L219b - Tue 26 Aug 1997 / Mar 26 Aoû 1997
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (NO 2)
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (NO 2)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, would you ascertain whether or not there's a quorum in the House?
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please check if there is a quorum.
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms Lankin: A historic moment under the new rule changes, the first evening sitting, and of course the government that needs these sittings to get its agenda through doesn't have enough members here to have quorum at the beginning.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Ms Lankin: Pursuant to standing order 24(d), I want to indicate that I will be sharing the remainder of the time on the clock for my leadoff speech with the member for Dovercourt.
It's unfortunate that I'm forced into a position of having to hand over part of the time on the clock, because as a representative of a Toronto riding I feel very strongly about this bill and of course its predecessor, the megacity bill. But unfortunately the short notice with respect to tonight's sitting and the order being called left me in a position of having the floor in this debate and having spent two and a half months organizing a town hall meeting in my riding. No accommodation has been made so I'm in a position at this point in time of having to speak just for a few minutes and leave to get to my riding for this event. I organized it; I have to be at it. I have no choice. I regret that I am unable to fully participate in this debate because there are a lot of things I wanted to cover.
When I began speaking on this bill last week, I was attempting to highlight for the public and for members of the Legislature who perhaps have not yet been through the bill the contents of this. I spoke about the first eight sections of the bill, dealing with issues like pensions and benefits of municipal employees, talking about contracts between municipalities on water and sewage works, talking about road access and street vending, a number of transportation issues around the TTC, composition of police services boards, official plans under land use planning in the various municipalities, boards of health, health and welfare, parks and recreation. I went through about the first eight sections.
The remainder of the bill, and I don't have time to detail it in the same way, deals with things such as the public library boards. Again, here's an area where we have a forced amalgamation or merger going on with respect to the library boards, on the very day where it was reported this week the Metro Toronto Reference Library, the jewel in the crown of libraries, is closed. The doors are closed due to funding cuts as a result of the pressures and the downloading that have come from the provincial government.
There are certainly impacts on many local libraries as well, and I referred earlier today to libraries in my riding, such as the Kew Beach library and the Main Street library, and in the East York area, such as the Walter Stewart library, the Dawes Road library, all of which have seen staff reductions through attrition, all of which have seen an inability to purchase materials at the same quantity and level as before, cancellation of periodicals and other sorts of things, and which really fear, as a result of the government legislation that has been passed, the introduction of user fees which will affect accessibility.
Here's an area in terms of what happens with those boards and how the boards are composed and what that means in terms of the governance of our libraries where people will want to look to this bill and have an opportunity to comment on it.
Similarly, part X deals with the historical board and part XI the licensing commission, again an area that has had a lot of controversy over the years and a lot of problems. It's not clear that the changes here are going to improve that situation. I think it's an area where people who have dealt with the licensing commission -- and there are many small business owners who, whether through the taxicab licensing section or through licensing of street vendors and others, may want to take a look at this section. The Toronto Parking Authority is another area that's affected by this bill.
Then there are tax rates, debentures that have to do with what sorts of outstanding mortgages -- let me call them mortgages -- have been made on capital developments by municipalities, assets etc. Then there are a number of miscellaneous sections that deal with harbour commissioners, emergency measures, emergency call system like 911, noise bylaws, on and on and on.
We know the transition is going to be a difficult and complex process, and there are many issues that are brought to light during such a transition of six municipalities into a megacity and what means with all of these services.
There are other sections that deal with the transitional powers of the new councils and what that means. That deals with a whole range of municipal bodies, like the transit commission, the boards of health, parks and rec, Toronto library board, historical board, licensing commission. Similar to the sections that deal with what the new powers will be, there are transitional powers that come in under this section and there are consequential amendments as a result of all of those.
That doesn't give you a good sense of all of the content of the bill, but it's sort of a thumbnail sketch of the breadth and complexity of this particular bill.
In the few minutes I have before I have to leave to go to my meeting in Beaches, which is dealing with the community's opposition to the government forcing a charitable casino into our neighbourhood, I want to address a couple of aspects in particular.
Bill 148, which is an act to deal with transition matters in the establishment of the new megacity, of course is necessary. It's necessary because the government passed megacity legislation in the first place, despite the overwhelming objection of the majority of people in Metropolitan Toronto. Now we are forced to deal with a number of very significant transition issues.
The concern I have is that the complexity of this means that it really does need public scrutiny, and the government, as we see with these new rules, I believe you will see -- and I don't have any information on this -- this is the second day of debate, we will have one more day this week -- a time allocation motion come in and the government will move very quickly on this to shut down debate. I am not convinced that the public will have the time to understand the breadth of the complexity of the issues that are contained within this bill and the importance of having that public input into these matters of transition and how we go about implementing the transition to the new megacity.
1840
One of the shames about that, and I'd say it's becoming a repetitious theme with this government, is that when you move forward so quickly, when you move with such haste and with such lack of concern for the detail, there are unintended consequences. In this case, when we're talking about a municipal election this fall and we're talking about an implementation date of January 1, serious mistakes will be made. You are not giving people time to give you the input you require to follow through with good governance.
We did on many occasions say, even though we disagreed with your megacity approach, please look at a one-year transition period and holding off the municipal elections for a year to allow these specific transition issues to be dealt with, particularly to allow them to be dealt with in the context of the download that's going on from the province. Municipalities, not just in Metropolitan Toronto but across the province, have been left with a complete sense of bewilderment about what the impact will be, what the numbers actually are. There's a discrepancy between the municipalities' numbers and the government. The government has refused to sit down and work through that. People out there don't know what the impact will be.
In Metropolitan Toronto, we're going to have to deal with that huge download of additional costs, with the huge download of the social housing costs, with what that will mean in terms of additional taxes, at the same time as dealing with such a complex transition as going from six municipalities to one megacity.
I suggest to the government that the time line you have in your minds for this bill will not be sufficient. I think your deadlines in terms of the municipal election on January 1 are totally unrealistic. I fear chaos, but I urge you, please at least in this process give sufficient time between second reading debate and the committee hearings so that the public, where I've indicated the bill might be of interest to various parts of our communities, has a chance to look at it and understand the impact and come forward to give you advice on the transition.
I'd love to go back and fight the megacity fight again. Can't do that. This is how we're going to implement what is a very flawed plan. So please, let's at least try and get the implementation right.
The other point I want to make -- I implore the government members to please listen to my plea on this. I want to speak very personally about a community I spend a lot of time working with, the borough of East York, about what the impact of the composition of the new city council means for the residents of East York and for the effective working of the community council, the provision for which is contained within your megacity legislation, and a proposed solution to a dilemma.
I, as many of you know, have introduced a private member's bill which would effect a change in the level of representation for the borough of East York. Currently, in the proposed new megacity most new councillors will be representing a population base in a ratio of about one councillor to 36,000 or 37,000 residents. In the borough of East York the number is one councillor to 54,000 residents. There is a huge anomaly there in the equity or the level of representation.
The other thing that is important for the government members to think about is that in the composition of the new megacity council, as it was put forward in your megacity bill, the borough of East York will only have two councillors. At the same time, you put into the legislation an attempt to deal with the concern about the ongoing neighbourhood, local governance, local control. You put into your legislation a proposal for community councils based on the old municipal boundaries, the city, or in this case the borough, boundary.
What that means is that the community council for East York will be comprised of only two councillors. It is not feasible, it is not workable. It will not be an effective community council.
I believe that your proposal for community councils was an attempt to respond to the criticism. I think it falls short of the mark, but I understood that you were trying to respond to the need to have ongoing local governance, local control, and the community councils are supposed to fit that bill. Two councillors from East York will not work. It will not be feasible. Given the government's agenda, the volume of bills the government has indicated they're necessarily going to pass before the end of December, I know there is next to no chance that my private member's bill would be called forward. There isn't time on the government's agenda, and we know that the government's agenda always takes precedence over private members' bills. That's fine; that's the way it works.
I tried to think how else I can address this issue. In a strange twist of fate, Bill 148 gives me that opportunity. I have prepared four amendments in which I've tried to deal with all the concerns the government has raised about this. My amendments attempt to address this issue of lack of equitable representation for the residents of East York. The residents of East York have been calling for a third councillor so that at least there is a community council of three and there is closer to equitable representation in terms of a councillor-to-population ratio.
I've put this forward in the House. I've talked to government members. There's some sympathy for the issue, but the response has been twofold. First, it has been pointed out to me that that could cause a problem in terms of the overall council, that you'd have an even number of people now in the overall council and that conceivably at some point there might be a tie and there wouldn't be a tie-breaker. So in addition to an amendment to Bill 148 which would provide for three councillors for East York, I have an alternative I'm putting forward which would provide for four. That would address the issue that people have raised around the potential deadlock on a megacity council.
The other concern I have heard -- it's not a concern. In fact, the minister's response to me is that there is an ability for the new megacity council to make decisions around readjusting boundaries in the future. They can do that, right? They can change the boundaries, bring forward a private bill, a city bill or whatever, and it would be passed regularly through this Legislature. They can do that.
The problem with that, and I urge government members to please think about this, is that the new megacity council can't bring that into effect until another municipal election three years from now. In this crucial period of transition, of trying to make the new megacity council work, of trying to ensure that your own proposal for local governance and local control, the community councils, is effective, you need to deal with this issue now, not three years from now. So I'm putting forward two other amendments. This is to give you a whole range of options, and hopefully one of many of these options will find favour with the majority government members on the committee.
The other alternative I will put forward is that these proposals be considered as a transition measure -- this bill is about transition -- so that for the first term of the new megacity council, the borough of East York has either three or four -- I'm still giving you that alternative -- councillors elected as a transition measure. That would then allow the new megacity council to look at this issue, to rejig boundaries, to come forward with what they think makes sense, which may be the same as this -- they may continue it -- or they may do something different.
It allows the council to do that. The minister in his response to me said that's where the decision should be made. That's fine in the future, but this ensures that from day one of the new megacity council the residents of East York have equitable representation and have the possibility of having an effective, working community council.
I've tried to address all the concerns of the government. Those amendments will be tabled before the committee that will be dealing with Bill 148. It will take the will of the majority of the government members to make this happen. I know you'll be hearing from the members of the public in support of this. There is general support from many of the people who have had concerns about the megacity, across all of Metro Toronto with respect to this, and certainly there is massive support within the borough of East York.
It is a simple problem for you to fix, but it is an incredibly important and meaningful problem to the residents of East York. It is about democratic representation. It is about equity and fairness in democratic representation. It is about the ability of a community to have input into local governance issues through a community council that actually can work, that can be effective, that can be perhaps the solution to the concerns raised about your megacity bill which you attempted to address by the community council proposition.
1850
The choice is yours. Four amendments: one to bring about three councillors in East York; one to bring about four, if you're worried about a deadlock or an even number or a tie on the megacity council; a third proposal, which is a transitional and temporary measure that has, for the first term of the new megacity council, either three or possibly four councillors; and to allow the megacity council then to determine and rejig its boundaries and ensure that there's equitable representation in the future based on the needs as they perceive them.
If you don't take steps with respect to any of these, you leave the residents of East York underrepresented and with a community council that is doomed to failure. I don't believe that the government wants its new megacity to fail or the transition measures to fail. I don't believe that they want one borough or a municipality out of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto to feel like they have been unfairly and badly treated by the government in comparison to other municipalities.
As much as I disagree with the underlying premise of having moved to the megacity, I believe the government will want to see a rational and fair method of representation.
If you have any other concern, please let me know. There's time in the next week or so before we know committees are coming. I can work with the minister or with the parliamentary assistant to draft other amendments that may be more acceptable to the government, and I'm willing to do that.
What I am imploring of you is, please don't just shrug this off, don't just pooh-pooh the idea. The basic right of equitable and fair representation and effective structures and bodies like the community council is one that I would think in theory this government would assert itself in favour of. I'm asking you, don't only do it in theory. I'm asking you to do it in practice.
I hope you might be able to find a way to work together with me to ensure that the residents of East York have fair, equitable, democratic representation under the new megacity council.
With that, I will wrap up and turn the floor to my colleague the member for Dovercourt.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to thank my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine for beginning debate for us on this important bill last week when I wasn't able to be here.
My comments are going to follow very much the tone and the direction she has set out. Really, this bill in and of itself, as the minister himself has said, is largely both technical or administrative in nature but also necessary, as my colleague indicated, if you've bought into the basic premise, as obviously the members of the government have, that the city of Toronto should exist as of January 1 in the way in which Minister Leach and Premier Harris and members of the Tory government want it to exist, that is, as one large city of 2.3 million people as opposed to any number of smaller municipalities.
I want to reiterate once again my personal opposition to that notion and that of our NDP caucus, that is, our opposition to the notion that there should be, as of this January 1, one large megacity in Metropolitan Toronto. We said it was wrong at the time the bill was brought in. We said it was wrong at the time the government proceeded with the bill here and in committee, and then back here in committee of the whole. We believe today that it is still the wrong way to go and we believe time will prove to us and to you that what you are doing is wrong.
That having been said, I want to reiterate, as we have done on many occasions, in committee, in this House, whenever we have gotten into a discussion on this issue, that we are not for one instant, neither now nor when this discussion began some weeks and months ago, of the view that no change should happen.
In fact, we set out very clearly not just some thoughts but a proposal to the government and to the public about how that change should come about. Fundamentally, what is happening here is the creation of a new city that's going to be around not just for the next couple of years; we are setting the parameters for the future governance of the largest metropolis not just in Ontario but indeed in this country. That is not something that should be done in the haphazard way this government has chosen to go about doing it. It is something that should be done with careful thought, with adequate and real consultation and then, yes, with action. Like the government, we agree that something needs to be done, some change needs to come about, but not this kind of change.
First of all, not this kind of change that creates one large megacity of 2.3 million people, and certainly not change in the way it's been brought about, by simply imposing the will of the government, or perhaps even the will of only a few members of the government, imposing that on the people of Metropolitan Toronto in a way that says, "We have made up our minds and we don't care what you think." That has been the attitude. It has certainly been the attitude from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It has certainly been the attitude that anyone associated with this bill on behalf of the government has taken in defending what they are doing, simply saying: "Change has to happen. We've made up our minds that this is what the change should look like and we don't really care what anybody else says."
Yes, we had hearings in committee. Yes, we heard from hundreds of people. Yes, the government pretended to listen and came in with some amendments, not in committee but back here in the House in committee of the whole, which it sought to indicate dealt with some of the concerns raised when we dealt with the predecessor bill to this, Bill 103.
What we have is still in effect the megacity as we knew it. They have made some changes, increased the number of politicians who will sit on the new council, made a few other changes with respect to clarifying some of the roles of the community councils. They sought to put that as if they had listened to what people said.
But they know and we know and, more important, the public out there knows that the government failed, on this very important issue, to listen to the first and most fundamental message that came across to the government and to this Legislature in this whole process. It was crystallized through the referendum that was held here in Metropolitan Toronto, but we heard it in spades as well during the hearings on this bill. We heard it during the whole public discussion that took place in the media, in various meetings throughout Metropolitan Toronto and in any conceivable way that anyone who sought and wanted to listen would have heard it.
That message was clearly this: While people agree and while people were prepared to accept that some change was needed, change with respect to the governance and the structure of governance in Metropolitan Toronto, what people said very clearly was that they did not want one massive local city. They saw that and I see that as a contradiction in terms. You cannot have, in the realm of local governance, one massive local government of 2.3 million people. It is just too large, it is just too cumbersome, it is just too far away from people. It is just too contrary to the basic notion of what local government is supposed to be.
Local government is supposed to be, yes, large enough that you can provide services at the municipal level at a reasonable and adequate cost. But it's also supposed to be, and this is fundamental, small enough that there is a real relationship between the voters -- actually, the residents, whether they are voters or not -- of that city, of that municipality, and the people they elect to represent them on that government. That simply will not happen under this mega-council.
1900
Now, we can play games. We can play all sorts of games with numbers. We can say, look at the number of representatives on a per-resident basis. But the sheer reality when all that is said and done is that what you have is a massive council which is going to be larger than half of the new Legislative Assembly that will sit come the next provincial election.
You cannot have a council of over 50 people function in any way as a local council in the sense at least that I understand what a local council is supposed to be, which is a council that functions formally but also has the ability to interact among its members in an informal way to make accommodation for various communities, various neighbourhoods, to find solutions, to ensure that although each member represents a particular neighbourhood, a particular set of communities, they also understand and see the logic when another councillor talks about their communities and their areas and their parts of the municipality.
That simply won't happen here. It won't happen because the beast that is going to exist as of January 1 of next year is just too massive, is just too cumbersome, is just too awkward to allow for that kind of give and take, to allow for that kind of interaction, to allow for that kind of real representation that should exist and that indeed, with all its imperfections, has existed in Metropolitan Toronto for the last number of years.
What should happen? Of course, it certainly is easy enough to stand here and criticize whatever action the government has taken. They have given us lots of opportunities to do that. But we have also set out -- we set it out early and I want to reiterate it for members of the government, not that I have any illusion at this point that anything other than what is in front of us and obviously what has already been passed is going to come about, and we will then have to see down the line what changes can be made to that. But we had set out, and I think it's important for the record to reiterate that, what we believe to be the way to go in making change, in bringing about change in dealing with the governance in Metropolitan Toronto and with the delivery of services and the creation of new structures to govern the largest metropolis, as I said, not just in Ontario but indeed in this country.
That was to start not with Metropolitan Toronto as the boundary of concern but with what we all know today to be the real entity that exists that binds that community at the larger level, which is the greater Toronto area. In fact, two previous studies, two significant studies -- the Golden report and then the work that David Crombie did with his panel -- supported this notion that the first line of attention should be paid to the greater Toronto area, how that entity functions, how that entity is governed and how that entity provides for the delivery of services, whether those services have to do with waste management, with public transportation, with any other line of services that one could stand here and recite; that in fact the economic entity today is not limited to Metropolitan Toronto and it certainly can't be looked at in isolation of the rest of the greater Toronto area.
That being the case, the first thing that should be done, in our view, is not the amalgamation of the local area municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto, but indeed the amalgamation of the upper-tier levels of government -- that is, the five regional governments, Metro and the other regional governments -- into one larger regional government.
I understand the hesitation this government would have in creating one large government for what would then be 4.3 million people, but at the regional level that is what's needed because the region today is the greater Toronto area. Having said that, I hasten to say that I personally believe there would need to be, and there should be, some examination of what those boundaries are. It's probably appropriate for us to look at some of the areas in the further regions of what we've come to know as the 905 area and to see that there may not be as much logic for those areas to become part of that new GTA. But the essence is there. So the first line of attention would have been, and we believe still should be, to pay attention to that.
What the government is doing instead, as you know, is they have now said on the basis of the Milt Farrow study that they will probably be moving in that direction in terms of a coordinating body. But it's still putting it backwards; it's still putting the cart before the horse; it's still not getting to what needs to happen, which is a governing structure there and first.
Secondly, within that we had suggested, yes, take a look at the local municipalities. Once you have dealt with the regional issues, take a look at what you should do with respect to the governance at the local level, at the level that is closest in terms of a day-to-day relationship to the people, and make some changes and look at what should happen: Should we continue with the same number of municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto? Should we reduce them? Should we accept the existing boundaries around Metropolitan Toronto as natural boundaries any more for those new local councils?
Is there any difference when you are standing on the south side of Steeles Avenue as opposed to the north side of Steeles Avenue in Metropolitan Toronto? Obviously there is, in the sense that you are in two different municipalities. Under the government's actions, you will continue to be. But in terms of the flow of people, in terms of the way in which people come back and forth to work, to shop, to do whatever they do, there is no logic any more. That boundary is no longer a real boundary. The same argument could be made for the boundary that today divides Etobicoke from Mississauga.
I'm not suggesting you simply amalgamate those municipalities, but I am suggesting that should have been the second area of examination. If the government had done its work properly and had done the work in the right order, there would have been consensus reached, or at least general agreement reached, as we have seen in the responses that have come not just from within Metropolitan Toronto but from the so-called 905 area, that the first problem to have been addressed and still to be addressed has to do with the coordination of services across the greater Toronto area, has to do with the recognition that it is the greater Toronto area that is now, today, the region. It is no longer Metro, it is no longer Peel region, it is no longer York region or any of the other regions; it is the greater Toronto area. As I said, we can argue a little bit about what those new boundaries should be, but that is the entity that we should be first and foremost concerned with. Secondly, within that, we should be prepared to look at what changes we would make.
We said to the government that we understand the need for action. We are not simply saying and we did not at the time simply say, "Just don't do anything for another three or four years." We are now on the eve of a municipal election. We've put forward this proposal. There were still some six months left. We said to the government: "If you have to, delay the municipal elections by a year. Take the time to do the job right. Take the time to talk to people properly, to listen to what they have to say, but also, by deferring the elections by a year, indicate very clearly that there would be action following that consultation." We said we would be prepared to work with the government to bring about facilitation of that process, a real discussion with people, and hopefully arrival, through that kind of process, at some answers.
That didn't happen. It didn't happen because the government chose not to listen. It didn't happen because the government chose to just go on its merry way once Al Leach and Mike Harris had decided that what they were going to do was to simply come in with this notion of one single government in Metropolitan Toronto. In my view, they made up their minds and told the rest of cabinet and the rest of caucus that that was the decision.
1910
I'm sure at the time there was no sense within the government about the fallout, both political and in terms of its impact out there on people, that would come about as a result of that decision. At that time, you'll recall, the proposal had to do with putting it in a way that said, "We're reducing municipalities and we're reducing politicians." Such a simple and straightforward message that seemed to make so much sense to Mike Harris and Al Leach: "We're cutting the number of politicians, we're cutting the number of municipalities and, by the way" -- this wasn't said, but it was also there -- "we're doing it to Toronto." In some of the outlying areas outside Toronto, what more appealing approach is there to public policy-making than saying, "We're doing it to Toronto"?
As I see it, as I see what's happened over the last number of weeks and months, the plan simply backfired. It backfired because people began to understand what this government was doing.
It's somewhat ironic that tonight we are beginning what I'm sure will be a long series of evening sittings between now and Christmastime so this government can get its agenda through under these new draconian rule changes. It's ironic and there's perhaps some kind of insane logic to the fact that we are beginning these evening sessions with the companion bill to Bill 103, Bill 148, a bill that is basically step 2 in the implementation of the megacity here in Metropolitan Toronto.
Why do I say that? Because it was the megacity bill that crystallized most clearly and most sharply the understanding and then subsequently the opposition that came about to the download that Mike Harris and his government is now unfolding in spades in front of us. We said at the time that in effect the creation of the megacity here in Metropolitan Toronto was but the first step. We saw the amalgamation of school boards under 104; we are now seeing, through various other pieces of legislation that have been tabled and that are on their way through the various processes of the Legislative Assembly, the full agenda out there.
What are we also seeing? We are seeing also the opposition that began around Bill 103, that crystallized around that issue, that saw people come together in an incredible fashion in meetings, in organizing themselves in various coalitions to fight against the megacity. Both through the committee process here at Queen's Park and also, just as significantly, through the referendum process that was held in Metropolitan Toronto we have seen that opposition to the government's agenda grow and grow and grow, to the point that you have today in the Toronto Star a headline that says, "Laughter Greets Leach's Pledge" on the download as the minister spoke yesterday to AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the annual meeting of that group, the gathering of local politicians from across the province.
We have seen in just a few short months the understanding and the full disclosure of the government's agenda reaching a level where as we have come back from a few weeks of recess over the summer, the government clearly is in some trouble. They are trying very hard, and to some extent still reasonably well, to hide that nervousness, but I tell you, I have not seen this government in such a mess as they are now. We have the minister responsible not able to convince -- forget us in the opposition; it's natural that we would be very sceptical about what he says -- local politicians, who are not by and large New Democrats. Some of them might be Liberals, but many of them are small-c conservatives and many of them large-c Conservatives. He's not able to convince them that his downloading process and downloading exercise is going to at the end of the day result in everyone being just fine, everyone being in a position where local property taxes will carry the same kind of weight, the same kind of responsibility they are carrying today.
Why? Quite frankly, because that is not what's going to happen. Local politicians are in the best position to know that. They know how much money it takes to deliver a particular service because they deal with that every single day. That's their job. When they see the shifting around that's going on and they see that the numbers don't balance out, they're now beginning to ask: "Oh, my God, what are we going to do? How are we going to impress upon this government that what they are doing will result in increases in property taxes if we continue to deliver the same level of service, or alternatively, it will mean we will have to make not just some small cuts" -- we're beyond the small cuts -- "but some severe, drastic cuts to the services we are providing if we want to maintain a no-tax-increase approach?" which many of them do. With a public that right across this province is tired of tax increases, that's the one thing we can all agree on.
Here's the situation these local politicians find themselves in. Do they simply quietly say to the government -- many of them, as I said, Conservatives -- "What you're doing is wrong. We need some help here"? They've done that. They've done that quietly behind closed doors, behind the scenes, through the various groups that have been set up, but still the government hasn't heard, still the government hasn't listened.
Now what are they doing? They're saying it more loudly. They're saying it as they did yesterday at AMO by passing a resolution on Bill 136. That's the other bill related to this that allows those same municipalities to adjust the various bargaining structures in a way that you might think would make it easier for them, that the government says will make it easier for them to restructure. Yet AMO passed a resolution yesterday saying, "No, we don't want this bill to go on." Why? Because they know it's not going to be Al Leach who is going to have to handle the problems they will face in their local communities with their bargaining agents, it's going to be them. They don't want to start off in a situation in which they're seen to be carrying the responsibility, or carrying the hatchet, if you will, for Al Leach and Mike Harris.
They're finally realizing -- or maybe they realized it a long time ago -- that this is the position they're being put in, to do a hatchet job on behalf of Mike Harris. The only way Mike Harris is going to be able to find the money he has to find to pay for the one promise he seems to be intent on keeping, that is, the 30% income tax cut, is to, among other things, significantly shift a lot of the cost for services down to the property tax base.
Yes, at the end of the day Mike Harris will be able to say, and I've no doubt about this, "Look, I've decreased your income taxes by 30%." I believe this Premier will go to any length to keep that one particular promise, but he will do it at the price of our health care system, at the price of our education system, our social service system, and he will do it by putting municipal politicians in the position where they become the hackers or where they have to increase property taxes, and then he's going to try to blame them. He's going to try to blame them either way. If they cut services, he's going to say, "They should have cut other services instead." If they increase taxes, he's going to say: "I didn't tell them to increase taxes. They chose to increase taxes."
This is what's happening and this is what various municipal politicians are now realizing; or, as I said, they probably more likely realized this a long time ago, certainly from everything we've heard. But now, maybe because, as the minister said in the scrum today, they understand that a municipal election is now only weeks away and because they don't want to be in the position where they are carrying the hatchet for Mike Harris, they are speaking out more loudly
1920
Now they are saying to the government, individually but also collectively through organizations like AMO: "Enough is enough. If you want to cut, Mike Harris, you take the responsibility for it. If you want to pay for your income tax cut by shifting costs on to the property tax base, you take that responsibility. Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you. Don't expect us to do your hatchet work for you. Don't expect us as local politicians to carry the can for you." They're saying that more and more loudly, more and more clearly.
That's what's got members of the government a bit antsy. That's what got them a little bit nervous. I believe it's high time that happened, and I'm glad it's happening, because I think we are finally seeing a government that's going to have face up to the consequences of its actions. They haven't listened so far to any reasonable argument that's been put. Not just by us -- whether we've made reasonable arguments or not I will leave for others to judge -- but indeed reasonable arguments put forward by any number of people across this province, that while change is necessary, while restructuring is necessary, you can't do it in this way. Yet the Premier and members of the government shudder when we say, "You are acting in such an ideological way that you are no longer seeing the impact and no longer paying any attention to the impact of what you are doing."
They don't like that, but they don't like that because it's the truth. They don't like it because that in fact is what's happening. They've known that all along. We've known that all along. More and more people across the province have known that all along, but now more and more people across the province are saying that as well. They're not just thinking it. They're not just saying it in their own little conversations. They're saying it out loud.
They're saying it whether they're local politicians, they're saying it whether they're people in any and all walks of life who care about their communities, whether it's in health care, in the disaster of the various hospital closings that we are seeing, in the decrease in services we are seeing in hospitals and other places across the province, whether they're in their school system as parents and students and they're seeing the level and quality of our education system continually deteriorating under the actions of this government, and they are seeing that in what will be yet to come if the morass of legislation of which 148 is a part makes its way through this Legislature. I think only time will tell whether this government will listen to any of this, to any of those concerns.
I suppose the government would argue that one of the changes they have made, for example, here in Metropolitan Toronto, or indeed in the greater Toronto area, in moving some of the social service costs they have pushed down to the local property tax base from just Metropolitan Toronto to the whole greater Toronto area, somehow was listening to what people have said. I want to tell you very clearly, I for one believe that if you're going to move in that kind of direction of adding these costs to the property tax base, there is lots of logic for having those costs borne across the whole GTA because indeed it is true, in my view, that many of those services that are provided within Metropolitan Toronto are indeed also provided for people who live in the 905 area surrounding.
Maybe not as far as Northumberland. I'm not sure if it was the reeve I heard, but I believe it was the reeve of Northumberland the other day saying something similar to that, saying, "Look, it doesn't make any sense for us to be carrying some of those costs." That's true, maybe not to that extent, but certainly within the area surrounding Metropolitan Toronto, which again comes back to the point of the government having simply put the cart before the horse.
While I can agree that sharing of costs across the whole GTA level makes more sense than simply imposing them on the Metropolitan Toronto property taxpayers, I have to say that the fundamental problem here is the shift downwards to begin with. That's what the government should be addressing. If they were addressing that, then they wouldn't have to deal now with the flak they are getting from their political friends and others in the 905 area. What we are also seeing here on a very political basis, because that's the only level on which this government seems to have any inkling for listening any longer, is that the government's own allies in the 905 area are now also raising their voice very loudly. We will see what will happen.
Bill 148 is a very clear part of that message and of that exercise. Though one could look through it in and of itself and say there is largely not a lot that one could argue against once you've gone through that first step and said, "Yes, there will be one large megacity," there are particular pieces that trouble me, there are particular pieces that trouble people. I look forward to this bill going to committee so that we will have an opportunity to address some of the concerns, certainly the concern that my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine has raised and that I know my colleague from Riverdale shares with respect to the level of representation for East York.
I have to say that the various proposals that have been put forward by my colleagues make a lot of sense to me, and I hope they will make sense to the members of the government. By the way, this notion that having an even number of councillors somehow creates a problem, I'm not sure where that's come from. I'm sure that there are councils across the province that have equal numbers today. I come from a school board background where there were at various stages an even number of trustees. There's a provision written into the Education Act and I'm assuming similar provision exists within the Municipal Act. If not, it can simply be put in that a tie vote is lost. It's as simple as that. You don't have to become concerned about a deadlock. What makes it a deadlock if it's 26 to 26 as opposed to 27 to 25? What's the big difference? Yes, one is a majority, but in a sense the council is split in either case.
One can dream up, I'm sure, lots of reasons not to support the proposals that my colleagues from Beaches-Woodbine and Riverdale have put together, but I ask the government members to think seriously about this. If you at least want to make some small changes in the whole context, but some changes that make some difference to this whole beast, then that's one particular one that you can act on.
There's another one that concerns me, having sat through the process dealing with public libraries. I know that my colleague from High Park-Swansea, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, will remember this one. When we dealt with Bill 109, the new public libraries bill, which I believe has yet to come forward for third reading here in the House, there was almost unanimous agreement at the committee that whatever we thought about what the government was doing -- we made it very clear that we disagreed strongly with the direction the government was going in because we thought it was setting up a process of allowing greater use of fees for public library services that today are free.
They're taking the protection that exists today of free access to materials that now exists in legislation, they're taking that out of legislation and are purporting to put that into a regulation which they can obviously change, as people will know, by a simple decision of cabinet without it having to come back through the legislative process.
But aside from that there was, as I was saying, almost unanimous agreement in the committee that within Metropolitan Toronto, to come back to this area, there was a unique nature to the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library in that it provided a service that was different from all other public libraries because it serves as a reference library not just to Metropolitan Toronto but indeed to the whole province and that there was some sense, a lot of sense, in fact, to continuing the governance of that very important institution separate from the creation of other library boards.
We knew at the time, and we see it in the legislation now, that within Metropolitan Toronto, within the new city of Toronto, there will be now one large library board. At the time I thought there was some agreement even from the government members that there would be a separate governance structure allowed, continuing the existing structure for the Metro reference library.
1930
This is the place where that change can be made. At the time, we were told they were not prepared to take an amendment to Bill 109, so we agreed in a proposal I put forward to refer our amendment that would have done that to the transition team looking at the various transition issues, the areas to make recommendations on. We have yet to hear from that group, but my hope is that we will hear back. I will certainly be looking for some answers back on that in time for this bill being in committee, with the hope that if that support continues to be there, as I think I saw it at the time from the government members, we can at least make another change that will ensure that the Metro Toronto Reference Library continues as a separate institution from the amalgamated new city of Toronto library board.
There are other areas where various people have clearly stated concerns, some of which are quite useful. For example, that the present provision for land use planning should continue until there are changes made is wise. I think it's useful at least to allow for transition.
Concerns have been expressed by people across Metropolitan Toronto that by pooling the assets of the various local municipalities, such as the parking assets -- Mr Sewell makes this point in an article he wrote -- you are setting up a situation in which the assets of the city of Toronto parking authority, valued, in his words, at $150 million, are far above the assets of the only other parking agency in Metro, that run by North York. There may be some problems with that.
That can be juxtaposed with the issue of what happens with reserves. There are a number of issues in this bill that we will need to look at in some detail, a number of issues that people will be interested in speaking to.
Quite frankly, the one area I don't see in this bill and that I will be looking forward to hearing about from the members of the transition team is, what about the work of the transition team? What about the work the transition team is doing now? I know it is going to end up in a report that will go in front of the new council, but what about legislative changes that will need to be made as a result of the work they will do? Where is any of that?
Where is the result of the work going on now in terms of looking at the community councils, in terms of looking at what the appropriate structures are? What are the appropriate structures that should be set up if the government is intent on proceeding with this massive new megacity? Is it a given, and should it be a given, that you should simply amalgamate all the area boards, whether library boards or any other boards, into one massive board, or, given that this is an issue that's very much alive, being looked at now by the transition team, might you come up with different models?
If you're going to have community councils established for what are now the existing area municipalities, is it not logical that you might have some of these services, if not all of these services, looked at through a process that involves those community councils? Why is that no longer an option? Why does the government seem, by virtue of this legislation, to have closed the door to that possibility?
On the flip side of that, what can be said about the validity of the consultation the transition team is carrying on? I remind people, this is a group of people appointed by this government. What can be said about the validity of their process if the government, in a number of areas, on a number of issues, seems to have already made up its mind? Is this simply step 2, in the same way step 1 was carried out? Is this Al Leach saying again: "I don't care what anybody else out there says. This is the way I think it should work and this is what I'm going to do"?
Is there any room left for this government to listen to what people out there have been saying? People are still opposed, just as they were when they voted 76% against the megacity, but if it's going to happen, they want at least some say in what it's going to look like. They want to have some understanding and some sense that through the community councils they will be able to have some input into the ongoing decision-making.
In a number of areas this bill precludes that. In a number of areas this bill says: "No, thank you very much. You can have all the discussion you want" about your concerns with respect to libraries, parks and recreation, health and welfare, any of those areas, the things that make the various area municipalities and indeed the Metro Toronto councils function and function reasonably well. This government is saying, "We're not particularly interested in what you have to say in those areas because we think amalgamating all those bodies into one body for the whole new city is the way we should go." That's regardless of the surveys now being done by the transition team, in the community meetings held in each of the municipalities by that team, in the various discussions going on; that's despite the fact that as a result of those discussions and that input, a consensus might be arrived at that is very different from what's in this bill.
I don't know if there is any willingness on the part of this government to make any changes. I guess we will see. I hope that as we go through this process, this bill will get out to committee and we will hear from members of the transition team about those very issues, about what they have been listening to, what they have been hearing and what they are prepared to recommend, not just to the new council but to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Al Leach, about what changes should be made to this piece of legislation.
If this government is intent on putting through this legislation, at least in the way the megacity is structured there may still be some semblance of local involvement, some level of local input, some ability for people to provide their views and feel that their views can be heard in some way. I don't see that here. If the government were serious about that, they would have either held off on this piece of legislation, if they weren't going to hold off on the whole thing, or indicated very clearly in presenting this legislation that they are open to changes as we go through the process. But I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that from the minister when he introduced the bill. I didn't hear that from the minister in looking over his comments in Hansard when he began second reading debate on this bill. He simply said: "This is an administrative bill. It has to be done to implement the new megacity."
I want to end by reiterating the same message we have been putting forward on this throughout this whole process, which is that we are fundamentally as opposed today as we were when Bill 103 was even dreamt up, opposed to the megacity concept. We are prepared to collaborate with respect to change, but if the megacity is going to happen, there will have to be changes made beyond Bill 148 to make that work.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It was interesting hearing the two members, one from Beaches-Woodbine -- it was hard to know what bill she was really talking about; I thought Bill 148 was the topic we were on -- and then the member for Dovercourt.
The member for Dovercourt made a lot of reference to the AMO conference. Actually, I spent quite a bit of time down at the AMO conference, and I'd like to refute some of the comments he was making about it. I received some 22 delegations on behalf of the Minister of Environment, and I can tell you that almost to a person, and there were probably 100 people in those 22 delegations, they were very supportive of what this government is doing. Yes, they have some concerns, they need some information, and that's understandable, but over and over again they were supporting what we're doing and where we're going. I can tell you, in the hallways and the various rooms there was a real air of confidence in the direction this government is going, getting rid of the duplication, getting rid of overlap and sorting out the responsibilities, the kind of responsibilities the municipalities should have and the kind of responsibilities the Ontario government should continue with. There was just no question: a very, very positive feeling there.
This bill is going to ensure that important services like the Toronto Transit Commission and city-owned attractions such as the Metro Zoo and the Hummingbird Centre and Exhibition Place continue to operate as usual. In addition, this bill would give the new city the same authority to carry out routine duties which Metro council currently has under the Metro Toronto act.
I heard the member for Dovercourt make reference to this bill being technical and necessary. There's no question that this bill is technical, and it is necessary to make everything happen the way it should here in Toronto.
1940
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'd like to compliment the member for Dovercourt. I think he gave a very refreshing view of the situation, and very well put, because I think he repeated practically everything we have heard since the first day.
Interjection: Insightful and intelligent.
Mr Sergio: Absolutely, indeed yes. He listened to the people who made submissions during the three weeks of public hearings and has very succinctly repeated in the House for the benefit of the members what the people said to the Premier and the minister: "All right. You want a megacity. How are you going to do it? How is it going to work? Who is going to pay for it? How much is it going to cost? Give us some information and some figures."
Unfortunately, even the minister himself yesterday said: "We don't have all the facts. We don't have all the figures." When 78% of the people in Metro said: "Let us know. How are you going to do it? What is it going to cost? Is it going to cost us more money?" and the minister cannot provide that information, I think we have good reason to be leery about how this government is proceeding.
The people in Metro said, "We don't want Metro, but if you're forcing it on us, show us how this is going to be affecting the people in Metro and beyond Metro."
I have to compliment the member for Dovercourt. When we are dealing with such a huge issue that eventually is going to affect not only Metro but well beyond the boundary of Metro, I think we have a right to know and the people have a right to know.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I listened to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who split her time with the member for Dovercourt. Having listened to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, she was holding this bill and reading out some of its contents and talking about the possibly devastating implications of some of these amalgamations. In fact the member for Beaches-Woodbine was speaking very clearly to this bill.
The members for Dovercourt and Beaches-Woodbine were very involved in the local megacity fight which, as we all know by now, 78% overall voted against. I want to congratulate both members. The member for Dovercourt is our critic in the area and carried the bill through for us and is quite knowledgeable about the contents of that bill and also this one.
I think it's incumbent upon the members of the government to listen a little more closely to what the members of this caucus, particularly from the Metro area, are saying about the implications of this bill. They ought to take it more seriously. I would say that the member for Dovercourt is one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to the contents of this bill.
It's very clear to me from the comments made by members of the government that they're not very knowledgeable about it, that they're getting up and just mouthing the government line. Major problems will result from this bill, and the members should listen a little more closely to what the opposition members have to say tonight.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Whenever I hear the member for Dovercourt or for Beaches-Woodbine, they always speak well in this House, and tonight was up to their usual style of speaking. I must say I really agree with many of the things they say, and tonight was no exception.
It almost sounds like the line they're using is similar to that of the mayor of Toronto, who starts an action against the province with respect to the amalgamation of the various municipalities in Toronto, says how terrible it is, and then decides to run for mayor. It's rather strange. That type of rhetoric seems to come out of your particular caucus. Why is she running for mayor if she doesn't like what it stands for? It's all very bizarre.
The member for Beaches-Woodbine raised the issue of increasing the number of seats in East York from two to three, and if that caused a problem with voting, if it caused a tie, it would be increased to four. We'll wait and see what her amendments say. What the members didn't say, and I'd be interested in the member for Dovercourt's response if he has time, and he may not, is the rationale. Why that particular municipality? What effect will that have on the other municipalities? Will that throw out the percentage of voting? Is it rep by pop? Those types of issues weren't really elaborated on. They may come out in the committee hearings; we'll wait and see. But to simply say increase the number of seats in a particular municipality, without more rationale, it doesn't make sense.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Dovercourt, you have two minutes.
Mr Silipo: I want to thank the members for Northumberland, Yorkview, Riverdale and Dufferin-Peel for their comments on mine and those made by my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Let me say to the member for Northumberland particularly -- I obviously don't know what people have said to him. I'm sure there are still people across the province who do agree with what the government is doing. What I am hearing more and more, even from people who agree with the direction the government is taking, is, "We agree, but -- " and then they go on to say that you're going too fast or you're being too unfair or that shifting these costs to the property tax base is not the right way to go.
If all the member for Northumberland is hearing is, "You're doing great work," maybe he needs to talk to a few other people, because he's not getting a sense of where the province is on this one.
Yes, there are many people who still agree with what the government is doing, but there are increasingly people who disagree, and the more people understand what the government is doing, the more that number will grow.
To the member for Dufferin-Peel, I want to say very quickly a couple of things: First of all, I believe that my colleagues the members for Riverdale and Beaches-Woodbine have made the case and will be happy, in committee, to make the argument about increasing the representation for East York. In fact, if you look at it on a proportionate basis, if you went to three, you could do it and still keep the same ratio, largely, that you have for the rest of Metropolitan Toronto. That's something we could look at in committee, in terms of the numbers. I'm sure we can convince the members on that basis that it should be done.
In terms of why people opposed to the megacity are running, I find it not troubling all that Mayor Hall and Mayor Lastman and others perhaps are going to be joining the race. I think that is good, because I think it's important to have people run who understand the problems in implementing the new megacity.
1950
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Scarborough East.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's a pleasure to add to this debate, in fact to be the first 20-minute speaker, under the House rules, now that the leadoff is done. As we've just seen evidenced only minutes ago, when they had 90 minutes they spent about five minutes on the bill and about 20 minutes each on a variety of other issues. Hopefully, the new rules will help focus debate and bring us back to the topic before us.
For those who are watching, the topic today is Bill 148. Bill 148, the City of Toronto Act, part 2, is the technical integration of all of the services, the sequel to the original City of Toronto Act. This is the meat on the bones, the framework that was built earlier this year. It encompasses all the technical issues related to any restructuring.
The members presumably will all be supporting this bill, because in the alternative, it would be their suggestion that on January 1, no one will own the TCC and no one will own the Exhibition and no one will own the zoo. It will be their submission that pension plans should not migrate and that every worker from the old six cities will not have a pension plan any more. Every one of these issues is purely technical in nature.
More than that, in most cases there were any number of submissions we received during the hearings that we held for Bill 103 -- just a bit of a history lesson to remind people: We dedicated over 300 hours of public hearings to Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act. In addition to the committee hearings, we met with any number of individuals, including the municipal politicians.
Without exception, in addition to the philosophical issues that were raised, many people talked about the practical aspects and what would happen to the zoo and the Exhibition grounds and to all of the other assets owned by the different cities. There are myriad rinks and cultural centres, there are the city halls, and more important than even those assets, there are all of those employees, the 54,000 people who work for the seven different municipal governments. Clearly all of the issues related to their employment have to be dealt with fairly and honestly. I find it very telling that we have had an hour and a half from each of the two parties, so a total of three hours so far, and not one specific suggestion about a single clause, a single word in this bill that they find inappropriate, incorrect, or unnecessary.
We've had three hours of the same rant, three hours of the same rhetoric, three hours of continuing to tell the people of this province that everything is wrong. It's doom and gloom and, quite frankly, I think a good case could be made, betraying their oath of office. They're responsible, as we are, for the carriage of this piece of legislation, but more than that, we're responsible for making sure this province works.
When they don't stand and recognize the accomplishments that people in this province have made in these last two years, when they don't talk about the new investments, when they don't talk about the 176,000 new jobs in the last five months, when they don't talk about the 210,000 people who have been freed from their dependency on welfare in the last two years, when they don't talk about all those benefits and all of the steps forward, I believe that they're not selling a whole message and they're not telling the whole -- we can't use the word "truth." They're not telling the whole message to the people out there.
Interjection: They don't like good news.
Mr Gilchrist: They don't like good news. They believe, even when it's something as purely technical as this bill, that somehow it's their responsibility to stand up and be negative, to bash the government, not to contribute to the process, not to go back and read that bill clause by clause. If there are issues that have been missed, if there are any sections that need to have improved wording in there, the bottom line is that it's their responsibility as the opposition to be bringing those matters to our attention, and this is the forum.
We've had public hearings. There's no need to reinvent the wheel on this one. We've heard from the politicians. We've heard from the citizens of Toronto, York, East York, Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. We've heard from them about all of the aspects of this bill. In fact, many of them last March, you'll recall, asked us to incorporate many of these details in Bill 103. But we said we wanted to take the time to make sure all of the details were done in as thorough, professional and competent a manner as possible. I believe, again in the absence of a single criticism from the other side, we've done our homework, and I believe this bill satisfies all of those criteria.
The bottom line is that on January 1, we already knew that we would have one city where there were seven before. What we didn't know is what would happen to the pension plans and what would happen to all of those assets and, quite frankly, all of those liabilities. Every one of those issues has now been addressed in here. If I could read a couple of very brief sections out of here:
"Rights preserved
"(2) Nothing in this act_affects the rights...with respect to pensions or benefits on December 31, 1997," of any person employed in any of the old municipalities; "...all pension and benefit plans and funds that meet the following conditions are continued." It goes on in detail, but basically it says that if you're a municipal employee and you belong to a pension plan today or on December 31 of this year, you are guaranteed that the plan will carry over and you won't lose a single benefit under that plan.
It then goes on to say that the municipality, on January 1 and from that point onwards, will have the power to continue to evolve as they see fit.
Mr Speaker, I'm sure you'll recall that back last March when we were listening to all of the debate about the original City of Toronto Act, many people on the other side suggested it was totally inappropriate to interfere in municipal government at all, it was totally inappropriate for us to be constraining their development and constraining the shape of the new city. Now, when we've brought forward something that says precisely that, that you can continue to have the same taxes, which may very well vary from one part of the city to another, you can continue to have the same level of services -- North York has twice-a-week garbage pickup; everyone else has once a week. This bill says you can do that. We've given them exactly the freedom, exactly the flexibility they asked for, and having damned us for interfering back in March, they're now damning us for giving the municipalities this power.
That sort of flip-flop is totally inappropriate, and it's not fair to the people of the city. They need to know the facts. They don't need politicking and they don't need rhetoric. I find it very interesting that the Liberals' chief spokesman is not in the chamber here today, that the person who championed the fight against Bill 103 more than anyone else earlier this year is not here today.
The members who were here a few days ago may very well recall that Mr Colle stood up and gave a very impassioned speech. He said this bill and Bill 103 would guarantee the city of Toronto won't work, and he said that there will be chaos. He said there will be no way the new council will be able to handle those responsibilities.
Then I pointed out to this chamber in my response that this same Mr Colle is the campaign co-chairman for Mel Lastman, a man who has gone on record as saying that everything in the city of Toronto unification is doable, that there will be no property tax increase if he is successful. He didn't say not next year; he said there will be no tax increase as a result of amalgamation. That same Mel Lastman went further and said that the Who Does What issues and all of the other transfer in responsibilities between the province and the municipality will also not have a negative impact on the property taxpayers in the city.
I, for one, am having difficulty reconciling how Mr Colle can stand in this chamber and when that TV camera is on suggest to people that he really is a foe of this bill, that he really does not believe the new city of Toronto will work, and at the same time he has allowed his name to be published in every document going out from the Mel Lastman campaign saying that he's the co-chairman. I'll leave it to the other taxpayers and the voters in the city of Toronto to rationalize that dichotomy.
Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With all respect, I have been listening quite carefully to the member for Scarborough East, and I do believe that when we address any member of this House, present or not present, it is done in the name of the riding that the member represents. Not only is the member misrepresenting the member who is not present --
The Deputy Speaker: You are totally correct, yes. As a matter of fact, this is what I was discussing. You're totally right and I thank you for your help.
Mr Gilchrist: I do apologize for not pointing out that Mr Colle is in fact the member for Oakwood. From this point on I will not refer to Mike Colle. I will refer to the member for Oakwood, and trust that in the future on the Mel Lastman literature, instead of "Mike Colle," he publishes "Mike Colle, MPP for Oakwood" so that people can continue to see that subtle difference between the position he takes here and the position he's taking out on the hustings.
Interjection: Flip-flop.
Mr Gilchrist: Flip-flop is perhaps the right word.
It was somewhat telling in the comments made by our colleague the member for Dovercourt. He mentioned a number of things in the few minutes that he devoted to the bill, but one of the most interesting comments he made -- it's not all embraced in this bill, but he suggested that the creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board somehow is a necessary precursor to the creation of the city of Toronto. In fact, his exact quote was that it doesn't matter whether you live north or south of Steeles; it's same flow of people. There's no logic any more in having that different municipal oversight.
Yet they would suggest to you that even though it has been 44 years since Metropolitan Toronto was created, 44 years since the real amalgamation of this city took place, somehow it's appropriate that the residents on either side of Victoria Park are treated differently, or the residents on either side of the boundary between any of the other cities within Metropolitan Toronto -- clearly again an unreconcilable difference.
2000
We also heard some comments about whether or not what we've heard in the last eight months really is embodied in this bill in terms of the spirit behind the amalgamation. You should know that late last year any number of polls done not just by the government but any number of third parties, all of the newspapers, back in October and November 1996 showed that support for amalgamation was in the mid-60% range and opposition in the mid-30% range.
Early this year, as the only means through which they could artifice the numbers, the only means through which they could create any kind of ennui in the public, any kind of anxiety, do any fearmongering was to wrap the issue of the city of Toronto amalgamation into Who Does What, into school board reform, into actual value assessment. Quite frankly, they did everything but lump it into bus deregulation. By doing that fearmongering and by taking it off on a number of tangents, they were able to create the spectre that somehow the City of Toronto Act did not hit a responsive chord.
What you won't hear from the opposition parties is that on July 28, CFRB, the largest radio station in Canada, which every day does a people poll, as they call it, posed the question of whether or not you were in support of amalgamation of the city of Toronto. Isn't it interesting that now that we're long beyond fearmongering, long beyond scaring people in this city that somehow the amalgamation is tied into school board reform or any of these other issues, 67% of the people who phoned in to that poll said they're in favour of amalgamation.
I have every confidence that now that we have at least one mayoral candidate and any number of local councillors who have gone on the record as saying they are committed to making it work, they are committed to a tax freeze or a tax decrease and they are committed to ensuring the employees of the cities are fairly treated, that services are not reduced or eliminated and that taxes don't change, now that we have that out there, those numbers will continue to go up in favour of amalgamation.
Let's not dwell on the so-called referenda that were held. I won't waste any time talking about the flawed methodology. What's far more important was what we heard at the public hearings. What's far more important is what we're hearing on the streets of Toronto right now, and people are absolutely convinced, as Mel Lastman is, that this is going to work.
Like my colleague from Northumberland, I was at the AMO conference for the last two days and I received a number of delegations, and while the member opposite again would love to generalize and just throw out the suggestion that somehow there's this groundswell of opposition, I'll name names. The city of Kingston came in and for 15 minutes complimented the government and told us to stay the course, not to make changes to Bill 136, not to change actual value assessment.
Mr Galt: Is that where John Gerretsen is from? That's John Gerretsen's riding?
Mr Gilchrist: Yes. As my colleague from Northumberland has pointed out, that is a riding represented by a Liberal member.
Quite frankly, in the submissions from the cities in the Ottawa area, their only criticism -- in fact it's not even a criticism. It was a question about what will be happening with something called "payments in lieu," because they have a lot of government office buildings in that city.
While we're on the subject of Ottawa, I'm sure the members opposite will remember a former member, so we can use his name now, Mr Bob Chiarelli, a former Liberal member of this chamber up until a few weeks ago. He's now running for regional chairman. Bob Chiarelli has said --
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): No new taxes.
Mr Gilchrist: "No new taxes." Bob Chiarelli has said he believes the Premier of this province, as do 57% of the people polled this week. They believe we're on the right track and they believe the transfer of services is fair and equitable. They believe it won't have an impact on taxes and they believe it's only appropriate that the municipalities of this province share in the belt-tightening that all aspects of governments under our control have been asked to share.
This bill is a very small piece of a very large puzzle. We're putting together a new vision of Ontario: one that works, one that doesn't have one out of every eight people relying on government assistance, one that encourages investment, encourages enterprise, encourages the development of a work ethic in all of our citizens. That's the vision we're trying to lay out here.
Every day in this chamber we lay another paving stone on that road to prosperity, and every bill is another milestone in that road. The bottom line is, as the member opposite pointed out, that rather than taking the time in this chamber to debate a technical and a necessary bill, we should be focusing on some of the other initiatives which involve far greater restructuring, far greater courage, I might say, on the part of this government, opening up issues that in some cases are decades overdue for reanalysis. I'm sure you would find us more than willing to enter into that debate.
The bottom line is, they believe it's appropriate to just say every bill is bad, and every action the government takes, they prefer to be negative. The bottom line is that we will make this entire process work far better if there is cooperation and constructive criticism.
Speaking on behalf of our minister, I encourage any suggestions to be made. If there is a way to rework this bill that even better protects the employees in those seven cities, if there's a way to guarantee that their pensions flow seamlessly, that the assets flow seamlessly, that the liabilities and the assets continue to accrue to the benefit of the citizens in the portion of the city where they were created, we're going to listen. So we want to hear those submissions.
Mr Speaker, I'm going to remind you and all the members that this doesn't reopen the issue of amalgamation and the unification of the city. That's a done deal. I don't think the amount of time taken by the member for Beaches-Woodbine talking about interfering in the number of members on the new council, now that we're actually in the middle of the municipal election campaign, is appropriate.
There was a time and a place to make those submissions. Rather than 12,000 frivolous amendments that took nine and a half days of the time of this chamber, it's unfortunate that the member did not see fit to introduce her suggestion as an amendment back then. I'm sure, quite frankly, we would have had far greater enthusiasm for embracing it than we would now when would-be municipal councillors have already printed their literature, have already bought signs, have already rented campaign offices. We're in the middle of the election campaign, and I don't think it would be fair to them, any more than it would be fair to the voters who have already received that literature.
As a final point, I'll remind you that last year we gave 720 hours of committee hearings. The most the NDP gave in their five years was 689. The most the Liberals gave, and their record year was 1989, was 529 hours, 200 hours less consultation.
The biggest chunk was on the City of Toronto Act, and I'm very proud of that. Our ministry in particular has been listening to the people. The bottom line is that we've now brought forward a bill that deals substantively, and I believe very capably, with all the technical issues of the amalgamation. While I expect the rhetoric, I am encouraged that we haven't heard a single criticism of a single clause. I look forward to their support of this bill and I thank you for your indulgence.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments?
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The member for Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, the most dangerous thing about what he said --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: The fact that he believes what he says is the most dangerous thing about him. The only person who believes what you say must be yourself, and that's rather dangerous. He thinks that outside in the community there, they are listening to him. Now let me tell you, Mr Gilchrist, the member for Scarborough East, they don't believe you one bit. They don't believe you at all, you see.
2010
One of your government ways is, if the people could just go away, get out of the way of the bulldozers, they could do what they have to. Let me tell you this: With all the referenda showing you they're against what you're doing, if they don't get you now, they'll get you later. They will stop you and they will make sure you and your government don't continue with theses kinds of bully tactics you're going on with. They won't go away.
You always stand up as if you're a great debater. I say to you that the Scarborough cable asks you any time to come and debate with me in Scarborough about this, because they want you there. They don't want you flipping around the place in Quebec and trying to dictate to them. Come to Scarborough and let's talk about some of these issues you're talking about today. You're asking where our members are. Where is your minister who's supposed to be defending this very important bill? He's not here today. Therefore, if you think that's important --
Interjections.
Mr Curling: I've got to shout over their heads, Mr Speaker.
If you think that's important you'll be here to debate it any day, because no one believes what you're saying anyhow.
The Speaker: I just want to remind all members, it's inappropriate to comment on the absence or the presence of any member in the Legislature. I know the member for Scarborough North just mentioned it. I know that some of the government members have mentioned it beforehand. It's inappropriate regardless of who brings it up.
Mr Curling: Mr Speaker --
The Speaker: No, you had your two minutes. Questions and comments.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I must admit I don't have the opportunity -- my loss no doubt -- the chance in life to meet too many people like our last speaker, the member for Scarborough East, but I'm very much aware that he has strong opinions indeed, not only on this subject matter but on many subjects. The member for Scarborough East has found his calling. He is not an ambassador -- no, no, no. If he were an ambassador, maybe Montserrat would be his final calling.
He truly believes there will be no tax increases, even when his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing says, "Maybe I was a little too optimistic." Maybe you shouldn't be too pessimistic; I don't know. Municipal leaders down the street at the Royal York are asking for the figures a mere four months before the sky begins to fall. But the member for Scarborough East wears the blinkers on and on. He is so far to the right of that lot over there, he's almost off the platform. He doesn't have a friend except for very, very close circles, and no credibility. Taxes are about to go up and he's going to wear them. Absolutely.
Mr Galt: I'd really like to first compliment the member for Scarborough East for a very impassioned barnburner type of speech with a tremendous amount of information. The content was absolutely excellent, not to mention also entertaining.
He pointed out that Bill 148 is really a sequel to Bill 103. We've heard a lot about the democratic process and what's going on, He mentioned over 100 hours on one bill, over 100 hours of hearings that we had on that particular bill, all kinds of consultation, really a positive step for democracy. The number of hours of hearings in total that he made reference to and compared to previous governments really is indicative of the kind of consultation this government is going out and doing.
He pointed out that there was so little criticism. You didn't have anything factual at all to point out to tear this bill apart. I gather from that, when you're talking about everything else, that you obviously are supporting Bill 148.
You did talk a lot about doom and gloom. It's unfortunate to see people happy if there's a bit of doom and gloom, and sad when there's some good news. You must be sad a lot of the time when we're seeing things like, since March, 1,000 net new jobs created on a daily basis, 1,000 new jobs every day being created in Ontario, 56% of them here in the province, based on the national total number. The economy is up. Car sales are up. Home sales are up. It must be just terrible to be in opposition and see all of that good news rolling out.
Really what was going on, being mentioned by my friend here from Scarborough East on Bill 148, is we are responding to the concerns of the opposition, the concerns of the public, and this bill is doing just that.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to comment on the comments made by the member for Scarborough East in his evangelical tone and mode. It almost woke up one of the members sitting on this side, belonging to the government side, but not quite.
The member for Scarborough East talks about putting aside Bill 103 and let's deal now with the administration. It's akin to saying, "Let's put aside that we've taken away something from you and let's talk about how we're going to now manage how things are going to work," because that's the way many people feel in Metro Toronto. I don't think they'll forget that; they will remember that for the next couple of years, at least I hope so.
The member for Scarborough East also talked about the number of hours, and we know how the government has put in numerous hours. I haven't got the time to recite how many bills I've participated in where we've heard testimony that was totally contrary to the proposal of the government, yet when the clause-by-clause phase occurred very little took place. We'll see this in Bill 99, workers' compensation, we'll see it in 136, I suspect, at the same time, although I would be delighted to be wrong.
The member for Scarborough East talks about the comments of Mr Bob Chiarelli, where he said he will commit himself to not raising taxes. I suggest to you that he has taken it completely out of context, because if he had read the complete comments of Mr Chiarelli he would have seen that if indeed there was a balanced budget, as the government says they will have, a balance in a swap with services and downloading, that would be a different story, which will not happen.
The Speaker: Response,. member for Scarborough East.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm not going to get into whether another former Liberal member may have come down on both sides of an issue. I'll leave that to the members in this House to practise. But I'd like to thank the members for Scarborough North, Ottawa Centre, Lake Nipigon and Northumberland for their comments.
Again, in the two-minute responses, Mr Speaker, you'll hear not a substantive criticism, not one clause that they've drawn attention to. They'll talk about the fact that, yes, I believe in this act, but so does Mel Lastman and so do any number of municipal candidates running in the election this fall.
At the AMO conference we met a considerable number who have told us they've already published their literature, and it says, "No tax increase in 1998," and not just in Toronto, all across this province. That's how much courage they have, that's how much faith they have, and that's how much they take the Premier at his word. There will be no tax increase as a result of the transfer and there will be no tax increase as a result of the City of Toronto Act and the amalgamation. If Mel Lastman is successful, and hopefully one of these days the other mayoral candidates will put on the table what their position is vis-à-vis tax changes, but I can't believe anybody in this great city is going to be elected saying they're going to increase property taxes. It has never happened before, and I don't think people are in a mood to have their pocket picked again. The bottom line is it's probably going to be a competitive race to see who will find the greatest efficiencies, who will find the most productive ways of delivering services, and perhaps even increase the range of services that are available to the people of this great city.
The bottom line in all of this, as with every bill, is we have listened to the people, we have responded in detail. We invite constructive criticism, we invite suggestions on how we can make this process better. But what we don't need are merchants of fear. We don't need nattering nabobs of negativism. We need people who believe the greatest city in the world can be made greater yet.
2020
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Curling: It's quite a privilege and quite an honour to address Bill 148, but the fact is it's also a very sad day in a sense to follow the member for Scarborough East, who really did not in any way put any new light of any hope that this process is going to be democratic.
I just want to follow up on his last comment, "We have listened and we have been so democratic about our approach." He seemed to forget that early in the session of this megacity process that they were going through, although he's from Scarborough, he did not defend at all the three members of Scarborough council who were locked out and were refused to be listened to by the minister. That's a very democratic government. Three councillors from Scarborough were refused the opportunity to make their presentation to the minister. Then he said he had listened. I hope that while he goes to caucus he reminds his government that this undemocratic process will not be something that people will take kindly to.
One of the main questions that must be asked about this process is whether the people are better off with the direction that this government is going. People don't want these very technical regulations that are put forward; they just want to ask the basic question, "Will I be better off when all this is over?" This government cannot answer that. As a matter of fact, people have come up and many of the opposition have told them they will not be better off; taxes will go up. If you ask people to take on more responsibility in the sense of downloading some of the responsibilities to the municipalities, what are they going to do? They have to find the money from somewhere else, so taxes will be raised.
I want to address one aspect of the downloading that during the federal election people came out very, very strongly about; it was about housing. They talk about the social housing and the way this government handled social housing when they got in. First, they immediately decided they would not proceed with any social housing. They wanted to make sure that their buddies the landlords were in a better position to dictate what they should build and they openly told them they were not building any more social housing because they can't afford it, and I agree with them. If it's going to cost them, why should they build it? Therefore, the government should play a role. But this government immediately ceased to have any social housing built and then asked that most of those responsibilities be pushed on to the municipalities. And they came again, before they did that, and they are bragging about how many people are off welfare. They come into the House every day and say, "We have far less people on welfare."
Applause.
Mr Curling: They applaud it. The people are here applauding the bully way in which they have pushed the people off welfare by cutting $200 off their income, from $1,000. Then when many of those people came forward and said to them, "How am I going to pay my rent? My rent is $750. Now I'm getting $800," they said they should go and negotiate with the landlord. When they said there was no food on the table for the children, what did they say? They said, "Go and buy dented tins of tuna." As a matter of fact, they went as far as to provide a menu where you could survive. That's the attitude of this government. Now they're going to pass this responsibility on to the municipality and say, "We want one big city," and if there are any taxes that should be going up, it will be the municipality that will be raising the taxes in that process.
I want to talk about Scarborough a little bit, because this is where it hurts a lot. When the megacity process was going through, you will recall that Scarborough decided we would ask the people if it was the way they should go and have a referendum. When the referendum started, this government completely said: "I don't care whatever you do. We will not even listen to what the people say." As you know, people proceeded because they believe in the democratic process, and 70% of the people who voted in that referendum said, "No, we do not want this megacity."
What did the member for Scarborough East say? He doesn't care. It doesn't matter what they say. He was given orders to carry out what Mike Harris, his Premier, and all the whiz kids in the back room tell him to do, and he learned it by heart to a point that he even started believing it himself. But the people of Scarborough East and the people of Scarborough are waiting until the democratic process takes place and they will deal with the member for Scarborough East. I hope he will learn a lesson before that if he wants to represent the people there. They don't believe what you are saying, and they believe that one of these days they will get even with you through the process, because they feel that this government and its bully approach is not what many of us and many of our fathers and grandfathers have fought for, this democratic process which you have so brutalized in that manner.
Last week I was at a function. I was invited to a birthday party for someone in the constituency, Rose Johnson. The Johnson family there, while celebrating the birthday of the wife of one of the fellows, the argument came up about the attitude of this government. When we should have been having a lot of fun, they were completely upset, and these are people who are not very much involved in partisan politics. They expressed so loudly what the polls are saying and what the people are saying, that the way in which you govern must be compassionate and understanding of the issues, not this kind of a bully approach and a pushy approach, without listening to the people. The Johnsons and their guests were so upset with the way this government is behaving; not only they but their friends also expressed their thoughts.
If there is one warning I'm going to give this government, and I'm sure you've been hearing it, it's that somehow the people count, and although you would like the people to be out of the way so you can push your bulldozer through and get through all these bills that you want, it will come back to haunt you one day. As a matter of fact, even their own member, I think from Wentworth North, stated that he didn't want to be a part of a government that lies to the people. That was a strong statement. Those are hurt feelings expressed by a member of their own party, who felt this government is behaving in a manner that has no sensitivity and feeling for the people they govern.
They are so busy getting through their agenda, they are so busy making sure that they can balance the budget, regardless, on the backs of the people and maybe more so on the backs of the poor. They went so hard that the human deficit will be much greater when they are through. I would rather, any day, have a huge financial deficit than have a human deficit, having young people and babies of our country who are hungry and not getting any food, to make sure that we have a country that is compassionate and people who govern compassionately.
The manner in which we are carrying through this megacity bill and downloading is putting a greater burden on the poor of our province. This may not be of concern to you, but as corny as it may sound, the greatest asset we have is people. They can pay off a financial deficit any time, but I'm telling you, you have that human deficit, more who are depending on handouts, as you call them, but those who have no jobs. The unemployment rate of young people is high. The tuition fees are going up higher, 10% more, the second highest in this country. The fact is that those who want access to a greater life are having it more difficult. At the end of the day, they will have to ask themselves: "Am I better off in the direction this government is going? In amassing this great megacity, will I be better off?" The answer is very loud: "No."
2030
At the beginning they had said, "If you're going to rush this thing through, could you listen to us to see what the impact will be?" No, they don't want to listen. They will go so far that anyone who comes in their way -- they'll change any law so they can make sure they get the will of the day, regardless of the people.
Let me tell this government that the contempt for democracy will come back and haunt you one day. I hope the time is not long in the future when you'll have to respond to the people's needs.
Scarborough is a unique place. It's unique, I presume, because I understand it; and I presume we all represent our own unique community. That community feels that they are in the hands of a government that -- with the diversity we have in Scarborough, what we hope is that if there is such a thing as a megacity and they have to have their way, somehow they'll have an input. They would like to see a megacity they can be a part of, and I'm telling you they don't feel that way. In Scarborough they don't feel that they're going to be a part of this megacity the way it's being done.
The member for Scarborough East keeps on mentioning my colleague from Oakwood, saying that he's on the team of Mel Lastman. He believes in the democratic process. In spite of what you think, he has the right to support whomever he wants. He has a right, in any way, to make sure that he's on a team that, when you're ramming that bulldozer through, will make sure you will not continue in that manner.
So I say to the member for Oakwood, God bless you, my man. You support those you want in spite of the bullies we see here. You'll not intimidate any one of us. I'm sure he can speak for himself. You'll not intimidate him one bit.
Even I myself, who will support anyone, I'll not be intimidated by you all. Whether you change the rules, we will make sure that our voices are heard. I continue to say the people should do whatever possible to be heard, whatever it takes, whatever strategy it takes, to make sure that their voices are heard and that the laws that are in place reflect them. If not, they will make sure they can throw you out in the near future.
Let me also quickly speak of those students who are going to school in a couple of weeks, a week or two, entering university, who have found themselves subjected to many of the costs today. They've found they're going to have an increased rent payment. When you're taking away rent control, they'll find themselves again, in the next year, paying a higher cost for rent. Further, they will find themselves paying higher tuition fees. They've found with this government, and with the previous government too, that they have taken away grants but have handed out loans. Many of the students in the next two or three years, and some of them today, are bankrupt before they start their first job. This government, which has done nothing for jobs for young people, nothing whatsoever, comes here one day thinking that we will all believe five ministers getting up and pointing out in different areas how youth unemployment will be better off because each minister has done something.
One of the jobs that surfaced is that they had someone in the office of one of those ministers making phone calls for fund-raising. They say these are summer jobs. Get real. They want real jobs. They want somehow to be a part of the city they can contribute to.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Speak to the bill.
Mr Curling: The member for Scarborough -- where are you from?
Mr Newman: You don't even know.
Mr Curling: What part of Scarborough? Mr Newman from Scarborough -- I can't recall the specific area itself -- said, "Speak on the bill."
Mr Patten: Scarborough Centre.
Mr Curling: Scarborough Centre.
I'm speaking directly for people that it affects. You may talk about all the fancy regulations and all that; I'm speaking about where it matters most to people, not about section so-and-so or section this. They want to know what section of this law they're a part of. They want to know if they're better off if you form this great megacity, for you think that bigger is better. They don't see this.
You don't answer any questions. You do not allow any consultation. You ram things through and then try to compare, somehow, who was given more hearings than the other. I would love to see a minister who is here regularly, a minister who will listen to all the people and say, "I have listened carefully." I think what happened is that you have heard but you haven't listened. You call them special interest groups, and there's a vast difference with those who feel that the people have no right to come before you, the people you were elected for.
How strange it is that during election time, as we knock on doors, how patiently we will stand and listen to the concerns of people, how patiently and how well we will document in books what we will do, and then say, "Vote for me, because the laws I will make and the city I will create are a part of you." How quickly we forget that the laws you make and the city you create. People are saying to them: "I have no time to contribute in consultation. You give me no time to do that." They are somehow feeling left out.
But I want to say again that democracy is one of the best systems. It may not be the greatest, but I don't know of any other that is better. But there is a time for accountability, and that day when you all start knocking at the doors they will say, "We did not feel a part of that megacity which you created, and the responsibility that you gave to the cities too without any kind of financing. The taxes that went up are costing me more to be in my house, to pay my taxes for my house, more for my schools," They'll be saying, "We are not a part of this city. We are not a part of this government," and they'll make sure you are accountable at that time, because the power then lies within the people to say -- you may want to listen carefully-when they go back to the polls, "The manner in which you treated us in a bullying way, without any sensitivity or compassion whatsoever," they will feel that now is the time for them to speak.
At that time the pen will speak louder than your bulldozer. The pen and the vote will be much louder than the arrogance you have set up in this place. When that election day comes, all that arrogance and all the bullying will come home to roost that day, and then you will be a bit too late. It'll be too late.
I recall your cousin Mulroney who at the time said in his arrogance -- and even when he left the field of politics. They know the party that you represent and the group of people who behaved in such a bullying way that they cleaned them all out. No one would ever believe that one of the largest caucuses that ever sat as a government in Canada could meet in a telephone booth and have room. They were completely wiped out, because the pen and democracy spoke louder that time than all the bulldozers.
I find and people are saying they find you much more arrogant than Mulroney, much more arrogant than that federal government, the Conservatives of that time. How things have changed. When you were on the opposition side, you said: "Give me a chance. I will not increase taxes. I will treat everyone fairly." But as soon as you got in, you made sure that those who needed you most, the most vulnerable, were attacked instantly. They were attacked immediately. Those who had no access to jobs and who were being denied, and the visible minorities were then put aside with the employment equity and you said, "Out with that."
I say to you, my friends, that unless you have a bill and legislation to reflect the people, they will vote against all what you say.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
2040
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm pleased and proud to respond to the comments made by the member for Scarborough North. I recall his conduct here in this House during the course of Bill 26. People rallied around him here in the Legislature as the member, with courage and tenacity and some significant amount of endurance, facilitated the slowing down of the process around Bill 26 in such a way that public attention could be focused on it. Bill 148 is being referred to as the Son of Megacity. In fact, megacity and Bill 148 following it indeed all flow from Bill 26. Bill 26 was this government's cornerstone, the block they laid upon which they've been expanding ever since.
My colleague from Scarborough North speaks generously about democracy, but I say to him that we may be witnessing an erosion of democracy here in this province and in this Legislature as this government uses its majority -- I acknowledge it's a majority -- with total disdain for the important role of the opposition parties, with total disdain, quite frankly, for the people, the working people, the retirees, the students, the unemployed, the women and the children of this province, the sick, the ill, disdain for those people as it rams through rule changes to restrict and limit debate so the public won't have access to the important impositions that this government, with its heavy-handed tactics, is imposing upon the people of Ontario very much against their will.
I'm proud of opposition members. We'll continue to struggle against a tyrannical government.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The comments of the member for Scarborough North are predictable, especially predictable for those of us who recall that when you were Minister of Housing, you were part of the David Peterson cabinet that voted in one year for 33 tax increases. You can't come in here and talk about government responsibility.
"Bullying" is the most incredible expression for a former Liberal cabinet minister to use. The provincial debt in this province took 118 years to reach $25 billion. After five years of being in office, you left and the provincial debt was $48 billion. So don't talk to us about going back to the polls.
I assure you, I am really looking forward to going back to the polls. I know what is not going to happen is what happened to your government. Your government, as I remember, to the member for Scarborough North, had 94 members. What did you have after the election? Thirty-six. When you talk about being wiped out at the polls, the people of this province understand very clearly what a Liberal government is about. They understand the tax-and-spend policies of the Liberals in this province. To repeat that history for you would be a reach.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm pleased to offer my comments to my colleague from Scarborough North. We in the opposition certainly understand and agree when he talks about people in politics and the ramifications of bad policies on people. If we only understood, as the member for Scarborough North understands, that people and politics are synonymous and that the effects of our legislation, whether good or bad, have a corresponding effect on the people we represent.
That's why we only wish that the government had listened to the six weeks of public hearings that were forced upon them by members of the opposition. Expert after expert said megacity is the wrong way to go. Let's talk about a few experts and let's hear what they had to say, since the member across the way likes to quote experts.
Wendell Cox, an international public policy consultant, said, "This just makes no sense at all. I think in the long run megacity is going to be a failed experiment." Jane Jacobs said that amalgamation is "the most stupid idea" she's ever heard. But the most telling quote comes from Mike Harris in 1994, when he said:
"There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and our pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities." Mike Harris, the Premier of Ontario, your leader, said that.
Mr Silipo: I'm glad to be able to say, briefly, congratulations to the member for Scarborough North for his comments on Bill 148. Granted, it was not exactly a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill --
Laughter.
Mr Silipo: Seriously, I believe the message he put forward was one of linking what is in Bill 148 to the other issues that we have all been talking about and that we know are very much in front of this government.
If the member for Mississauga South is correct in her analysis about the pattern that develops around here, we can look forward to a Tory caucus coming back after the next election of perhaps 27 members, and that's before factoring in the reduced number of members, so even fewer than that. That would probably be one of the better things that could happen for the future of the province.
As the member for Scarborough North has pointed out, this government seems to be forgetting, whether through Bill 148 or any of the other measures they have chosen themselves but now they want to blame us for, put together under the whole umbrella of disentanglement, which we have soon enough discovered to be simply pushing down to the property tax base many of the costs of many important services, that in this process people are getting hurt. In this process the most vulnerable among our citizens are losing not just important services but vital services, in some cases. They are finding, where they can still afford to pay, that they're going to have to pay even more for the services that will remain after this government's actions are completed. That's what was most clear to me listening to the member for Scarborough North.
The Speaker: Response, member for Scarborough North.
Mr Curling: Let me thank the members who contributed and responded: the member for Welland-Thorold, the member for Mississauga South, the member for Dovercourt, and also my good friend the member for Sudbury.
I heard the member for Mississauga South talk about what we had done in our time as government. Let me remind her that in over 30 years no other government had a balanced budget. In 1989 --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. Order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Come to order, please. It's not preferential anything. If you want me to explain the ruling today, I will. Sometimes, if the opposition members are out of order, I let the clock run. This isn't a very difficult concept, either. When the government members are out of order, I stop the clock. It's quite simple.
The member was standing in his place making a statement and the third party and the government members were heckling beyond reasonable expectations. I stopped the clock.
I'm not in for a dialogue. I would expect most members could understand that. Member for Scarborough North.
2050
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
In 1989 we balanced the budget, even though we found that we had inherited an accumulation of debt from the previous government. We must recall that the Tory government was in power for 42 years, and we arrived at a government that was almost bankrupt. If we had to increase taxes, as they say, it paid down many of those debts we owed.
While members may feel that we should be doing clause-by-clause, let me tell you, every clause in there affects individuals in our society. We must remind ourselves that as we make laws, we must remember that people are a part of that. Sometimes we forget, forget very basically that this is what's important. Therefore, I am saying there is time enough for you to make sure the people are listened to and that the laws reflect what the people desire.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wondered whether now, to implement your new ruling about where the outbursts come from and their volume --
The Speaker: It's not a new ruling, by the way.
Mrs Marland: You just said "my ruling this afternoon."
The Speaker: It wasn't new; it just happened to be a ruling.
Mrs Marland: Okay. I'm simply asking you whether you are now going to implement a noise meter so that it's fair. Certainly when they had the outbursts when I was speaking, you didn't stop the clock.
The Speaker: With the greatest respect, there is a noise meter. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Further debate?
Interjection: What have you done, Marilyn?
Ms Churley: Yes, what have I done?
I think the members of the House, especially the Tory party and my own party, will forgive me if I begin my speech by commenting on the balanced budget that the Liberals left in 1990. The clock had barely started to tick -- tick-tock, tick-tock -- $1 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion, and barely 10 minutes had gone by. There was no balanced budget in 1990.
First of all, I want to assure people who are watching out there tonight that this not a rerun. This is the real me in real time, believe it or not. If you thought Queen's Park was crazy before, it's really crazy now. Mr Speaker, as you know, the Harris government has outdone God now. At Queen's Park now we have two days in one. Yes, folks, we're into day two here at the Legislature, on Tuesday, August 26. Day one ended at 6 o'clock; day two started at 6:30. Go figure, but that's the reality here now.
We are debating Bill 148, which I don't think is necessary to go through clause by clause. It's a pretty simple bill, really, this son of the mega-monster that the government recently created. I will tell you briefly what it does.
It transfers a variety of powers and responsibilities held by our beloved old cities to the new monster city as of January 1, 1998. It also amalgamates various local boards like library boards, boards of health and historical boards. Boards not specifically named in the bill continue unless the monster council decides to combine them. The TTC is continued as a distinct entity and its monopoly power is confirmed. Municipal electric utilities were specifically amalgamated in Bill 103 itself, the megacity bill. This bill, for January 1, jams everything together so that somehow this new monster city will be able to manage the new reality.
I can tell you there's probably a lot of stuff left out of this bill, but I want to tell you a little bit about the implications of this. We know that today -- just today, by coincidence -- the Metro reference library has been shut down because of cutbacks already from this government, and this is before the new megacity goes through. I'm worried about the libraries in my community. I have a number of low-income people in my riding who use the parks for free now. The latest thing we're hearing is that, after the amalgamation, the poor kids in my riding are going to have to pay to go swimming, pay for their recreation.
A little earlier the member for Scarborough East was preaching, Mr Know-It-All, telling us that we were all wrong and didn't know what we were talking about. I would say there is a lot of self-delusion going on over there. The members for Scarborough East, Northumberland and Nepean, I believe -- I don't know if the member for Nepean said this or not -- were saying they were at the AMO conference.
Interjection.
Ms Churley: I said perhaps the member for Nepean wasn't there. They were quoting earlier and telling us about the wonderful, magnificent things the municipal councillors were telling them. I guess it's all the media's fault; the media must be misrepresenting what our AMO friends were saying today.
I'm going to quote, just because they are having some delusions over there, what some of their members have said recently, even though they stand up and say: "All is well. This is a great bill. Bill 103 was a great bill. Every single thing we've done is for the good of the people of Ontario and it's all great. Why are you so full of doom and gloom over there?"
On August 19 there were a couple of scrums of Tory members as they were coming back into caucus after a break. This is what the member from Hamilton-Wentworth said:
"We're getting feedback that perhaps we are moving too quickly. Many of us don't really have a whole lot of say in what's going on so I think that's causing concerns in many of the caucus members. On the download scenario, it concerns me that we still don't have definitive numbers, I understand not coming until October. We're talking a multibillion dollar initiative, so I'm a little concerned that we're pressing ahead without numbers. A business wouldn't do that. A lot of caucus members are concerned."
Then a little later, "What do you foresee in 1999, the next election?" was the question. The member for Hamilton-Wentworth replied, although it says "TS" here in the transcript, to be accurate:
"It's obvious we're on the downward slide, and there's a point, I think, once you get so far down you can never come back. When you get everybody mad at you, it's hard to make peace with everyone, to combat police, firefighters and so forth. They're all very angry at us. Obviously, if you make everybody mad at you, there's nobody there to support you. Even my mom has said sometimes that she..." and the quote ends there.
A little later, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mr Morley Kells, was interviewed. He said, "The negatives are much greater right now in the equation than the pluses. The pluses are really only the tax break and the economy, so many people see more negative."
Later on, Bill Murdoch, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, said:
"I'm more concerned about the Who Does What and the transfer payments to municipalities. I attended a meeting in London with my counties and the wardens, and they're quite concerned that the figures aren't coming out the way they're supposed to come out. I have some grave concerns about that. I will be meeting with a few of Mr Harris's people to talk to them about this, and they have to have some answers for me. That's my biggest problem right now, this transfer payment, the Who Does What and the stuff like that. If municipal taxes go up this fall, we're in trouble, and if we have municipal politicians out there running an anti-Harris campaign to get elected, we're in real trouble because that will spin off on to us."
2100
The statements that some of the members opposite from the government side were making tonight indicate once again that not only are they not listening to the people of Ontario, but they are not listening to their own caucus members, who have great concerns and are expressing what their constituents are telling them. They're not just making this up. They're worried because we all just spent time in our constituencies and those members are hearing the same thing our members are hearing in our communities.
Mind you, the Riverdale constituency did not vote for the Tories in the first place and they have been mostly against the majority of this government's agenda from day one, and I congratulate them on that. They listened, they heard what was being said and the majority of people in Riverdale knew, could see the writing on the wall, and unfortunately -- I say "unfortunately," because there's not a whole lot of enjoyment in "I told you so" in this -- a lot of people are getting hurt.
We had a debate on the megacity bill, Bill 103; 76.3% I believe voted against. There was even a higher number in East York where it was over 80%; I think it was 83%. The average number of people in Toronto who voted against that bill was 76.3%. The government likes to crow about the fact that they listened, they consulted, people came, all these thousands of hours, which they wouldn't have done if the opposition hadn't forced them to. I think they've forgotten that.
But then they didn't pay any attention to what people said. The majority of people said, "No, we don't like this plan." The majority of people said, "Not one credible study." In fact the government had to go out and find somebody to do a bogus study for them because nobody agreed with this plan. Everybody said that this is not solving the problem, but did the government listen? No. So the government now continues to be arrogant and to move ahead. Now what we have before us is a bill called Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto.
When the member for Scarborough East was up speaking earlier, he tried to be the voice of reason for a moment. He said, "If anybody has something reasonable to propose, we're willing to make changes." Unfortunately, the government itself has belied that by not supporting the private member's bill, Bill 144, from my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine. It's a very reasonable, sensible bill. Nobody could argue with it. In fact your House leader and member for Don Mills has said -- I don't think he said it's unreasonable -- "Let's just wait until the new councils are in place and let them deal with it." That means the people of East York are going to start off with under-representation in this new megacity. They only get two councillors and what this bill very simply asks for is to up that number to three.
The member for Scarborough East said tonight: "Oh, well, it's too late now. The people who are running have printed their literature. We can't do it now. It would just mess everything up." I would suggest to the member for Scarborough East that he go and chat with the people who are running for office in East York. I believe every one of them would tell him: "It's not a problem. Don't let that stop you. If that's the reason you're not supporting this private member's bill or you won't make an amendment yourself, hey, no problem, we can deal with that."
That is just an excuse to not act on it, because I believe even the member for Scarborough East understands that this is a fair and reasonable suggestion.
I want to engage in this discussion a little bit because it's very important. It is one small suggestion that the opposition is making to help this situation a little bit, and the people of East York want it to happen.
Mr Baird: It doesn't have anything to do with redistribution, does it, Marilyn?
Ms Churley: Not at all, member for Nepean. In fact, I'll tell you what it's about. The situation now is they have been allotted only two councillors and what we're asking and what the people of East York want is to have three. The current act would provide a lower councillor-to-resident ratio in East York ward at 1 to 54,000 compared to 1 to 38,000 on average across Metro.
When I spoke about this before, I asked the Deputy Premier if he'd support it. I know the member for Beaches-Woodbine has asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I don't know who else, but every time the answer is -- nobody says there's a problem with this -- "Just leave it. Let the new megacity council deal with it."
I don't expect a lot from this government. I don't expect that very many amendments or private members' bills will be accepted by the government, but I do expect, as the member for Scarborough East said tonight, that if there are reasonable amendments and suggestions from the public and from the opposition, they would listen. This is a reasonable request. It cannot hurt the government in any way. The members in East York who are running would be delighted. I'm sure some of them would have some personal reasons they'd be delighted. There's a chance for three people to win instead of two. Be that as it may, I'm sure they wouldn't object.
Hopefully, this bill will go out to committee. I understand that hasn't been decided yet, but I believe that is a real possibility and I certainly hope it does, because I believe it's not just, as some members say, a technical document. There are real implications to this bill; for instance, the pooling of moneys. Some of the money that's being pooled, like the Toronto Parking Authority, is valued at $150 million. That's far above what anybody else -- I believe the only other parking agency in Metro is run by North York. What's now going to happen to that money when it's pooled? There are a lot of implications here. There are serious implications. I was for a short time a councillor at Toronto city council.
Mr Pouliot: And a good one.
Ms Churley: My colleague from Lake Nipigon says, "And a good one." I know I tried hard to represent my community and I learned a little bit about how communities work. Going from small communities, tailoring its needs to that community and being able to hear the community is gone and we're going to have one, big megaboard for practically everything.
What's that going to do to local concerns around public health? What's that going to do to all of the environment? I know the city of Toronto. I ran politically as an environmentalist and brought a number of environmental issues in my riding and throughout the city of Toronto to city council, and I got a lot of support from all segments of the city council, from the right to the left to those in the middle, because there was a strong sense in the city of Toronto that we wanted environmental protection. We have some very good public health programs in the city of Toronto which are not duplicated in other municipalities. So this is not just a technical bill. There are real concerns here.
The other thing I would say is that the government must hear from people because they make mistakes, as we have seen with Bill 26 and numerous other bills, when they rush them through so quickly. People can and do give good suggestions. I hold the member for Scarborough East to his word tonight, that if people make good suggestions that can help and would make a difference, if people can show that certain aspects of this bill will bring undue harm to their community, the government will listen and will make amendments. I think that's where we're at now with this bill. It's silly for me or any of the members of the opposition to get up and expect that you're going to make a lot of changes. We don't believe you are. But I have one suggestion tonight which I will repeat again, and that is the private member's bill, or, if you don't want the member for Beaches-Woodbine's private member's bill to go through, find a way to make an amendment yourself.
2110
Work with the opposition parties if there are fears about opening up a bill because there might be some new filibuster or stalling or trying to get other amendments through. I think you would find that the opposition would be willing to work with you to get this amendment through, because it's very important to the people of East York. I think what happened here is that a mistake was made. I honestly think a mistake was made. If you look at the situation in East York and what's happened to them, it is a mistake, and it is not fair to the community to leave it that way. You have the power to fix it, and I really don't think that is a lot to ask.
I will end tonight in saying that I don't support this bill because I don't support Bill 103, the megacity bill. I think it's a huge mistake. I think you're creating a monster. You're destroying our communities as we know them.
I'm asking for two things tonight: first, that there be hearings, proper hearings, so people can become involved, people can take a look at the bill and offer suggestions, and the government will pay attention to those; second, I would ask the government members to take a look at the East York situation, because it is something that you can do, a small thing that could make a huge difference to the city of East York when it's amalgamated.
If any of the members would like to find out more about the situation in East York, there is the member for East York, as you know, who sits in your caucus, and the member for Don Mills. I'm not allowed to comment on whether or not he's here tonight. But I would ask all the government members to seriously take a look at that and see if there's anything you can do to help East York and the opposition find a way we can all work together to get that through.
The Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Galt: It's interesting to hear the presentation from the member for Riverdale. Consistent with a lot of the other speakers in the opposition, she really didn't refer very much to the bill. I do have to respect the one amendment that she is putting forward, at least the suggestion of an amendment, in connection with East York and representation there, but certainly there are very few constructive thoughts and ideas coming out in this.
I did hear her say it's a very simple bill. Therefore I would take from that that it's a clear bill, an understandable bill clarifying ownership of various facilities in the city such as town halls, rinks, tennis courts and that kind of thing; also the understanding and clarification of the operation of the city in the future. I would almost think she would want to support a bill such as that when it's as clear as she's making reference to.
She did make reference to both the member for Scarborough East and myself being at the AMO conference and some of the good information and good feedback we're getting. It's kind of disappointing, I suppose, when you enjoy hearing the doom and gloom rather than the good feedback that we're getting. Certainly what I'm hearing from constituents regularly in my riding is: "Hold the line; stick to it. Make sure you come through with what you were committed to and what you promised to do."
It's interesting. What we are doing is really what the previous government started out to do under the wording and heading of "disentanglement." They went out for some time and consulted, they studied, they looked at, but they failed to act. That's one difference between the previous government and this one. This government is ready to act. We are moving ahead; we are doing things. It may be just a little embarrassing for you after you looked at it and cowered out or chickened out for whatever reason. We are going ahead. We've studied it, we've looked at it, we've consulted, we know it's right, and we are moving ahead.
Mr Sergio: I am pleased to add to the comments of the member for Riverdale. As usual, she has given an excellent presentation on the content of Bill 148, including the original Bill 103.
What the member was saying was that during the course of the hearings -- I think we had six weeks in total of hearings -- the government has been listening, but they have not been acting. What the people have been saying -- and this is what the member has been repeating -- is that they had a serious concern with respect to tax increases, with respect to the cuts in services and putting further away the representation from the local people. The people have been saying that they want to have input into how this new megacity is going to work. Throughout the six weeks of hearings, we have had professional people, we have had common people, individuals, ratepayers' groups, and they all said unanimously: "We can't support it. It's not going to work." And the government wouldn't listen.
Now the government is imposing its own views, even though we the opposition and even though the people continue to say, "The way you're going about it, the way you're going to present this bill, it is not going to work."
Even today we still have hospital boards and we have municipalities that have been appealing the decision of the government, and the government wants to push ahead because they have their own agenda. During the course of the hearings, we have had meetings throughout churches, community halls, banquet halls, meeting places, meeting rooms, living rooms, basement places, and the people have said: "We don't want it. We want to have a say. Please listen to us." Evidently the government is not listening.
Mr Pouliot: I too would wish to congratulate the member for Riverdale: a commanding performance indeed, a great deal of knowledge, a sensitivity, some wisdom, trying to convey as a last effort to the majority opposite that there are other ways to do things, reminding them that since the tabling of Bill 103, it's been an amazing ride indeed. And it's not over.
You have to pay the piper on the revenue side, taxation revenue, personal income tax, $16 billion per annum 1996-97. It's already projected to go down by $1.9 billion, almost $2 billion. What you do is you have this ill-fated attempt to recuperate money. The shortfall has to be made up. So you introduce Bill 103, and then you have the offspring, the children of Bill 103: today Bill 148, and in a few days following, no doubt, Bill 149 and on and on, because you must download, you must pass the responsibility for services to municipalities.
If amalgamation doesn't get you, assessment will. Most people across the province say, "My property taxes will go up." Clerk-treasurers, reeves, mayors say, "Expect your property taxes to go up." This is not revenue-neutral. Let's make no mistake about it. This exercise borders on hypocrisy. It's veiled. They have this belief that it is honestly dishonest. There is no honesty; it is simply dishonest. It represents what is the worst about government.
Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member for Riverdale. I appreciate her comments and her commentary in all of this. But again, we're now pushing four hours of input from the opposition members and not a single clause, not a single word of this bill, have they found any substantive reason to criticize. They have done a very good job in suggesting to you that they own a crystal ball, that they know what the future of this province is. Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I suggest you don't take any financial or investment advice from those people, because if they were that prescient, they'd be the richest people in Ontario.
I will restrict my comments to the facts. The member has speculated about things such as tax increases. Let's look back at last year, where even after assimilating the first 15% of the income tax cut, personal income tax revenue in the province of Ontario went up $670 million. How can that be? It doesn't follow your socialist model that big government is the only way to deliver things. No, it follows the model of 53 other jurisdictions in this world that have cut marginal tax rates, and in every case revenues went up. You folks, the two of you, raised taxes 65 times but your revenue went down. It went down.
2120
You'll forgive us if we're going to rely on facts. You can continue to have a debate, you can continue to attempt to depress the people of this province with rhetoric and ill-considered futurism, but the bottom line is that this bill is an important step forward. It's part of our initiative to make Ontario more productive, more efficient, give the tools they need to the municipalities, and our great city of Toronto will become even greater. I hope the member becomes part of that debate.
The Speaker: Response, the member for Riverdale.
Ms Churley: Thank you to the members for Northumberland, Yorkview, Lake Nipigon and especially Scarborough East, although the members for Scarborough East and Northumberland were entirely predictable. I could have written what they said for them. In fact, I think they have a standard speech now that they use after every member speaks. They don't listen to what the members have to say. Their two-minutes responses are written for them. They sit and chat, go in and out and do whatever they want to do and then get up and give the same speech over and over again. Frankly, it's starting to get quite boring.
To hear this kind of nonsense from a government that has put user fees on drugs for seniors, where tuition fees have gone way up and everybody knows user fees -- people aren't even aware yet of the hundreds and hundreds of new user fees that are out there. This is a government that is promising a 30% tax cut. On one hand they're putting little bits of money -- the poorer you are, the less you get -- in this pocket, and from the other pocket taking more out.
This is the government, these are the people: The members for Northumberland and Scarborough East get up and rail about our tax increases. They sit there smugly and talk about all the great things they're doing for Ontario. I want to point out particularly to the member for Northumberland, because it's clear neither of them listens, that I spoke about the contents of this bill. When I said it was simple, I made it clear that the simplicity is in what it's trying to do. But it is not just a technical bill. It has real implications. I made a really useful suggestion tonight about East York which I hope they --
Mr Gilchrist: It's not in this bill.
Ms Churley: I hope you will support the private member's bill from my colleague from the Beaches.
The Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Newman: I'm pleased to be able to join the debate tonight on Bill 148, the City of Toronto Act (No. 2). In preparing for my debate this evening, I reviewed Hansard and saw that almost five hours of opposition debate has been allotted. When you look through it, not a single reference was made to the bill we're debating tonight.
Ms Churley: That's not true. You too. Who wrote your speech?
Mr Newman: The opposition, especially the Liberals, seem to have the same speech --
The Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough Centre, could you come to order just for a moment. Member for Riverdale, I think you know that's unparliamentary.
Mrs Marland: Are you stopping the clock?
The Speaker: Yes. Can you stop the clock for me. You must withdraw that.
Ms Churley: Speaker, it was in a heated moment and I honestly can't remember what I said.
The Speaker: That the member was not telling the truth.
Ms Churley: I apologize for that; I withdraw it.
Mr Newman: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The opposition, especially the Liberals, seem to have the same speech regardless of the bill, and in over two years of sitting here in this place I have a saying now: "Same speech, different bill." That's all we hear from the opposition. Unlike the opposition, I will speak to Bill 148.
The City of Toronto Act, 1997, became law in April of this year. It provided the basic legislative framework to establish the new municipal corporation and was intended to indicate the overall direction of our government and to allow the municipal elections in November to go ahead on schedule. I am proud that our government has achieved that.
This is the second city of Toronto bill and it's no surprise to anyone. I quote Minister Leach in his press release of June 26, 1997,which states, "This legislation is necessary, from an administrative and technical point of view, to ensure that the new city council has the authority to continue to carry out routine duties when the new city comes into being on January 1, 1998." He goes on: "People have to know that the day before and the day after the new city comes into effect, the day-to-day services will stay the same. We're simply providing for an orderly transition to one unified city." I say, how can the opposition be against that?
Our government has said from the outset of the debate on the first bill that we would introduce a second bill to deal with the administrative, technical and specific transitional matters surrounding the amalgamation process. This bill is about protecting services for the people of Metro Toronto, services they currently enjoy, expect and depend on.
What would happen to my constituent in Scarborough Centre who had to take the TTC to work on January 2, 1998, if this was not included in the bill? I ask the question, would the TTC continue to operate?
What about those 157,000 people in Ontario who have jobs today, many of them in Metropolitan Toronto, who rely upon the TTC to get to and from work? What would happen to these people who have found that new work?
This bill ensures that services currently available to all residents will continue to be available during the transition period. This bill is not about new powers. It is about a continuation of powers currently afforded to Metro council and the six cities and the borough of East York. This bill is a necessary step. It is for the most part a housekeeping bill that needs to be passed quickly to protect the residents of Metro Toronto.
I say to the members opposite, stop stalling, stop playing political games, stop looking for media hits and let's get on with passing this bill so that my constituents in Scarborough Centre can feel secure, as they should, that their --
Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Speaker: I hate to interrupt the member, but can we have a check on the quorum, please?
The Speaker: Quorum?
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
Mr Baird: On a point of order, Speaker: I think the public at home should know there's only one member of the Liberal Party here and that's why there wasn't a quorum.
The Speaker: That's not a point of order.
Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Speaker: If you would explain the rules of this House to the member who's just accused the Liberal side, I would appreciate it.
The Speaker: Member for Nepean, if you would like to withdraw that, it's completely up to you.
Mr Baird: Mr Speaker, I would like to withdraw from the record the fact I mentioned earlier, that there was only one Liberal member here.
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Speaker: It seems that the government members enjoyed it so much that they have changed the rules. Now with the rules diminished they can't maintain the quorum in the House and it's up to them to maintain the quorum in the House. If they have changed the rules, they've got to abide by the rules.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough Centre.
Mr Newman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's great to get back to my speech. My constituents in Scarborough Centre really want to hear what I have to say on Bill 148. I detest the tactics of the opposition member for Yorkview in preventing me from doing that. If you think I'm going to stop talking about Bill 148, you're absolutely wrong. I'm going to pick up again when we resume the debate on Bill 148. In recognition of the time, it being 9:30 of the clock, Mr Speaker --
The Speaker: It being 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2130.