying the `unbuilding' of cities, the practice and influence of this kind of planning today rests not on theory alone. Insensibly and gradually, as city administrative organization has failed to evolve suitably along with city growth and complexity, city `unbuilding' has become a destructive but practical necessity for planning and other administrative staffs, whose members are also being sent on supermen's errands. Routine, ruthless, wasteful, oversimplified solutions for all manner of city physical needs (let alone social and economic needs) have to be devised by administrative systems which have lost the power to comprehend, to handle and to value an infinity of vital, unique, intricate and interlocked details."

I presume what the sentimentalists refer to as the neighbourhoods are these "vital, unique, intricate and interlocked details" of our city. Unfortunately, the complexity of what Bill 103 proposes will see administrators no longer able to deal with mind-sized bites, as can be done currently. I'm sure the government of the day did not really mean this devaluation of our neighbourhoods to occur in their proposals.

The proposed amalgamation also concerns me with how the planning of this future megacity would occur. With the increased complexity, as already mentioned, the new city planners would be forced to apply much more simplified rules than already exist and they would apply them across all former wards of the former cities and borough. This would kill the diversity of Metro Toronto that is part of its current greatness. Unfortunately, this self-destruction of the diversity of the current cities would speed us along the way to being just like Chicago or New York, and I mean just like them in terms of their problems.

For example, looking at the three US megacities with over two million population, the population of the proposed new Toronto, these US cities have faced particularly intractable problems. Two of the three, New York and Los Angeles, are contending with advancing secession movements sparked by the belief that remote city halls were ignoring local neighbourhood needs. The third megacity, being Chicago, has lost almost one million residents, who seceded with their feet.

I quote again from Jane Jacobs:

"In our American cites, we need all kinds of diversity, intricately mingled in mutual support. We need this so city life can work decently and constructively, and so the people of cities can sustain (and further develop) their society and civilization. Public and quasi-public bodies are responsible for some of the enterprises that help make up city diversity."

I'm sure the government of the day did not really mean to kill the diversity of Metro Toronto, which makes it great, in their proposals.

Let's look at cost of this proposal. The KPMG report Fresh Start: An Estimate of Potential Savings and Costs from the Creation of Single Tier Local Government for Toronto, I noted was the only report I could find to support the proposed amalgamation. Throughout the report there is reference only to savings that could result from amalgamation if "properly managed." However, the term "properly managed" was not fully defined. In chapter IV the KPMG report, true to its accounting heritage, specified, "One must therefore treat our findings as pro forma estimates, subject to a number of unknowable economic, social and political factors." Because of the disclaimers made by KPMG itself, no one can definitively claim that the report proves or demonstrates that there are any savings resulting from amalgamation. Besides, the report really only spoke of a 5% to 6% savings improvement over 1995 budgets, not a great saving in the grander scheme of things.

I'd like to mention Halifax. There four municipalities with a total population of about 330,000 were merged. The transition costs were more than double the estimate made by the province's merger coordinator: $10-million estimate, $22-million actual. The transition's savings have largely failed to materialize and their taxes are going up.

Metro Halifax, with 330,000 residents, Metro Toronto with 2.3 million, there's a difference there, I agree, but US consultant Wendell Cox has shown the US cities with a population of more than a million cost 18% more per capita to operate than cities in the 100,000 to 500,000 range. He shows a much greater spending gap, on average 152% per capita, between amalgamated cities of the same size.

What does this recent Canadian experience by a Conservative government majority say for the current proposal? I believe it speaks volumes. From amalgamation alone I believe we will see our taxes rise. I'm sure the government of the day did not really mean to raise our taxes just to pay for what I consider to be an unnecessary reorganization of the greatest city in the world.

1000

These are my suggestions:

(1) Scrap the bill and restart the process with greater input from the people being affected.

(2) I suggest that to afford some savings and truly reduce overlapping services, if there are any left, return Metro Toronto back to its pre-1988 format. In this more original format it was a part-time, overview, service-coordinating board with representation picked from the constituent cities and borough. This Metro Toronto model is a good compromise, I believe, between the need to maintain neighbourhood-sized cities, each with its own uniqueness, versus the need for efficient coordination of services across the area. This model could even be used across the entire GTA, but that is a discussion for a later time.

In closing, let me quote the current Premier of Ontario: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities. The issue is to find out how to distribute services fairly and equally without duplicating services."

The constitutional monarchy of Canada that we all call democracy is based on each of us being as impeccable as possible, and especially upon our politicians being as impeccable as possible. In my humble opinion, ladies and gentlemen, no one, after having done some research, could possibly support this bill. Please take my suggestions into account when you deliberate the bill and our fate.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Thanks for coming down to make a presentation to our committee. You mentioned prior to 1988 -- we had the direct election in 1988, or 1985, actually. You are really saying what the Golden and even the Crombie --

Interjection: It was 1988.

Mr Sergio: Yes, 1985 to 1988.

Interjections: No.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): The presenter is correct.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): They changed titles in 1985.

Mr Sergio: That's what I said, yes. Okay, we're both right.

Mr Zhelka: I'm not going to argue with the honourable gentleman.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Question please, Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: I actually was there.

Mr Crombie and Golden were recommending something like that: "Keep the cities but look at the GTA as well." Bill 103 does not make any mention of the GTA.

Mr Zhelka: That's why I say the discussion would be for a later time.

Mr Sergio: I can appreciate that. That's why I'm asking the question: How can we justify to maintain a strong vital core and not deal with the GTA?

Mr Zhelka: What is your definition of "strong vital core"?

Mr Sergio: If I can finish the question, please, now that we have the message from the people in Metro here, the government wants to tinker around the edges and say, "We're going to do this. We're going to do that," do you think that's a solution, or should we go and do exactly what you're saying, go back to the drawing-board and come up with some things so that, as the minister says, "We're going to get it right"? In order to get it right, will they have to scrap the bill or tinker around the edges?

Mr Zhelka: When I first started looking at this problem, I'll admit I came at it from a very practical, very conservative, financial point of view more than anything else than that. But when I started to study what is a city and what is a vibrant city and what is a city that is great, what is a city that's growing, what is a city that can support economically and socially the people within the city, the multicultural character of the city, the fact that we work so well, the fact that we care about each other, unfortunately unlike other cities -- I'd need to know your definition of the city you're describing in order to answer your question. The definition I found was something that took into account so much more than what I believe you're probably taking into account yourself.

The Vice-Chair: I must thank you, Mr Zhelka, for coming here this morning. We've run out of time.

I'd like to call on Christina Montes.

GEORGE TEICHMAN

The Vice-Chair: Do we have George Teichman here? Good morning, Mr Teichman, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr George Teichman: Thank you, Chair and members of this committee, for the opportunity to speak. I am George Teichman, and like the previous engineer, I am also a professional engineer and I agree with him. I don't know this gentleman, but I agree with everything he said.

I am also chair of the North York Taxpayers Against Megacity, the organization which produced this symbol, my button that I'm wearing, and this rally. I've asked for this to be handed out to each one of you. The importance of this event was that it demonstrated that there are independent grass-roots citizens' groups in North York. We are entirely independent of any other group.

Our rally was also the event that kickstarted our local politicians into action. We planned the rally not knowing if any North York politicians were going to attend. The night before, Mayor Lastman phoned me and asked if he could speak at the rally. He told me what he intended to say. I was ecstatic.

You see, we were appalled by the way this government intimidated our local politicians with allegations of interest only in saving their own jobs, and the government was successful until our January 14 rally in freezing them into inaction. We felt that if we could show our local politicians that yes, there is tremendous grass-roots support, we could encourage them out of their intimidation to join us and even lead us in this important campaign.

Over 400 people attended this rally, one of the largest meetings ever held in the council chambers. Never forget that this no-megacity campaign is a sincere and passionate grass-roots initiative by the citizens of North York and not the politicians.

For that reason, you should know that this issue will not go away until the megacity bill is withdrawn in its entirety; not just tinkered with, giving piecemeal concessions here and there which would only open up at a future date revisions which would implement the full Harris plan. We are experienced and dedicated people and will not stop until the megacity bill is withdrawn.

Let me describe further who we are. Our directors are in private business or professional practice and they are supporters of all three major political parties in equal numbers. That includes card-carrying PCs. None of our directors are government bureaucrats or politicians trying to save our jobs.

We are fortunate, all of us here, to be living in the best city in the world in which to live and do business, according to Fortune magazine. Any business person is quick to say therefore, "Why fix it?" It can't be to deliver excellent and cost-effective services while maintaining pride of community, because we already have this -- better than what Dave Johnson's megacity can bring. Sure, some improvements can still be made to the present structure and we could be even better than the best, as Mel Lastman would say -- imagine that -- but it isn't through amalgamation.

It is widely known among the experts working in the business of cities that the optimum population for an efficient and accountable city is approximately 500,000 and that the present six cities in the 416 area are very efficient. This has been supported by every study ever commissioned.

I'm sure you have heard much on this and no doubt you are immensely aware of the overwhelming no vote two days ago. It was 79% in North York.

The reason why my line of business as a real estate developer and property manager is still having difficult times in Metro is because the city above Toronto, Vaughan, can brag that its property taxes are lower. Well, they are lower not due to their efficiencies -- how can you be more efficient than North York? -- but because the 905 area gets subsidies from the province our city does not get. The 905 municipalities get a 30% subsidy for schools; Metro gets zero. They get a 75% subsidy for health costs; Metro gets 40%. They get a 100% subsidy for ambulance; Metro gets 55%. By not getting the same level of subsidies, Metro is losing $1.2 billion in subsidies that the 905 area enjoys. Obviously this is the reason for our higher property taxes.

1010

If these subsidies are the injury to our economy, the insult is that Metro residents are paying for these subsidies. It's like having a duel where you have a bow and arrow and your opponent has a gun which you paid for. Amalgamation does not address these inequities but rather exacerbates the problem with plans for downloading which will increase our residential taxes by an estimated $650 million a year.

Did you know that Metro residents subsidize the rest of Ontario to the tune of $5 billion a year already today? Queen's Park collects taxes from provincial residents in terms of income, sales, gasoline and cigarette taxes, and then from that pooling of revenue they give subsidies to the municipalities. The trouble is, they give back to Metro $5 billion per year less than what Metro residents put in. This is the reason for our faltering economy in Metro, not how local government is structured and run.

Imagine: This province, which consistently racks up billions of dollars in deficits each year and has a $100-billion debt, tries to blame the municipalities which never run up an operating deficit. North York in fact has a surplus of $200 million. It seems to me the province wants to get its hands on it.

One major benefit of our current structure of local government is that party politics basically do not exist. Megacity, however, will promote party politics, and when we get into the situation where the party in power at megacity is the same as the province, the megacity would become the dumping ground for the province -- the dumping ground. Because the province is the level holding all the power, and considering party solidarity, they can and will download expensive programs, like more welfare, on to this dumping ground, the megacity.

This leaves provincial politics with nice and clean ministries, like environment, trade, tourism, natural resources etc, to conduct elections free of contentious problem areas, neat and clean for the provincial level but untidy and messy for the megacity where contentious responsibilities will lead to nasty elections and constant flux in the councillors elected.

If the provincial and megacity levels have different parties in power, you get chaos. Think about it: No cooperation and constant bickering. Either way, however, the citizens of megacity are the losers.

Finally, I want to let you know what North York Taxpayers Against Megacity is planning in the coming weeks if this Bill 103 is not scrapped in its entirety. We are going to approach federal candidates of all parties to make megacity a federal election issue. "Can't be done," you say? "Municipalities are a provincial responsibility," you say? Like most people in North York, I see myself as a citizen of Canada first. Then I see myself as a resident of North York where I have invested much in family and business affairs. We are North Yorkers and we care about it. Third, and in last place, I see myself as living in a division of Canada which is called Ontario. I don't care how the dominions came together in 1867 and the agreements made when the total population of Ontario was 100,000; what I care about is that this Ontario is threatening my city from being number one in the world.

I and others are going to say to federal candidates in the next weeks: "I'm a citizen of Canada. I expect you to save the six municipalities of Metro, the economic engine of my country and yours. Find a way and don't tell me about the Constitution." Some candidates will take the challenge, and provincial Tories will hear from their federal brethren.

One step I have already pursued concerns that federal transfer of $800 million yearly to Ontario for co-op and social housing. If Ontario downloads social housing on to the municipalities and plans to pocket the requisite amount, then I say Ottawa should deduct this amount from Ontario's transfer and instead transfer it directly to the municipalities. The same should be done for Ottawa's transfer regarding welfare. Thank you for this opportunity.

The Vice-Chair: You've come to the end of your 10 minutes. Thank you very much for appearing here.

KAREN GOLDENTHAL
JUSTIN GOLDENTHAL-WALTERS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Karen Goldenthal, please. Good morning, Ms Goldenthal, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Karen Goldenthal: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Karen Goldenthal and I'm the president of Orde Street Parents' Council. I want to introduce you to my son, Justin Goldenthal-Walters. He will be speaking following my own presentation.

The parents' council has received many accolades as it strives to set the highest standards of excellence in the pursuit to ensure equity and respect for all our children's education.

This government and Bill 103, as well as Bill 104 and the other bills following 105 on, have received much in the way of dismal evaluations as they strive to set the lowest standards of achievement in a pursuit that ensures inequities and disrespect for all the men, women and children of this once-lauded province that belonged to all.

I think that perhaps in large part, if not in whole, this government forgets that government in a democracy belongs to the people. That's right, democracy is government by and for all the people. If this government disagrees, it better look all the children of this province in the eye, for this is the lesson here today. This government should learn that it is the server of the people; the people do not serve the whim of the government.

If the government is the government for all the people of this province, then it better provide the infrastructure and maintenance to facilitate this process. We know from the lessons taught to us by our parents and our grandparents who built this wonderful land that local democracy is best controlled at the local level. We know as we look with hope and promise to tomorrow's vision of health, education and prosperity, we do so with the same needs. The voices of the people must be heard. We, as the people, must be assured that there is everyday, easy and convenient access that facilitates this process.

When the parents of Orde Street Public School need access to voice our concerns, we need a local representative we can walk right up to, and that local representative will smile and lend a keen ear and thought to our concern. Bills 103 and 104 will kill that potential ever-ready access, just as they kill and silence the parents' voice and needs.

Bills 103 and 104 ensure large geographical areas of jurisdiction and monstrous bureaucracies that shut out the voice of the people. If this government feels under seige, that is because it has constructed a fortress that shuts out and further silences rather than welcomes and comes forth with a smile.

Orde Street Parents' Council is a school community comprising 450 children and their parents, the best in professional staff, teachers and administration, many community partners and our locally elected city councillor, Metro councillor and locally elected full-time trustees; this for a community that comes from over 40 different countries and linguistically speaks over 30 different languages. In our diverse community we teach our children their voices are the sweet sounds of welcome, not voices to be silenced. Diverse populations' and inner-city schools' needs are multidimensional and yet especially particular. The democratic rights of the parents and the children must be paramount.

Orde Street Public School has always had strong constituency access to its elected politicians. When we have needs to meet for our diverse and immigrant population, we look to this easy access and we do not take it for granted, as this government should not take the parents' voices for granted. Look our children right in the eye and tell them you give your word you will not take them for granted. The anger you have been hearing from the men, women and children of this province is indeed because you have taken them for granted.

Orde Street Parents' Council has worked hard to ensure the needs of the children vis-à-vis all our programs. We have an international language program of Cantonese and Spanish. We have English-as-a-second- language, literacy, reading clinics and French immersion programs. We have a high level of math, science and technology programs, and our black cultural program that tells my son here, for example, that he is a respected member of the African-Canadian community. We need to ensure that this government respects this situation clearly and distinctly.

1020

Bills 103 and 104 have said to the Orde Street Public School community -- and interestingly, Orde Street Public School is just across the street, over at College and McCaul, not too far away from here -- that this government is a totalitarian, undemocratic regime that has shut and locked the gate to the moat.

One example of the hard work and successful achievements of the Orde Street Parents' Council was the push for a sustainable ecosystem, ensuring a green space for the children. When the Princess Margaret Hospital was positioning itself in the area, it did so at the peril of the children's ecosystem and green space, yet the parents from all the diverse communities immediately sprung forward with action. The parents initiated the actions forthcoming, gaining legal, political and social representation as they moved forward to the Ontario Municipal Board. The parents spoke out regarding health, environment and density, as well as traffic and other concerns of the area, and refuted any attempts to minimize their needs.

The ensuing kaleidoscope and myriad of voices that spoke and were heard resulted in our winning the city of Toronto's Healthy City 1996 Neighbourlies Award -- quite an achievement. We have also won ourselves a new community park for the children, hopefully begun later this spring. We have also won our children's smiles, hearts and minds. If we defeat Bills 103 and 104, and the government's disdain as a whole for the citizens and for all the men, women and children of this province, we may have won their futures.

Oh, and by the way, the parents, the school community and all the children invite you at any time to come over to Orde Street Public School, 18 Orde Street. You'll find it just behind the Toronto Board of Education -- you know, that place that respects and honours our children's education, unlike this government. I hope you will be so humble and so astute as to take this opportunity and learn.

Now my son has a few words.

Justin Goldenthal-Walters: Good morning. The province's proposed megacity is what you call a mega-mess. I can tell you from my experience, when I was two years old, I knew if I had a problem about the place where me and my mom lived, whether it's rent-controlled etc, we would go to our Metro councillors, Jack Layton, Olivia Chow or now Kyle Rae, and tell them about it. But with Bill 103, city hall and all the 100-plus staff members, councillors and the mayor will be crushed to bits. The same with hospitals, local transit, community centres, schools, and the list on. So when you go home, rich class of Tories, remember, our voice does count. Don't destroy my Toronto and everyone's future.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Ms Goldenthal, welcome and thank you for your presentation. I certainly am a little bit more than familiar with the good things going on at Orde Street school and I congratulate you and the parents and the school for the continuing good work.

The initial response -- and I stress the word "initial" because I think it's fair to say we haven't heard the complete response yet of the government to the referendum results -- still seems in part to be hinging on, "Well, only if we find a number of ways in which we can amend the bill and perhaps make some changes to the downloading, then people will be okay with the amalgamation proceeding." I'd just be interested in your response if that turns out to be the government's final response. I'm not sure it will be limited to that, but let's just say that it is, because that's what they've told us so far.

Ms Goldenthal: I would say that is completely unacceptable, because we feel it is the essence of the local representative who's locally accessible to the public, to the community and Orde Street that is important, the fact that we've been able in the past to have all our local councillors -- we've had Dan Leckie, for example. He comes to the school regularly. We have Olivia Chow, who is very familiar, and I know you have been familiar in the past; our trustees have been there constantly at our school. It's that close link, that partnership and the relationship that is built when you have a small community and a locally representative person who's readily at your access.

If we have a concern -- as when Princess Margaret Hospital moved in -- we can call up on the phone and that councillor will come and see is. If there is a large geographical area, I have strong doubts, and I'm sure everybody at Orde Street would have the same sense of foreboding: Would someone from a large geographical area come down and see Orde Street school constantly, any time we would ask?

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

ROBERT BERRY

The Chair: Would Robert Berry please come forward. Good morning, Mr Berry, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Robert Berry: Good morning and thank you. My experiences as a corporate board member, president of two United Way agencies, totalling 12 years, and post-graduate studies at age 48 in organization development have motivated me to appear before you today. These experiences have included restructuring rationale and evaluating business plans based on supporting evidence. Bill 103, unfortunately, is lacking in both respects. I have identified two models that meet the requirements and two that I believe do not.

First, the greater Vancouver regional district: I have made three visits to Vancouver to study the operation out there and I quote excerpts from it. The greater Vancouver regional district is a partnership of the 18 municipalities and two electoral areas that make up the metropolitan area of greater Vancouver. The role of the regional district is to deliver to the area's 1.7 million people -- half the population of British Columbia -- essential services that are regional rather than local in nature. They include water, sewage treatment, air quality management, transportation planning and solid waste management. Working through the GVRD, the municipalities provide these services on a regional basis for reasons of economy, effectiveness and fairness, yet the system is structured so that each partner maintains its local autonomy.

The regional district concept was established by the provincial government in 1965. The first meeting of the board was on July 12, 1967, almost 30 years ago, and it's still working. The regional district obtains most of its funds from its member municipalities, billing them for services provided. This gives municipalities a large measure of control over the level of services. Regional districts do not have authority to directly levy taxes on property owners, as do municipalities. Levies for regional services are shown as a separate item on municipal tax notices. In general, the amount for GVRD activities represents about 12% of a property owner's total tax bill. Over 90% of this is for capital costs.

The strategic planning department works in close cooperation with municipal planning departments in developing activities to enhance the region's livability. These include research on regional development trends, activities to improve the region's economy and development of a region-wide transportation plan.

The second model I'd like to refer to, fairly briefly, is the Golden report for the GTA. Recommendations to support our vision include:

A framework for a greater Toronto economic strategy that focuses on both physical and human infrastructure.

Removal of the barriers to efficient infrastructure investment to allow for a more sustainable urban form.

Removal of overlap and friction between the province and municipalities through a financial disentanglement of responsibilities.

Improved coordination for services that cross borders without centralizing service delivery.

Replacement of the five existing regional governments with a single, streamlined greater Toronto council with a more limited range of functions, giving local municipalities added powers and responsibilities to deliver a wider range of services more efficiently.

1030

The directions set out in this report are consistent both with the global trends affecting the city-regions and with the province's commitment to make government more efficient and effective. The greater Toronto region could save more than $12 billion in hard infrastructure costs and maintenance over the next 25 years if we were to adopt a more efficient, more compact pattern of development. We could save an equivalent amount by cutting back the additional costs associated with higher levels of land consumption and automobile use. A conservative estimate of the savings over the next two and a half decades is $700 million to $1 billion annually. To my knowledge, these savings have not been questioned up to this point.

Though it is essential for GTA municipalities to become more entrepreneurial and competitive, current legislation prevents them from both exercising adequate control in local decision-making and adopting entrepreneurial strategies and practices.

The reduction of regional governments from five to one will see an accompanying shrinkage in the number of elected office-holders serving at the upper-tier level from 134 to 30. Compare this with 45 proposed for the megacity. The task force also anticipates some reduction in the number of municipalities through the consolidations that will flow from our proposed restructuring process, and I know the province has already addressed this.

Adopting these proposals for streamlining and coordinating services will result in total annual savings of between $1 billion and $1.5 billion for greater Toronto municipalities, the province and the private sector. The task force came to the inescapable conclusion that underlying all the problems and issues facing our city-region is a fundamental lack of coordination. Greater Toronto's five regional governments lack the collective sense of purpose and momentum to address issues that could be handled more effectively on a single region-wide basis.

So much for the two models that I think are favourable to restructuring.

The two I would refer to briefly as not favourable: One is Winnipeg, which was amalgamated as a megacity in 1971. Two references appeared recently in the local paper. One is that while everybody predicted a lot of layoffs in jobs in the bureaucracy, since 1971 that has not taken place. One other statement that comes out is that some people predicted that the administrative costs for the megacity would double in five years. In fact, they doubled in three years.

Now a brief word about the megacity, which we believe is a clone of Metro council. This will create a monopoly and thus will destroy the competitiveness between the six municipalities. If the federal government had any control over this legislation, it would treat the government in the same way it treats corporations: It would not allow a monopoly. I think this is critical. Monopolies do not reduce costs; they increase them.

Accessibility and accountability: I have a number of stories I could relate, but I won't. One in particular on accessibility: Every year our city council, at my request as a ratepayer association, has been invited to come to Etobicoke to present their annual budget. They have refused, and not only have they refused but they have not even acknowledged a letter from the city based on an unanimous resolution to do so.

Accountability: You may remember some time ago when the question of recycling paper contracts came up. Some of the cities in Metro were able to get prices close to $200 a tonne. Alan Tonks came begging to the municipalities to line up with Metro because they were only getting $30 or $40 a tonne -- correct me if I'm wrong on some of those figures -- and wanted the cities to come into Metro so there was just one contract. The competitiveness is very clear there. Metro was not competitive.

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

Mr Berry: I'll wrap up with three recommendations.

The first one is, resurrect the Golden report and fine-tune it as necessary, keeping in mind the GVRD model.

Second, arrange for a binding referendum for the four 905 regions, using a question that we would hope the government and the cities could negotiate. I don't think it's as difficult as some people suggest. A yes or a no answer, or one or the other choice, could be very clear. We are talking about, "Do you support regions or do you support cities?" You probably should list them in case people aren't familiar with them.

Third, I beg you to vote on Bill 103 with your conscience. We could end up with the difference between a dream and a nightmare.

The Chair: Thank you for coming forward and making a presentation today.

GREG SPENCE

The Chair: Would Greg Spence please come forward? Good morning, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Greg Spence: I'm a citizen of the city of Toronto. I operate a local general contracting business and have been active as a transit advocate and critic of the recent rapid transit expansion program and the Metro long-term rapid transit plan.

Arguments being made in favour of the megacity point to the need to eliminate duplication of services by the cities and Metro. But some services should be delivered at the local level to ensure awareness and sensitivity to local characteristics and concerns of its people. This requires a directly elected council to ensure accountability.

Other services, such as sewers, water, rapid transit and economic development, should logically be delivered at the regional level where the paramount concern becomes the coordination of continuous, seamless and integrated service to the far reaches of the urban fringe. Coordination of services within the entire urban area, not just Metro, is where the savings can be found through the economies of scale etc. This will only be successful if the local cities continue to exist to deliver local services wherever necessary.

It is difficult to understand how the megacity, without local cities, will give us local representation. But anybody who believes the megacity will bring savings and investment through streamlining of services and regulations should be able to see even greater savings in coordinating the whole urban area of the GTA.

When designing municipal government reform, cost savings should not be the exclusive reason for change, but if we get the right government structures in place that foster cooperation, cost savings would be a natural byproduct.

The megacity would not be effective as a local or regional government. With 2.3 million people, its population would be larger than that of six of Canada's 10 provinces. How in touch do you think that government would be with what's going on on your block? Yet in spite of its size, it would be ill-equipped to represent the needs of the urban region we live in because it would include only half the 4.5 million citizens who live there.

By centralizing power within the boundaries of Metro that were laid out in 1953, you create a huge blob of government that will be so overwhelmed with the scope of its responsibilities that it will become an obstruction for business. Successful corporations such as General Motors, IBM, Bell and Magna International, to name a few, have operations spanning huge territories but have separate divisions for different functions. The GTA also has a huge territory and should be responsible only for appropriate regional functions so it too can be successful.

The Greater Toronto Services Board that the government is talking of creating to coordinate services will not be effective, as the elected councils would be too removed from direct accountability and split up over five different regions, all pushing their own agenda.

1040

Local municipalities should be free to determine their continued existence or amalgamation with each other through their own referendums. If citizens of East York have the will to remain independent, I'm sure they can do it as well as North Bay can. Citizens of Metropolitan Toronto already voted in a referendum during the last municipal election in favour of eliminating Metro. Now, with the megacity referendum result being a clear no, that is twice that the people have voted against centralizing power within the current Metro boundaries.

It's not that Metro has not served us well; it's just that it has outgrown its boundaries and everyone knows it. It needs to be expanded to facilitate efficient growth, infrastructure development and coordination. None of this requires elimination of the local cities.

The reason we don't have rapid transit to the airport or other transit initiatives that would knit the GTA together is because Mississauga and the rest of the GTA tax base was not pooled with Metro's. The regional tax base is fragmented. If the megacity is such a good idea, why didn't they include Mississauga? Why isn't Mississauga clamouring to be part of the megacity? Because they don't want shared regional government with Metro at the cost of losing their local government.

The Golden commission that studied GTA reform recommended a GTA government that would amalgamate Metro, Peel, Halton, York, and Durham regions, while leaving the local cities of these regions intact. Harris dismissed a GTA government saying that the 905 region did not want it. This rejection of the GTA concept was never confirmed, certainly not by a referendum vote. It was the Harris government itself that rejected the GTA concept, fearing that a regional government that represented 4.5 million people and the business and industrial heartland of the country would threaten the power and influence of the province itself.

To counter the threat of the emerging GTA, the Harris government moved swiftly to protect its power base by dividing its rival exactly in half, leaving the megacity on one side and the 905 region on the other. It's a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, hardly a recipe to foster cooperation. The five remaining regional governments of the GTA will be free to pursue their own agenda, planning their futures in isolation, resulting in a fragmented approach to economic development, infrastructure and service delivery.

In summary, the problem with the megacity is that it involves the elimination of local governments inside it as a reduce-government exercise, as opposed to the GTA concept that was to merge five regional governments into one as its reduce-government exercise. With the GTA concept we would continue to enjoy both local and regional representation while still reducing the number of governments, leaving us with a regional government structure capable of coordinating the business of the complete urban region in preparation for the 21st century.

Applause.

The Chair: Order, please, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Thank you, Mr Spence, for your presentation. I must say, you've gone a bit beyond Bill 103 in dealing with the Greater Toronto Services Board, but it's all part of local governance and trying to sort out, disentangle, services between different levels of municipalities to best serve the greater Toronto area. As you know, the province has appointed Milt Farrow as the special adviser for the Greater Toronto Services Board, and he has his paper dealing with some of those issues out for discussion purposes.

From a transit point of view -- and I see you have been a transit advocate and have a special interest in that area, and I see also you're questioning the Greater Toronto Services Board and its approach -- how do you see transit being best dealt with in this large area of southern Ontario?

Mr Spence: I think it needs coordination at the GTA level. I think it needs a directly elected government, council, behind it to ensure accountability. By putting it in the hands of a services board, all the decisions are going to be made behind the scenes and it's going to be very removed from public access. I think you're still going to have the different regions with the greatest power bases struggling with it, pulling it this way and that way. You need a regional approach to the planning.

The planning that's been done to date on rapid transit has been done at the Metro level, and that hasn't really been completely accurate. First of all, they have a long-term plan that's very ambitious. It will never happen without the tax base and the GTA being part of it. The routes that are planned are all very dependent on political sway and what not. I don't really think a regional approach was ever taken. I think the people involved will tell you that as well. They worked with what they had, which was a Metro framework, and the outer regions never really had a rapid transit strategy because their planning was done, and continues to be, without a transit support of densities. We need greater control of our land use in the outer regions.

I also think that the people who are responsible for development of the urban sprawl at low densities and the outer rim of the GTA should also be responsible for the decay or abandonment of the inner core.

The Chair: Mr Spence, I apologize for interrupting. We've gone a little bit beyond the allotted time, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward this morning.

Would Jasmine Igneski please come forward.

1050

ARTISTS ACTION COALITION

The Chair: Kelly McCray, Peter Such and Merle Matheson? Good morning. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Merle Matheson: My name is Merle Matheson and I'm a professional actor in Toronto. I'm a member of ACTRA and Canadian Actors' Equity Association.

Mr Peter Such: My name is Peter Such. I'm a novelist, screen writer and professor at York University and I represent the Writers' Union of Canada.

Mr Kelly McCray: I am Kelly McCray. I'm co-director of Mercer Union, a visual artist and here also with Artists Action Coalition.

Mr Such: We'd like to thank the committee for allowing us to make this presentation to them and explain just a little bit about what the Artists Action Coalition is. It's a group of cultural workers from many sectors of the Toronto arts community. The three of us here today represent only three of those organizations, but there are dozens of arts organizations in Metro Toronto, with a total membership of approximately 200,000 people. A poll conducted by Arts Vote, a non-partisan civic alliance of these organizations, found that 96% of these 200,000 artists would be voting no in the referenda on amalgamation.

Obviously cultural workers contributed strongly to the rather devastating rejection of the ill-conceived legislation this committee is considering, in much the same way as they contributed to the election of Mayor Barbara Hall in the last civic election, and as they undoubtedly will in future elections in Metro Toronto.

Many of these organizations have requested that we present to you their detailed thoughts on the detrimental effect of amalgamation on the arts, and we've brought many of these letters with us and ask that they be made part of our submission today, although we are not reading them out to you because it would take a tremendous amount of time.

I would now like to turn the body of this presentation over to my colleague Merle Matheson, member of ACTRA and the Actors' Equity organization, a professional actor.

Ms Matheson: When Fortune magazine proclaims that Toronto is the world's most liveable city, we dare to make the claim that one of the major reasons for that livability is 200,000 artists and their families who make up the cultural life of this city. Although artists would prefer to be judged by the spiritual and moral effect theatre, literature, music and the visual arts have an society in general, we concede that we represent one of the most powerful commercial dynamos in this city and in this province; 1994 research tells us that culture is an $8.4-billion -- that's right, billion -- industry in the GTA. In Toronto, cultural events pull in $1 billion from tourists alone every year. Ninety per cent of this activity takes place in the downtown core where essential facilities exist.

What other industry can claim to be able to convert one of the tiny dollars put into it by direct investment through civic commissions or arts councils into $12 in gross return and $5 in taxes? Funding an artist is like buying straw and having it turn into gold. Ceaselessly using their capacity to seek out those neglected and abandoned city corners where opportunities for cheap space and living conditions can be transformed into liveable and productive communities, they are the shock troops of urban regeneration. Yorkville and Queen Street are the most recent. Parkdale will be next if you let it. Converting a sow's ear into a silk purse is nothing compared to how generations of artists from all over the world have transformed the many pigpens of old Hogtown into the vital, multicultural envy of the world.

Like civilization, like democracy, cultural development has to be taken care of and nurtured. Most artists exist by subsidizing their creative activity through their day jobs. As Debbie O'Rourke, environmental sculptor, put it, next to parents, artists are the largest volunteer sector in the economy. Why, you might ask, would anyone wish to create conditions tantamount to throwing a bag of salt on a bed of roses? Florence, during the Renaissance, became a world-class modern city of its time mainly through the work of its artists, the Michelangelos, Leonardos, Berninis and Cellinis. Its population at that time was exactly the population of North Bay today. Is this what it's about, Mike? Drive out of Toronto a couple of hundred artists who can no longer afford to live there so your home town can use them to make it to the big time?

What other reasons could there possibly be for taking the world's best city, the subject of international wonder, and deliberately screwing it up? Bill 103 creates a situation where artists will have to compete with welfare, child care, a host of social services. Already living on the margin, many artists will find their entrepreneurial independence demolished. Incapacitated as parents, unable to afford child care or rent, unable to find the wherewithal to keep their creative juice flowing as high taxes gut the city's central core where most of them live, their sources of subsistence will became flimsier and flimsier until they are reduced to hectic scavenging. Artists will fall from merely needy into impoverished.

Bill 103 has taken none of this into account. With its flagrant arrogance, this government has not seen fit to consult with this important sector as it has not with any others. There is no provision, for instance, for the continuance of the Toronto arts council, seed funder for thousands of cultural activities in this city, including our symphony orchestra, opera and many artistic and literary events. Neither is there any provision made for the continuance of the Metro Arts Council. Already coping with 30% cuts to Ontario Arts Council funding, can artists be excused for assuming that the government's intentions are genocidal in this respect?

The irony of ironies is that it was Premier John Robarts's vision which created the arts council, and Bill Davis's cultural awareness which nurtured the dynamic growth of arts and culture as an essential part of making Toronto and its regions into the successful metropolis we see today. What was the secret which kept previous Tory regimes as the government of Ontario for more than 40 years? It was because they had one essential difference to the Tory government we see today. They listened, they consulted, they were democrats, not ideologically driven authoritarians. Unless something was seriously broke, they didn't fix it.

To give you something of the flavour of the measure of dissatisfaction with this bill that almost 80% of those voting in the Metro plebiscites mirrored, we shall conclude with reading into the record a selection of passages from the letters we have in hand.

I'll turn my time over to Kelly McCray.

The Chair: Mr McCray, you only have a minute remaining.

Mr McCray: Okay. I'll just read one paragraph from Charles Street Video and then one more short letter.

"This bill is quite simply an abominable piece of business. It is all the things public policy should not be: ill-considered, unnecessary, expensive, hypocritical, frighteningly anti-democratic and unfair. The avowed aims of the bill, to increase efficiency, streamline services, reduce duplication and entanglement, are a ruse designed to obfuscate its true design, which is to download on to the municipalities the responsibility far crucial social programs. The bill's proponents should rightly feel one emotion that this sorry affair has proceeded as far as it has: shame."

One more; personally, this is from myself:

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank the current provincial government for their hard work and dedication. Having had the fortunate opportunity to live in Toronto over the past 10 years, I had previously decided that people of Ontario and people of Toronto were apolitical. The rigorous, swift and direct actions of the provincial government have proven me wrong. Never have I seen the passive and contented people of Ontario care quite so much about the current political climate. Artists, teachers, doctors, health care workers, unions, students, pensioners, welfare recipients, lawyers, environmentalists, taxpayers, the rich, the poor and the middle class all feel that they must take a position on most if not all the legislation that is proposed by this government.

"I would personally like to congratulate our PM on his ability to mobilize the general populace of a province. When was the last time you saw grandmothers, librarians and accountants take a non-violent course in civil disobedience in preparation for our government's actions? Keep up the good work."

Applause.

The Chair: I'll remind the audience that the rules of the Legislature apply to the committee rooms and there's to be no audience participation. Each time I have to make that announcement we lose time for presenters. We might have been able to hear more of the letters if we'd had less interruptions. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep that in mind.

1100

RON MAZZA

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

Mr Ron Mazza: My name is Ron Mazza. I'm a lifelong resident of the city of Toronto. I'm a civil engineer, graduate of the University of Toronto. I'm vice-president of a major engineering firm in Toronto, a national company.

I am not a wild-eyed radical. Bill 103 is turning me into a wild-eyed radical, the same as thousands and thousands of people in this city who are getting involved in something they don't like. I suppose the provincial government should be thanked for that, for creating a level of political awareness and involvement that hasn't existed in the cities of Metropolitan Toronto probably in my lifetime. If that was the intent of Bill 103, I think you should be congratulated. I don't think that was the intent. It's a benefit as a sideline.

Out of my own curiosity, who in this group are members of the Conservative Party, the government?

Mr Flaherty: All along this side.

Mr Mazza: I'm addressing this group and I'm addressing you as individuals. How can you as individuals, members of a supposedly democratic government, support Bill 103? Do you not have any conscience? Do you not have any sense of what the people you are governing actually want? I think the referendum or plebiscite, whatever you want to call it, spoke very clearly about what the people of Metropolitan Toronto wish to see, and it's not Bill 103.

I've seen lots of rationalization taking place, both in the daily papers that support your position and in the government itself, trying to downplay the results of that referendum. I've seen all sorts of dancing around about how it doesn't really apply to amalgamation; it's all about all the other terrible bills you're planning to introduce that were getting people upset, which is a very strange logic, I thought, but that's what I heard Al Leach say.

Let me make it very clear: This person sitting in front of you and everyone I know who is involved in this issue oppose Bill 103. They're not confused about downloading. They're not confused about Bill 104. They don't like those either, but they are very clear that they like the city government they have. Local government works very well in Toronto. The Star poll made that very clear. The majority of people in Metro are quite happy with the services they're getting from their local governments.

Where Bill 103 came from is an absolute mystery. Crombie didn't recommend it. The Golden report didn't recommend it. Before the election, Harris didn't recommend it. Before the election, Leach didn't recommend it. It came straight out of the blue. That was the one thing this government did that was completely unpredictable. Its response since then has been more predictable, in trying, as I say, to downplay the results of the referendum. But to carry on with Bill 103 in any amended form, by changing Bill 104 or Bill 107 or the downloading as a rationalization for responding to the referendum, simply isn't going to cut it.

The people of Toronto are now politicized like they have never been politicized before. If you continue with this madness on Bill 103, it's not going to go away. You can modify your bills and you can force this thing through the Legislature, you have that power, but the people who are opposed to the loss of local democracy are not simply going to fade into the woodwork. There's going to be an ongoing battle.

I've seen it happen in Toronto before, on the Toronto Islands. The Toronto Islands issue was exactly the same on a smaller scale. Paul Godfrey and Metro Council, the mega-council you love so much, tried to destroy a local community. That community got organized, exactly the way Toronto is getting organized now, and it fought back, exactly the way the citizens of Metro Toronto are going to fight back. They took that battle beyond the shores of the Toronto Islands and involved all of Metro Toronto.

In the same way, the citizens of Metro Toronto are going to take this battle beyond the borders of Metropolitan Toronto and involve all of Ontario, because there are allies out there in other cities you're planning to do things to, without their support, that are going to become involved. There is going to be a knitting of common interests to protect local democracy across this province, probably like has never occurred. If that was the intent of Bill 103, again, it's a wonderful thing to happen, because local democracy, I think people are realizing, is something very important to the citizens of this province. This government's attempts to remove that local representation from the people will not go without a major battle. That battle, as people become more and more aware of what's going on, will spread well beyond the borders of this city.

The point I want to make is very, very simple and very, very clear: Please, as elected democratic representatives of a majority government, look at your consciences. You're dealing with a piece of legislation that virtually has no support. It has no logical, rational basis. It comes from nowhere. The only people who support this legislation seem to be Al Leach, Mike Harris and God knows who else within your party. Why you would go along with that kind of mindless following of a piece of legislation that is completely damaging to local democracy, completely against the will of the people affected, is beyond me. Don't you have any conscience?

Bill 103 cannot be amended. It cannot be window- dressed up to look better. There are not parts of it that can be made better and make the whole bill work. It is a bad piece of legislation. It should not be even discussed further in the House. If the government has any sense of public responsibility to the people it is governing, the bill should be and must be withdrawn.

The Chair: We now have less than two minutes, Mr Colle, for questions.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Since Mr Mazza addressed the Conservatives on the committee, I'll give my two minutes up to any member of the Conservative Party to respond to him.

Applause.

The Chair: Order, please, ladies and gentlemen. If we continue to have outbursts, we're going to have recesses and then folks are going to end up losing time for presentation, so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep it down. Mr Gilchrist?

Mr Gilchrist: I have no problem with that. Mr Mazza, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I could take considerable exception to some of the phraseology you used in your presentation.

We have considered all of the choices that face us in shaping the future of Metro. We have formed a vision that's obviously different than yours. I don't think it is appropriate to call it mindless. On the other hand, something else should be read into the vote on Monday. Clearly there are people who have concerns. We've heard it here today. You and others continue to lump into this bill issues that aren't even before the Legislature, such as the disentanglement. There is no bill for the disentanglement. They lump in education reform. They've lumped in Bill 104 and others.

Clearly the people voted with a wide range of concerns on their mind. Not necessarily all 76% of the people who voted no would have the same concerns. I would hope you would accept that as a truism. It's also true that 69% of the people in Metro didn't vote; 69% of the eligible voters didn't. In my riding, over 80% didn't vote. To suggest that they are somehow mindless, to suggest that they don't know what they're doing by not voting no, is really quite condescending.

We have a vision. Our vision is that Toronto is great and it can be made greater. We can find savings. There is no loss of community by reducing the number of politicians; in fact, ironically, the politicians will probably become more accountable, more accessible, by being forced to wear both hats instead of how it is right now, where we have some councillors who deal with primarily local concerns and others who make decisions that affect us equally but are on the big-picture items such as TTC and the major roads.

Interruption.

The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're beyond the time.

Mr Mazza: I have just one comment. If Mr Gilchrist is so confident of his vision of Toronto, I would ask him to include the citizens of Toronto in that discussion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mazza.

Ladies and gentlemen, I also remind you that members on all sides of the committee have the right to ask questions and make comments without being hooted or hollered or hissed at, and if that continues, we can do this without an audience. If you find that you can't extend that courtesy to the members, then I ask you to go to committee room 1. It's an overflow room where you can watch the proceedings and do all the chatting and hissing you want to do down there. But while you're here, I'd appreciate it if you'd respect the rules of the Legislature and not participate from the audience.

1110

REID LESTER

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

Mr Reid Lester: I'm a resident of Toronto. I also work in Toronto. I have prepared a paper which I presume is in front of you all.

The people have spoken and the people have spoken loudly. Over 75% of the voters in Metro Toronto voted no to the provincial government's proposed megacity legislation. I believe this vote was a legitimate expression of public opposition to the provincial government's plans and the government should heed this vote. However, this is only the end of the beginning. We must move on to the next step from here. The question is, where do we go from here?

I believe we can solve the problems set out by, among others, the board of trade and the Golden commission, but we need to clarify and identify what these problems are. I also believe we now need a period of reconciliation so that the government and the stakeholders can harness the tremendous energy the megacity debate has generated. We need to harness the energy to create the policies necessary to preserve Toronto as a wonderful place to live, work and visit, and to preserve it as an engine of Ontario's and Canada's economy. Later in the address, I will offer some of the ways I think we can do this.

First of all, as with any vote, there will always be people who get bogged down in discussions as to what the results of a particular vote means. I see the Toronto Star and Alan Tonks are already attempting to dismiss or diminish the importance of the vote. I view them as being both paternal and condescending. For my part, while I agree the vote was not conventional in the way normal elections are, I believe it was a legitimate expression of public opposition to the government's proposals, and I have several reasons for that.

First of all, the sheer numbers of No voters were overwhelming and undeniable. If the government ignores these results, it risks being labelled an arrogant, power-mad institution that cares little about the people it governs, the shareholders, if you will.

Second, the citizens are very well informed on the issues. Like no other debate in decades, the megacity debate has captured and involved Metro citizens through discussions of all types: town hall meetings, newspaper articles and commentary and these committee hearings. This has all been educating, and the people have been educated. The criticism of amalgamation proponents that citizens do not really understand what they have done by voting no I think is patronizing and insulting.

Third, I believe that the referendum results were a rejection of all of the government's proposals. Anyone who has been around Metro for the last couple of months cannot deny that everything has been on the table, everything has been discussed, everything is interrelated. It's inconsistent and hypocritical for a government which prides itself on being a populist government to view its own 1995 election victory as giving it a mandate to do anything it wants. There is nothing in the Common Sense Revolution about downloading. While the Common Sense Revolution talks about eliminating one level of government, the Premier, prior to the 1995 election, was talking about Metro being the government that should be eliminated, not the cities.

Finally, the government gave the cities no choice. From the time the legislation was brought out both to download and to amalgamate, the Premier and his ministers have stated emphatically that their minds were made up, that they had no intention of consulting and that they would disregard the results of any referendum. Given these circumstances, what other choice did the citizens of Metro Toronto have but to conduct the various referenda? For the government to complain now about the referendum process when it chose to employ a highly questionable process of its own is at the very least hypocritical. Further, if the process is so questionable and illegitimate, why did the Premier himself bother to vote?

Citizens are now energized across Metro. They are informed on issues like they never have been before. They want to be, and are entitled to be, involved in the debate on Toronto's and Metro's future. I don't think anyone disagrees that there are problems that have to be dealt with, but what we need to do now is to harness the energy in a constructive fashion. With an energized, educated and politicized public, we have a historic opportunity right now to debate and enact the public policy and legislative changes that are required in our city and our region, but before that we have to identify what the problems are.

I have set out the problems, and they can be summed up as follows:

First of all, taxation. There are three main taxation problems:

(1) Assessments of residential properties are out of date and so there are disparities.

(2) It can be argued that businesses pay more than their share in Metro.

(3) There are disparities in property taxes as between Metro and the 905 region. This and the argument that business is paying more than their share in Toronto has led to a fleeing of business from Metro. This has to stop.

Next, there has to be coordination between Metro and the GTA. Almost one half of the GTA's population lives outside Metro. Both the Crombie and the Golden reports have recommended that municipal government develop so as to recognize this and deal with it.

Third, overlap and duplication in the coordination of service delivery must be dealt with.

Where do we go from here? Change and reorganization is not easy, and this government prides itself on taking on difficult challenges. The government and the energized citizenry, through its local elected representatives, can work together on this thing. But a city is like a living, breathing organism, and you cannot make dramatic change to one part of the organism without all of the organism being affected. The complexity and the interconnectedness is the very reason why it is so critical that careful study and analysis be done, because once we can see how the organism is going to react, then we can debate whether those changes are acceptable and whether they will solve the problems we hope to solve.

As a first step, the government needs to re-establish its credibility, and it needs to do this in part by including all players in discussions of what is to come next. The government also needs to demonstrate its good faith and demonstrate that its primary concern with all these changes is the good health of Metro and the region. To do this, the government must abandon its current megacity proposal altogether and start over. I would suggest the following five steps:

First, the government must establish a new consultative process which involves both stakeholders, and I mean by that local governments too, and the public and experts in the area of urban planning.

Any new process must start with the proposition that the citizens have expressed their view that they want their local governments to stay. In Toronto, this is now the second time I've had the opportunity to express my view on this, because I also voted in the 1994 municipal election where the same alternative was given to us, and we voted in a non-binding vote to do away with Metro.

The process must also consider how to create a region-wide level of government with full taxation powers, something that has teeth, a new Metro if you will. A lot of the work has already been done on this. The government has rejected it, but a lot of the work has already been done. It's critical that careful study and analysis be done so that we can anticipate how proposed changes will affect Metro and the cities.

I remember seeing Tom Jakobek last year when the Golden commission came out. There was a round table at the St Lawrence Centre, and Mr Jakobek took the view that he wasn't going to accept anything in the Golden report, particularly having to do with actual value assessment, because he hadn't seen the numbers as to how things were going to be affected. I agree. Let's have the numbers. Let's see what's going to happen. Up until now, we've been asked to accept something without knowing what the studies are saying, because as far as we know there are no studies.

Next, the government must legislate that there will be no downloading of soft social services on to the municipal level. The board of trade recommended in its 1994 report Killing the Golden Goose that welfare be funded entirely by the province, and this is the board of trade. If the government insists on taking over education funding because of a quid pro quo that has to take place, the Crombie commission provides for a way that can be done.

1120

Next, the government has said that all these changes are going to be a wash, and yes, I'm mixing amalgamation and downloading together, because I think they're inseparable. The government has said that it's going to be a wash. That's fine. Let's have some legislation that enshrines that. It's not nearly good enough, like the Toronto Star says, simply to say that the reserve fund should be spared. That's not enough.

Obviously considerable thought needs to be given to alternatives to local property taxation. I won't get into that here. I don't have time.

Finally, I suggest that any new amalgamation proposal should be submitted to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto in a binding referendum so that we stakeholders have a say in how our future unfolds.

Proponents of amalgamation have argued that the No side has no alternative vision, that we are just naysayers. This is not true. The model set out in my paper is a workable compromise that addresses longstanding problems, and the solutions have been here all along.

It would be easy for opponents of the government's megacity proposals, such as myself, to gloat about the referenda results, but in my view that's not at all constructive. We need to harness the energy out there, we need to overcome the pettiness and the clash of egos and we have to get on with the hard work that lies ahead.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lester, for coming forward and making your presentation. Unfortunately, you have exhausted all of your allotted time, but I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward today.

Would Joel Rosenbloom please come forward. Joel Rosenbloom?

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION OF TORONTO

The Chair: I know Maggie Keith is available. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Maggie Keith: Chair and members of the general government committee, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto thanks the committee for the opportunity to speak out about Bill 103, the megacity bill. I have listened with interest to some of the remarks made by previous speakers, and they confirm me in my sense that we were right to limit our approach merely to speaking about the bill that is actually before the House. The government certainly implied a connection between the bill that is before the House now and some of the other measures that have been referred to as downloading, which will be coming forward in future, but nevertheless, we thought that we would respect the structure of the hearings as we understand them to be and merely confine our remarks to the bill that is actually numbered 103.

The Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto represents about 1,800 households in 140 housing cooperatives. Not everybody is fully aware of the difference between housing cooperatives and other forms of not-for-profit housing. In fact, the cooperative movement as a whole is a school of democracy. The residents jointly own the housing cooperatives in which they live. Their ownership rights empower them to approve financial statements, budgets and monthly charges. We take responsibility for any deficits that we run and we keep any surpluses that we generate.

Housing cooperatives set policies and democratically elect a board of directors from among their number to manage the cooperative, with or without staff. Members of housing cooperatives value their control over the micro-community and they value their role as citizens of Toronto and other municipalities in the greater Toronto area.

As the Toronto representative of these cooperative organizations and individual voters, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto must speak against the government's plan to take away the democratic rights of the citizens of Toronto through Bill 103.

Bill 103 is proposing to do this in three ways.

The first is by forcing amalgamation on hapless citizens who have been told that they will have no choice about this done deal, this despite their decisive rejection of it by plebiscite when one considers all the municipalities taken together.

The second is by reducing local control over civic government. When each councillor represents over 50,000 people, we will all mean less in our communities. When we compare the success of small and medium-sized resident-governed housing cooperatives with the ugly troubles of huge bureaucrat-run government housing projects, the conclusion is inevitable: Small if beautiful, and I say that as somebody who is five feet, one and a half inches tall. The lesson is as clear for civic government as it is for housing communities.

Third, we have elected civic representatives to act in the best interests of the people in their wards. We trust them to enact bylaws, sustain and develop the infrastructure, encourage political and cultural life and foster the spirit of toleration and mutual respect that has made Toronto the most civilized city in Ontario.

But Bill 103 would place arbitrarily appointed trustees over our elected representatives. These people have been given the power to overturn decisions and to give secret orders to municipal staff without regard for the Canadian tradition of open government. A transition team is already imposing a structure and making staffing decisions, even before Bill 103 has been passed by the Legislature. Worse yet, the decisions of these unelected governors may not be reviewed or questioned by the courts.

This dictatorial scrapping of representative government is unacceptable to our members, who are consistently active as property owners, voters and citizens. We urge you not to proceed with this legislation. It is foreign not only to Ontario but to the British tradition of responsible government and limitation on the power of the executive.

This bill is reminiscent of the actions of governments, until now in other unfortunate countries, that have rejected the principle of "no taxation without representation" and have overturned the rule of law. The historic consequences of such actions abroad and in the nation to the south of us have been bloody rebellion, social upheaval and an answering defiance of the law from angry citizens and a parasitic criminal element.

We ask the committee to have regard for Ontario's history of democratic government by the people and for the people. Please, advise the government to let Bill 103 die.

Mr Silipo: Ms Keith, thank you for the presentation. There are a couple of questions I want to pursue with you. We will know later today for sure, but from what the government has been saying and from what the minister has been saying, at least part of their initial response to the referendum results would be to indicate that they believe that by making some changes to the bill, such as greatly reducing the powers the trustees would have -- or reducing, maybe greatly; I don't know if that's a proper description or not. But making some changes in the role of the trustees and making some other changes would, in their view, satisfy what they believe people said through the referendum. Would that be your sense, that this is a bill that can be amended by such things as reducing the powers of the trustees?

Ms Keith: My sense is that had the government made that decision at an earlier stage in the process, it would have been effective. At this particular time things have gone too far, and I think it would be very difficult to convince the citizens of Toronto to accept a modified version of the bill, given the level of passion and anger that has built up. I think modifications that people would have been happy about earlier would be treated with scorn now. I say this with some regret, because I believe in a consultative process and I believe in people working together to try to achieve the best they can, but I think it's too late for that.

1130

Mr Silipo: This will be known by the end of the day today, because by the end of the day the amendments are to be tabled with the committee and we will know whether those amendments will be tabled or not. But one of the things we've heard recently is that the government might not table any amendments at this point and might instead choose to leave the amendments to be tabled when the bill is supposed to go back to the Legislature for one hour's worth of committee of the whole before third reading, which would mean that all the amendments the government would propose, plus any amendments the opposition parties might propose, would all have one hour to be debated and dealt with, and then we automatically would have to proceed to voting. I'd be interested in your reaction to that course of action if that is what the government chooses to do.

Ms Keith: I am not sure what I can say, really. Probably it's very clear to anyone who sits around the table that people would take that as a strong show of defiance towards people who made the choice to vote in the plebiscite and expressed their opinion quite decisively. I take the qualification that Mr Gilchrist made earlier; nevertheless, the number of people who tend to vote in municipal elections at all is often very small and I think there has been enough of a vote for the referendum vote to be taken seriously. I think people would merely get angrier. I don't think it would have any good effect at all.

Mr Silipo: We have put forward a proposal in response to this whole mess. We have suggested that the government should withdraw the bill and proceed to set up a citizens' assembly, and in order to ensure that the impetus for change continues we've suggested a deferral by one year of the municipal elections as they apply in the GTA, allowing the process to unfold in the way it should. In the remaining seconds, I would be interested in your reaction to that.

Ms Keith: I think that sounds like a good idea. Again, I remember Mr Gilchrist's remarks about the need for a vision, but I think a vision is created by all the participants. I think our people would like what you're proposing, and of course we would expect members of the party that has formed the government to be part of that group so we could all try to work together to achieve something that would be really effective and that would perhaps ultimately result in a merger that has everybody behind it.

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

Ms Keith: I want to thank members of the committee very much for the opportunity to speak. We really appreciate it.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 79

The Chair: Would Anne Dubas please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Anne Dubas: Thank you very much, Mr Maves and members of the committee. With me is Denis Casey, the first vice-president of Local 79.

My name is Anne Dubas, a good Ukrainian name, pronounced "Dubis," not "Dubaw," if you don't mind, sir. My husband gets very upset. I am old-fashioned and did take his name in marriage, almost 28 years ago; that's a long time, but it's been okay.

Local 79 is the union that has represented the workers at the city of Toronto since 1942. We have also represented the workers of Metropolitan Toronto since 1954, when our workers went from the city of Toronto, some of them, to provide the regional type of services that Metropolitan Toronto serves. They took with them the city of Toronto collective agreement: their wages, their benefits, the clauses, the periods, the whole thing. In 1966, when Metro was expanded and we took on the soft services at Metropolitan Toronto, we continued to represent the workers at the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto, and indeed, believe it or not, Riverdale Hospital. In those days Riverdale Hospital was also run by Metropolitan Toronto.

We have a long history, and you can see from our letterhead -- unfortunately, we didn't realize we were to bring 50 copies and we only brought about 25, so it's the green document. You can see from our letterhead that we have at this particular time six bargaining units representing close to 9,000 people, not counting the other 2,000 part-timers that we have just unionized in Metro and the city of Toronto.

I'd like to state that in our 55 years as a union we have tried hard to work with our employers. In fact, we have helped create the stability and the vitality that exist both at the city and Metropolitan Toronto. As the front-line workers and the representatives of the front-line workers, we can speak very strongly about the value of the two-tier system that presently exists in Metropolitan Toronto. We don't like to hear the myths about duplication.

Before six years ago we may have had to side with you on some myths of duplication, but during the last six years we too recognized that the tax revenues going into the city and into Metro were being harmed. We had to work with our employer and we did. Believe it or not, we've worked hard, even up to a strike deadline of last August where we made the decision that no, we will go for a sixth year of no wage increases because the services and the programs we provide at Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto are of great importance.

I'd like to draw you to the first of the four points we're raising, and that is that two-tier government has served us well. Moving into the second paragraph, at the local level, the city of Toronto provides services that are not provided at Metropolitan Toronto. It provides unique things. Even down to the time when the children moved out of that abandoned building and on to Nathan Phillips Square, it was city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto people who provided the services. Out of the 45 kids -- being as old as I am, I can call them children and kids -- only one came from 416. The rest came from 905, 705, 519 and 613, the other area codes. The people of Toronto, in this vital city we have created, providing homes for the aged, child care, public health -- it is what we provide and it is this that draws business to here, to the city of Toronto.

The Metro level of government and its function: Just as you, the elected representatives here at the provincial level, have your functions and your things to deal with, so do the lower-tier and upper-tier governments here in Metropolitan Toronto have to deal with it.

We try hard. We have worked with them. As I mentioned, we have not had a wage increase; we're not here to ask for that, nor have we done that with our employer. We're here to ensure that the services and the programs provided, that draw the quality of business -- right now, the big landlords down on Bay Street are trying to get Stone Consolidated to move to Toronto instead of Abitibi-Price to move to Montreal. The advantage here is the stability, the cleanliness of the city, the ability to attract business. Toronto is the financial hub of Canada, not just Ontario. It is this geographical area of Ontario that we have to keep alive and well.

Our members believe in that. They believe in the quality of services we provide to the taxpayers. They believe that if we don't continue to provide that quality, that dedication, that responsibility to the taxpayers, this province suffers, and we feel the responsibility not just to the local taxpayers but to everybody here in Ontario.

We see Metro and the City of Toronto -- yes, the city, when you use it in that context, as you do in your bill, does have a big C on the city -- as complementary levels of government, and it has resulted in a system which balances the needs of all the communities and spreads responsibilities in an equitable way.

Our second point: On Bill 103, slow down and let's get it right. The City of Toronto Act of 1996 -- and we're aware of not only the 1834 but the 1909 City of Toronto Act; we're aware of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act of 1953 and 1966. As a responsible union we have to be aware of the people we deal with, not the enemy, not the opposition -- yes, the people on the other side of the table -- but the people we partner with in order to ensure that the public sector services stay (1) within the public sector and (2) are delivered by us.

1140

We are concerned that Bill 103 is still undemocratic. We were listening to the questions and answers before. The transition team seems the most draconian part of this, where you are turning over to non-elected officials the right to establish how to govern our area. That is wrong. I do not see the members of provincial Parliament turning over to the business community how you are going to run. That is abdicating your responsibility.

The responsibility, the attentiveness to the local taxpayer, has to be there; it has to be recognized. It's these extensive powers that undermine the elected councils' ability to represent their citizens. We believe the scope and powers of the transition team are arbitrary and unreasonable. The newly elected council, whether we keep the two-tier or move forward, should be making these kinds of decisions on behalf of their citizens. Their citizens elect them. They are there to make that.

Rarely in the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto have the citizens of Metro been so involved and provoked, and that is the word: They've been provoked about the passage of this bill. Thousands came out, and it wasn't the big-U union out there; it was the citizens. It was our members. Our members are the community, our members are the public, and the 9,000 of them were there. We do have a brochure afterwards to show you what Local 79 is and the extensive education we're doing. We are running courses for our people not only on the amalgamation of the municipalities, Bill 103, but Bill 104, the school boards and the downloading. I will get there quickly, as I see the time running out.

The downloading, which is our point number 3 -- guys, it's wrong. You cannot offload to the municipalities just because the federal government offloads to you. You do not pass the buck. No, we don't just write and protest to this level of government; we also protest to the federal government. We may be a local union, but we recognize our responsibility to all taxpayers to stop the offloading, and Chrétien is picked on a lot more than we pick on Mike.

Downloading and the amalgamation are now inexplicably linked in most people's minds, and they should be. Any economic advantages a megacity might possibly provide to a municipal taxpayer will be quickly wiped out for the downloading. There's no way the Stone Consolidateds are going to move their head offices here if you've screwed up the city of Toronto. We want the city of Toronto to continue to be the real financial hub for the country, and that is the whole of Canada. Not that we're anti-Quebec, but we believe they would be better off here in Toronto. The opposition has come from unexpected sources. How often do you see us, as a union, on the same platform as the board of trade? I mean, when that happens, you know you've really screwed up.

It is time to recognize that everybody can have some levels of misguidance, but you also sometimes have to relook at what you're doing and saying and listen to the people. We're talking about the CAOs, and we're talking about the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and they're saying no, don't download. It is wrong.

On our last point is on the services of the public sector employees, and they're highly valued. One of the reasons why Toronto and Metro Toronto, with its two-tier government, with its multiple services, is recognized -- Fortune magazine, those people to the south of the border, are looking to the north of the border, and that's Metropolitan Toronto, for the kind of city that it wants. They don't want Metropolitan Toronto to become the Chicago of the north. One of the reasons we reached and we were recognized by Fortune magazine and other organizations outside of Canada was the quality of services, our homes for the aged, our child care, our roads, our traffic. It is important.

You saw last week where Metropolitan Toronto recognized it was necessary to continue these services and it looked to its taxpayers. They had the integrity and the responsibility and the recognition that they needed a tax increase because the cost of asphalt to fill those potholes has gone up, the cost of the barriers on the Don Valley to maintain safety had gone up. Those aren't public sector services. The cost of replacing the ambulances that you put people in had gone up; they have to be replaced. That is not a public sector service. You must recognize that as part of the value, the stability and the quality of Metropolitan Toronto, and these services have to be recognized. They must continue to be delivered in whatever format by public sector workers directly employed by the level of government that is providing those services.

The Chair: I apologize, Ms Dubas, but we're already well beyond the allotted time.

Ms Dubas: Thank you. I had five more pages.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation this afternoon. There's no time for questions.

Ms Dubas: May I leave with the clerk our orange document for information?

The Chair: Certainly.

Ms Dubas: And the history of Local 79. You may find it interesting, for those people who have never really been exposed to a union.

The Chair: Jasmine Igneski or Joel Rosenbloom? This committee is in recess until 3:30 this afternoon.

Mr Colle: On a point of order, Mr Chair: In looking at the list of speakers before us today, I fail to see the trustees we asked to come before this committee. Are they going to appear?

The Chair: No. I was under the impression that Mr Pickard was phoned the other day, and I know we informed Mr Silipo or Mr Marchese that he had declined to appear. I thought that your caucus had also been informed of that; your office had been.

Mr Colle: I thought it was the explicit instruction of this committee that those three trustees appear before the committee, be asked to come.

The Chair: The committee can't compel anyone to come. They can only put forward requests. The only way you could ever compel anyone to come is that we would have to adjourn, go back to the House and get a Speaker's warrant. I think that's unprecedented, actually. Committees always extend the invitation to people to come and speak and it's really up to them as citizens whether or not they want to come.

Mr Colle: I want to be on the record as certainly pointing out that this is an affront to the committee. These three trustees who were appointed, who functioned for a number of months before they were found to be acting illegally by the court and whom the minister has said he's going to reappoint if the bill passes, will have a major role in Bill 103 even after the fact.

My understanding is that these trustees have hired a major accounting firm under their auspices. I'd like to know if that accounting firm is still functioning. I'd also like to know whether the legal staff they have hired is still functioning. That is why I think it's critically important that they should have appeared and had the decency to come before this committee as they were requested.

For them to deny coming before this committee is an affront to the committee and the people of Metropolitan Toronto who have a great interest in the trusteeship and how it's worked and how it will work, because it is one third of this bill. For them not to come -- I think it might be possible to pursue maybe asking for a Speaker's warrant to force them to come. I think that would be appropriate. I'm going to pursue that.

1150

Mr Silipo: On the same point of order, Mr Chair: I also want to express my dissatisfaction with the decision the three individuals have made. I understand and appreciate the fact that technically those three individuals are now functioning as private citizens because, as a result of the court decision that found their appointments were illegal, they are no longer acting as the trustees. But they did act for a period of time as the trustees under the intended legislation, with the powers under the order in council being the same as those they would have under the legislation when that legislation would be passed, as the government saw it. As far as I am aware, they still are the intended trustees whenever and if the legislation is passed.

In that sense it would have been more appropriate for them to take the request of the committee seriously and appear. I understood and did not make an issue of the fact that they chose not to appear before the committee while there was an issue in front of the courts, but notwithstanding the decision of the courts, it would have been appropriate for them to be here. I think it would still be useful and there still is time for that to happen. Particularly if the rumour mill is correct and we aren't going to have any amendments from the government for tomorrow morning, we're going to have a fair amount of time tomorrow in committee, if that turns out to be the case. I would still think it would be useful to once again ask the clerk to reissue an invitation for them to appear, even if that is tomorrow. Quite frankly, even if that were to take some time away from clause-by-clause, I think it would be useful. So I make that request.

Even if we were to proceed, it still would be useful to have them here because, as I say, they are going to be -- if the legislation goes through, then certainly the government's intention is still to do that. We can only go by whatever intention the government has given us to date, that they want to proceed with the legislation. If that turns out to be the case, then I think it's incumbent upon these individuals, or one of them on behalf of the three at least, to appear before the committee.

On the question of a Speaker's warrant, I appreciate what you said, that it hasn't been used, and I appreciate that it would require the committee agreeing to ask the Speaker to do that, but I think it would be important for us to express to these three individuals how strongly we feel about the importance of their being here. Just at this point I would make the request that the clerk reissue the invitation, pointing out that notwithstanding the events of the court decision, we think it's still valuable and useful for them to be here.

Just picking up on some of the other points Mr Colle was making -- and I realize the parliamentary assistant isn't with us, but would ask whoever is acting in his stead in the meantime, if there is other information, if there is other work going on that the three trustees had begun through either accounting firms or others, that this information also come in front of the committee, particularly tomorrow as we begin clause-by-clause debate of the bill. I would just ask that in the normal way in which that information has been provided to us -- well, it hasn't been provided in a number of cases, but I think the tradition is that when we ask for information, it comes before us. It would be very useful for us to have in terms of dealing with the clause-by-clause discussion of the bill, which is supposed to begin tomorrow. I'd make that request of the parliamentary assistant as well.

Mr Flaherty: If I may just comment briefly on the point of order with my own view on it, this is not a government committee; this is a committee of the Legislative Assembly of the province. This is the standing committee on general government. We sit on this committee as members of the Legislative Assembly, all of us, regardless of what political party we happen to be affiliated with.

Having said that, it has been clear that there has been concern that the Legislative Assembly not be treated in an inappropriate way by considering legislation to be passed and law before it is law. We are dealing with a bill; we are not dealing with an act. The act may or may not become law -- if and when it is passed at third reading and receives royal assent. There are no trustees. The judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) who dealt with the case offered his view by which, subject to appeal, we would be bound, that the orders in council ought not to have been made and, as I understand the ruling, are void. In those circumstances there are no trustees, there is no act, and for this committee of the Legislative Assembly to suggest to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly elected by us that he, the Speaker, should issue a warrant for persons who are not appointed to appear before this committee in their capacity as appointed persons, which they are not, is, with respect, nonsensical.

Mr Sergio: To clarify that, Mr Chairman, I understand that this piece of legislation has been sent to this committee for consideration, and we are doing exactly that. I would like to get from the minister, as he said that when this legislation is approved he will reinstate the trustees -- we are hearing that there are no trustees. I'd like to know from the minister, through you, is he willing to reappoint the trustees under any circumstance? I would like to know that.

The Chair: I can't answer that question but I can perhaps direct it to the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Sergio: I would appreciate that. We have heard the outrage from the people with respect to the appointment of the trustees and the transition team. We would like to know from the minister, since he has said he will take into consideration what he has heard up to now and he will use the next three or four weeks to bring in changes and amendments, if he will include again bringing in the appointment of those trustees. If you can answer that, I will take that as an answer.

Mr Gilchrist: As my colleague from Durham Centre has very ably recounted the legal framework, I would add that to in any way be influenced by your point of order would be to assume those sections of the bill will carry. I think that is a prejudging of the actions of this committee and of the House that is quite inappropriate. As was demonstrated by the Speaker's ruling, one should not prejudge things. I think you are similarly going down that same road. Over and above that, the premise behind the point of order that trustees were trustees and were doing the sorts of things that were suggested here, engaging legal counsel or accounting firms -- in point of fact they were not trustees; they were an unnamed board of three individuals having exploratory meetings, in fact very productive meetings, just familiarization meetings between themselves and the chief administrative officers, chief financial officers of the affected communities. They do not exist as a board today. They are private citizens.

As members of all parties will remember, the subcommittee report which we ratified said they would be invited. They have declined to attend, given that they have no official status. It would be extraordinarily inappropriate to compel any private citizen to come before this committee. At this point in time they have no official standing. The bill has not passed. There are not trustees. There may not be trustees. To suggest that we should somehow take the extraordinary step of asking for a Speaker's warrant is really nothing more than theatrical, and I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that we have taken the steps which are appropriate for this committee. Before the court ruling, the request was made for them to consider attending before us here. They have declined. The court ruling now renders the whole issue quite moot, and I would suggest the point of order is quite inappropriate; in fact, it's not even a point of order.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, I had asked you a question. Can I hear your answer, please? You said you'd have the answer to my question. My question was --

The Chair: I said I would ask the parliamentary assistant to answer the question.

Mr Sergio: I thought you said, "I can answer that."

The Chair: No, I asked the parliamentary assistant to answer it.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Just a brief comment: I find it extraordinarily bizarre that Mr Colle, who has lashed us time and again over the court's decision, when the city of Scarborough submitted this question as to the legality of the role of the trustees and that particular General Division judge came up with his decision, has pointed out, if I recall -- we could probably find in his questions or remarks in the House -- that this was a contempt of the Legislature. If it was a contempt of the Legislature on the basis of the way in which the original Bill 103 was drafted, then it would be absolutely absurd and a double standard to have this committee entertain the question of having them back here, because now you have a second time they're in contempt.

If they were in contempt the first time, as the judge found this government to be, based on the submission of the bill by the city of Scarborough and its submissions, I find it just absolutely bizarre that you would now make a request that they be here when they do not even have any official status. I find it absolutely bizarre. It's like taking two points and arguing to the centre, as you have in many cases throughout this whole debate.

In my estimation, since the judge made a decision, we have to respect that. Now you're asking this committee to turn around and invert itself upside down and suddenly argue in logic the other way, that they ought to be here because you made the request. You'd probably condemn us again if we even entertained the possibility, and Anthony, you'd say we were in contempt again. You'd be in contempt as well, then.

1200

Mr Silipo: We should be clear. I don't think Mr Colle requested, and certainly I have not at this point requested, that we ask the Speaker for a warrant. Let's just be clear that isn't the point we made. I did request that an invitation be issued again to the three individuals.

The Chair: Could you put that in the form of a motion?

Mr Silipo: I move that the clerk request the three individuals who had been appointed as trustees to appear before the committee.

Just on that, because it relates to that, I also wanted to ask, because I did point out that we may have lots of time on our hands tomorrow -- that depends on what the government decides to do with the issue of amendments. I just wanted to know if the parliamentary assistant is in a position at this point to shed some light on that issue. Are we going to have amendments tabled by the government by 7 o'clock, or are we not going to have amendments?

The Chair: There are a couple of things there. First of all, there's a motion that we reinvite the three individuals who were at one point appointed to be trustees from 103, and --

Mr Gilchrist: Appointed to be a board.

The Chair: Right. The only problem with that is that the only time they could possibly appear is this afternoon or this evening. All we can do is clause-by-clause tomorrow, by order of the Legislature. We can have a vote on whether or not we do that invitation. That's your motion. I just want to make that clear.

Mr Silipo: Chair, the committee, even by unanimous consent, couldn't hear them tomorrow?

The Chair: No, because it's --

Mr Silipo: Let me suggest then that if it helps you in the motion I'll leave open the question of when they would be scheduled, because my hope would be that if we agreed to invite them and if they agreed to appear, even if we had to this afternoon, get a dispensation from the House that we could do that on the request of the committee -- so we'll deal with the issue of when to schedule them, could I suggest, second, to the question of whether we agree to invite them or not?

The Chair: The motion to reinvite. We have that now. Does anyone want to speak to that motion?

Mr Colle: It's quite incredible. Now the government spokesperson is even denying they were trustees. Now they're a board of advisers. This charade has to stop. This committee made a specific request. We only requested that these three individuals appear as witnesses. Whether they are private citizens or whether they are trustees, or now they're advisers, this committee of the Legislature has the prerogative and the right to invite anybody to appear. Whether a court has ruled either way on this, we have that prerogative to invite citizens to appear before this committee and that is what the essential point is here.

The minister stated immediately after Judge Brennan's ruling that he was going to reappoint these three trustees -- those were his words -- after the legislation was passed. So these three individuals not only have had a great deal of bearing on this bill already because they have been working; as the assistant deputy minister, Ms McLaren said, even when this court case was before the judge, these trustees were continuing to work. I was appalled at that time when I asked the deputy minister, "If they are refusing to come before this committee because they're using the pending court case as an excuse not to appear, why should they therefore be continuing to function as trustees?" That was their excuse at that time for not appearing.

Now I find we can't determine what influence they've had on this whole bill, what information they have, what they've discerned from the work they've done over the last couple of months. I would also be very intrigued to find out whether the persons they have hired, the legal staff they hired -- George Rust-D'Eye is their legal consultant. They were given instructions by the minister on December 17 that they will be retaining the services of a major accounting firm to assist them with their task.

By the way, the minister in their instructions refers to them as trustees; board of trustees, that's what they're referred to as. I would like to find out whether this accounting firm has been hired, if it's still working or operating, what influence it's having on this bill and the process, and also whether Mr Rust-D'Eye or other legal staff have been working or other people have been working and are still working despite Judge Brennan's ruling.

I think it's very germane to the work of this committee because not only have the trustees had an influence before the judge's ruling, the minister is quite unequivocal in saying he's going to reappoint those three trustees when the bill is passed. It's not in any way looking at them as individuals and whether their role has been above or beyond the law; they certainly have had a significant role to play in this bill. If you look at Bill 103, one third of the bill deals with trusteeship and their functions. This is a trusteeship bill. It says very little about governance. It says about the functions of the trustees.

For this committee to be denied access to these persons who have had an integral input into Bill 103 and will have an integral input into this bill if it's passed, because they may be making significant decisions on the future structure of this act -- I think it's critical we request again that they come before this committee, as simple as that, as citizens, and we have the right as a committee to ask them to come.

The Chair: Two things in there: There's a request to the ministry to find out about a supposed law firm and accounting firm. I note Mr Gilchrist has noted that and will undertake to get some sort of response. You've spoken to Mr Silipo's motion.

Mr Flaherty: I'll just respond to what the member for Oakwood says. He finds himself in the unfortunate position of wanting trustees who are not trustees to appear in front of this legislative committee in their capacity as potential trustees, which is an interesting, twisted form of reason, if it is reason. There's an impolite way of putting that kind of logic. The polite way is to say one cannot assert a fact and deny a fact at the same time, which is exactly what the member for Oakwood is seeking to do. As a member of the Legislative Assembly, I can't support that sort of illogical approach.

Mr Hastings: I just want to reiterate that in my estimation Judge Brennan made a decision and we have to respect that decision. Now Mr Colle is requesting that we not observe the decision, at least not the spirit of the decision.

Mr Sergio: That's not what he said.

Mr Hastings: He may not have said it, but there are lots of things that have been said in this committee and sometimes we're not very good listeners, including myself. I've noted that throughout.

Mr Sergio: You can say that again.

Mr Hastings: I would like to suggest that this is an inappropriate request on the part of Mr Colle. It has nothing to do with the standing committee being denied whether it should hear or not hear; it is simply a fundamental violation of the spirit of the decision.

Even if you did concede the possibility that they ought to be invited, as soon as they sat down, as sure as I'm sitting here, Mr Colle would be the first one to be lecturing them, questioning them on why they're here, and that they themselves, by acceding to the request, would be violating the spirit of Judge Brennan's decision. As far as I'm concerned, the motion is completely inappropriate and out of order.

The Chair: I don't think it's out of order and I'm going to entertain it, so it's just a matter of how you want to vote on it.

Mr Silipo: Just to make it really clear, let me suggest that I've rephrased the motion so as to be an invitation to the three individuals, Mr Pickard, Ms Gibbons -- I apologize, I don't recall the third.

Mr Colle: Armstrong.

Mr Silipo: Mr Armstrong, to appear before the committee. Just so we're not getting into the morass of trustees, non-trustees or legal title, right now I appreciate the fact and I understand and accept that they are private citizens. Notwithstanding that, I believe they have valuable input they could provide to the committee in dealing with this bill. Both because of the experience they've had, whatever we may wish to call that, under whatever title they perform those functions, and given the government's to this date indication that these would be the three individuals who would be appointed, I think it's useful for all the reasons we've put on the table for these individuals to appear before the committee. Just so that we're not into a procedural wrangle, I would like to have the motion read that we invite the three -- Mr Armstrong, Mr Pickard and Ms Gibbons -- to appear before the committee.

Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate, Mr Silipo, your clarification, and if it is your submission that we are doing nothing more than inviting them to attend, to participate, then I can --

Mr Silipo: Yes, that was the motion on the floor.

Mr Gilchrist: Except that the phraseology about using trustees and that sort of thing I think was inappropriate. If it's purely and simply a request to invite, I can support that. Given the time frame, if the clerk is requested to invite them for this afternoon or this evening, and I believe there are spots available, then I can support your motion.

The Chair: Seeing no further debate, I'd like to put the question. The motion from Mr Silipo is that the committee reinvite Cy Armstrong, Jack Pickard and Val Gibbons to appear before the committee, hopefully this evening in an open spot.

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

I declare the motion carried.

I will instruct the clerk to reissue those invitations by phone and by fax.

Mr Silipo: I had asked another question earlier. Could Mr Gilchrist reply, in terms of whether there would be government amendments tabled today or not.

Mr Gilchrist: I can't answer that yet.

The Chair: Thank you. We're recessed until 3:30.

The committee recessed from 1210 to 1542.

TORONTO ARTS COUNCIL

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Could I ask everyone to please come to order. We're a little bit behind because of the vote, so I'd appreciate your cooperation today. Order, please, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much.

Our first presenter this afternoon is Anne Collins. Anne, could you come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Anne Collins: Good afternoon. My name is Anne Collins and I'm president of the Toronto Arts Council, which is the city of Toronto's arm's-length adviser and funder of the arts.

As a representative of the city's arts community, I could break the tone of these long weeks of hearings by singing for you or dancing for you, but I'm neither one of those. I'm a writer, so I'm going to give you a metaphor.

A long-time city dweller who still works right downtown, I now live on our family farm north of Whitby. My metaphor has to do with what's outside my living room window, which is an orchard. This is the season of pruning. We cut now to remove diseased and dead wood, to cut away overlapping branches and badly directed shoots. We cut to let sun and air get to as much of the tree as possible, to promote healthy growth. If a tree has been neglected or badly damaged by weather, animals, insects or disease, it must be carefully and lightly pruned. We have to bring it back to health in stages, directing its new growth over a number of years. Overpruning will weaken or even kill it.

When we prune healthy trees, we keep certain goals in mind. We wish to encourage healthy branches to produce a sustainable amount of fruit on a regular basis. This is not nature's way, so people have to intervene with intelligence to shape the growth to their needs. Pruning is a continuous process, and life is not tidy.

You may not yet see a connection between your responsibilities and those of the orchardist. Here I am talking to a committee on amalgamation of municipal governments about pruning, but think about this image: An orchardist new to his calling but of an eager and inventive nature decides he will have a more efficient orchard if he grafts seven trees together to form one huge tree. He begins cutting and grafting. It's time-consuming, confusing and complicated work. Some grafts don't take and die; some grow off in wildly divergent and unforeseen directions. The tree grows monstrously tall and requires really tall equipment to service it. He spends his whole life tending to this one tree. Meanwhile his neighbour has long since pruned his seven trees and gone on to his other chores.

In a meeting I had recently with David Crombie, he was talking about how he thought that arguing about the structure of the city was fruitless, that the ethos of the city was the thing that mattered. He was pretty sure that Toronto's ethos would not change no matter what structure is imposed on it. I'm not so sure you can make such a distinction: separate ethos from structure. It seems to me that the ethos around the arts in the city is inseparable from the structure, for instance.

Twenty-five years ago, Toronto city council created a structure to administer its arts funding and be its adviser on the arts: the Toronto Arts Council. It chose a volunteer, artist-driven model with a tiny, efficient, professional staff that would function at arm's length from the city's politicians.

Over the years, between city council and the arts council and the arts community, we've created a climate where artists don't feel like they are constantly going cap in hand to their funders, and instead feel like they are partners in making a city; where artists are not considered dilettantes frittering away public resources, but citizens building community by the nature of what they do and what they make, which has to be performed, published, put out there expressly to gain a response from audiences, from neighbours, from businesses and from the city itself.

Over these weeks you've heard others speak of the economic benefits of a thriving arts community in a city such as Toronto. The Toronto Arts Council has reams of studies and figures, which we would be happy to send to all of you, which lay out the economic benefits in detail. I'll cite only one example, a telling example. During the last vicious recession, the only sector of the municipal economy to keep on creating jobs in Toronto was the arts sector. Toronto city council has recognized how the arts contribute to the health of the city by being the only level of government in the last few years that hasn't cut funding to the arts.

But I was talking about ethos. The relatively little bit of money that the city has spent on the arts is only one piece of the supportive ethos. For the most part, when city council looks at artists, it sees citizens with whom it's working in partnership.

For instance, during the last real estate boom, when the city became too expensive for artists to work in, artists, the Toronto Arts Council and the city created a cultural facilities fund to help organizations find low-cost ways of staying downtown. As costs continued to rise and the city became too expensive for many artists to live in, artists, the Toronto Arts Council and city council got to work on live-work initiatives and zoning changes that kept artists in the city. A benefit of these initiatives is an ongoing revitalization of many once-abandoned industrial areas downtown.

When the old ways of arts funding proved too exclusionary in a city of immigrants, artists, the city and the TAC got together on cultural diversity initiatives that became a model of change for other levels of government too.

Is it any wonder that other cities look to Toronto itself as a model of a healthy downtown, cities such as the amalgamated Detroit, for instance? Its population of two million was halved in a decade as residents fled increased taxes and deteriorating services in the inner core. Last year Detroit deputy mayor Nettie Seabrooks announced a plan to revitalize the city downtown by reinstating arts funding. "The quality of life of a city," she said, "is defined by its cultural aspect throughout history. When people talk about Toronto, the first thing they mention is the museums, the galleries, the symphony orchestras," and I'd add the vibrant arts scene and the theatres.

In the last few weeks there's been a fair amount of speculation in the media not only about the fate of the cities but the fate of the Toronto Arts Council in an amalgamated city. Some have described us as one of the gems of the city, the perfect model for any municipal arts funding structure and the most efficient arts funder in the country. Our admin budget is the benchmark other funders hope to reach. But our demise has also been predicted. We've been Xed out of existence to save our half-million-dollar administration budget. As president of the board, I'd certainly not let it be that last option.

When we're talking about the ethos that has built an arts community unequalled in the country and hard to match on the continent, it's not as simple as looking to eliminate duplication of services. The Toronto Arts Council funds the arts in the city to the tune of about $4.7 million a year. Metro parks and culture provides just under $6 million. We share clients and had found ways to streamline our administrations to save dollars before megacity was even a whisper in this government's ear.

1550

The Toronto Arts Council's focus is on the non-profit, the small to mid-range, the individual artist, the cultural sustainers and the innovators. Quite often we are the first government funder in. Our artist-based board tends to know intimately who is worth the risk. They know because they live and work and dream in their communities. Our arts organizations are built on an intricate interleaving of support from four levels of government, from the private sector, from the artists themselves and from the people who come to see or buy the work. This is another part of the ethos that has made Toronto a great city for the arts. Paradoxically, it's been careful and innovative public support of the arts that has allowed many of our companies to be better private fund-raisers than their counterparts in the US.

Cities that work recognize both the local importance of the arts and the significant impact of the arts on the region, and develop mechanisms to support both. When London, England abolished the greater London council in the Thatcher years, it created the London Arts Board, an arm's-length funder that was given a budget equivalent to what it had been before, about $33 million. The Arts Council of England spends another $127 million in London, funding the large institutions and devolving grants programs to the local boroughs. None of this is a property-tax-based thing, by the way.

The Department of National Heritage spends $154 million a year on London, and a new national lottery established specifically for arts funding pours in another $481 million, a total of over $812 million a year, compared to $80 million from all levels of government for Metro Toronto. In England, as in Europe, you'd be booted out of office if you cut arts funding, but that's a larger debate even than the one we've got here.

I've come to you to try to explain the complexity of the community we've built in Toronto over the decades and to stress that the ethos David Crombie talks about is built of many intertwined parts, and you can't simply prune it like a hedge. We've grown carefully and pruned well, and as citizens we need some reassurance from you that you understand the nature of the arts infrastructure in the city. All we've heard so far is Premier Harris saying that tax breaks will mean that more consumers will buy art. But art isn't entirely a creature of the marketplace.

I'll give you one last example, a personal one. A few years ago I got a nice advance, $30,000, from a small book publisher to write a book on a psychiatrist named Dr Ewen Cameron who did brainwashing experiments on his patients, partly funded by the CIA. The thing about book advances is that they come in stages and are paid back out of royalties. The publisher doesn't want to give you too much money until the manuscript is in hand, which is private sector thinking.

This was an expensive book to research. I had to spend weeks in Washington and Montreal and New York state, and I had to stitch the resources together. The first grant to come in was $1,500, in the first year the Toronto Arts Council gave individual writers grants -- I wasn't on the board then -- to finance the trip to New York state. Then I got another $1,000 from the Ontario Arts Council just to back me as a writer. Then I applied to the Canada Council with a careful budget, and they gave me $12,000 to bankroll more trips. But they couldn't pay right away, so I went to the TD Bank, and with the assurance in hand from the Canada Council, I floated a demand loan payable when the grant came in. Then I had to do a few stints of full-time editing in order to finance five months of writing time. Two and a half years later, I had a book. It sold well in Canadian terms: 5,000 copies. Of course, it wasn't enough to pay back my advance.

This could sound to all of you who don't know book publishing like an economic disaster, and in the short term I think it pretty much was. But then the book, which was called In the Sleep Room, won a Governor General's award. Then Donald Brittain, a wonderful filmmaker, optioned it. Then he died and the whole project looked like it was going to fall apart. Then a producer from the CBC bought the script, bought the rights, and he employed many a scriptwriter and many a story doctor and many a story editor as he tried to find a shape to turn this dark book into a popular TV drama. This week he finally started filming a four-hour miniseries.

I'm telling you this to show how this intricate mix of personal, private and public investment is the way we get our stories told in this country. In the long run, there are usually economic benefits from these ventures, but the artists and the producers are usually just thinking about how to put the resources together to get the work done.

I would ask you and I would ask this government to please think long and hard before you attempt to disentangle the way arts funding gets done in Toronto. As a bare minimum, sustain the resources, but also think about the means.

The Chair: We have two minutes for questions.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Thank you very much for coming here today to share not only your position with the Toronto Arts Council but also obviously your own personal position as well.

I wanted to ask you a question, because throughout the hearings we've heard from various groups representing different aspects of the arts and one of the messages that has come to us through this has been the difference between the way in which the arts are supported at the Toronto level and the Metro level. I just wondered if you could comment on that for us.

Ms Collins: At the Metro level, half their budget goes to the big four: the symphony, the AGO, the ballet and the opera company. They also have a more bureaucratic process. They're not arm's length from the Metro politicians and they're not necessarily artist-driven, though they're very responsive to their clients.

At the Toronto Arts Council we have a very small, strong professional staff, but we're volunteer-run and artist-driven and there's a majority of artist members on our board. Because of that, we have a very grass-roots kind of connection to the arts community. Over 25 years of working with Toronto city council, we've built up a really strong sense of mutual respect between the political process and the processes of the arts community. That's basically the difference in a nutshell.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Collins, and congratulations on your success.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LIBRARY WORKERS COMMITTEE

The Chair: Would Steve Burdick please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Burdick. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Steve Burdick: Thank you very much. I did prepare a written brief, which I believe all the members of the committee will now have before them. I'm sure all the honourable members can read so I'm not going to bore you by simply reading through the document, but I would like to make a few points that arise from the document and related matters.

I guess the first thing is to let you know that I come representing the library workers committee within CUPE. We are one of the subjurisdictional groups there. We represent about 4,500 library workers in this province. CUPE, as you may know, has organized almost all of the large and middle-sized libraries and a fair number of the small libraries in this province. That's about 50.

In the Metro Toronto area as well, we have regular meetings of the library locals. We represent the Metro reference library, the Toronto Public, Scarborough and North York. We also hear from East York and to some extent from York. Mississauga sometimes visits, but of course they're a little bit outside your ambit. So the comments I'm going to make to you have been considered by all those people. So much for preliminaries.

I believe we're here to talk about Bill 103 and chiefly what it's going to mean for the provision of library services in the greater Toronto area if it is enacted as it now stands. I know you've already heard quite a bit from other presenters about the bill in general, and particularly their concerns around the provisions in sections 9 and 11 around trustees and the interim team. I want to tell you that we share those concerns. I'm not going to elaborate on them too much. We're certainly concerned as to whether or not the members of those bodies will be able to in effect replace the elected officials for the various municipalities. That's a very important consideration for libraries, and why it's an important consideration I will explain to you in a minute.

Why it's important for us is that the libraries in Metro Toronto, the greater Toronto area, are all pretty well large to middle-sized libraries, and 80% to 90% of their funding comes from the municipality. They do also get a fair amount of money directly from the province, and that's a separate subject, but the bulk of their money comes from their municipality. In effect, anything that overrides the authority of those municipal councils may in fact have very serious implications for those library boards as they are now constituted and for the services that those boards are responsible currently for delivering.

1600

It's important you recognize that Bill 103 occurs at the same time as Bill 109 is in front of the Legislature, and it has already had second reading, as I understand it. It will revise the current Public Libraries Act, although it's not in all ways consistent with Bill 103, but what's particularly important about it is that it seems to take away a lot of authority for trustees of local boards. In fact, it says that local boards will no longer be dominated by citizen appointments. In effect, in that way and in many other ways, Bill 109 has the effect of transferring authority for libraries to the municipal councils either directly or indirectly, which may or may not be a problem. That's the subject for a separate discussion, and CUPE intends to speak to you about that, but we're quite concerned about it because it obviously creates some problems.

It also, and I think this is important for you to take note of, removes the mandatory presence of separate school board representatives from the library boards. That's very important for libraries, because libraries are not only a cultural institution but they're an educational institution and they are part of the educational network, not only of the province but certainly of this region. Our school boards depend very heavily on our local libraries, and that's our primary schools, our secondary schools and our post-secondary schools. They will all be impacted by these sorts of changes.

Bill 109 also calls for explicit contracting-out provisions. Bill 103 doesn't say that, but I understand you have some other regulatory changes coming down which may point in the same direction.

Our real concern is, if there is one large library board -- which may not be the case, because Bill 109 preserves the Metro reference library board, or at least it appears to, whereas Bill 103 dissolves it, apparently. But let's say there's one large library board. What will happen? First of all, this one large municipality will have to deal with all the downloading concerns you've heard about from many other people before. I'm not going to go through those too much, but suffice it to say that we understand in the Metro Toronto region we'd be looking at new costs of over $1 billion one way or another, and we'd be looking at the $7 million or $8 million that the province now puts into the libraries in this area becoming now solely the responsibility of the municipalities, a responsibility they may have trouble dealing with, not to put too fine a point on it.

We're quite concerned that the only way a new large municipality will be able to deal with all this will be by reducing its services one way or another, because, first of all, libraries are seen as a soft service. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that libraries tend to get the short end of the stick. That may or may not be a good thing in some people's minds, but if you want to talk about a province and a municipality dealing with the information age, if you want to talk about a provincial and a municipality dealing with the educational and informational needs of their citizens, it's not a good thing. They're going to have really serious problems.

What do we think is likely to happen from this? Being in direct competition with other services which are being squeezed, cuts will happen. Small branches: Many of those will probably close already. Keep in mind that the seven systems now have 94 or 95 branches. We think a lot of those branches are likely to close. We think the hours of service throughout the system will probably be reduced, leading to a reduction in the number of front-line staff, which will not help our users. They need our staff to help them get through the increasing amount of information that's in front of people these days.

Support operations will probably be very seriously cut into, and the library, to the public, tends to be the librarian at the desk. That's fine, but for that librarian at the desk to do her or his job, there has to be a whole host of other support services, and all those support services are going to be hurt. On page 5, I list for you some of those services. We have people in administration; communications and development, which by the way is where PR teams and fund-raising teams are often found; financial services; preservation; conservation and binding -- those materials have got to be preserved, obviously; maintenance and facilities; graphics and photography; computer operations and systems operations; acquisitions and cataloguing. There's a whole host of things that take place below the surface to make sure library services are provided.

Library boards: The new local board will be under immense pressure to get into outsourcing. As I mentioned, Bill 109 anticipates that and provides for it. But we're quite concerned as to what outsourcing will do. The contractors may look attractive at first. They may come in and say, "We can do this for less," but it has been our experience throughout the public sector that once the contractors are in the prices go up later. The other thing that happens with contractors is that they remove the authority from the institution. If the contractor is responsible for your acquisition and ordering procedures, they are in effect going to be governing what sort of materials wind up in your library. That is not necessarily a good thing. That's a decision that should remain with staff who have been trained to find out exactly what our communities need.

We know that libraries may be talking about user fees to you. The experience throughout North America has been that user fees at best get 4% to 6% and typically raise 3% of operating costs. There's no way on earth that is going to meet the pressures we're facing.

The Chair: Mr Burdick, I apologize for interrupting. You only have about 30 seconds left. Perhaps you can wrap up.

Mr Burdick: That's great. I've got about 30 seconds to conclude. I appreciate that.

By way of conclusion, just to let you know, we're very concerned that a new, single large library board is going to effectively mean a signally reduced level of service, not to mention an enormous amount of job loss, which will probably be of no benefit to the community whatsoever. That's where we're coming from.

The Chair: You've effectively exhausted all of the allotted time, so we won't be able to entertain any questions. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee, though, for coming forward to make the presentation today.

GORDON MACKENDRICK

The Chair: Would Gordon MacKendrick please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr MacKendrick. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Gordon MacKendrick: I'm in favour of amalgamation. As a native Torontonian who has spent 15 years on the executive of two different ratepayers' associations, I am appalled by the totally unfounded and unsubstantiated information that is being touted by the opponents of amalgamation.

After attending a meeting organized by my MPP, and attended by Mr Gilchrist, in early February to explain in detail the background and rationale for the final integration of the six municipalities, I came away with a very positive feeling towards a unified Toronto. I have also attended several hearings here at Queen's Park and reviewed the KPMG report.

Opponents of this final integration have provided no factual data or information to support their views, nor have they provided any significant recommendations of their own. Reports prepared by KPMG, the six mayors and Metro all show net savings of millions of dollars by the end of the transition period of a few years.

Unification opponents deal in rumours, scare tactics and propaganda fostered by soon-to-be-unemployed politicians, union officials and those unfortunate bureaucrats who will be out of work with the downsizing that will occur. The rhetoric appears to be based on fear of the unknown and is often politically motivated. The mass exodus predicted by author Margaret Atwood is pure nonsense. Remarks by Toronto Councillor Olivia Chow that Meals on Wheels will be gone, social workers gone, with no money to fix anything is pure fiction. Comments by Mayor Barbara Hall that the KPMG report was "hastily written after the fact" impugns KPMG's professional integrity.

Comparison to the Halifax-Dartmouth amalgamation is like comparing apples to oranges, because there had been no previous unification of services in the area. A better comparison would be the successful amalgamation in Ontario of Galt, Preston and Hespeler in 1973 to form the city of Cambridge. Today, according to a survey which they had conducted, their services and taxes are comparable to those of Brantford and Guelph, which have had no amalgamation.

1610

The semantics of my North York megacity telephone referendum ballot was very biased towards a No vote. It reminded me of the language of the October 1995 Quebec referendum, which was couched in language to produce a No response. Mayor Lastman and his councillor spent my tax dollars to send me a newsletter telling me to vote No and then stated that North York residents have a lot to lose -- "Here's what's at risk for you" -- and then proceeded to name all of the firehalls, libraries, parks, indoor arenas, playgrounds etc, covering 12 different types of facilities. This kind of scare tactic is completely unfounded.

This integration is a downsizing exercise which industry has been undergoing for the past decade. Banks, railroads, oil companies, IBM, Bell etc have all significantly reduced staff. My last employer has cut their staff by 25% over the past five years. In recent years, the most dramatic downsizing was Ontario Hydro, which reduced their staff by a third a few years ago, and this has resulted in a 4% reduction in electricity costs in North York since 1993. I noticed in this morning's paper that Desjardins credit union in Montreal is going to downsize 500 jobs over the next three years, mostly by attrition.

Eliminating one complete level of bureaucracy is the only realistic and logical way to ensure that Toronto can survive without excessive tax increases. In this period of low inflation, Metro taxes have gone up 22% from 1991 to 1996.

Increasing the municipalities' share of welfare from 20% to 50%, while not part of Bill 103, greatly impacts on the amalgamation issue. Changing or downloading the funding for welfare and social housing is the main reason for a very real and genuine fear of amalgamation. The assurances that the $700-million municipal social assistance revenue fund will look after "an unexpected rise in welfare costs" doesn't come close to allaying this fear. This fund just doesn't cut the mustard and satisfy concerns about welfare costs rising in the future.

The welfare legislation should contain some sort of provision to allow for the proposed 50-50 cost-sharing ratio to be changed to a more equitable ratio, with the province picking up a larger share of the costs if welfare costs rise above a defined amount. This could be a fixed sum or a percentage increase above benchmark costs.

Finally, I discovered in talking to a variety of people about Bill 103 that most of them really don't understand who does what to whom and they're confused by the changes in education, welfare, social housing and other services. I suggest that the careful use of charts and graphs in the print media would go a long way towards a better understanding of the give and take of amalgamation.

To paraphrase Abbott and Costello: Who's on first? I don't know. He's on second. Who is it -- Leach, Lastman or Sewell?

Mr Colle: Thank you, Mr MacKendrick. I appreciate your coming here today. You mentioned that you found the KPMG report quite acceptable. I just want to read you an analysis done by Deloitte and Touche on the KPMG report.

Mr MacKendrick: I didn't say that I found it acceptable; I said I reviewed it.

Mr Colle: Let me just ask a more general question.

Mr MacKendrick: All right.

Mr Colle: As you know, KPMG took about two or three weeks to come up with its report. I know your business background. Do you think you can really properly do a cost-benefit analysis of seven major corporations that have budgets totalling $7 billion in two and a half weeks?

Mr MacKendrick: No, not in detail, but I think you get an approximation. If you look at the KPMG report, all three people who prepared reports indicated there were savings. I personally think that if there are savings they will be minuscule, but I think you'd have a much more streamlined organization in government.

Mr Colle: In essence, you're saying you might have more streamlined government. Do you believe the claims of KPMG of $865 million in savings? Is that really credible?

Mr MacKendrick: No, but I think their indication is that if you take the worst-case scenario, they come up with something in the range of $80 million.

Mr Colle: What about the cost of converging departments and reorganizing and the diseconomies of scale? Do you think those savings, whatever they may be, might for the most part be offset, certainly in an initial phase, by these diseconomies of scale and the cost of severance packages etc?

Mr MacKendrick: Yes, I certainly think that in the transition period you're going to have excessive costs over and above normal operating costs, but I think those have been cranked into the KPMG report.

Mr Colle: I don't think there was any reference to the cost. I think they did mention that $150 million or $200 million might be the cost.

What about the fact that traditionally, if you look at the analyses on the cost of governments that are larger than a million, the basic axiom is, as you get over a million, they become much more bureaucratic and much more expensive? Wouldn't you be worried about that happening or shouldn't that be quantified also?

Mr MacKendrick: I don't think that's anything that's really been detailed.

Mr Colle: Are you familiar with Wendell Cox's report?

Mr MacKendrick: No, I'm not.

Mr Colle: I suggest you might look at that, because he is a Reagan-side, supply-side, Tory-like consultant who has analysed, and is the expert basically on, the costs of amalgamating public utilities and urban areas. His conclusion basically is, the bigger you get, the more expensive it is.

I appreciate your presentation. You made some very good points, and I appreciate your frankness. Thank you for coming.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr MacKendrick, for coming forward today.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISION

The Chair: I don't think Sid Ryan is here right now. Oh, okay, the representatives. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes today to make your presentation. If there's some time left at the end of the presentation, I'll ask Mr Marchese from the NDP caucus to ask questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd both introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard at the beginning of your presentation, and I'd appreciate it if the members would come to order so we could hear the presentation. Thank you.

Mr Brian O'Keefe: My name is Brian O'Keefe. I'm the secretary-treasurer of CUPE Ontario. On my right is the president of the district council of the Canadian Union of Public Employees for Toronto, Paul Brown.

On behalf of the 170,000 members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, I welcome the opportunity to present our views on the proposed amalgamation of the city of Toronto, Bill 103.

CUPE represents approximately 30,000 municipal workers within the six cities and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Our members work as accountants, ambulance attendants, road repair people, building inspectors, electricians, garbage collectors, nursing home workers, library workers, water treatment plant operators, child care workers and in many other occupations. We are proud of the services we provide to our communities. We pay taxes and we rely on public services. We know our communities value the services we provide.

What we have to say on the implications of passage of Bill 103 could easily take hours rather than 10 minutes. This is because the jobs of our members and the public services they deliver are at stake. Bill 103 will set the stage for the privatization of public services, and it will eliminate thousands of public sector jobs.

Last, but not least, this bill is an affront to the democratic process since it places extraordinary power in the hands of unelected appointees of the government.

At this point, I'm going to dispense with my speaking notes because of the amount of time available, and I'm just going to deal with the issue directly.

The people of this city have spoken, and I think you have to listen to them. There has been a violation of people's democratic rights here, and it's often forgotten that we have a very fine system of government in Metropolitan Toronto. We have delegations coming from all over the world to look at our system of government. In fact, we are the envy of the world.

The two-tier system of government works, despite all the criticisms we're hearing. It's not perfect. There's need for rationalization, and certainly the Canadian Union of Public Employees is not going to oppose making corrections to our existing system. There is need for change, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the way you're contemplating is absurd and unacceptable.

1620

The system we have right now, the delivery of regional services by the regional government and the delivery of local services by local municipalities, works extremely well. Fortune magazine has rated Metro Toronto at the very top of its list of livable cities. It isn't only Fortune magazine. Several other groups, including corporate groups, have rated Toronto similarly.

What are we trying to do here? The danger we have here, with the massive changes the government is contemplating, is that we're going to find a hollowed-out city. We're going to have a flight to the suburbs. We're going to have a flight of money out of Metropolitan Toronto. There's going to be a total destabilization. Despite the remarks of the previous speaker, this isn't propaganda; it has been documented quite clearly by several people that these are the likely consequences of what we're dealing with here. The yardstick of American cities, making those comparisons, is very realistic, and that's we've got to look at.

You can see what's happening in Metro Toronto right now. We've got an increasing number of people sleeping on hot air vents. The number of homeless people is growing. We're going to see a polarization of our society into the very rich and the poor, with nothing in between. I think it would be a real tragedy if that were to happen in this city. I ask you to seriously take those remarks into consideration. What are we really trying to do here?

In a modern economy, you need quality public services. If we're to be a player in the global economy, to be a world-class city, we're have to have the highest-quality services, and if we don't have those quality services, we're not going to be a player. It's sometimes forgotten that Metro Toronto is the engine of the Canadian economy and if you destroy the economy of this city, you're actually going to the very core of Canada, and you've got to bear that in mind as well. As far the workings of the economy in Ontario is concerned, Toronto is key. The preservation of our services is key and the preservation of our jobs in the city is key.

We are extremely concerned about the job issue. The KPMG report says 4,500 people are going to go by attrition. Well, I have to tell you, an enormous number of jobs have been shed already in Metropolitan Toronto. In our Local 79, which looks after the city of Toronto and Metro Toronto, in Metro alone, 1,000 jobs have been eliminated over the last five years. It is my candid opinion -- and I've worked very closely with these locals; in fact, I come out of one -- that the services in Metro Toronto have been cut to the core. There is nothing more to cut.

We're not just dealing with what the KPMG people are saying. With the $531 million that the downloading is going to cost Metro Toronto, we're talking about 18,000 jobs; that's the implication of that downloading. You have got to address that particular situation. If downloading goes ahead, we have a mammoth problem in Metro Toronto. There is no doubt in my mind. That has to be addressed.

As far the transition costs are concerned, if we look at what happened in Halifax we're not dealing with the $200 million cited by KPMG. If Halifax is anything to go by, we're looking at double that, and there are huge job costs involved in that as well.

What is all this for? It's all for extracting in excess of $1 billion out of the economy so this government can give a tax cut to the rich and affluent members of our society. This is totally unacceptable. As far as our economy and society are concerned, we're all going to suffer.

The implications of extracting that amount of money out of the economy of Metro Toronto will be massive privatization and contracting out, and we have great concerns about that. We've received a leaked document from our colleagues that indicates there is serious consideration of doing away with successor rights in order to expedite contracting out and privatization. If anything like that ever happens, you're going to have mass mobilization of the labour movement in this province. I can tell you that. You're not just talking about CUPE; you're talking about the entire labour movement.

I'll conclude by telling you that we're going to fight this with all we've got. The amendments that were floated in the newspaper this morning go nowhere near addressing the problem we're dealing with here. There has to be serious, in-depth consultation with the citizens of this city and very careful study has to go into this exercise before any changes are made.

In terms of CUPE's stance on what we're going to do, a conference of 800 people met in the Regal Constellation yesterday. We're mobilizing and we're not going to go away. We're going to hound you until you do the things that are right for the people of this city.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr O'Keefe, did you understand the ballot question when you voted?

Mr O'Keefe: It was quite clear to me.

Mr Marchese: You weren't confused or anything, were you?

Mr O'Keefe: Not at all.

Mr Marchese: Do you think some of your members might have been confused about what they were voting for?

Mr O'Keefe: The members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees were not in the least confused by the vote and they came out in droves to vote no, because they understand the implications of it for their future.

Mr Marchese: Mr Leach is quoted as saying, "From all the information I have seen, everything indicates to me the majority of people still favour amalgamation." What world do you think he's living in?

Mr O'Keefe: If that's what he thinks, we've got a serious problem. That sort of doublespeak is unacceptable in a democratic society. There's no doubt in my mind that the people of this city have spoken and I hope they're going to be listened to.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr O'Keefe and Mr Brown, for appearing here today.

TOWN OF YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

The Vice-Chair: I call on Sheldon Godfrey and John Ridout, please. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr John Ridout: I'm John Ridout, the president of the Town of York Historical Society. The society operates Toronto's first post office museum, which is an entirely volunteer board of directors.

We're not here to argue the merits of amalgamation, but we want to make sure there's something to do with heritage in the amalgamation legislation before it goes any further.

As an example of what happens to heritage when the government gets larger, Metro Toronto produced a cultural planning report a few years ago in which they identified heritage as a part of culture. I wrote to Metro Toronto and went after some of the councillors to say: "If it's part of culture, perhaps you should be putting some money into it. Toronto's first post office is a worthy recipient of funds." Nothing came of that. They give money for the arts -- that's culture -- but while they define heritage as being included in culture, they're not putting anything in for it.

Our vice-president, Sheldon Godfrey, wrote our brief and he will speak to it.

1630

Mr Sheldon Godfrey: This is quite a specific brief, because we're talking about heritage and cultural institutions in the city, not so much from the arts point of view but from the point of view of the city's museums, art galleries and archives.

To start with the specific, our society was incorporated as a non-profit corporation under the Ontario Historical Societies Act. Its mandate is to demonstrate the heritage of the old town of York, the first municipality in the Toronto area, on its original townsite. We have hundreds of volunteers and supporters, and with that we operate Toronto's first post office at 260 Adelaide East. We have a long view of the history of the area that we bring to this committee; the post office we operate as a museum was first opened in December 1833, three months before the first statute incorporating the city of Toronto was passed in March 1834.

Heritage isn't mentioned in Bill 103 and we think it's quite important that it be so.

Heritage exemplifies and demonstrates the values of the people of the area through its natural features, built heritage and cultural heritage. We're not going to be talking about the built heritage. We understand that the Toronto Historical Board's brief, which we've reviewed, has addressed that. We're similarly not talking about the natural features. But we are talking about the cultural heritage, specifically Toronto's first post office, which is a downtown Toronto community museum, and to talk about it as an example for just a moment of how reliant it is on local government.

Toronto's first post office is operated seven days a week -- that's all week round -- serving annually probably 40,000 to 50,000 school children, tourists and members of the general public. It is the busiest historic site in the city of Toronto. It has a very small space. It has been acknowledged by the National Historical Sites and Monuments Board to be the oldest surviving post office building in the country. The National Postal Museum has acknowledged that we have the most complete collection of early postal artefacts in Canada. We also have an archive which is well organized. We are currently involved in a joint project with Heritage Canada to revitalize the old town of York area by working with its inhabitants, a plan that generates involvement by the people on the street rather than planning from the top down.

While we are a community museum, our visitors come from much further afield than the surrounding neighbourhood. Our clients include school children from the greater Toronto area and tourists from all over the world. In all this, our society draws most of its funding from its operations, not from government; it's neither government-owned nor -operated. Yet it has the highest numbers of visitors, as I said before, of any historical site in the city. It serves as an example of how a small but important site can serve the region at a minimal cost to the public, drawing on the enthusiasm and commitment of its volunteers.

We couldn't have done this without relying heavily on our local government, the city of Toronto. For many years the city has sent a city councillor regularly to serve on our board of directors. Councillor Kyle Rae is the current councillor. We are well supported by city departments: The city works department helps us with signage; the historical board works with us as a partner on projects; the planning department meets with us consistently and is sensitive to the retention of the historical character of the old town. City councillors and even the mayor make themselves readily available and accessible to us to accommodate area concerns. The city also gives us a modest annual grant, the smallest of any of the Toronto historical sites, that is very helpful to our requirements. Even in hard economic times, the city increases the support it gives us if the circumstances are justified.

If we lose our local government, what will replace the support the city gives us? Bill 103 is silent. It doesn't appear that anyone is addressing the matter. Upper levels of government don't traditionally provide that kind of support. Our trade area is by no means identical with the boundaries of the proposed new city. Would the new 45-member council of the new city envisioned by Bill 103 have the time, inclination or energy to check up on our operations? Can we count on amendments giving us a new form of local government that will provide our creative enterprise the support it needs?

We are not alone in asking these questions. We have attached a number of schedules, and this information hasn't been collated before, to my knowledge; you may find it interesting. The information is basically obtained from the Ontario Museums Association, with help from published information and from the ministry of culture here in Ontario.

We found that there are 97 museums in the Toronto area, and when I say "museums," I mean archives, public galleries and museums which are listed by the Ontario Museums Association. Of these, 73 are concentrated in the city of Toronto, most in the downtown Toronto area, but of course they serve a wider area as well. A few of the institutions attract visitors from areas that are just in surrounding neighbourhoods. Most serve visitors from a much wider area. Would the council of the new city give them the same kind of support as a community museum that may attract visitors from beyond their boundaries? In other words, if a small municipality such as East York, which operates the Todmorden museum -- would that museum continue to exist if it was a council of 45? It's quite important to East York. Would it be important to the new city of Toronto that covers the entire metropolitan area?

Only 42 of the 97 institutions listed appear to be owned or operated by levels of government. That means a majority is operated by communities. Basically, they rely on funding from communities for support. To a degree, many of them get funding from the provincial community museums operating grant program; those grants of course are decreasing.

As appears on the attached list, the Metropolitan Toronto government right now plays a relatively small role in that. I think they appear as owner and operator of two or three of the museums. Upper levels of government traditionally provide funding only where programs exist. Local governments, on the other hand, are close to the actual institutions and provide more general support and advocacy.

As support comes from three different sources -- the province, the municipalities, and the communities, and we've tried to break them down in that way by showing ownership of these 97 institutions -- there should be three different policies in place. The community museums in particular and the community institutions need a different kind of support than museums such as the ROM which are owned by the province.

The Honourable Mr Leach, the minister, has clearly stated his views about the institutions on the attached list. According to the Toronto Globe and Mail last November 26, the minister said that museums and art galleries are "gold-plated" services that should have reduced support from local governments. If the minister wasn't misquoted, his comment suggests that we can't rely on his government to maintain these cultural institutions in the new city of Toronto proposed by Bill 103. At the very least, the minister should give reasons for his statement and explain how he intends to maintain Ontario as a unique place with reduced support for its cultural institutions. Reduced public support, coupled with a loss of our local government, would be a blow to the entire area.

This should be a time of vision. Toronto today is the envy of the world. If you really want to make Toronto a better city, you should start by inventorying its assets, determining what's good about Toronto and building upon those assets. Near the top of any list of those assets you would find Toronto's cultural heritage, its community structures, its love of diversity.

This should be a time when our political leaders help our world-class, livable Toronto area move into the new millennium with a deeper awareness of its population's roots, a better understanding of its attractions and support systems, a clearer idea of our future direction. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Gilchrist, you have about 30 seconds.

Mr Gilchrist: I didn't realize the time was that tight. I'd like to thank you both for your presentation. This is very valuable, and I appreciate your compilation of the ownership. Is it just an oversight -- maybe you've got them assigned somewhere else -- but I don't see any facilities owned by Metro, yet I know the Guild Inn is owned by Metro.

Mr Godfrey: They're on the lists attached; there are two or three. The Guild Inn is there.

Mr Gilchrist: It's not in your sheet of governing bodies.

Mr Godfrey: On the big sheet, there's a --

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. I hadn't gone that far into it. I just want to express my appreciation, because it's this sort of substantive contribution that will help us craft those amendments to the bill.

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

GAY YOUNG

The Vice-Chair: I call upon Gay Young. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Gay Young: I'd like to begin by saying that I am a parent. I live in the city of Toronto. I am the parent of two young children. I am a volunteer worker at my children's school and a member of People for Education.

I have to say right at the beginning that I wonder if you have a presenter profile of me in front of you right now. I was reading in the paper this week that the people who made presentations to Bill 104 who were active protesters of some of the government's recommendations, such as myself, now have presenter profiles on them. I have to say I don't like that and I don't think it's right.

I also have to say that I don't appreciate having so few people here to hear me speak. I came down here and arranged time to say things that are very important to me to be heard by this government. I see now that there are several empty seats, and I don't like that either.

1640

I'd also like to say that the people of Toronto clearly understood what they were voting for when we voted. We clearly understood that we were voting against a megacity and it's absolutely outrageous that this government could suggest we didn't understand the question. Surely that's ridiculous. There were meetings across this city every night of the week to discuss these changes that you would like to make to our cities. People came out and looked at the issues and spent a lot of time thinking about them, and for you to dismiss those people voting three to one against this bill is absolutely outrageous. Yes, there are other issues on people's minds, but people understood the question and they knew the consequence of voting, and they voted no.

Why would you proceed with a megacity when 70% of the services are already amalgamated and the government's own study could not prove conclusively that there would be savings? In fact, the experience of Halifax shows us that amalgamations can be extremely costly to undertake, and it's also been shown in other American cities. Your own panel, Crombie, recommended that you should not download health and social services and welfare and public housing and take education off the property taxes.

What I'd really like to do today is tell you what my city, Toronto, means to me and my family and my neighbours and what I see us losing if this bill is passed. We have a wonderful, diverse community in Toronto and we have locally elected people to ensure that the services that are essential to us in this city are maintained. We value such things as free parks and rec programs for children so that children who cannot afford to take swimming lessons or do other activities after school are able to do those things because there's not a cost associated with that, as there is in some of the other cities. We have locally elected people to ensure that those values are maintained, and if you strip away our locally elected people and reduce them down to a very few and make us one big city where we all have to be the same, we are going to lose that.

We also have bylaws to guide the development which suits our particular city, Toronto. If you amalgamate us with all the other cities, we will no longer be able to guide our own development within our own communities to keep them the way we want them to be. We'll lose our locally elected people, whom we elect to make these decisions based on what we would like to see our city being.

I see this as a trend that this government seems to be taking, to strip away democracy and the rights people have with locally elected people. You want to place these trustees over our locally elected people and give them the power to make decisions which we have already given. We have already elected people to do that; we don't need appointed people to make those decisions. I see you doing that with the Education Improvement Commission, stripping away the power of locally elected people and replacing them with an appointed body. I see you doing that with the hospitals; you've appointed a restructuring commission to decide which hospitals will stay open and which hospitals will close.

In Toronto and Ontario we are a democracy, and this government seems to think they can strip away our local power, our democracy, and replace those people with appointed provincial people, and I am angry.

I have never been politically active before, and I need to tell you that there is a large grass-roots movement of people just like me who have never been politically active before, who have always felt they were electing local people to make these kinds of decisions and were satisfied to do that, but now that we see that's being torn away, we are becoming active. There are meetings happening, as you well know, as you've all attended many of them, every night of the week, and it's not just here in Metro. It's across Ontario that this is happening. People are angry, very, very angry, and there's a large movement to protest this. If you ignore us, if you ignore the voices of the people who spoke in the referendum, you do so at your peril. Thank you.

Mr Colle: Thank you for your passionate expression. I just want to emphasize this government's total disdain for what you just said. As you know, the minister yesterday had the gall to say, in the Sun -- after the vote where 76% said no, his quote was, "From all the information I've seen, the poll results of the past few days, everything indicates to me the majority of people still favour amalgamation."

Ms Young: Ridiculous, absurd, absolutely absurd. How can they say that when people turned out in such huge numbers and read the question that was very clear and marked their answer?

Mr Colle: The other thing they say is that people also stayed home, so if they count the people who stayed home it gives them more argument to dismiss the ones who voted. That's what the Premier said the other day.

Ms Young: Again that's absolutely absurd. They go around touting their figures from polls they do, saying they're accurate to such and such a percentage point because 535 people were canvassed. These were thousands of people, 40%, the same amount of people who show up to vote at local elections. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Mr Colle: Obviously, when you lose in such a resounding way, you have nothing else to hide behind.

Ms Young: That's right.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Young, for being here today.

JEFFREY REITZ

The Vice-Chair: I call on Jeffrey Reitz. Good afternoon, Mr Reitz, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Jeffrey Reitz: Thank you. My name is Jeffrey Reitz. My views about the proposed amalgamation of constituent municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto are based in part on my expertise as a professor at the University of Toronto, and I've circulated my résumé. My particular specialty is race and ethnic relations, and I believe the question of local government in Toronto should be considered in light of the great ethnic and racial diversity of this city. My background in this area includes a number of studies and other activities, including a widely reported study comparing race and ethnic relations Canada and the United States, published by the C.D. Howe Institute, and the founding of a research centre on immigration and settlement at the University of Toronto and at York and Ryerson Polytechnic Universities, with funds from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. These are my opinions.

The racial and ethnic diversity of Toronto has been one of its greatest strengths, as I am sure the committee appreciates. Because of Canada's relatively aggressive immigration policy, which has been pursued successfully under both Conservative and Liberal governments to stimulate our economy, our diversity has grown very rapidly. Today half of all of Canada's immigrants settle in the GTA. The proportion of immigrants in Toronto in 1991 was 38%, which exceeds the proportion in any US city such as New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco. Toronto is now home to over 100 ethnocultural communities, and because of our continuing commitment to expansionist immigration, this diversity will increase even more dramatically in the future.

1650

Our unusual capacity in Toronto to absorb such large-scale immigration successfully is one of the most unusual features of this city. Because of this success, the cultural diversity of Toronto has become one if its greatest business and tourist assets. This is reflected in the recent ranking of Toronto as one of the best places in the world to live and work by Fortune magazine. In a National Geographic feature last June, ethnic diversity was specifically singled out as Toronto's major attraction. The article stated, "With its sizzling cultural mix and a stylish new personality, this once bland metropolis breaks into the urban major leagues."

What's behind Toronto's success in incorporating minority cultural groups? There are many factors, obviously, but one of these surely is our institutions of local government. Those who are familiar with local politics in Toronto know that this is very much favoured by ethnic communities. Because of their small scale -- local wards correspond in size to many local ethnic neighbourhoods -- local governments afford opportunities for ethnic and racial minorities to affect local decision-making. Such opportunities are not so readily available at higher levels, such as provincial and federal levels, where the constituency size is larger. They would also be less available in the planned amalgamated city of Toronto, partly because of the larger constituency sizes and partly because of the large size of the total structure.

In this sense, local governments offer efficiencies not possible in larger units. This type of efficiency is analogous to what the business community calls flexible manufacturing, the ability to tailor decision-making to very specific and rapidly changing needs. Larger units can be less efficient to the extent that they try to fashion one solution to fit a variety of specific situations, which then become entrenched because change is so difficult. The result can be that costly services may be made available where they are not needed.

I would like to cite another kind of example, that of the municipal committees on community and race relations. These exist in the various municipalities such as Toronto, North York and Etobicoke, and also in Metro. I happen to have served as a member of the Toronto committee for the period 1990-92. The various local committees have operated in different ways to handle specific issues arising among racial groups in the particular municipalities. The Toronto committee, for example, has been serving as a place where difficulties between the police and certain specific groups have been addressed. The Etobicoke committee has focused more on problems relating to some of the East European communities.

A single committee in an amalgamated city would be less efficient in dealing with so many issues. Such a committee would have to be much larger than any of the current local committees because these local committees would no longer exist. At the same time, it would have to confront all the problems which arise across Metro and would consume resources in becoming expert in all these diverse issues. Most likely it would be inundated and would handle none of them very well.

These are just brief examples. It is my general view that the local municipalities in Toronto have served as an important point of access to decision-making for the city's ethnocultural minorities. This is one of Toronto's perhaps hidden strengths. It would be extremely unfortunate if this strength is lost. As Toronto continues to grow and to change, it will continue to face new and diverse issues which will vary greatly across a very large urban area. With continuing large-scale immigration, it is essential to the future success of Toronto that its capacity to adjust and to find creative solutions be maintained and in fact strengthened.

Some of those who have opposed amalgamation fear that this minority-friendly feature of local government will be lost under amalgamation. This is, I believe, one among many of the messages in the megacity referendum result. While local governments are far from perfect in providing opportunities for small minorities to be heard, they are likely to be much better at this than an amalgamated municipality many times their size. I would predict that under a large amalgamated city and without the safety valve local governments have provided in dealing with rapidly changing intercultural issues, conflicts among these groups may well increase in the future.

As I understand it, the government's message to the Metro population has been that local governments are too costly. This neglects the great contribution that local governments have made to ensuring the success of intercultural relations and hence, I believe, the success of the city itself. We should try hard not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. I heard someone else use the same phrase. It may be repeated frequently here, I suppose.

There is a possibility here for more optimal solutions. In fact, the two messages -- keep local governments, and seek greater efficiency -- cannot be resolved in favour of one or the other, because they are not contradictory. The problem should be seen as one of creating a new commitment to greater efficiency within the community-based framework of local government.

Mr Marchese: Thank you for your presentation. I want to go through a few questions just to make sure that people who voted understood the question on the ballot. Were you confused by the ballot in any way?

Mr Reitz: Not at all confused by the ballot; no.

Mr Marchese: Was your sense that some of the people you know were confused by the ballot question?

Mr Reitz: They were confused by the apparent perception of the government that the ballot was confusing. It seemed to me it was a very clear ballot. Not only that; the results correspond very closely to the political opinion polls that were held, and the opinion polls also showed that the people who voted no understood and were more familiar with the issues, had more in-depth knowledge, than those who were voting yes. If people were confused, I suspect it was the people who voted yes rather than the people who voted no.

Mr Marchese: I'm sure you might have concerns about the downloading, as I do, but you obviously know it's a separate issue. It might have influenced some people, I suspect, but the overwhelming feeling I get from people I talk to is that they were voting no to the amalgamation.

Mr Reitz: I don't think there's any question about that. Maybe there could be a separate referendum. If the government is bringing in so many proposals at the same time, I suppose that's going to lead to some people having the opportunity to say people don't know what they're voting on, but my own perception was that it was very clear.

Mr Marchese: You've heard the government's wilful denial and rejection of the results, and you heard the quote given earlier by M. Leach, who simply says, "From all the information I've seen everything indicates to me the majority of people still favour amalgamation." We've got a problem here.

Mr Reitz: We have a problem indeed.

Mr Marchese: He's saying: "We've listened. We're not going to listen to that, but we're listening to all of you, so we're going to make some amendments to fix the problem." Is this what you're looking for, amendments to some of the questions you've raised?

Mr Reitz: When a government makes such a massive change, strongly opposed by three quarters of the population, they had better be sure they're right. I don't believe this government has got it right. I don't think they've considered very many of the implications of the massive changes being proposed. It seems to me the old adage fits: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I've tried in my presentation to bring out one of the ways in which I think the existing structure in this city works and which I think will not be there under the amalgamated city. I doubt that the government has considered it.

Mr Marchese: I agree very strongly with you, by the way. When they do another bill, Bill 104 on education, I think we're likely to lose all the benefits of the international languages that some of our boards have fought strongly for, Toronto in particular. When they have to cut back, as that bill will force them to cut back when we lose half a billion dollars from Metro, the pressure will be on that board to get rid of some of the programs. I fear that the international languages will be one of those programs that will disappear.

Mr Reitz: And individual groups will simply have weaker and smaller voices in a large amalgamated city. They will have a much more difficult time than they've had under the present arrangements to have their voices heard. I think that will exacerbate problems in relations among groups in the city, and over time in the future I can see only a negative result on inter-ethnic relations from this amalgamation.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Reitz, for coming here today.

1700

JOSEPH WHITNEY

The Vice-Chair: I call upon Joseph Whitney, please. Good afternoon, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr Joseph Whitney: Thank you. My name is Joe Whitney. I am a long-time resident of the city of Toronto and a professor emeritus of geography and planning at the University of Toronto. I am also a registered professional planner. In this submission I shall be looking at Bill 103 from both a professional viewpoint and from the perspective of a ordinary resident.

My ability to make well-informed comments on the bill is limited by the fact that the government has never made clear the rationale that underlies Bill 103. The proposal for the amalgamation was certainly not contained in the Common Sense Revolution except that the government would attempt, in a very general way, to reduce levels of government. The only other possible reasons for the bill gleaned from comments made by Mr Leach at various times are:

(1) That there have been many proposals over the last 40 years to change the structure of Metro Toronto, that nothing has been done and it is now time to act.

(2) That an amalgamated megacity will be more cost-effective than the present structure and that a city of 2.3 million people speaking with a single voice will have more impact in the global economy than the voices of the current disaggregated municipalities.

Because of the absence of any clear rationale for amalgamation and because of the simultaneous announcement of possible downloading legislation and reorganization of the educational system, it is not surprising that there is a great deal of public confusion about the whole issue of amalgamation and plenty of room for conspiracy theories to abound. The government has only itself to blame for all of this.

In light of the recent reports from the UN and Fortune magazine about Toronto being the best place in North America to work and live, citizens may be excused for asking: "If Metro Toronto is so good, why do we need such massive changes? What precisely are they trying to correct?"

Indeed, these questions have not been clearly answered by the minister or by anyone else in the government, to my knowledge. None of the previous studies advocated unconditional amalgamation. Let me assume that the minister had the best intentions in the world for devising this bill and that there were no machiavellian intentions in mind. What might these intentions in fact have been?

(1) That an amalgamated city would somehow provide a better framework for comprehensive land use and economic development planning than the current municipalities.

(2) That amalgamation would reduce the levels of government and hence be in accord with the Common Sense Revolution manifesto.

(3) That amalgamation would be cheaper and more cost-effective.

(4) And to give the minister the real benefit of the doubt here, that amalgamation would in some way be more democratic and that the new city government plus neighbourhood-community councils would be more accountable to the public than the present system.

Let me now review each of these points in turn.

First of all, the amalgamated city would make a more rational planning unit. Unfortunately, if this indeed was one of the underlying assumptions in the minister's mind, the proposal and bill fails badly. Both the Golden and Crombie reports, together with others that have been made over the years, make it abundantly clear that a planning-administrative unit that does not include the immediate demographic, economic and environmental hinterland of Toronto is not appropriate.

To cut this new city off at Steeles Avenue and allow surrounding suburbs and regions to go their own way with little or no regard to what happens in the amalgamated city does not make any sense at all. The upper tier of government should not have been confined to the boundaries of the existing six municipalities, but should have been extended to include at least the urbanized or periurbanized parts of the so-called census metropolitan areas, which both impinge on and are impinged by Toronto itself. The title of a recent article in the Globe and Mail, "Megacity: Not Big Enough, Not Small Enough," sums up the problem which the present bill includes.

Let me now turn to reduction in levels of government.

Although it might appear from the proposed legislation that the elimination of the six municipalities would remove one level of government, it is by no means clear from the bill that this will indeed happen. As many appearing before this committee have stated and as has been emphasised by a number of columnists in the local papers, the bill contains no information about the powers and responsibilities of the so-called six community councils and the six or seven neighbourhood councils that will be created in each. Indeed, there is no mention of the community councils in Bill 103 at all.

If these are to be merely advisory bodies to the new city council, they will be only rubber-stamping bodies. If, on the other hand, they have real powers over local matters -- zoning, for example -- these decisions can only be made by bodies which are duly constituted corporate bodies. If such powers are indeed granted, these community councils will just become another level of government, thus returning us to the present situation. In short, not to give these bodies powers relegates them to sham democratic institutions, but giving them powers results in the establishment of another level of government. There seems to be no escape from this dilemma.

Cost-cutting and cost-effectiveness: Immediately after the introduction of Bill 103, the minister made several references to the proposition that amalgamation would be more cost-effective and would save taxpayers large sums of money. Intuitively such a proposition seems commonsensical. Elimination of a level of government and six municipalities with all their services and functions, many of them duplicating others, and the concept of scale economies would make it seem logical that overall municipal costs would be reduced. However, the reality observed in many parts of the world is quite counterintuitive to this; namely, that amalgamation does not reduce costs but actually increases them. The evidence is clear not only from North America but worldwide. Larger governments generally have higher unit costs than small governments. There are a number of reasons for this, which I won't go into at the moment.

For example, a KPMG study of the Hamilton-Wentworth area found that the maximum savings from amalgamation amounted to no more than 2%, whereas if restructuring of service delivery approaches had been taken without amalgamation, something like 15% to 30% would have been saved. Indeed, the US federal government's Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, formerly a staunch supporter of metropolitan consolidation, reversed its position and began supporting fragmentation in 1987. This is the point I want to emphasize: The majority of scientifically conducted studies on amalgamation indicates that if cost savings is the desired outcome, these can better be obtained from reorganization of services within existing municipalities rather than through amalgamation.

Finally, I want to turn to the point of amalgamation perhaps representing a more democratic form of government. It is true that Mr Leach nowhere makes the claim that his proposal will make the city government more accountable and more democratic, but even if he does not make such a claim, we as citizens surely have the right to a guarantee that the amalgamation proposal maintains at least the same level of accountability, democracy and responsiveness that we now experience under the present system. There is no such guarantee in Bill 103. It is illuminating that of the 31 subsections in Bill 103, 12 sections, or nearly 40%, deal with the virtually dictatorial powers of the board of trustees and the transition team.

The tone throughout the bill is thoroughly undemocratic. This creates in the minds of the ordinary citizens a doubt that the final form of the city government will be in the least responsive to the concerns of local citizens. Since the bill makes no provision for the election of community -- indeed these are not even mentioned in the bill -- and neighbourhood councils, they will be responsible and accountable only to those who have appointed them. Hence citizens will be more remote from their elected representatives than they are in the present municipal structure.

The stunning defeat of the amalgamation proposal in the recent referendum cannot be dismissed, as Mr Leach and some of his supporters do, by saying that people were really voicing their opposition to downloading and not to amalgamation. There is enough wrong with Bill 103 in its concept, in the dogmatic manner in which it has been forced on the citizens of Metro Toronto and in the negation of democratic rights and processes clearly laid out in almost every section of the bill, not to mention the flawed economic premises that underlie it, to make it thoroughly objectionable in its own right.

The minister frequently complains that he is not getting constructive suggestions, only criticism. This is correct: The bill is so flawed that the only constructive advice that can be given is to scrap the amalgamation concept and re-examine other proposals made recently, such as those in the Golden task force and the Crombie report. Those proposals do not involve amalgamation and, despite some flaws, resonate more closely with the goals and aspirations of the citizens of the Toronto area than the present amalgamation bill. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Whitney. You've timed that perfectly; 10 minutes is up.

1710

ALAN DUDECK

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Alan Dudeck. Good afternoon, Mr Dudeck, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Alan Dudeck: I will keep my remarks brief. Many of my points were covered very eloquently by Mr Whitney, the previous speaker.

A bit of introduction: I am a resident of the city of Toronto. I am involved in project planning; I'm also a realtor. Initially I would like to say I'm pleased to be in front of the committee and I'm very displeased that all of us through all these hearings and all the machinations in opposition to the bill have had to happen. I resent the actions of the government in basically attempting to ram this bill, through with very little consideration for reality, as far as I am concerned.

In a more sedate way, at the outset I would like to clearly state that I am opposed to the process of forcing the introduction of the amalgamated version of Toronto, as well as standing in opposition to the structure of the intended megacity.

Twenty-five years ago I moved to this city from another large Canadian urban centre. The whole reality and consciousness of municipal government and politics was a revelation, and I think that was the case in comparison to most cities across the country at that time, and in fact today. The energy and strength of the municipal entity that I was most familiar with, Toronto, at that time was very much a nurturing process for action, democratic policies and the like. Although the policies and politics have varied in their direction and popularity since then, the accountability for and sensitivity to local concerns remains a hallmark of local jurisdictions within the Metro area. That has not changed, and indeed this process is strengthening some of those behaviours that have gone a bit dormant over the last 10 years or so.

My experience in the mid-1980s as a member of the city of Toronto board of health reinforced for me the need to maintain and strengthen the services and accountability and, in a general way, local citizen representation within the services that are provided to the local jurisdiction. To change the unit size from one of the cities or the borough in Metro to an amalgamated city of Toronto would more than weaken the accountability; it would negate the ability to have effective representation and accountability for such services as health, education and the like.

To ignore the need to coordinate and rationalize regional issues within the GTA, as proposed by the Golden and Crombie reports, and to strengthen local jurisdictions without the overlay of Metro is moving in the wrong direction, and that is exactly what the provincial government is attempting to do.

Community councils and the like are not good enough. They are not direct, there is no guarantee of effective representation, and the experience we've had in various jurisdictions when such bodies as the local planning board were eliminated in favour of a local planning advisory committee, although area residents were involved, it simply does not provide the accountability which residents of the cities and borough and Metro are clearly demanding. The referendum vote, I think, reinforces that.

Local accountability is vital to the continuing vibrancy of our communities. It's difficult to quantify and sometimes even define what that continuum means. To invoke a single structure with only 44 elected representatives is reducing the democratic platform, and that's in part what we're talking about, a platform, to a shadow of representation and accountability. I won't even get into the disastrous proposition for offloading the responsibility for social services.

Just a minute or so on the process of even reviewing this proposition. I personally feel insulted by this government by virtue of its tactics to blindly pursue this initiative without any basis of evidence that it makes any sense, without any effective consultation, without sufficient time, and all with the backdrop of the Premier and government members saying: "It doesn't really matter what residents say. It doesn't really matter what a referendum will say. We're still going to bloody well go ahead with it." That's simply not good enough. It's autocratic. It flies in the face of everything that I think the citizens of Toronto expect and will demand.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Dudeck. I appreciate your coming before us today. I think you said at the outset that you're a realtor, among other things.

Mr Dudeck: Yes.

Mr Gilchrist: Part of, I guess, our frustration in this process is there's no doubt there has been a learning curve and many people have taken the time to familiarize themselves far more with the political process as a result. I think that's a good thing. But one of things missing in part of the discussion for many people has been an appreciation that bills go through a particular process. When they're introduced, there is certainly no expectation at the outset that the bill will emerge at the end that way.

In fact, there is not a single government bill -- and I would say the same thing for the previous two governments -- that has emerged from the committee process without government amendments. I would submit to you that just like a realtor -- I have no doubt that when someone calls you to list their house and you conduct your first inspection, every realtor I've ever met will walk through with a client and advise them on the minor and in some cases significant changes that should be put in place if someone wants to maximize the value of their house when they list it. You would give that counsel, I'm sure.

How is that any different from a process where the government lays out, chooses certain words and puts that forward? People then have a chance to make comment, but it's only when the final product is put out to market that it's fair to judge. How are those such different concepts?

Mr Dudeck: If I may, it's a strange analogy, but the closest I can come up with is that if a client of mine is looking for a personal residence of a certain description and I insist they've got to look at the Ernst and Young tower in the T-D Centre, there's something quite screwy. That's not a question of amendment; that's simply being off the mark completely. If we're using that analogy, I would say that's closer to the reality than simply adjusting the criteria or the description.

If I may, I think what we're looking for is the reinforcement of the strength of not just the city of Toronto but all the jurisdictions within Metro, and to tie it into the need for coordinating within the GTA.

I agree, all bills do get changed, as they should, but the basis of this one, the only change that I can see that makes any sense is to withdraw it.

Mr Gilchrist: You're entitled to that opinion. I would argue that until the amendments are made, until the final shape of the bill is known -- and many people have come forward with very specific concerns. They have not said, "I am opposed to amalgamation in total," or "I am opposed to..." and it could be the trustees, it could be something they think is missing from the bill. In some cases it's not what's in it, it's what's missing from it. Would you not agree that for those people, if not for everyone, if you then craft an amendment that does deal very directly with their concerns, it would be appropriate in their eyes for the government to then proceed?

Mr Dudeck: The problem I have is the nature of the interaction and consultation once the bill was introduced, and when it was drafted, whether it was introduced or not, against, as I mentioned earlier, this backdrop of the Premier and members of the government quite specifically, even after the referendum, saying, "There is some room for amendment," as you put it, "but we're going ahead regardless." That's like, "Talk if you will," or "Behave or not, I'm going to take away your allowance." To me, it's like dealing with children.

Mr Gilchrist: I guess it assumes, and I think to some extent this is unfair as well, that amendments can only be minor things. Until the final bill is crafted, I really don't think it's all that appropriate to suggest that we haven't been listening and we haven't heard concerns.

The other thing that you mentioned in your discourse was the need for public consultation, studies and that sort of thing. Not to single him out, but Mr Colle ran in favour of, in fact almost exclusively on, a pro-amalgamation platform in 1982 and 1983 when he was running for council. I haven't heard him sit here and talk about the studies that he might have done that led him to believe York should be eliminated and amalgamated. I haven't heard the empirical studies on the cost savings.

Somehow the suggestion is that politicians and governments, once formed, need to be driven purely by other opinions, that just because Jane Jacobs or someone else says it right, the government shouldn't be providing its own scrutiny and consideration.

1720

Would you not accept that, whether it's Mr Colle not introducing any kind of studies in 1983, there is at least the ability for the government to say that Metro itself has been the test bed, and because there are no other jurisdictions that come close to the successes we've had should not suggest that Metro should never have been created 44 years ago, nor amended in 1967, nor that it should not be looked at today? Is it not conceivable that we are that unique, that --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Gilchrist, we're running out of time. Have you got a quick answer for that?

Mr Dudeck: It is a fair amount to respond to, but if I may, it's not just a question of my being here to reiterate what Jane Jacobs or John Sewell have said, both of whom I have a great deal of respect for. What I am here to do is register my personal opinion, and in specific response to point out the lack of any empirical and substantive evidence that points to the values of amalgamation other than the fact that we need change. No one is disputing that is needed, but the direction in the bill is, if I may, completely misguided. So if an amendment can change that misguided nature, I'm all for it.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon.

The Chair: I'd like to call on Sam Metalin.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Can I just ask while the next presenter is settling in, given that we've been talking about amendments, could Mr Gilchrist update us on how the government is doing with the amendments?

Mr Gilchrist: Sorry, I can't.

Mr Colle: Are they hiding them from people?

Mr Silipo: The deadline is about an hour and a half from now. Are we going to get amendments?

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Do you have any amendments?

Mr Silipo: We don't have any amendments. We don't think the bill is amendable.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, we've had the answer. We must go on.

SAM METALIN

The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon. Welcome to the standing committee. Please begin.

Mr Sam Metalin: My name is Sam Metalin. I've been a resident of North York for 21 years. I'm also president of YCC #90, a townhouse condominium community in the Leslie-Sheppard area. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to share my views with respect to Bill 103.

Any thinking person, I believe, realizes that fiscal responsibility in government is critical if our society is to grow and prosper. It is doubly important if government is to preserve those services such as health care which make our society special. After all, a Canadian has been defined by some people as an unarmed American with health care. It is triply important, I believe, if government is to be able to provide for the needs of those most needy in our society, as well as to maintain the financial flexibility to respond to changing needs in the future.

For these reasons, I believe the Harris government's efforts to reduce the cost of government by restructuring and eliminating waste and duplication are to be lauded. That the structure of the government of the greater Toronto area needs to be reformed is also something that most people in Metro Toronto agree is necessary. What concerns me deeply however is the form this reform is taking.

Without a doubt, we have one too many levels of government in Metro Toronto. Yes, we have duplication of staff and services. Even our local politicians agree that there are too many of them. The end result is excess costs and higher taxes. Will Bill 103 reduce the levels of government? Yes. Will it eliminate the duplication of staff and services? I doubt it, but I believe some progress will be made. Will it reduce the number of politicians? Obviously. Will it reduce the costs of municipal government? What experience we have to refer to suggests that it probably will not.

In the haste to reduce costs, I believe the government has lost sight of the purpose of the entire exercise. What has been forgotten is that the purpose of government in a democratic society is to serve the governed. The level of government closest to the individual is the municipal level. It is this level which affects most directly the day-to-day lives of our citizens, through services such as roads and sewers, zoning and planning, garbage disposal, parks and recreation, fire and policing, public transit and ambulance service, libraries and more. It is also the level of government which the individual deals with most often, be it for a building permit, a business licence, a bylaw complaint or a recreation program.

What Bill 103 will directly and adversely affect is the citizen's access to his local government. By creating a local government which is less accessible and therefore less accountable, this legislation is in my view undermining one of the historical pillars of our democratic society, particularly in North America with our frontier traditions, even our gentle frontier traditions in Canada, where local government was quite often the only real government.

It is making it more difficult for people to participate in their local government and for members of local government to deal with their constituents. It further entrenches the powers of unaccountable and sheltered bureaucracies. By distancing people from their government, the legitimacy of local government will be reduced.

The proposed legislation may also result in distancing people from their government in the physical as well as the emotional sense. Right now the six local city halls serve as a focal point for the delivery of services to their citizens. Will centralization result in all services now only being available in downtown Toronto, where space and other costs are the highest? Look at Metro Hall, for example. It's off the subway. In the winter, it's a nice, long, cold walk. Parking is scarce and very expensive.

Finally, the proposed council of 44 persons will be less of a municipal council and more of a Legislative Assembly. Studies have shown that boards of directors, municipal councils and similar groups rapidly lose both effectiveness and cohesiveness once their size exceeds 18. Many of the municipal councils in Metro Toronto hear submissions before them in total council directly from citizens affected by legislation. Will the new council have the time and patience to do the same? I doubt it.

Let us now turn to the issue of costs. Costs are only in part a function of the number of people, such as politicians and civil servants. Other factors that need to be taken into account are the pay scales, work rules and benefits. Are we going to end up with pay scales which match the highest currently in force, combined with the most restrictive work rules?

As the size of municipal governments grows, the more management and supervisory personnel will be required. The larger the bureaucracy, the greater the risk that the costs of co-ordination will rise disproportionately and the slower the wheels of government will turn.

We also need to consider the attitudes towards cost control. North York has led the field in reducing costs, maintaining services and reducing staff without layoffs. Not all municipalities have been as conscientious. In North York, taxes have not been increased for five years running, yet North York citizens enjoy a level of services and facilities unmatched in Metro. This bill will effectively expropriate without compensation that which we have paid for over the years.

Taxpayers in North York and Scarborough will also bear the burden of the adjustment of the move to actual value assessment. Those facing tax increases will have an extended period of time to adjust to the new rules. The flip side of this coin is that mill rates for other taxpayers will have to be higher than they otherwise would be as a consequence to give these people time to adjust.

Now the issue of who does what: Unlike some of the more vocal opponents of these changes, I believe the exchange of responsibilities can work well if implemented properly. Because several of the responsibilities being transferred to municipalities are difficult to predict and do not vary directly with population, the property tax base may no longer be sufficient as the sole source of revenue for the municipalities. Changes may also need to be made to the fiscal regime to permit municipal governments to plan for fluctuations in such items as welfare, long-term care and public housing.

Those of us who live in and manage condominiums are already familiar with an effective mechanism: reserve funds. Every year, a portion of the money collected from our taxpayers -- and believe me, we levy taxes -- are put aside in a reserve fund to provide for future replacements and contingencies.

One way the costs of operating municipal governments could be more fairly spread over the residents of a community is to carefully open new sources of revenue for the municipality so it doesn't all fall on the property tax base. One example might be to allow municipalities by referendum to levy a sales tax for a specific-purpose fund or funds. Examples might be a welfare fund to cover costs in the fluctuation of welfare, a public housing fund etc. We don't always have to spend it or lose it. The income tax could also be used for this purpose. Many municipalities in the United States have used these methods with success.

Another is to give the municipalities a real say in establishing standards for transferred services. When the state of New York established the rules for welfare eligibility, the city of New York became insolvent. When the city began to set the rules, the city's financial situation improved rapidly and New York is now solvent.

In summary, I believe the structure of government needs to be reformed and simplified. At the very least the Metro government has outlived its usefulness. The Metro area is made up of four cities of approximately equal size, plus one smaller city, plus a borough. Perhaps four cities could be the answer. All would be large enough to provide the full range of services to their citizens at an effective cost and efficiently. Remember, the efficiencies of scale or the economies of scale are also subject to the law of diminishing returns.

1730

I believe, therefore, that there is a better solution to the simple solution of the unified city. I would suggest for starters that consideration be given to extending the life of the city councils affected by maybe up to a year, to allow time to develop alternative means to achieve the goals.

I also think we need to add the question, "Who gets to tax what?" to the issue of "Who does what?" I think one other thing is the question of the local councils. I think one issue that's been raised here by previous speakers is that they have to be given real powers enshrined in the law.

In sum, I am disappointed with this legislation. I believe the government has a sterling record in keeping its promises and it's to be lauded for that, whether one agrees or doesn't agree. On the other hand, I don't recall this being one of the government's promises, and believe me, as a supporter of the government, I would not be hurt in the least if you didn't keep this one. Thank you.

Mr Colle: Just one brief comment. Were you confused with the question when you voted, as the government said, that most people didn't know what they were voting for or against?

Mr Metalin: Absolutely not.

Mr Colle: What do you think about the comments made by the minister, that despite everything, he still believes the majority of people still favour amalgamation?

Mr Metalin: I don't think he's looking at the same results as the rest of us are. However, the gentleman is entitled to his beliefs, and rather than judging him on his remarks, I think it's fair to him to judge him on what happens to this legislation from this point on.

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

DURHAM REGION COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

The Chair: Would Drummond White please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome back, Mr White. I understand you're a former member from Durham South.

Mr Drummond White: Centre.

The Chair: Centre, sorry.

Mr White: There is no Durham South. That would be in the middle of the lake.

If I might, Mr Chair, my name is Drummond White. I am appearing not as an individual, but as a chair of a coalition in Durham region, the Durham Region Coalition for Social Justice. With me is my colleague Monica Connolly, who is also a chair of that coalition.

Obviously, people might wonder why someone like myself from a community like Whitby is here in front of the Legislature with a bill that has to do with Toronto, but of course I think we're all affected, certainly those of us who live in the GTA, by what effects are wrought upon Toronto. My friend Mr Flaherty, of course, comes from a similar community as myself. I will refer first to my friend Monica.

Ms Monica Connolly: The Durham Region Coalition for Social Justice, like most of the coalitions for social justice, is a group of groups and individuals with social concerns, the normal ones -- health, education, poverty, the environment -- but part of our mandate is also specifically to oppose any undermining of democracy.

On one level, as Drummond says, we're not really involved with Toronto. On another level, we very much are, because the method of putting this bill through seems to us to be undemocratic, and we are people who live in Ontario, we are people who live in Canada.

As I'm sure you know, Canadian democracy was not created legislatively; it has evolved. From time to time, then, we change some things by legislation. For instance, the BNA Act, 1867, gives provincial control of municipal matters, no question about it. Whenever someone brings up a constitutional question, they refer back to the BNA Act. But the BNA Act also gives the Governor General all sorts of powers which would be quite improper for him to exercise today. These are powers that are now understood to be exercised by the Prime Minister; the Governor General rubber-stamps them.

In 1981-82, the federal government could technically have patriated the Constitution unilaterally without the provinces, but the Supreme Court said it would be improper to do so without the substantial agreement of the provinces, and they went back and argued it out and got at least nine of them on side.

In the Northwest Territories, which has the least power of any large area in Canada, over the last 30 years the commissioner has devolved powers which were given to him by legislation to the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, and it is generally recognized that it would be improper and indeed impossible for him to take them back today. In fact, the federal government could act quite unilaterally in the formation of Nunavut. I lived there for a while, so I know about this one. It doesn't have to be done the way the Inuit want it, but the federal government has been going to quite a great deal of expense and a great deal of trouble to make sure that the local people are consulted and that any drastic changes have their consent. There have been referendums. They are suggesting there may be another referendum on their idea of a two-person constituency. They've gone to considerable effort to make sure they have the consent of the people.

This is the direction that government has been evolving in Canada, that we don't impose things on people, even if we have the legal, technical right. It is improper and it's undemocratic today in real political terms to make such drastic changes as Bill 103 suggests in the local government of millions of people without seeking their approval. There is no clear consent from the people of Metro to this bill, neither by the vote of the municipal councils, by referendum, by popular opinion as expressed in the press or by discussion as a major issue in a provincial election. The consent of the people, although they may some day wish to consent to it, has not been achieved and it will not be achieved by the few people who have been able to come and talk to you.

I am concerned, as an Ontarian, as a Canadian, that these changes are going through undemocratically. I'm concerned, as a Durham region person, that more changes may indeed go through without proper democratic process in a modern sense, and so my neighbours' concerns are my concerns. I think I'd like to hand it back to Drummond.

Mr White: I think that point is very well taken. In the past, we've heard about the problem with the GTA as being perhaps Toronto or Metro being the hole in the doughnut; at the moment, it seems more like a bomb crater in the middle of the doughnut, people looking over the edge saying, "Thank God it wasn't us," or, "Is it going to be us next?" As a coalition, our concern is not, "Gee, we're all right, thank you very much, Jack," but rather, "This could happen to us as well." Certainly many people in our community are very concerned that these kinds of powers could be exacted without the consent of the governed; a very profound issue.

The idea of amalgamation may make a great deal of rational sense, but if it isn't understood, isn't felt, it shouldn't be used, and we should be looking at other kinds of democratic forums that would yield that consent, that would involve people, forums that I'm sure you've already discussed as possibilities. But as it presently stands, we've had several opportunities where the élite have made decisions, such as in the national referendum a couple of years ago, but that decision was rejected.

1740

Here again, we have an opportunity before that decision is roundly rejected again to say, "Hey, let's look for a mechanism that would involve everyone," because just as people in Toronto are dissatisfied, so will people in Durham and elsewhere in the GTA be afraid of, "Are we next?"

The idea of rational decisions, of making efficiencies, has been with us for a long time, but when those efficiencies are at the expense of people's identity and the meaning of their lives and the services that make sense to them, the social services and the health services that have to be offered in a meaningful way that's accessible to people, when that can no longer be done through those changes, then it's a profound concern of all of us.

Thank you for your attention, especially given the time that you've taken for these hearings. I'm sure it has been very lengthy and straining.

Mr Silipo: Drummond, welcome back and thank you for the presentation. I just have one question to you with respect to the process. We've certainly suggested that there need to be changes. We agree with that notion. We're not here defending the status quo. My sense is that many people, both those who have appeared in front of the committee and those who have spoken in a number of ways, including the referendum results, are also saying that they believe change needs to happen in the way in which we look at how we deliver services and govern ourselves within Metropolitan Toronto and also within the greater Toronto area.

But one of the things I've been hearing very clearly from people is that there needs to be the kind of involvement you've talked about in terms of people being part of that decision-making, otherwise they resent whatever decisions are made and handed down to them. I just wondered what particular sense you might have or advice you might have in terms of what should happen at this point in terms of this bill, appreciating that you come from an area that isn't immediately affected by it. But I would appreciate what your advice to the committee would be, or to the government members particularly, in terms of what we do with this bill, because tomorrow morning we begin clause-by-clause debate of this bill, and then we make a recommendation to the Legislative Assembly on what to do.

Mr White: First, my understanding is that this bill derives from a discussion of the GTA and not simply of Metro Toronto and of a lengthy process therein, and we're of course involved in that. Where Metro is affected, so are the areas around Metro. Most of the people I know have at one point or another lived in Metro or worked in Metro. There's a give and take. Only in Oshawa, which I've also had the privilege of representing, is there a sense that, "We're Oshawa, and we'll have nothing to do with the suburban city to the west of us." I think that is a profound issue. When you're having a bill which deals only with Metro, it ignores the greater whole.

The other issue that you point out which is very important is that the process should be as democratic as the result. You cannot create a democratic government through undemocratic means that do not involve the consent of the groups and the constituencies that are involved. How can you create a sense where you're doing something in an undemocratic way and say, "We have a democratic result"? The process and the result should mirror each other. Therefore, the process should be a democratic one involving as many as possible.

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

ANDREA BOWKER

The Chair: Would Andrea Bowker please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Ms Andrea Bowker: My name is Andrea Bowker. I'm a lawyer and resident of Metropolitan Toronto for 25 years, and I'm here today on behalf of the Toronto city cycling committee, of which I am a co-chair. I'd just like to add that I'm not here to call anybody "Satan's spawn" or anything else; I'm here to be productive. Once is enough in a day.

By way of introduction, the cycling committee is an advisory committee to the Toronto city council and it is made up of unpaid volunteers, including myself. We celebrated our 20th anniversary in 1995 by accepting Bicycling Magazine's -- that's a big American magazine -- award recognizing the city of Toronto as the best city for cycling in North America.

I'm happy to be addressing you on this last day of committee hearings. It's been a long process, but you now have to consider all the presentations you have heard and figure out what recommendations and what changes to make, and you have to vote on it. As you know, that is a very special privilege that I and the other residents of the Metro area have not been extended. The vote that we did have, we received certain commentary for having exercised it. I would just like to underline that according to the Star, more people voted against this legislation than supported this government in the first place, and I think that's an important number to take into account.

I'd just like to dispel a rumour, also, that I keep meeting up with as I speak and hear from members of the government. Opponents of amalgamation are not a group of naysayers who have been whipped into a frenzy by John Sewell. The organization of which Mr Sewell is certainly the most vocal and visible member was born out of a two-night series of deputations at Toronto city council, attended by hundreds of people concerned about the loss of local democracy and about the loss of our city. Mr Sewell was a deputant there, as was I, as were dozens of other people well into the night. It was around that idea of the city that we organized.

Back to the cycling committee. The cycling committee's concerns with amalgamation centre on two main points. We are concerned that the interests of the city of Toronto as it now exists are going to be lost and ignored in a megacity rather than dealt with in the balanced way that they currently are; and second, that this sort of move is going to seriously damage our ability and that of any other volunteer organization that is doing work on behalf of a city to leverage and rely on volunteer power.

I'd like to illustrate our experience working with the city of Toronto and our activity within the Metro Toronto area with an economic example. I think this also shows that there are other ways to look at these issues that are equally obvious and "Why isn't this held by everybody?" kind of ideas.

When you learn economics, you're taught that competition is the ideal state of affairs because it keeps the consumer happy, it keeps the economist happy, it promotes creativity and innovation and it keeps the prices down in the process, whereas, on the other hand, the monopoly is the big bad guy we want to avoid because it brings stagnation and high prices. I'm not entirely sure why we can't look at city governments the same way and recognize that what we're going to end up with, with a megacity, is going to be an enormous bureaucracy that has no external forces or balances to bring the effects of what is in the market called competition.

It amazes me that we are constantly reminded of the reference in the Common Sense Revolution to reducing the size of government and that somehow this proposal is considered to be an example of that. It doesn't make much sense to me. Given that arguments about economies of scale are problematic -- and I heard Paul Christie on the television last week saying that it's obvious it's going to save money. I thought: "If it's so obvious, why isn't it obvious on the face of studies? If it's so clear, where are these numbers?" We have potential numbers and potential costs, but we don't really know what's going to hold true in the execution, so it's not obvious. I'd just like to underline that.

What we do know, though, is that the effect of this on, for example, each city's planning department and the way they design each city in keeping with local needs is going to be harmed. That brings us back to cycling.

Part of the reason the city of Toronto is as wonderful and vibrant as it is is because it's designed at a very human level. This is partly due to the age of the city. It was around for quite some time before anybody invented the car. It's also due to an official plan at the city of Toronto that favours public transit, bicycles and other non-private-automobile modes of getting around.

1750

Let's just assume for the moment that the bicycle is a neutral thing. I happen to think that designing ways for cyclists to get around can only benefit a city, and the recent focus we've been hearing on automobiles' singular capacity to generate deadly smog emphasizes that. I accept that other people may view cyclists differently, but for the bicycle and cyclists may be substituted any other form of local interests -- a particular way of looking at street cafés, a particular way of zoning, a particular way of dealing with economic development issues and challenges. You can just slot all of those in where I say bicycle, if the bicycle doesn't really clue in for you.

The cycling committee was founded more than 20 years ago, as I say, when a consultant retained by Metro concluded that the best solution for cycling in the area was to relegate cyclists to the parks and to ban them from city streets. This is like telling a motorists that when you get off your off ramp at the 401, you have to walk from there to wherever you're going. From the city's perspective this was outrageous and it didn't take into account the reality for cyclists in the city, so the cycling committee was founded to ensure that cyclists get to speak directly to city council and that ideas like this are not forwarded without the views of cyclists.

We have been toiling away for nearly all of our 20 years by ourselves. Until recently no other city in the Metro area, despite the existence of cyclists throughout the Metropolitan area, nor Metro itself, has managed to evolve an advisory committee of this nature.

The point is this: At this stage in the game, only the city of Toronto has found cycling important enough to involve cyclists in a very real way, to devote real resources to this issue, and also to allow its councillors to draw directly on citizen opinion and effort to benefit us all in working with this issue of cycling. The reason it does that is because there is a huge number of cyclists in the city of Toronto that's simply not present elsewhere. Metro has now developed a committee, but still there's part of this, "Let's quarantine the cyclists over on that path" approach to transport planning.

I also referred to the importance of volunteer power, and this is the same dynamic to which Mr Metalin referred earlier. We can tell you that we rely on volunteer work, and that's not just ourselves as volunteers; we work with the hundreds of volunteers every year to get cycling issues dealt with in the city. As you bring the councillor further and further away from those volunteers and they see less and less of the benefit and of the point of doing work for the city because of that stretched accountability, then you risk undermining that reliance and our ability -- and I'm not kidding when I say that we rely heavily on volunteers, because we get hundreds of thousands of dollars of work done by people who want to work because they can see the results.

The Chair: Ms Bowker, sorry to interrupt. We're coming to the end of your allotted time.

Ms Bowker: I'm almost done.

The Chair: Sorry to throw you.

Ms Bowker: That's fine. I'll just jump towards the end here.

Preserving our cities the way they are now is not about arresting some determined path of social evolution, but it's about putting into effect the concept that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. One of the Star polls I noted said that about three quarters of the people they surveyed said, "I don't know what's wrong with the way things are structured now," and I don't think these people are toiling in the dark and need to be enlightened. What they're saying is that things need to be fixed, sure, but this isn't the way to do it. It doesn't make sense to respond to a perceived excess of government by replacing it with the biggest government of them all.

Just in conclusion, the facts are these: The citizens of Metropolitan Toronto simply do not favour coordination and efficiency over all other social values, although those are important, but we don't want to lose the other values we have in society. Change should come from those who know this city best, and that's the citizens and our elected representatives who have a direct connection to the local government that's being sought to be changed. You must consult us, and that doesn't mean just in reference to MPP Gilchrist's comment. It doesn't mean having a plan and saying: "Here it is. Now what do you say to that?" You have to withdraw the bill and only then can a real, positive process of change begin.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation to us this evening.

JOE HAYDEN

The Chair: Would Joe Hayden please come forward. Good evening, Mr Hayden. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Joe Hayden: First of all, I'd like to say how much I'm happy to be here and to be able to speak publicly as I'm going to now while democracy is still in effect in this province.

I'm Joe Hayden. I was born in Toronto. I've lived here for 60 years. I voted no to amalgamation and, yes, I did understand the question, but I'm confused about the common sense of all this. For example, is it common sense to decrease personal income tax by 30% when our province is trying to reduce an enormous deficit? Is it common sense for a government to even state publicly that it will ignore the results of a citizens' referendum? Is downloading common sense?

I want to quote part of an article I read in the Star which is kind of interesting: "The province wants to take complete responsibility for funding education, but in return municipalities would have to accept new responsibilities for funding welfare, social housing and long-term health care. The province insists that the transfer of burdens is a fair exchange."

If it's a fair exchange and the things that are exchanged are of equal value, why bother exchanging them? Why not leave them the way they are? It makes common sense to me to leave them as they are.

Another thing I don't find common sense is the proposed actual value assessment on homes in Toronto. This was tried before, but it was called market value assessment at that time. Now they've changed that and it's called actual value assessment. I was confused about that so I called my member of provincial Parliament, Mr Saunders, who I don't see here today.

Mr Flaherty: Saunderson.

Mr Hayden: Saunderson -- pardon me; I'm a little nervous, I don't usually do this kind of thing, but I feel very strongly. I asked him what the difference was between actual value assessment and market value assessment and he couldn't tell me. He either knew or couldn't explain it or he simply didn't know.

I know the difference. I have here a picture of a home. I'll just describe it for you. It's a one-storey bungalow, with a 33-foot-wide lot, two bedrooms, one bathroom and a mutual driveway, in ward 16 in Toronto. In Scarborough there's a two-storey detached house, a 61-foot wide ravine lot, four bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, double drive and garage, and ground floor family room and library. My understanding is that both of these homes under actual value assessment would pay about the same tax.

1800

What I would propose, rather than actual value assessment or market value assessment, is unit assessment; that is, the properties would be taxed on the size of the buildings on the property and the size of the property itself.

A lot of these things were covered so articulately by other speakers that I don't want to repeat them.

The Tenant Protection Act: I'm not even sure if that's been passed yet. Is that still something that's going to be passed? Has it been passed? Does anybody know?

Mr Silipo: Not yet.

Mr Hayden: I hope that doesn't pass because I don't think it's really a tenants' protection act. This is something that's confusing. It is to me. It seems that if a tenant moves out of his or her apartment, then there's no limit set to what the landlord may charge the next tenant. Is that tenant protection? I don't think so. I would vote no to that.

There is something positive I'd like to say with regard to this government. I'd like to thank Mike Harris for eliminating the radar that was proposed for Toronto. That'll save us some money, I'm sure.

I'm just trying to find something else here that's positive for the government, but I'm having trouble.

I will finish by just paraphrasing the old adage: It's possible to confuse some of the people some of the time and perhaps all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time. Any questions?

Mr Hastings: You've already taken on the value assessment proposals, that the existing system in your estimation is perfectly or almost completely acceptable. Whatever somebody is paying in one section of Metro, even though their assessment is based on a 1940 assessment base and somebody else's is based maybe on a 1964 or a 1984 -- you're going to obviously have inequitable results, unfair results because one was valued 56 years ago and others are valued on a more contemporary basis.

Mr Hayden: Yes, I realize that.

Mr Hastings: And that's acceptable to you?

Mr Hayden: What I want to know is why wasn't it changed before?

Mr Flaherty: Good question.

Mr Hastings: A very good question. Governments of the past, all three, made varying attempts and they never got anywhere.

Mr Hayden: Why didn't they get anywhere?

Mr Flaherty: They didn't have the courage.

Mr Hastings: Because the city of Toronto primarily, but ratepayers in other sections of, say, central Willowdale, the Kingsway in Etobicoke, parts of Scarborough, managed to focus on that particular attempt and to kill it. If I were them, I wouldn't want to pay a penny more either. Therefore, the system's completely acceptable, that the folks in most parts of Metro who are paying the freight just continue to pay the freight and the ones who have the significant advantage of a lessened tax just continue to do that and everything's okay.

Mr Hayden: Is it a lessened tax?

Mr Hastings: Yes. You can go to --

Mr Hayden: Taxes went down you're saying?

Mr Hastings: You can go to any city hall --

Mr Hayden: My taxes didn't go down. They continue to rise every year.

Mr Hastings: Let me give you an example. The Schmidts paid $3,455 on their $227,000 Scarborough bungalow, while lawyer Eddie Greenspan paid $3,755 on his $1.84-million Toronto home. The Schmidts were paying $1,288 too much while the Greenspans were enjoying a $13,423 break. There are other examples I've cited. I brought down the Metro treasury books the other day from, I think, 1993, and in my area of Metro about 90% of the residential taxpayers would have tax relief, on average, of a modest amount of at least $500. Even commercial-industrial in most instances would end up paying less.

The Chair: Mr Hastings, I'd like to --

Mr Hastings: But you're saying that's okay, that the one --

Mr Hayden: I did not say that --

Mr Hastings: Well, you implied it, that the existing system and the AVA system proposed don't deal with the problem. You said value --

Mr Hayden: No, I did not. What I said was --

The Chair: Mr Hastings --

Mr Hayden: -- why was it not changed? If it's not the will of the people of Toronto as it was in the referendum regarding the amalgamation --

Mr Hastings: They fought it tooth and nail.

Mr Hayden: Of course. Of course the people of Toronto did. If everybody fights things that they recognize as not a good thing, then I think justice and fair play will result from that.

Mr Hastings: Justice and fair play for the privileged.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hayden, for coming forward and making a presentation this evening. We're recessed until 7 pm.

The committee recessed from 1807 to 1903.

The Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the standing committee on general government, evening session.

Two announcements: No amendments have been tabled by any of the three parties to this point. The second announcement is that we got in touch with Mr Armstrong, Mr Pickard and Ms Gibbons, and all three have declined. One was very difficult to get hold of because they were on vacation, so I want to compliment the clerk for finding them and being able to get in touch with them all.

Mr Sergio: They declined because they were away?

The Chair: One was. It was amazing that they got hold of them.

POLISH GAY AND LESBIAN ASSOCIATION (TORONTO)

The Chair: Our first deputant this evening is Kazik Jedrzejczak. Good evening, sir. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes this evening to make your presentation.

Mr Kazik Jedrzejczak: Mr Chairman, dear committee members, thank you very much for allowing me to speak at this hearing concerning Bill 103, the legislation to merge Metro and its six municipalities into a single megacity. My name is Kazik Jedrzejczak and I'm the president of the Polish Gay and Lesbian Association (Toronto).

The Polish Gay and Lesbian Association in Toronto was established in 1992 and now has over 200 members, mostly people who are Polish or of Polish descent. Our association provides educational and support services for gays and lesbians within Toronto's Polish community.

As the president of the Polish Gay and Lesbian Association and as a resident of the city of Toronto, I am concerned about the impact of this amalgamation upon AIDS prevention. This problem is close to my heart, because during the last 10 years I have lost more than two dozen of my close friends, most of them Polish. I believe the best AIDS prevention policy is education. The need for AIDS education within the Polish Canadian community is particularly urgent since so many new immigrants from Poland speak little or no English and have very limited understanding of the principles of safer sex.

The city of Toronto has provided leadership from the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic by supporting community prevention and peer support programs. In 1987, the city council established the AIDS prevention program in order to support community initiatives to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. To date, the board of health has allocated over $7.7 million to over 279 community groups and agencies for the purpose of HIV-AIDS prevention. The purpose of the HIV-AIDS prevention program is to increase and maintain consistent, correct condom use; decrease unsafe needle use behaviours; enhance communication skills to improve negotiation in relationships; and enhance the health of those living with HIV. These projects address social barriers related to poverty, race, sexual orientation, culture, sex and language skills. The city of Toronto is the only Metro municipality to give its own money -- about $ 1.5 million annually -- to community groups and agencies for AIDS education and prevention.

The AIDS prevention programs are given to many different cultural communities or agencies, such as the African Community Health Services; the Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, CAP; HIV-T Group (Blood Transfused); the Alliance for South Asian AIDS Prevention; the Asian Community AIDS Services; the Gay Men's Education Network; Hassle Free Clinic for men and women; Maggie's/Toronto Prostitutes' Community Service; Toronto's People With AIDS Foundation; Street Outreach Services; Positive Straight Men; Voices of Positive Women; and many more.

In the past two years, the Polish Gay and Lesbian Association has received grants from the Toronto public health department for an AIDS prevention program in the Polish community. Thanks to these grants, we were able to publish and distribute 5,000 brochures in Polish on safer sex for men having sex with men. We also organized 10 workshops in Polish on HIV-AIDS prevention, operated the Polish-language information telephone line, conducted the HIV-AIDS support group in Polish and provided referral information for HIV-positive men. Thanks to the city's support, our association was able to organize a forum on AIDS directed at high-risk groups, with the participation of Polish doctors and other health care professionals providing medical services to the Polish community in Toronto. We work closely with the Gay Men's Education Network, a recipient of the city of Toronto grants, to conduct ongoing bathhouse and park outreach activities. I would like to underline that we are the only Polish-speaking group to offer these services.

Our brochure on safer sex has gained accolades for its culturally sensitive text, simple language and effective design. Recently, the Polish Ministry of Health and Welfare in Warsaw requested permission to use our Polish text on safer sex in its materials.

Many members of our association as well as in the gay and lesbian community at large express their concerns that the megacity and downloading could prove disastrous for HIV prevention and for services for people with HIV-AIDS. The megacity threatens unique Toronto AIDS programs for which people come downtown from all across Metro. Grants to AIDS organizations in Toronto and related services may be eliminated or drastically reduced as a result of the downloading of public health costs and the amalgamation of Metro Toronto. The cost of such services to municipalities may well result in pressure to reduce or eliminate them.

1910

Grants for direct services to people with HIV-AIDS -- counselling, needle exchanges and other harm reduction initiatives for drugs users; AIDS prevention education; culturally specific services -- could all be endangered. All those services have been essential in improving the quality of life of people with HIV-AIDS and is preventing the spread of HIV.

Many AIDS-related programs funded by the city rely on volunteers to provide services. If these programs are cut, important supports for volunteer services will disappear. This risk will undermine the Ontario government's own emphasis on the use of volunteers to provide community services.

Amalgamation and downloading could prove disastrous for people with HIV-AIDS in Toronto, who may lose access to housing, social assistance, long-term care and services provided by community-based health organizations if the Ontario government's proposed legislation is passed. Currently, there is a two-year waiting list for HIV-designated housing.

Of additional concern to people with HIV-AIDS is the Ontario government's concurrent proposal for a narrower definition of "disability." The new definition may exclude many people with HIV-AIDS from family benefits allowance and require them to go on Ontario Works, so-called workfare.

Finally, I am concerned about accessibility to the municipal government after amalgamation. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Al Leach, claims that the megacity will mean better accessibility. For me, the megacity means a mega-bureaucracy. The public health department will become a huge bureaucracy. One wonders how responsive it can be to an individual with HIV who needs services.

During the past years, the Polish Gay and Lesbian Association has established good relations with the city of Toronto councillors and the city employees. We have open lines with Kyle Rae, David Hutcheon and Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, who wrote recommendations for both our grants.

On two occasions we were honoured at our functions by the presence of Ms Barbara Hall, Toronto's mayor. Last year, she appeared during our reception to launch the Polish brochure on AIDS. She took some of these brochures to Poland to launch during the 400th birthday of Warsaw. This year, she attended our Polish Night at Woody's to help us raise $2,000 for the Toronto's People with AIDS Foundation's emergency food bank. A week earlier, she attended a dinner for the Polish Women's Federation in Toronto. We are afraid that the megacity's mayor will be politically too busy to be available to any small organization like ours.

In 1979 I left my native Poland because of the totalitarian regime which did not listen to the people and because of a government which tried to ram its ideas and ideology down our throats. The citizens who opposed these views and methods were called hooligans by the Communist regime. As such a hooligan, I left Poland for Canada. In the Ontario of 1997 I face a similarly unconcerned and arrogant government which rams through legislation and calls the citizens in opposition special interest groups.

In summary, Bill 103 is a mega-mistake. There has been no careful analysis of what the megacity would offer that would be better for its citizens. The government proposal is too short on analysis and too long on hypothesis. As the president of the Polish Gay and Lesbian Association in Toronto, I strongly oppose Bill 103 in the form now presented.

Thank you for your attention.

Applause.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Colle: Thank you very much for your very thorough and compelling presentation. I appreciate your being here.

A large number of new Polish immigrants have seemed to come into the west part of Toronto. Is that where most of the new Polish immigrants have settled in recent years?

Mr Jedrzejczak: Yes. Originally it was the Roncesvalles area. After that they moved to the west Bloor area, where I'm living. They are spread in Scarborough now, Etobicoke and Mississauga.

Mr Colle: Are some members of your association or people who need information or who want to network with you coming from those other municipalities to get help from the Toronto association?

Mr Jedrzejczak: I think the majority of our members are Toronto citizens, because they are living downtown. Gay Village is on Church Street and in the environs. This is why most of them live in the city of Toronto, I would say.

Mr Colle: I guess one of the reasons they like living in the city and near Church Street is because the supports are there, like your association, and I know you've got 519 Church --

Mr Jedrzejczak: Yes, but not only our association. In Toronto you have over 200 different gay and lesbian groups, mainly around Church Street, but they are spread out -- recently a Parkdale association -- and there are a lot of so-called ethnic or cultural community groups. We started five years ago. Last year, a Portuguese group and an Italian group; Avanti Italiani is their name. This is what we need on the barricades.

Mr Colle: So the city of Toronto council has been very sensitive and supportive of the needs of the gay community and very much a partner in trying to educate and support the community?

Mr Jedrzejczak: Definitely. We have almost personal relations. During our two functions attended by the mayor of Toronto, we had representatives from New York, from the Polish Gay and Lesbian Association together; they were shocked because for them it's unimaginable that the mayor of a big city would attend a small function. There were no police, no closing of the street; it was just a normal event.

Mr Colle: I think that's an example of a so-called little thing that a mayor is involved in that means a lot to you and the citizens and people who are a part of your association, that a mayor can be there physically for a function which is small in size. The mayor being there is very important to you.

Mr Jedrzejczak: Yes, it is, and it is not only important for me as being gay but also as being Polish. The mayor attended, as I mentioned, these functions and she also went to Roncesvalles to open several parades and so on. She's available.

Mr Colle: The mayor of the new city is not going to have that kind of time.

Mr Jedrzejczak: Definitely not. It will be a big figure, a big fish, and we'll be very small and marginalized.

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

1920

TORONTO MAYOR'S COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AND RACE RELATIONS

The Chair: Would Antonella Ceddia please come forward. You have 10 minutes today to make a presentation.

Ms Antonella Ceddia: I'm a member of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations and I'm speaking on behalf of that committee tonight. The committee has concerns about Bill 103. For the purposes of this discussion and in the limited time available, those concerns can be grouped into three areas: a potential loss of government services and programs that benefit the diverse citizens of the city; representation and equal opportunities in the new megacity bureaucracy; the accessibility and responsiveness of the megacity council to the diverse needs of a Toronto population.

I read the papers this morning, and I'm speaking with the awareness that the government has said, at least to the papers, that it's going to be making some changes to Bill 103 and to its plan to download services. I'm aware of that, but I can only speak about what's on the table now, and that's Bill 103 as we see it. Even if the downloading of services doesn't happen, I want to stress that the committee feels amalgamation is a bad thing in and of itself because it wouldn't be local; it would be too big to be local.

Let me start with talking about services. The city of Toronto, of all the municipalities slated for amalgamation, has the highest number of visible-minority persons, the highest population of aboriginal persons, persons with a disability, gays and lesbians, bisexuals, single-parent households, elderly persons, and I can go on and on. The primary reason these populations are choosing the city of Toronto, just as the colleague who spoke before me mentioned, is that Toronto has a level and quality of services available for these communities and for these populations. I'm thinking of things like settlement homes, community health programs, recreation centres, chronic care for the elderly; and if we want to move to provincial services that help these groups run in cooperation with municipalities, we'll talk about transit, welfare, and some arts and cultural programs. These programs are things that other cities look to Toronto for and hold the city in high esteem because of.

We have these services in Toronto, and what they do is allow a mix to survive in the city. You can't walk down a Toronto city street and not see a wonderful mix of people from different incomes, different backgrounds, different waves of immigration, black, white, red, yellow people, the list goes on and on. This diversity is Toronto's strength. This diversity and this mix depends on the local services. What the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations is saying and what other communities are saying is that Bill 103 is threatening these services.

I'm talking about the local services. Apart from whether downloading is going to happen -- there are two parts to this -- the local services are going to be threatened, and that's what the colleague before me talked about. The downloading is also going to have a terrible effect.

What's really worrisome and troubling is that there hasn't been an impact study done on this disentanglement of services. How exactly is it going to happen? What is it going to mean? What services are we going to have available? What's going to be cut? We don't know. We haven't heard. That scares us. That scares the communities the committee works with. There are analyses -- I'm not going to get into them because of time, but they're quoted in my brief -- that estimate reductions in current spending, and a reduction in spending means a reduction in services. There's no credible study, plan, strategy, anything presented by this government to tell the citizens what's going to happen to these local services that are linked to the heart of the city, that make the city rich.

We're going to have a council of 44 serving 2.3 million citizens. That kind of council I would argue is going to be far removed from the realities of Toronto's streets, schools, residences and neighbourhoods. Such a huge council is going to be hard-pressed to recognize, let alone appreciate, the value of the services required in maintaining the mix for which this city is so admired and held in high esteem internationally.

Bigger is not going to mean better. It will mean that the most vulnerable and those who don't fit the mould of a model citizen, as this government might see it, will be lost. Bigger means less able to adapt to local needs, less flexible, more unwieldy. It will be what Hobbes referred to as a leviathan, a huge, autocratic body operating far removed, on its own and unchecked.

That's the services part of it. I would like to speak more about it, but I'm going to move on to the second part, and that is representation and equal opportunities in a new megacity bureaucracy. Everything is vague. Let's say this bill does go through; we hope not, because we're recommending a withdrawal of the bill, but let's say it does go through. You're going to have a transition team and that transition team is going to be appointing, deciding what senior staff is going to be running local government. The key word here is "appointing," or rather, that isn't the specific word that's used; it's all vague. That worries me, because a transition team appointed by the government choosing senior civil servants is a problem. It just reeks of conflict of interest.

The task of appointing department heads and senior civil servants is an important one. It's going to shape the whole bureaucracy, the whole civil service. We haven't heard anything from the government about any fair practices for choosing the megacity's senior staff. All we're left with, all we can conclude, is that these people are going to be handpicked. This method of handpicking, if you want to call it a method, is a dangerous one, and it's fraught with potential for unfairness.

The questions we ask are: Will the government ensure that equal opportunities are going to exist in the selection of megacity staff? Is the new megacity staff -- if we get to that stage, and I hope not -- going to represent the population it serves? Has the government put any thought at all into that? We might not have any employment equity legislation any more, or very weak employment equity legislation, but I want to remind you that we still have the Human Rights Code, which speaks to fair employment practices.

This whole transition team of course is going to operate above the law. I don't know if we have to go to court to have someone say it's not democratic, but I wonder why there's a need for that. This just speaks to an old boys' network, a white old boys' network, and that's been recognized in the public and private sectors --

The Chair: Excuse me for one second. Folks in the audience, please, there's no audience participation. The yesses and mm-hmms and so on are throwing me off. I'm trying to concentrate on what the deputant is saying, and I'd appreciate it if you would keep those comments and things to yourself. Thank you very much.

Ms Ceddia: I couldn't even hear it, so I must be right into this.

The Chair: I can hear it, though. It's throwing me off, and the members might be thrown off too.

Ms Ceddia: The handpicking -- I'll start from there again -- is just talking about a white old boys' network. We've all recognized, in the public sector and the private sector, that that's detrimental for a host of reasons, including service delivery and service efficiency. The Harris government claims it's strong on those two areas.

After we've handpicked the senior civil servants and elected a mega-council, the bill says councillors are going to establish volunteer neighbourhood committees and will also determine their function. These committees are supposed to allow for direct citizen involvement. The legislation doesn't specifically state or outline how the committees are going to be established and what their functions are. It leaves that open, again very vague, and I think it ought to be more specific in this area.

Is the government speaking of appointing volunteers to these committees? I hope not. Moreover, the vague reference to these committees in the bill raises the question about whether councillors will choose their supporters or their buddies to sit on these volunteer neighbourhood committees, with the result that the voice represented by these so-called neighbourhood committees is only going to be one voice rather than a diversity of voices representing a diversity of interests, and that one voice is going to be the voice of the buddies of the Conservative government. There's too much uncertainty in this area and the bill ought to state more about this if the government's intention is to truly guarantee some voice for citizens who are going to have to face the mega-bureaucracy.

Last, I want to talk about accessibility and responsiveness. These points were made by the person who spoke before me. I'll just speak from personal experience on this one. One of the beauties of living in the city is that if a community is having a problem, a concern -- I sit on a ratepayers' group -- you can call up the councillor. The councillor has come to many meetings on very short notice to deal with our concerns. The mayor chairs the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations, so every six weeks we hear from a list of deputants, we consider different pieces of communication; people have the ear of the mayor if they pick up the phone and make an appointment.

That's not going to happen in the megacity. It's pure and simple arithmetic. You're going to have more people to serve; one mayor, fewer councillors, and more people to serve. It's just not going to happen. That's simple.

What we have is citizens faced with a loss of services, representation, accessibility and responsiveness on one side of the balance sheet, and on the other side of the balance sheet, which the government works so hard to balance, we don't see anything, only vagueness, and that worries us. There aren't any studies showing that there are going to be savings. The KPMG study is a big fiasco. The Metro board of trade, which the government was relying on to be an ally, actually didn't turn out to be an ally.

Any guarantees that property taxes are not going to be increased -- we hope that's more than window dressing, but I can't see how we're not going to have an increase in property taxes with this plan. That worries us and it worries the Metro board of trade.

The Chair: Ms Ceddia, I've added some extra time and even with that you're coming to the end of the presentation, so I wonder if you could wrap up.

Ms Ceddia: I'll close if you give me a minute. The committee is not saying that the present system of local government is perfect as is. The committee's saying the Conservative government should take the referendum result, the submissions, things you're hearing in these public hearings and use it all as an opening to sit back and say: "Maybe we need to rethink this again. Maybe we need to sit down and talk to people and look at the studies." What these studies show is restructuring of government, which I think a lot of people support, but they show a strengthening of local government, not an abolition of local government.

This is not about the government's pride; it's not about saying you were wrong or off the mark on this one. It's about beginning a new set of discussions about how local government ought to be structured and improved, and that's what we hope you'll do. Thank you.

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

1930

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1

The Chair: Would Bruno Silano please come forward.

Mr Bruno Silano: Thank you, Mr Chair, for having us. I'd like to start by saying that I find it rather ironic that Premier Harris in one of his TV commercials shows an old, congested and complicated electrical panel, and after disentanglement the same apparatus is nice and neat and working properly as the Premier flicks the switch. The opposite would happen, in our view, should amalgamation of the municipal electrical utilities take place within Metro.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Bruno Silano and I'm the president of CUPE Local 1. With me are Brother John Cammalleri, vice-president, and Brother Ron Sisti, overhead foreperson. Our employer is Toronto Hydro.

The workers at Toronto Hydro have been unionized dating back to Toronto Hydro's inception around 1913. Local 1 represents over 1,000 women and men in trades, technical and clerical positions. Our unionized workforce is highly trained, skilled and qualified. CUPE Local 1 and Toronto Hydro have spent an enormous amount of time, energy and resources with the members of our union to bring them to their present level. Our workforce is involved in every aspect of the operation of the utility, from the lines, poles and transformers you see on the street to the cables and transformers underground, to the office staff involved in the planning and design of the distribution system, to the members who send out hydro bills and answer customer inquiries.

I'd like to speak now on what a municipal electrical utility is. For those of you who don't know, a municipal utility, specifically Toronto Hydro, is wholly owned by the public. At present there are six different and distinct municipal electrical utilities in Metro. Toronto Hydro is by far the largest and the oldest of the six.

A municipal utility such as Toronto Hydro purchases electrical power from Ontario Hydro wholesale and then marks up the price and resells electricity to the residents and businesses of the city of Toronto. Toronto Hydro receives no taxpayer money whatsoever. We sell power at cost to the residents and businesses. The markup I spoke about earlier is enough for Toronto Hydro to finance its entire operation.

The utility is completely self-sufficient. Toronto Hydro is a revenue generator for the city of Toronto. The public owns the electrical infrastructure. The public, through payment of their electrical bills, has paid for the highly skilled workforce now in place at Toronto Hydro. The public owns the fleet vehicles. In 1995 Toronto Hydro had gross revenues of over $700 million. Of that figure approximately 80% went to Ontario Hydro; the remainder formed the basis for Toronto Hydro's operating and capital expenditure budgets. This still enabled Toronto Hydro to reimburse the city of Toronto coffers the sum of some $40 million in 1995 alone.

Electricity is a vital service. It's just as important as water and air. People take electricity for granted -- that is, until you no longer have it. That's when people come running into the streets demanding that power be restored as quickly as possible. In essence, the city of Toronto depends on electricity.

I'm here to speak to you today on Bill 103 because as a union we have grave concerns about how the bill will impact upon our workforce, the residents of the city of Toronto and Metro. I want to address head on the Tories' claim that a megacity will save money.

There are two scenarios for a mega-Hydro, and both cost more money. Amalgamation is supposed to be all about efficiencies and cost savings. Cut through all the rhetoric about disentanglement, downloading or single-tier government and at the end of the day services are supposed to be cheaper in the new megacity. Well, at Toronto Hydro the exact opposite will be the case. Our mega-utility will not be cheaper than the current six municipal electrical utilities.

Scenario one: six separate units. If we're starting from scratch, with no staff or equipment or physical plant, one mega-Hydro might be cheaper, but the reality is this: Toronto Hydro crews have only been trained to work in the city of Toronto, on our equipment and our plant. North York crews have different equipment, different skills and very different plant. Even with one mega-Hydro, these crews will be kept separate. Despite having one massive overhead department, for example, the current crews will have to be segregated into separate units representing Toronto, North York, Etobicoke, York, East York and Scarborough. One mega-Hydro, maybe, but six separate units for each department.

And here's where your cost savings end up: You'll need to expand middle management to act as a liaison between each unit. Each current department has a supervisor. You'll need a mega-Hydro supervisor to oversee each of those units. The mega-Hydro will have to expand its bureaucracy in an already top-heavy system. Time and again, this is why experts have told us that amalgamating huge cities is more expensive, not cheaper.

Scenario two: collapsing the utilities into one system. This is the other path to go down, that you simply collapse the current six overhead departments, to return to my example, and merge them into one department. But one new large utility will create an extremely complex electrical infrastructure. Understand that in the city of Toronto alone there are no less than four distribution schemes presently in use and over 12 overhead and underground construction schemes. We have the most complex and diverse system in all of Metro. Our workers, with years of experience, are taxed to the limit every day changing from working on one distribution system to another.

Collapsing into one Hydro would result in crews from, say, downtown working in North York with totally foreign equipment and tools. Here's what you'll see:

First, more injured workers. Their inexperience will make them work slower, but pressure to perform will ultimately result in more injuries. Toronto Hydro, with its complicated physical plant, already has one of the highest worker injury rates in North America. How many more of our women and men must die?

Second, there will be decreased efficiency. Working in a new environment, crews will inevitably work more slowly. Management can crack the whip all they like, but most of our members will work slower to be on the safe side. Electricity isn't like paper-pushing; if you screw up, you could be killed.

Third, system reliability will decline. Our famous 99.98% system reliability will fall while inexperienced crews struggle to get the lights back on for our customers. Business especially will not tolerate this. Some will leave. Businesses demand that power be restored immediately. Why? Because no power means no business; they shut down. Again, when the power is out in Toronto, people come running into the street and our switchboard is immediately flooded with calls.

Fourth, customer service will decline. Many of our crews are assigned areas within Toronto, such as east, west or central. This enables our workers to obtain an intimate knowledge of their area. Under one Hydro, inevitably this will be lost as workers will become de-localized and be moved around the entire Metro area.

Finally, mass training will be costly. The physical plant in North York works on a different system than the city of Toronto. Workers will need full-scale training to be able to work on it. That means expensive training courses, lost time, and higher costs.

All of this will cost more, not less. The Harris megacity will drive up electrical costs, squeezing residents and business customers even more. Urban planning experts will tell you that proximity to a cheap and reliable power supply is perhaps one of the most significant reasons for industry to locate in an area. The changes needed at Toronto Hydro to be effective in a megacity will cost millions of dollars. Rate increases are only one of the ways to manage this. Amalgamation is supposed to make us more attractive to new business investment but in reality the opposite will be true. Higher power rates are no small matter. Under these changes, we simply won't be competitive with municipalities in the 905 region. Business will have one more reason to either leave Metro Toronto or not settle here in the first place.

1940

The Chair: Mr Silano, you have a minute remaining. If you want to go to the most key parts and wrap up, I'd appreciate it.

Mr Silano: Our jobs matter. A mega-Hydro will lead to mass layoffs in personnel. We at CUPE Local 1 see amalgamation as having three clear goals: to privatize the utility, smash our union and pay for the 30% tax cut.

In 1995 this government cut funding to municipalities by a whopping 48%. You are forcing municipalities to privatize, downsize and eliminate work. Municipal employers such as Toronto Hydro will bring in contractors in the hope that it will save money, as the new municipality will need ever greater revenues from the utility to make up the shortfall in payments from the province.

Your government is supposed to be trying to create jobs. The proposed megacity legislation will lead to just the opposite. The 4,500 jobs that will be eliminated, as stated by the now infamous KPMG report, will have negative ramifications at Toronto Hydro. Some of our members will be part of the 4,500 jobs mentioned in the report.

At Toronto Hydro there has already been extensive downsizing. Over 15% of the unionized workforce at Toronto Hydro has been downsized due to a severance package introduced in 1994. A significant number of senior, experienced personnel left the employ of Toronto Hydro. If we are downsized further, any more cuts to the workforce will lead to an unmanageable situation with severe consequences for the workers and the public.

Member awareness and labour unrest are building as many members are seeing through the government's true agenda; namely, their job, their future, their union are all about to disappear. The government has contempt for unionized workers. Our members are starting to see that without a job, what good is a tax cut, what good are low interest rates?

The Chair: Mr Silano, I'm going to --

Mr Silano: Can I just wrap it up? I've got two more paragraphs, please.

Bill 103 speaks of a transition team. CUPE Local 1 feels this team must include representatives from labour who have an intimate knowledge of municipal electrical utilities. Also, Bill 103 states that a minimum of three or more commissioners shall be appointed by the new council. Local 1 feels this commission must include members of the public. As it is right now, the representation is not democratic, nor a fair representation of the potentially new megacity.

No means no. Don't attempt to sell your megacity by ensuring that property taxes will not increase. That's a sellout and a trick to confuse the public. In the Globe and Mail yesterday, over 75% of the votes cast in the referendum were opposed to uniting the six distinct municipalities. The public has spoken. No means no to amalgamation, no to a megacity.

Lastly, I would like to state that it is deplorable that legislation such as this can be introduced knowing full well that it will have a devastating impact on so many working people in Metro, that the government did not even think to mention how to deal with the employees directly affected by this legislation. Not one word. Shame.

Thank you for your time and I hope Local 1's views on the megacity will be heeded.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward and making your presentation tonight. We appreciate it.

CHARLES DIAMOND

The Chair: Would Charles Diamond come forward. Mr Diamond, welcome to the committee.

Mr Charles Diamond: Thank you for this opportunity to address you. Everything that could be said about Bill 103 has I'm sure been said. What I would like to address is the behaviour of this government, because that more than anything else is where the problem lies. I'm not referring to the government's behaviour around only Bill 103, but around its behaviour in general, since at least September 1995, the month in which the angry demonstrations at Queen's Park took place in response to cutbacks in GWA. The exact date of that demonstration I don't recall but I will never forget the Premier's response. He said, "These people didn't vote for me; they don't agree with my policies; they're not my constituents." In other words, Mike Harris doesn't see himself as Premier of all the people, only some of them. This would certainly explain the dismissive comments he has been making about the concerns of those of us who are opposed to this bill.

Within three months, in December 1995, the government introduced the omnibus bill, giving itself sweeping powers. Even though the Legislative Assembly was recessing for Christmas, the government claimed it needed to have this new authority immediately. Because the government was acting with such haste and such impatience, the bill was approved on third reading before it was even printed. Why?

One year later, December 17 or 18, I don't recall exactly, the government introduces Bill 103. In that introduction and subsequently the government has been quite blatant in its arrogance, dismissiveness and contempt of the people in general and the people of Metropolitan Toronto in particular. Many examples of that contempt abound, one of the most egregious of which is how the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has handled the amalgamation hotline, as reported by Martin Mittelstaedt in the January 24, 1997, Globe and Mail. In that article we discover that when a citizen phoned the ministry for information, without the caller's knowledge or consent, the name, address and phone number of the caller were recorded via call display, and whether he or she supported the government policy.

I've had the clerk photocopy the article for you. For clarity's sake, it doesn't explicitly state there that it was done without the caller's permission or knowledge, but in the radio and television reports elaborating on this article, it was claimed that it was done through call display. Nowhere in the ads that the government was running at the time did it say, "Your call is being recorded by name, address and phone number via call display and your comments are being recorded."

A further script that government spokespeople were using to answer caller questions stated that amalgamation would save X million dollars a year. To record people's responses individually, without their consent, and provide savings figures they knew could not be verified was deceitful and dishonest.

Throughout the entire time period since Bill 103 was introduced, the government has said it would not respect a referendum. Even now, after the people have spoken and clearly said no, the government is defying the public will and saying it will proceed.

I am opposed to Bill 103, not only for the content of the proposed legislation but for the process the government has employed in its introduction and promotion.

In closing, I would like to return to what the government needs to do right. First, it needs to withdraw Bill 103 and start anew. Second, and more important, it needs to honour and respect the people. Mike Harris needs to realize that he is not the CEO of a corporation but the elected Premier of all the people of Ontario, not just those who voted for him or agree with his policies. We need a government that listens and responds to the will of the people. We need a government that is honest. We need a government that we can trust.

I urge all members of this government to vote against this legislation. I urge the Lieutenant Governor not to give royal assent to this legislation should the government be so foolish as to pass it. Thank you for the time and consideration you have given my comments.

Applause.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I can't have audience participation all night. I'm going to have to --

Mr Colle: It's the last night. Let them clap.

The Chair: No. They're no different than any other audience, Mr Colle. It's the rules of the Legislature and you know them full well. I'm just enforcing those rules. I need order. If I have to keep making announcements, people who present at the end of the night are going to lose time. If I have to call recesses for you to come to order, that's going to come off the time of the people at the end. Please don't do that to them. I want to hear all the submissions. We haven't missed anyone yet. I would hate on the last night for that to happen.

1950

Mr Silipo: Mr Diamond, thanks for your presentation. One of the things the government is going to have to deal with now is exactly what you raise in the latter part of your presentation, which is how it is going to respond to the referendum results in particular. We've heard so far the response and what it's been and we can all make our judgments as to whether they've actually heard anything or not through the referendum.

It's interesting that tonight the deadline for submitting amendments to be considered by this committee has come and gone and the government has presented no amendments. So when we go into clause-by-clause debate starting tomorrow morning, we will actually be going through the bill as it is with no amendments.

That presents us with an interesting dilemma. The government has said it wants to think about this for the next little while, yet I get very much the impression that what they're going to be thinking about is not so much how to honour the results of the referendum and withdraw the bill -- which I think has got to be a minimum starting point; I think you said that in your presentation -- but rather how to come up with a number of amendments that they will then be able to suggest address somehow the various concerns that people have put forward, whether in the committee or in other places.

My question to you is this: Do you see anything short of withdrawing the bill as being acceptable in the way of amendments to what this bill does?

Mr Diamond: The bill itself is defective and the whole process has certainly been one of such flagrant contempt, I would say to me it borders on malice.

Mr Silipo: I want to pursue another issue. We have suggested as a party that the withdrawal of the bill is the first thing the government should do. Second, recognizing, we believe, that there is an understanding about the need to make some changes in the way in which we govern ourselves at the local level, but also understanding that both of the last major studies on this pointed out that the first area that needed to be looked at was how we coordinated and governed services at the greater Toronto level, recognizing that the region now is greater Toronto, not just Metropolitan Toronto, we've suggested the way in which we believe the government can both find a way out of this dilemma and also get the discussion on to the track that it needs to be on is to delay the municipal elections by one year, set up a citizens' assembly, a real process of discussion which over the next number of months would come up with some answers, building on the work that's already been done. I'd be interested in your reaction to that as a process and as a way out of this.

Mr Diamond: I agree. That sounds like a reasonable process to me, to involve the people and get their input. I haven't read the Golden report, but I've read the newspaper reports of the report where she said that you need to dissolve the Metro government, keep the local governments and just expand; in essence, form a new Metro that includes the GTA, which makes sense to me because the GTA today is probably what incorporated Metro back in 1953, so that sounds reasonable. What you're doing is just redefining the Metro government to include a broad area, but you're keeping the local governments, involving the citizens in that process. You don't just appoint a transition team which is answerable to no one except the minister, tell them that they meet in private, they can't talk to the press, and you can't appeal any of their decisions to anybody. That's not a democratic process, it's not an honest process, it's not an honourable or respectful process. That's the contemptuous process that we need to make sure does not happen.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Diamond, for coming forward this evening.

JAMES LOCKYER

The Chair: James Lockyer, please. Good evening, Mr Lockyer, and welcome to the committee.

Mr James Lockyer: Good evening. I want to start by saying I am not here representing anyone tonight other than myself. I'm actually a lawyer by profession, so usually I'm representing someone, but I must say representing myself I feel a whole lot more anxious than when I represent someone else.

I haven't prepared any statement for you either because I wanted to try to talk as freely and naturally as possible in addressing you. In trying to think about what I was going to say tonight, I was thinking of the irony of all of this, that what this megacity or megalopolis argument has developed into is something of a cloud with a silver lining. The cloud to me is this government and its policies. The silver lining is the participatory democracy that has arisen out of the cloud of this government and its policies.

I don't view the megacity as an isolated policy of this government; I view it as part of an overall strategy of this government. It's a government which, in the two years it's been in power, from my perspective, represents a special interest. It represents a special interest which is business. It represents a special interest, that is, the special interest of the well-off, of whom I happen to be one. I will put myself in that category. So I particularly resent the way this government simply concerns itself with the special interests of those who have as opposed to those who have not.

Bill 103, as far as I'm concerned, is part of an overall strategy of downloading services, which is another way of saying cutting services, of eviscerating school boards and reducing services for schools, of reducing services in every field which represents the have-nots.

I am personally involved in quite a lot of work for those who are developmentally handicapped, and I have seen at a firsthand level the consequences of cuts in services to those people. All this of course is in the name of a tax cut.

Looking at Bill 103 from a strictly Bill 103 point of view and not looking at it from the point of view of what I would consider to be the overall strategy of this government, historically this country has always had a national government -- the federal government -- a provincial government and local government -- the municipal government -- and by and large over the years, certainly while I've lived in Toronto, which is some 30 years despite my accent, municipal politicians have served their communities very well indeed.

There's always been a healthy left-right-centre balance, and I say that despite the fact that for the last heaven knows how many years I've had the misfortune to be represented by Tom Jakobek. I've done what I can to get rid of him. I work against him. I vote against him. He's still there, but I still support the system that has him there.

The silver lining, the participatory democracy that Bill 103 has led to, the radicalization of me and others, the involvement of me and so many others in this city trying to oppose this bill is a tremendous plus that's arisen out of Bill 103, and that's the irony I addressed at the opening of my remarks. Mr Gilchrist, Mr Leach, Mr Harris, they can go on and on until they're blue in the face -- no pun intended -- that the people, when they voted yesterday, didn't mean what they said.

I read in the Globe and Mail today that Mr Leach is quoted as saying, "From all the information I've seen, everything indicates to me the majority of people still favour amalgamation." What a ridiculous comment. Surely all of you who are members of his party can only be embarrassed at the absurdity of a statement like that. We know he doesn't believe that and none of you believe that. You've all seen what's happened in the referendum. You all know what the polls say. You all know what the people say.

To say that the people don't mean what they say is in a sense a reflection of the fact that this government doesn't mean what it says and doesn't say what it means. You have to read between the lines, and you always see and you always come back to that one special interest: the business community.

Where I come from, where I was born, I've seen this happen with the London county council, the LCC, where the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher destroyed the LCC, eliminated the LCC, because they didn't like the people who ran the London county council. I suspect there's a great deal of that involved in this government's desire to bring in Bill 103 and get rid of our present system of local government. It failed with the LCC; it will fail in Toronto as well if Bill 103 is passed.

The comfort I take from this, the silver lining I take from this, though, is that I do believe this government, if you don't back down, will never recover from the passing and enactment of Bill 103. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr Flaherty, you have about three minutes.

Mr Flaherty: Thank you for coming, Mr Lockyer.

Mr Lockyer: It's a pleasure.

2000

Mr Flaherty: I enjoyed listening to your views, well expressed as they are. With respect to the issue of "We know what the polls say," which you stated, I think it is worth noting that the polls in the weekend newspapers indicated -- these were the professional polling outfits that go out there and talk to people -- that, depending on what the question was, the answer varied. For example, if the question was, "Are you in favour of a larger city of Toronto if your property taxes do not go up?" then a majority of people were in favour of answering that question in the affirmative.

I think we have to be careful -- and, in fairness, I don't want to get into a debate about polling with you, because I'm not an expert in polling, nor are you, I imagine. But I think you'll agree with me that we have to be cautious about interpreting particularly non-scientific polling because of the variables that enter into that.

Having said that, you said something else about caring for the rich, and I really do have some trouble with that, because you're implying that all our government has done since we were elected is pass legislation that favours the rich.

I debated Bill 106 in the Legislature this afternoon. When you apply Bill 106, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, to the city of Toronto, here we have rich lawyers -- and I am a lawyer and so are you -- in the city of Toronto living in $1.8-million houses in Forest Hill and in Rosedale paying $3,700 in tax; and here we have middle-class people in Scarborough living in homes that are valued at $227,000 paying $3,500 in tax. I don't think that's fair and I'm sure you don't either.

It seems to me that the government has an obligation to address the needs of people from all walks and socioeconomic stations of life, including people who live in Scarborough and people who live in the city of Toronto, but that it's key, particularly in the property tax area, that people pay their fair share, which they have not been doing under the antiquated property tax system in effect not only in the city of Toronto but in other cities around the province, about a third of the municipalities in the province.

Mr Lockyer: I think you've taken up my two minutes, haven't you?

The Chair: You have about 35 seconds to answer.

Mr Lockyer: About 35 seconds to respond. That's a very long question. The best way I can respond to it is this -- and it's not a direct response because I don't think I have time for it -- that I do not believe that we are a society that pays too much tax. Of course I agree with you that if indeed Forest Hill is not paying their fair share of tax, they most certainly should.

My view, though, is that rather than looking at a minor adjustment here of property tax and a minor adjustment there, we should look at policies such as across-the-board 15% cuts in income tax, which are not progressive tax cuts and are in fact tax cuts that can only be paid for by a reduction of services for the poor. While you may be able to point to an example here or an example there, and I've no doubt that some of the people in your caucus do have the best will and the best intent, when you look at the overall strategies of this government, it's impossible to come to any conclusion other than that this government is there primarily to represent a single special interest.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lockyer, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee this evening.

SHEILA CARY-MEAGHER

The Chair: Would Sheila Cary-Meagher please come forward. Good evening and welcome to the committee.

Ms Sheila Cary-Meagher: Good evening. My name is Sheila Cary-Meagher. I identify myself as a mother because it is the most important role I have ever played. In the past, I've been an American, a trustee, a real estate agent, a wife, a daughter, a sister etc. What I wish to know first tonight is what your presenter profile identifies me as. I want to see the sheet of blue paper with my name on it, and I want to know just how far into my privacy you have intruded. May I please see it?

Mr Gilchrist: There isn't one.

Ms Cary-Meagher: Should I believe you?

Mr Gilchrist: Believe whatever you like.

Ms Cary-Meagher: I expected that answer.

Interjection.

Ms Cary-Meagher: You think I could get a doublebooking? Get real.

Interjections.

The Chair: Ms Cary-Meagher has the floor, committee members. Ms Cary-Meagher, please.

Ms Cary-Meagher: The first time I saw one of these profiles, I was flabbergasted. What right had the government of Ontario to spend my tax money on having their minions browse through the files of the ministries of municipal affairs, of education and of God knows what? Have you gone into the files of the provincial police, the RCMP, the CIA? How far have you gone in your paranoid search for control of information and of people? Have you tapped our phones? What or who gives you right to intrude in this manner? What or who gives you the right to violate my, or anyone else's, constitutional right to privacy?

With Ms Kidder, one of the people on this sheet, you not only numbered her children but you named the school they attended, you defined her job and decided what her position on Bill 104 was before she made her presentation. The same is true of Ms Wynne.

I could understand, just barely, if you had a backgrounder on the organization that was being represented by these people. You government members of this committee have been complicit in the destruction of civil rights. How much can an old broad like me threaten you? Not much, unless you frighten me, and quite frankly you are beginning to frighten me a great deal.

I have not seen so many people getting so frightened for their civil rights ever before; frightened for their democratic rights; frightened for the future of their children and their grandchildren. People in Toronto and Metro have for the most part been a little asleep, unable to figure out why things are going the way they are going and what, if anything, they can do about it.

Then you did mega-week. You put out, bright and shining, every organizer's dream. Al Leach smiling smugly and saying, "Nope." You just pissed off decent, ordinary, serious, fairminded folks, folks like me. I got up from in front of the TV and started going to meetings. I put my name in to speak to you.

Don't get me wrong: I really don't believe that what I say here tonight will make a particle of difference to you. I know you are going to try to move the shells around a little -- not tomorrow, I understand -- and amend the bill on the items that were throwaways to begin with. I know you are going to pass these bills. I know you really believe that we will all go back home and be asleep again. But it is too late. People are really angry, and the marches and the protests and the civil disobedience have only just begun.

I am happy to say that I believe you are all toast. Boring little people like me have the bit in their teeth and are going to pursue you until your government either backs down or falls.

On Sunday, I had the delight of hearing Mr Gilchrist say that you would only listen to those people who offered alternatives, as though it's the job of deputants to this committee to write legislation. Here's how I understand it goes: You have a concept, you write up appropriate legislation, you introduce it into the House, you have first reading, then it's sent to committee and the committee has hearings and folks like me speak to the written proposals.

Now, if you have been listening, you would by now know that the people's alternative, Mr Gilchrist, is no. More than 95% of the deputants to this committee have said no. The referendum said no. To ask us then to offer amendments to legislation that is considered too flawed to be continued with is a little like requiring the rape victim to describe how she wishes the baby to be dressed, not whether or not she wishes to be raped. No is supposed to mean no. No to Bill 84; no to Bill 103; no to Bill 104; no to Bill 105; no to Bill 106; no to Bill 107. Do you get my drift?

You are moving too fast. You are moving into areas where no one thinks you should go. You are forcing a radical ideology on this province that few, if any, approve of. You do not own the libraries, the schools, the water supply, the firefighters and the hospitals; we do; I do. You are only custodians standing in our stead, and I will do anything short of violence to get these things back. They are the inheritance for my children and my grandchildren and those of my neighbours, and we will not allow you to get rich at their expense.

If I must sell my jewellery or my sterling or my mother's diamonds to help finance the challenge in court, then I will do it. If I must march and leaflet on street corners and picket your homes, then I will do it. If I must go to jail -- frightening as that is to a person like me -- then I will do it, and I am not alone.

I am an American by birth and a Canadian by choice. Naturally I was educated on the myths and history of Americans. One of the first stories taught to little American children is about the Boston Tea Party and the corresponding saying, "Taxation without representation is tyranny." A good thought it seems to me, and I feel it quite represents the situation before us now. With the merchants of Boston as an inspiration, I protest Bill 103 in the following manner.

The Chair: There are no props allowed. Thank you very much.

Mr Gilchrist: That's really ignorant.

Ms Cary-Meagher: That's rude? What are you doing?

The Chair: Thank you very much, ma'am, for your presentation.

2010

FRANZ HARTMANN

The Chair: Would Franz Hartmann please come forward. Thank you, Mr Hartmann. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Franz Hartmann: Good evening, Mr Chair and other members of the provincial Parliament. My name is Franz Hartmann and I am a citizen of North York.

I must say the circumstances surrounding Bill 103 are changing so rapidly it is difficult to know what to address. However, what I believe is paramount now is to understand the responsibility the members of this committee, especially the Tory members, have to the citizens of Ontario, given that the citizens who will be directly affected by Bill 103 have spoken.

First, regardless of the merits or drawbacks of this bill, one point was made abundantly clear on Monday evening: Citizens of Metro Toronto overwhelmingly voted against Bill 103. We know the referendum process was not perfect. We also know that the question could have been phrased differently. But the fact remains that Metro has never seen such a passionate debate about a political issue. The number of community meetings around the proposed changes to Metro, including downloading and changes to the education system, has been staggering. The voter turnout for the referendum was much higher than for most municipal elections. This can only mean Metro residents truly care about what is happening to their local government.

Some question exactly what people voted on in the referendum. There has been much talk in the press especially that people didn't really understand what they were voting for. I for one find these sorts of statements incredibly condescending. Citizens are not idiots. Those who voted knew full well that they were voting for or against amalgamation. No doubt their decision was influenced by other government policies, but let there be no mistake, citizens of Metro voted overwhelmingly against Bill 103.

The critical question before this committee is how to respond to the wishes of the citizens, and I want to spend a couple of minutes reflecting on this. The most important promise each of you made when you entered political life was to uphold the fundamental contract of democracy, and I want to be clear about what this contract means, because it is one of the most important promises we make in our lives. We, the citizens of Ontario, give politicians incredible power over us. In return, we expect politicians will use this power wisely to represent our wishes.

What got many of the Tory members of this committee elected was a belief by Ontarians that Progressive Conservatives truly believed in this democratic contract. During the election, Premier Harris consistently reminded citizens that the Common Sense Revolution was based on the wishes of Ontarians. He repeatedly told Ontarians that a Tory-led government would not break any promises it made during the campaign. This includes the promise inherent in the democratic contract. In fact, the democratic contract is supposedly so important to this government that the government is now wisely introducing a bill that would allow citizens to communicate with politicians via referenda.

Yet I am greatly puzzled. How is it that a party that has spent so much time campaigning for a responsive government, one that takes seriously the democratic contract it made with citizens, is now, as government, ready to ignore this contract? Why is it, I ask the Tory members of this committee, that you and your party seem ready to break the most important promise you made with the citizens of Ontario by proceeding with Bill 103?

Some Tory members on this committee may feel that the proposed amendments Mr Leach will reportedly introduce later this month will deal with the concerns citizens expressed in their opposition to Bill 103. Therefore, you may think that you can still vote for this bill here in this committee and not break the democratic contract you entered into with Ontarians. But let me be clear about what you will be voting on: You will not be voting on Mr Leach's yet-to-be-introduced amendments that may or may not address the wishes of Metro citizens; you will be voting on a bill that citizens of Metro overwhelmingly rejected in the referendum.

Let me be blunt. This has stopped being an issue about amalgamation, saving money or downloading; this is now an issue about whether Ontario Progressive Conservatives take seriously the democratic contract they entered into with the voters of Ontario. Therefore, this committee has a moral responsibility to introduce and pass a motion that Bill 103 should not proceed. The moral authority for such an action arises out of the clear rejection of Bill 103 by Metro citizens.

In fact, such a motion would help Minister Leach. It would take him off the hook for Bill 103 and allow him to reintroduce a new bill into the House, a bill that faithfully represents the concerns raised during these hearings and takes into account the wishes of Metro citizens.

I know full well that what is stopping Tory members of this committee from supporting such a motion is another important contract they entered into: the contract between themselves and their party. In return for a promise to vote for party policies as introduced by cabinet, Tory MPPs received support for their election campaigns during the last election. I know party discipline is an important practice, and I know the costs of breaking it, but I urge the Tory members to seriously ask what the costs will be if they vote for Bill 103, and I just want to outline some of them.

For over 15 years, our government, political party system, politicians and civil servants have come under constant fire for being unresponsive to the wishes of ordinary citizens. Ontario Tories campaigned on the promise of making government more responsive. If Tory members now ignore the wishes of Metro citizens and support Bill 103, you will be guilty of the very crime you have accused others of committing: You will be breaking the democratic contract you signed with citizens of Ontario. Let there be no mistake, if you break this contract, not only will people remember this at the next election, you will be sending a clear and dangerous message to others that democracy is a sham.

By maintaining party discipline and voting for Bill 103, you will not only be harming democracy, you will be destroying the credibility of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party by breaking the democratic contract you made with Ontario citizens.

I would argue that a loyal member of the Ontario PCs would help their party and leadership out of a difficult situation by stopping Bill 103 right here in this committee and give the minister and Premier a chance to reflect on all that has happened and introduce a new bill into the House that upholds, not breaks, the democratic contract. By doing this, you will send a clear message out to the citizens of Ontario that Tory backbenchers take seriously the democratic contract they entered into with citizens. You, the backbenchers, will tell Ontarians that democratic integrity is the cornerstone of the Ontario PCs. You, the backbenchers, will help rescue the party from an ill-advised bill that would destroy the integrity of the Ontario PCs.

Bill 103 is about much more than amalgamation; it has become a test of whether Tory members truly believe in the democratic contract they entered into and whether they care about party integrity. Give Mr Leach a chance to rethink this whole issue. Honour your democratic contract with Metro citizens and Ontarians. Stop Bill 103 right now, right here.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Mr Colle: Thank you very much for your very impassioned plea to the backbenchers. As you know, this government has been spending millions of dollars on television ads promoting the megacity. It's got its Tory alliance for amalgamation. It's got its 200,000 faxes a day. It's had its radio ads. All these things have been done and, as you know, it's been a communications PR disaster. But it looks as if they're going to go into stage 2 now. They think over the next month they're going to be able to come back with another overwhelming propaganda machine that will make you forget you voted no. Do you think you'll be swayed by wave number 2 of Mr Leach's propaganda campaign?

Mr Hartmann: I can't speak to what will happen in the future because I don't know what it will be, but what I can speak to is the fact that Metro citizens overwhelmingly voted against Bill 103. If the members of this committee feel that the democratic contract all members of provincial Parliament entered into when they were elected is really important, they should defeat this bill right now. Whatever happens in the future, to me the most important criterion and the most important contract you will ever enter into is the contract with the voters and the electors.

Mr Colle: They're getting a mixed message, though. The Premier is telling them that no didn't mean no, and the minister is saying people still favour amalgamation," so how are you ever going to get through to these people if their leaders are not recognizing that people said no?

Mr Hartmann: I can only appeal to the Tory backbenchers to use common sense and realize what is being said. Beyond that, I can only appeal to them to listen to what's going on out there. If the message contradicts one they hear from the Premier's office and from Minister Leach, it's up to them to use their common sense and figure out what the truth is.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hartmann, for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

2020

DAVID KRAFT
CHRIS KORWIN-KUCZYNSKI

The Chair: Would David Kraft please come forward.

Mr David Kraft: Thank you very much. I'm here with councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski. We're sharing this time, so I'm going to go just as quickly as I possibly can.

I'm here on behalf of the Roncesvalles-Macdonell Residents Association, of which I've been an executive member for four years. The RMRA is based in the west end of the city, ward 2, in the neighbourhood north of Queen and west of Lansdowne Avenue. I'm also here as a member of the steering committee of West Enders for Local Democracy, or WELD, an organization which was initiated by our residents' association.

The founding meeting of WELD, which was held on January 28, attracted more than 100 local residents. In the ensuing weeks, hundreds more have campaigned continuously against Bill 103, reflecting our broad-based community support and the endorsement of virtually every residents' and community group in ward 2. We have successfully canvassed more than 80% of the residents of the ward.

The Roncesvalles-Macdonell Residents' Association and West Enders for Local Democracy are opposed to Bill 103. In light of the recent referendum results, we are confident we represent the views of the overwhelming majority of ward 2 residents.

I'm sharing my time, so I want to make two points as quickly as I possibly can. First, I want to add the voice of my residents' association to the chorus of protests against the way the provincial government has introduced Bill 103 and related legislative initiatives; the ridiculously tight time lines you have attempted to impose for public hearings and debate; the way your government and individual members have systematically ignored requests to meet and debate in public; the way your government and members have systematically failed to answer substantive objections by attempting to question the validity of the process or denigrate the protesters themselves.

Politics is politics and cheap shots are inevitable, but in the end people will not tolerate the government's high-handed approach, your refusal to actually talk about the issues. In fact, in my part of town the attitude of your government has been perhaps the thing that has bound and lent energy to the protest more than any other single initiative. From day to day it's been insult upon insult.

You may recall the Metro-wide series of meetings in which the government finally met the public. I recollect them very clearly. I was at one of them. You may also recollect that both the Star and the Globe and Mail used the word "mauling" to describe the way the populace responded to your government, right across the city in a variety of very different circumstances.

I think you have to understand that your government did the organizing. The Ontario government organized and fed that rage. You have an opportunity to correct your scandalous record on this issue. You have an opportunity to withdraw this legislation. It would be recognized as an honest gesture of respect for the democratic process, which I believe is the point the previous speaker was making.

If, on the other hand, you continue to ignore, dismiss, downplay the opposition and continue to force amalgamation on the people of Metro, then you can count on a continuing escalation of protests, which will ultimately defeat not only Bill 103, but I think your government itself.

I believe the answer to the member's question about whether the population will accept smoke and mirrors in the next round of propaganda is absolutely not. I can say honestly that our organization is ready to take this campaign right to the wall. You can be sure that we're not going anyplace until this legislation is history.

I want to finish up very quickly with a couple of points. Our neighbourhood is characterized by a series of stresses which you may be familiar with. We are recognized as an underserviced community. We have a host of questions about whether Bill 103 will address that, whether that situation will get better or worse as a result.

We are also a neighbourhood which is held together by literally hundreds of volunteer activists, a network of organizations. We are wondering, if appointed volunteer committees will be imposed upon us, what will the status be of our current volunteer representatives? Above all, we're wondering about the extent to which the urban philosophy that Toronto currently expresses on issues like front yard parking, control of traffic flow, equal access to recreational services and facilities and libraries will be accommodated in the new arrangement.

I do not have time to go on, but I would like to conclude with this point: We have a host of specific issues. At no time -- we pore over the newspapers looking -- has anyone in the government spoken to any of these questions. At no time has anyone expressed any actual grasp of what the fabric of the community really is, any actual grasp of how the decisions get made, the nature of our communication with our councillor.

Finally, I'm giving over the remaining time I have to our councillor on precisely that point. The residents' association, the activists in my community, the residents of the community, the PTA, all have a living relationship with our trustee and our local councillor. These are the politicians we know. These are the politicians we fight it out with in the trenches day after day, week after week. These are the only politicians we trust, not because we agree with their opinions but because we know they will show up from week to week.

On that note, I'd like to hand over the floor to Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski.

Mr Chris Korwin-Kuczynski: Thank you very much. I want to take this opportunity first of all to thank David Kraft for giving me an opportunity. It's unfortunate I was not able to get the time to make this presentation before this committee.

I'm going to start by talking about this week's referendum. My central message to you is a very simple one. On behalf of the people of Toronto, 74% of whom have voted no to the megacity, I am saying to you and to the government of Ontario, respect our vote.

When city council approved a referendum on the government's amalgamation proposal, it was not a decision reached lightly. We were extremely conscious that we would be spending a substantial amount of taxpayers' money and that some of those taxpayers have a quite cynical view of politicians, at all levels for that matter, and would think we did it only to protect our jobs. So we made that decision knowing it would hurt us in the eyes of at least some voters, but we did it because we had become aware of a widespread concern in our communities about this amalgamation proposal.

I want to stress that this citizen concern existed well before there was any announcement of proposed social service cost downloading and that city council's decision to hold a referendum was also made before the downloading announcements were made. I underline this because there is a misconception being spread about this week's No vote, that it was not really about the amalgamation proposal but about the downloading, or about the trustees, or about the school boards, or about almost anything except what it was really all about, and that is the proposed amalgamation.

Let me remind you of the wording on the ballots. It was, "Are you in favour of eliminating your local municipality and all other existing municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and amalgamating them into a megacity?" It was not a question about downloading. It was not a question about trustees. It was not a question about anything except amalgamation. The vote was an overwhelming no.

The people of Toronto showed up in force to answer that question. Despite a voters list -- prepared by the provincial government -- that was seriously out of date so that almost 10% of the ballots sent out were returned to us by Canada Post as undelivered; despite other postal glitches that affected ballot distribution; despite the winter weather which meant there was very little door knocking and few, if any, lawn signs; despite a provincially authorized mail-in vote that was a whole new way of doing things; despite all these things, 175,000 people voted. That's 38.6% of eligible voters, a higher turnout than we had for the last municipal election.

You were probably not very surprised at that massive No vote because I understand you have had a steady parade of people coming before you over the past few weeks and most of them have told you they do not like this proposed legislation and they want you to abandon Bill 103.

I certainly was not surprised at the vote. I have been walking the streets of Toronto, knocking on doors and going to meetings and answering phone calls and talking to people for weeks now. You've all done the same thing in the past. You all know there is no better way to find out what the people are really concerned about in your riding. I can tell you for a fact that people want to keep their local government. The great majority of people in Toronto don't want amalgamation. In the suburban municipalities as well, from what my colleagues there tell me, people don't want amalgamation. The message they want me to bring to you is that same simple message I started out with: Respect our vote. They are saying, "We told you no, and no means no megacity."

2030

The Chair: Councillor Kuczynski, you're into your last minute and I know you've got a lot of material left, so there might be something you want to emphasize in the last minute.

Mr Korwin-Kuczynski: I might as well go to the last page. You have my submission before you, and again I emphasize it is really unfortunate that I did not get the opportunity to speak to this matter.

Interjection.

Mr Korwin-Kuczynski: I hope this is not being taken away from me, the time.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Korwin-Kuczynski: Am I getting a couple more minutes or --

The Chair: You had about a minute left when I told you. I'll give you a minute and a half since we threw you off.

Mr Korwin-Kuczynski: I'm just going to keep going then. It's a good thing the provincial government is planning some changes to the downloading proposals, because they were seriously flawed and needed to be changed.

It's a good thing also that plans have been put forward to change the powers of the trustees, because that part of Bill 103 was seriously undemocratic and upset a lot of people in the community.

I'm just trying to go down this list to try to find out what I could say here.

The final thing I want to say about the referendum is that this massive No vote came from a city where the provincial government was airing television commercials telling people how much common sense lay behind its proposed actions, and in a city where all three daily newspapers were calling more or less actively for a Yes vote. We hear a great deal these days about how influential the media are in shaping public opinion, yet here we have a case where a public has massively rejected what both government and media have urged it to do. Surely this, if nothing else, tells you it is only common sense to respect the vote.

So where should the government go from here? Throughout these hearings my colleagues from Toronto city council have been here before your committee. They have asked you to slow down and get it right. They have talked about the potential for chaos and uncertainty which could place Toronto's economy at risk. They have said that the province has no sensible answer to the basic question, "Why are you doing this?" They have challenged the government to produce the cost-benefit studies, the expert opinions and the well-researched policy papers that would justify amalgamation.

What has changed over the course of these hearings? There are still no studies or cost justifications, and city council believes that the economic risk from amalgamation is as great as it ever was. The big change is that the people of Metropolitan Toronto have now told us quite clearly that they share those concerns, that they, like city council, want the province to slow down and get it right. We must build on the excellent studies we have, the Golden and Crombie studies, and we must find ways to implement these major recommendations.

This week, Toronto city council followed up that suggestion with a constructive response to the recent discussion paper by Milt Farrow on the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board. I remind you that the GTSB idea was endorsed by both the Golden and Crombie studies, and I remind you that many of the deputants before your committee have talked about this very same thing. Your own staff have summarized what no less than 38 deputants told you. They have said, "The real need is for a coordinating structure for the GTA involving transportation, water and sewage services, development and planning, not for amalgamation as proposed by Bill 103."

City council believes, and I believe, that if you first adjust the proposed downloads to make them fair to everyone, and if you then decide to go ahead with establishing the GTSB to coordinate key regional services for the greater Toronto area, then you will look at the question of how best to deliver local government in a very different light. This is especially true if you accept the commonsense principle that each government service should be delivered by the lowest level of government that has the ability to do so effectively.

If these last few weeks have taught us anything, they've taught us that a great many people are passionately attached to their local governments. By preserving and strengthening local municipal governments, you will avoid the kind of mega-bureaucracy that would be inevitable in an amalgamated Toronto, and bring about real long-term savings for the taxpayers.

Take a took at the report and think about what city council is asking of you, that you withdraw Bill 103 and rethink local governance in the GTA region in the context of your plans for the GTSB. We think this strategy offers you another way of achieving the savings and the simplified government you are committed to, but it offers you a way to get there by working with the people of Toronto rather than against them.

You've all been working very hard on this committee, and on behalf of the people of Toronto I thank you for the personal sacrifices you have made to hear them. Democracy is an exhausting business when it is done right.

Now you have your March break coming up, and you've made the very sensible decision to hold off on proposing what to do about Bill 103 for a few weeks. I'd ask you all to make careful use of those weeks. Take some time out, away from all the busyness, to reflect on what's really happening here and what is genuinely best for the people of Toronto and the people of Ontario. Thank you for listening to me and to all of us. Please respect what we've told you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, both of you, for coming forward and making your presentations this evening.

EVELYN RUPPERT

The Chair: Evelyn Ruppert is next. Good evening and welcome to the committee.

Ms Evelyn Ruppert: It is not lost on me that possibly these are the last words from a citizen to the formal public process on Bill 103.

I would first like to provide some background on myself. I have worked on municipal policy issues as a professional urban planner for three years and as a senior policy adviser at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for five years. I left the association in 1995 to focus on my skills as a researcher and writer on cities, but after leaving I was invited and then accepted an invitation to work as a consultant to the Constituent Assembly, 23 citizens in Hamilton-Wentworth who were appointed to advise on the structure of government in their community. I worked with the assembly from 1995 to 1996 as their facilitator, researcher and writer.

I'd first like to reflect on the political context in Metro Toronto, which has changed dramatically during the last few days. The decisions the government makes in the coming weeks will perhaps be its most significant to date. All citizens, for and against the bill, will be watching very closely and listening to every word, watching every action of the government for indications of its intent.

The dramatic change in context I am talking about, of course, is the referendum results. The overwhelming No vote exceeded everyone's expectations. To the surprise of many, the strongest No votes came from the suburban municipalities and the strength of the No vote was relatively consistent across the region. It was a legitimate expression of public opinion. Not only have the results radically changed the context, but also the process and public debate that went on before and after the vote have heightened the politics of Bill 103.

This verdict of the citizens is what I want to take as my starting point this evening. I do not think there is any use in repeating the arguments that preceded the referenda concerning the bill. There is no use in continuing to argue about what was recommended in the past, by whom, what the government promised versus what it is doing now, about the problems with the provincial process to date versus that of the municipalities etc. Everyone has their selective fictions on all of these matters. I also want to resist the temptation to get involved in the interpretation wars on the referendum results. The vote was no and regardless of what the pollsters, spin doctors and pundits have to say, no does mean no.

2040

The current context in Metro Toronto is one of a highly politicized citizenry and a surging civic awareness. We are working under new rules now and it is not possible to turn the clock back. In this environment, the government is politically obligated to respond to the overwhelming referenda results and the input from these committee hearings, the government's own town hall meetings, the numerous community meetings and the huge public demonstrations.

I think four principles have emerged from all these forums.

The first is that municipal reform in greater Toronto is needed. We need a process, not a decision-making vacuum or the status quo.

Second, citizens have numerous concerns beyond megacity as a result of the government's introduction of massive changes to municipal structure and finance at the same time. The government needs to disentangle its decision-making and allow for a logical sequence of decision-making. The resolution of provincial-municipal finance questions and decisions on the GTA-level coordinating body are the necessary steps that must precede a final decision on local municipal structure.

Third, a delay in the municipal elections of up to one year is required regardless of the course of action the government chooses for proceeding. This is needed to develop a detailed transition plan that allows for adequate public involvement, time to evaluate financial and servicing options and impacts, as well as ensure sufficient time to properly operate municipal elections.

Last, if the government proceeds without altering its course and speed of reform, it will only dig itself into a deeper hole and will face an even more furious and agitated citizenry and a more difficult decision in the future.

In my view, with these principles in mind, the government has four possible courses of action.

The first I call "tinker with clauses." The government could remain steadfast on amalgamation but demonstrate that it is conciliatory and responsive by introducing minor amendments tomorrow during the committee's clause-by-clause review and possibly a few others at the committee of the whole in April. Some of the possible changes could be: reducing the powers of the trustees; restricting the powers of the transition team; protecting the disposition of reserve funds.

These contain several risks. It will not demonstrate that the government is listening. Monday's vote is a call for more than tinkering with Bill 103. Second, this would not address the public relations disaster surrounding the issue of referenda arising from the fact that it is the government that has legitimized referenda and allowed for the new polling techniques used by municipalities. Third, the political environment has vastly changed since the introduction of the bill. Earlier on, these types of amendments might have been acceptable, but now, after the referenda and all the political activity of the past months, minor changes will not be acceptable.

Today it was announced that the cities of Toronto and Etobicoke have mounted a legal challenge against Bill 103. As has been presented to you before, this action is likely the beginning of a number of challenges that will be mounted in the coming weeks should the government proceed with this option rather than with substantive and real changes. This course of action will not succeed.

The second course of action is one I call major revisions to the transition process. The government could again remain steadfast on amalgamation but make major amendments. It could spend the next three weeks developing these amendments in consultation with major stakeholders. The provincial-municipal finance negotiations and fundamental changes to downloading could be completed. The recommendations of the special adviser on the GTA could be tabled. Then the major amendments to the bill could be introduced to the committee of the whole in April for a one-hour session and third reading could be achieved.

Some of the possible changes: more radical changes, such as the elimination of the trustees. Another could be that the transition team's composition could be changed to include elected representatives, for example, the six mayors, the Metro chair and perhaps one Metro MPP from each of the provincial parties, forming a provincial-municipal committee, assisted by a staff team. Third, the community councils could be built into the bill as a means of responding to the concerns of protecting neighbourhoods and legislating local decision-making. This could allow for some flexibility regarding their composition and powers, which could be left to the transition team's consultations.

However, this also contains many risks. First, as you have heard before me, citizens would see they are still being locked out of a process they've never had a chance to be a part of yet. All the changes and negotiations would happen behind closed doors. Citizens would see this as a show of defiance against their vote. More problematic, though, is that this would be seen as a stalling tactic and as a strategy to defuse the mounting protest. It would mean ramming through changes in one hour of the legislative session in April, changes that citizens and anyone else would not have time to consider and discuss. By doing this, the government would repeat the errors of mega-week and citizens would accuse the legislators of having again excluded them. This course of action will not succeed.

A third possible course of action I will call transition legislation. It is based on the fact, as has again been presented to you, that Bill 103 is much less about the incorporation of a new city -- since most issues are to be left to the transition team and later legislation -- but more about the dissolution of the existing municipal system in Metro Toronto. Furthermore, Bill 103 is less about amalgamation and more about a transition process to a new municipal system.

The government could introduce amendments to make the bill truly a piece of transition legislation as opposed to a hybrid status. The government could propose deleting all the part I clauses concerning amalgamation. The clauses concerning dissolution of the existing municipalities could be retained and the effective date of dissolution changed to January 1, 1999.

It is clear that regardless of the new local structure, the responsibilities, financing, ward boundaries and elected representation of local government in Metro will change in response to the creation of the GTSB and disentanglement. Under certain local structure options, it may mean few changes to existing acts, but in all cases some changes.

Excepting Metro Toronto, the section could be amended to specify that new legislation replacing the six acts for the local municipalities would be introduced in January 1998 and proclaimed in April 1998. This leaves the option open for one city, four cities, six cities or some other model. This is essentially what has been provided for in the municipalities in the regions surrounding Metro, but with legislated time limits and process in place.

The transition team's composition could be changed like that suggested under the previous option: to the six mayors, Metro chair and Metro MPPs. The bill could specify that they should undertake consultation with citizens in a manner they see fit and produce a white paper on options that make sense within the GTSB structure and with the new fiscal responsibilities. They could be mandated to recommend new legislation by December 1997.

This course of action would ensure that change happens and it would not represent a withdrawal of the need for change. It would give the government the time to get it right, though, and provide a productive way to resolve concerns of constituents as well as involving them.

But there are risks. This could create a crisis of uncertainty concerning what will be the local government structure in Metro. A legislated deadline for the dissolution of the existing municipal system may work against finding the best solution. Second, full amalgamation may be impossible to consider as an option, given the great anger and criticism have developed. On the other hand, this would provide an opportunity to develop other options with the input of citizens and test these against the full amalgamation option to see if it indeed is the best. This would also represent a major reworking of the bill and may indeed constitute a new bill. I think this course of action will fail.

The Chair: Ms Ruppert, I apologize for interrupting you. You have about 35 seconds or so left.

Ms Ruppert: The last course of action is to let Bill 103 die. Instead of withdrawing the legislation, the government could pause and postpone a final decision. It could let the bill die on the order paper and thereby allow for its reintroduction later. The government could announce that it intends to reintroduce the bill, should no other locally produced and locally agreed-upon alternative be presented.

This would put the ball squarely back in the municipalities' court, the same situation that is in place in the regions surrounding Metro. The government could mandate the creation of a provincial-municipal committee, much like that proposed in the other courses of action, to work out alternative options.

In closing, I would like to say that I believe there will be life after the death of 103. Let Bill 103 die on the order paper and let this be the obituary, the last words on Bill 103.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Ruppert, for coming forward and making your presentation this evening.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

The Chair: Committee, we still have one more deputant to hear, but before we do that I'm going to read two subcommittee reports on Bills 108 and 109, which have been approved by members of the subcommittee from the government caucus -- I was at both meetings -- Mr Marchese, Mr Silipo and --

Mr Marchese: Can't you do them at the end, Mr Chair?

The Chair: No. I want to get them done. I'll read them into the record quickly. The first one is the report of the subcommittee on the standing committee on general government.

"Your subcommittee met on March 4, 1997, and recommends that:

"(1) The committee consider Bill 108, the Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act, 1997, on Thursday, April 3, 1997, and Thursday, April 24, 1997.

"(2) The Attorney General will be invited to appear for 30 minutes before the committee at 10 am on April 3 to make a 15-minute statement. Each caucus will then have 5 minutes for questions of the minister.

"(3) Public hearings on the bill will commence following the appearance of the minister on April 3 at 10:30 am until 12 pm and then from 3:30 pm until 6 pm; and continue on April 24 from 10 am until 12 pm.

"(4) Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will commence at 3:30 pm on April 24, 1997. Amendments to the bill are to be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 12 pm on April 24, 1997.

"(5) The deadline for individuals/organizations to provide their names for consideration to make an oral presentation before the committee is March 24, 1997. Following this date, the subcommittee will meet again to determine which witnesses will be invited to appear before the committee and the length of the time slots.

"(6) The clerk is authorized to prepare a notice of the hearings which is to be placed on the Ontario Parliamentary Network. The deadline for written submissions is April 23, 1997.

"(7) A summary of recommendations of the submissions is not required."

Questions on the motion?

Mr Marchese: I move adoption.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'm just curious about why this report is marked "Confidential," since you've read it into the record. Is there a reason for that? You're the Chair and you should know about these things. You've just leaked a confidential document.

The Chair: It's not confidential because we've read it in the committee. We still have a deputant to hear from, Mr Gerretsen. I'd appreciate it if you would --

The motion has been put. All those in favour? Carried.

I guess we don't have to read the second report since everyone has a copy.

Mr Marchese: I move adoption.

The Chair: Mr Marchese moves adoption of the second committee report. All those in favour? Carried.

Thank you very much, committee. Ms Bryce, there you go. We can get to work on both of those.

2050

SHANNON THOMPSON

The Chair: Would Shannon Thompson please come forward Good evening. I apologize for the delay. You have 10 minutes to make a presentation.

Mr Sergio on a point of order or privilege?

Mr Sergio: Is Ms Thompson the last presenter?

The Chair: Yes, she is.

Mr Sergio: Maybe you should say something special. She's the last one to present to this particular committee on Bill 103.

The Chair: Good luck. I apologize for the delay. Go ahead, ma'am.

Ms Shannon Thompson: Wow, what pressure. I got called only yesterday, so I don't have fancy notes. I'm very glad the last deputant did such a thorough job. I was entirely impressed, because I'm not going to say anything nearly that thoughtful.

First of all, on a personal note, if I hit any sour notes, I have a splitting headache tonight which I blame entirely on Bill 103, but I'll try not to be too cranky.

I am going to live in the past a little because this has really been my only opportunity to do any venting at what's happened. I would like to talk about three things: (1) how we should interpret the results, (2) what we should do next and (3) what we should not do next.

First, I want to say that the issue of whether voters understood the question is an important one. Al Leach was quoted in the paper today as saying, "I feel quite confident that if the question and the issue had been solely around a single item, `Is a single city better for the people of Metropolitan Toronto?' the answer would have been yes." This is my second piece of evidence that Al Leach did not get the right ballot -- I'm sure of this -- because he was also quoted in the paper saying he got no literature inside his ballot. If he lives in the city of Toronto, that is patently not true -- if he got the same ballot that the rest of us did, that is.

The second thing that is very clear is that the ballot did have a single question on it that was explicitly about the megacity. There was no mention of downloading, there were no taxes, there was no "MVA, The Sequel." Nothing else was mentioned on the ballot, solely the megacity. So I'm not quite sure what the confusion is.

I for one understood exactly what I was voting for. While I have some concerns about downloading and some of the other parts of the package, as they call it, let me assure you that I voted specifically because I'm concerned about a megacity of the size and style being proposed. I have had experiences even trying to deal with Metro, our regional government, where I'd be working with some citizens in Scarborough around a local issue and I'd say, "Come on down to the Metro transportation committee," and nobody was willing to make the 25-kilometre trip from the boundary of Scarborough to do it. That's not to say that in itself is an overwhelming argument, but there is an accessibility problem and size does matter.

That was what I was voting on, but you don't have to believe me. Environics asked people who said they were going to vote one way or the other in the referendum why they were voting. This was a February poll, close to the time of the referendum. Unlike some of the polls the Star commissioned, it actually hit close to what the actual results were. Let me read for you in order what the reasons were for people who were opposing amalgamation:

(1) The current system works well.

(2) Amalgamation won't save money.

(3) Service will decline.

(4) It's being done too fast, with no consultation.

(5) Property taxes will go up.

(6) Megacity will be too big/unmanageable.

The respondents were not asked to choose from a list of options. These were first responses to the question, "What are the main reasons you would vote that way?"

It's very important that if you continue in the way you are planning to that you at least not insult the people of Toronto by suggesting we didn't understand that this was a question about the megacity. I did, and I talked to a lot of my neighbours who did, long-time Progressive Conservative Party members who thought small-c conservatism meant small government and who have been very involved in their local neighbourhoods to get traffic calming and prevent trees they really care about from being knocked down, or whatever it was. These are people who have invested a lot in their downtown communities, be they Forest Hill, Rosedale, the Annex or what have you. They're Conservative supporters and they were concerned about the megacity, not all entangled with the other issues, although I think there's widespread concern about those too. They understood the issue of the megacity. As you've heard, with the deputants you've had here, people are very articulate and very well informed about how municipal government works. I really suggest that the results be interpreted that the question was understood.

The second thing I'd like to say about the results is that in my short life, it's one of the most stunning things I've ever seen. Here you had that percentage of people voting no on something when you had two householders delivered by the provincial government, television and radio spots paid for, all three papers editorializing on your side. On the other side, you had people passing the hat at meetings in order to photocopy a newsletter in black and white, of which only 50,000 copies were distributed -- I'm talking about Citizens for Local Democracy; you had people going door to door talking to their neighbours, people volunteering their time on the phone. With that difference, you got this result.

And that's not to mention that you had a turnout better than or equal to most municipal elections, without a mayoralty race, without any parties spending a whole bunch of money on candidates and the months and months of lead-up time they would be canvassing in and all that kind of stuff. You had as good or better a turnout. This is stunning, it really is. I'm surprised. I mean, I'm pleased, and I still didn't think it would turn out that well. I really think that to try and belittle the result as part of your strategy now is a grave mistake.

In terms of what we should do next, I have not dissected the bill and done the very intelligent thing that the speaker before me did, but let me say that I think we should start again with our definition of the problem. What is the problem we're trying to solve here with all this effort, with everybody losing a lot of time on things we'd all rather be working on? Why are we doing this? The three reasons that have been suggested, that I've heard anyway, are that there are too many politicians, that we need to save money, and there's all this duplication.

I understand that you are between a rock and a hard place. As Steve has been saying around town, "We're damned if we do and damned if we don't." I think you really are in that position and it's not a position I envy. However, I think if you come back to these three reasons, my understanding of the motivation for doing this, we'll see that they really don't warrant this kind of upheaval.

In the case of too many politicians, I already feel sometimes underrepresented in terms of the amount of time my local politician has to spend on local issues. You've heard a million times about Toronto versus North Bay, so I won't bore you with that. I think the widespread disrespect that has been heaped upon politicians in this process can only hurt you. That is part of what is happening out there right now: People don't trust anybody. That hurts you as much as it hurts the municipal politicians or anybody else. In my opinion, there are winners and duds in all three political parties and we all want to increase the quality of our politicians. However, I really don't think throwing politicians into widespread disrepute as cheats and cads is very helpful to you.

Second, about saving money, I have been very convinced by the data out of the States and out of Halifax and everywhere else about the unlikelihood of saving money. I think you've heard a lot about that, so I'll just say that.

My biggest beef tonight is for duplication. This drives me around the bend, the way this has been presented, as though they were all trying to do the same thing for the same people. I suggest that we have banks in this city that all have branches on kitty-corners. Do they say they're duplicating each other? No, they're providing the same service to different customers. If I want to build a house in Toronto, I do not need to deal with six planning departments; I need to deal with the planning department of the city of Toronto. If I live in Scarborough, I need to deal with the Scarborough planning department. Although I understand that the boundaries are artificial in the sense that they're political boundaries and not natural boundaries or anything else, what they do is divide the Metro area up into manageable sizes.

The Chair: You're into your last minute; I just want to let you know.

Ms Thompson: I don't think Ottawa having its own local council and Montreal having its own local council is duplication, nor do I think these cities having their own local councils and their own parks departments is duplication. When we all make dinner at our own homes, even though we're all using a stove and we all have a pot and we're all using a can of kidney beans, I don't think that's duplication. Well, it is duplication, but I think we do it for a reason: because it's convenient for us. I really find that argument insulting, as though merging six fire departments gives you a fire department a sixth the size. That's not how it works. You have to cover six times the area; it's the same size.

What we should not do next: I really think we should now plow ahead with this. Tory supporters like my father voted no against this legislation purely because of the arrogance that's been displayed. You have to show some willingness to listen or you've really done yourself in, in a much more serious way than Bill 103.

Second, I don't think we should tinker with the bill. I'm particularly concerned about the notion of imposing a tax freeze on the council for the first year in order to comfort voters about that. That really ties their hands and would be a terrible mistake.

Last, I really implore you -- we all know from politics that we can disagree about exactly what to do and we can forgive each other. But when you insult people, when you make them really angry by suggesting that they didn't know what they were voting for or that the vote didn't really count, when you insult people you make political enemies. That kind of slap in the face is much more memorable to people than just having disagreed over an issue.

I really implore you to withdraw the bill and start a process, as was much more intelligently recommended, to do some needed reform at the municipal level, but not in this way or with this process.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Thompson. We appreciate you coming forward and making your presentation tonight.

Mr Sergio: Given the occasion, Mr Chair --

The Chair: A point of --

Mr Sergio: Privilege, whatever. I would like to thank you, first of all, for chairing the committee for the last five weeks.

Mr Marchese: That's privilege.

Mr Sergio: Of course.

The Chair: How can I interrupt?

Mr Sergio: You've been extremely good; the committee has been extremely good. I wish to congratulate all the presenters on both sides that we have had for the last five weeks. I think they were all excellent in their own ways. Above all, I'd like to say thank you to all the people who on a daily basis were here listening to other people, listening to us, and never got tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. I thank you very much.

The Chair: I too will thank my committee and my audience, but I've got one day to get through yet. I'll wait till we get through that. Thank you everyone. We're recessed until tomorrow morning at 9 am.

The committee adjourned at 2105.